Islam BTFO

So you have no proofs.

>questionable and vague

So is literally everything from antiquity. There is not a shred of evidence that proves Alexander the Great ever existed but you'd rightfully be considered ridiculous for clinging to the belief that he didn't.

Ptolomy talks about an inland city in Arabia Felix, located where present-day Mecca is, called Mecorah, which is as good as it gets in the absence of "smoking gun" evidence

there really are a million better ways to refute Islam than an approach this convoluted

"he went south to pray at the place others prayed too" is not proof that Mecca existed.

Holland used Patricia Crone as his basis, a woman widely acknowledged to have borderline made things up, and who even evened up rescinding on her own arguments, claiming she was wrong.

His book has been universally panned by scholars and critics alike.

>another called it "revisionist ideology masquerading as popular history"
>historian Glen Bowersock criticized it for lack of historical accuracy, saying he has "not seen a book about Arabia that is so irresponsible and unreliable
>the book is "revisionist history based almost exclusively on the work of a largely discredited group of orientalists.
>Apparently, our historians knew little about objectivity or criticism, which is the sole preserve of Holland and his orientalist friends!
>calling it "irresponsible and unreliable" and saying that Holland's "cavalier treatment of his sources, ignorance of current research and lack of linguistic and historical acumen serve to undermine his provocative narrative

So he writes a piece of sensationalist twaddle to ride the waves of islamophobia and morons like you believe it.

Holland BTFO

Makes sense, I always thought it strange that Islam would appear so far away from civilisation.

>Makes sense, I always thought it strange that Islam would appear so far away from civilisation.
Except it didn't, it appeared in the middle of a civilisation. Just one you're too ignorant to know about.

Do you have anything but pathetic arguments of authority?

Are you retarded? That's what I'm saying, if it appeared in Negev it makes sense. It's the idea of it appearing in Mecca in the middle of the Arabian desert a thousand kilometres away from civilisation that makes no sense.

Argument of authority is perfectly valid when it comes to critiquing a historian.
Besides, this thread has already proved him wrong, its just every time someone provides evidence you'll scream it's not valid for some reason or another.

>Are you retarded? That's what I'm saying, if it appeared in Negev it makes sense. It's the idea of it appearing in Mecca in the middle of the Arabian desert a thousand kilometres away from civilisation that makes no sense.
Are YOU retarded? Mecca already had civilisation, the surrounded area already had civilisation, Arabia had been full of advanced civilisations for over a thousand years. Fuck

There isn't a single counter-argument ITT.

lmao spot the sandnig

Arabia was a desert populated with a few retarded goatherds in tents, and was outside every single Middle Eastern civilisation and empire because it was completely worthless.

In the Quran it is mentioned that Mecca was sort of a religious city, with many shrines and temples to pagan (heathen?) idols and once he had built a following after his exile to Jerusalem or lands near there he came back and destroyed them.

Your objection is to quote from a grand total of two reviews, only one from a historian.

>another called it "revisionist ideology masquerading as popular history"
>the book is "revisionist history based almost exclusively on the work of a largely discredited group of orientalists.
>Apparently, our historians knew little about objectivity or criticism, which is the sole preserve of Holland and his orientalist friends!
These quotes are from a review by Ziauddin Sardar, who is not a historian but is a 'cultural critic' and Muslim himself ("our historians"). His review is basically just "das rasis" and "we wuz" - he doesn't count as an authority and we can safely dismiss anything he has to say about it.

>historian Glen Bowersock criticized it for lack of historical accuracy, saying he has "not seen a book about Arabia that is so irresponsible and unreliable
>calling it "irresponsible and unreliable" and saying that Holland's "cavalier treatment of his sources, ignorance of current research and lack of linguistic and historical acumen serve to undermine his provocative narrative
Glen Bowersock is an actual historian and his review criticises Holland for some retarded conclusions that he gets due to not being aware of some evidence and/or not having any training in the original languages that his evidence is based upon (i.e. his research is from secondary sources), Bowersock doesn't actually refute that there is a lack of evidence for Mecca and the traditional narrative of Muhammed's life nor does he try to explain the agriculture issue etc., instead Bowersock takes aim at Holland for claiming that historians know much more about pre-Islamic Arabia than Holland thinks. There is more scholarship than Holland thinks, but Bowersock still doesn't present evidence for Mecca and so on from it (because it isn't there), in fact Bowersock acknowledges that there is an ongoing debate about these things for which "the dust has not yet settled."

(cont...)

>Patricia Crone
>who even evened up rescinding on her own arguments, claiming she was wrong.
Wow it's almost like she was a historian studying history in a scholarly fashion, taking into account the objections of her peers and taking onboard new evidence. Crone is not an anti-Islam scholar.

So no, he wasn't BTFO he just made people asspained.

>*Bowersock takes aim at Holland for claiming that historians know much less about pre-Islamic Arabia than they actually do
Typo.

Also I forgot to add that 'revisionism' is a natural part of historical research and not something that automatically invalidates claims or conclusions.

How does this BTFO of Islam? Frankly it makes it pretty based if true, with this true Muhammad's message being the penultimate Abrahamic faith that just got muddled over time with politics and fanfiction.

There were cities in Arabia since the first century.

yeah, at the coast lines. Show me archaeological evidence for inland cities

Well, if it stands in the Quran, then it must be true, since the moon god himself revealed it, right?

He's nitpicking the choice of words with "very little Muslim testimony from the 7th century exists" and "and that no mention of Muhammad or Islam can be found in any of Muawiyah's inscriptions, coins, or documents.". There's in fact, Western documents from time period that refer to recent events with either an unspecified or very closely resembled person of Muhammed:

>At that time a certain man from among those same sons of Ishmael whose name was Mahmet, a merchant, as if by God’s command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learned and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication.
He said: ‘With an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his seed after him for ever. And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Israel. But now you are the sons of Abraham, and God is accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only the God of Abraham, and go and seize your land which God gave to your father Abraham. No one will be able to resist you in battle, because God is with you.'

Pseudo-Sebeos, ~660 AD :

>In the desert of Ethrib there had appeared a certain man from the so-called people of Korasinou, of the genealogy of Ishmael, whose name was Moamed and who said he was a prophet. He appeared in the month of Pharmuti, which is called April by the Romans, of the 932nd year from the beginning of Philip. He has brought a new expression and a strange teaching, promising to those who accept him victories in wars, domination over enemies and delights in paradise.

-Stephen of Alexandria (7th Century AD):

...that's literally his point retard

OP like Holland is retarded

>Sebeos - Armenian Bishop and Historian (7th Century AD):
In those times a man from these same sons of Ishmael, whose name was Mahmet, a merchant, Allegedly by God's command appeared to them as a preacher and sermon to the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses, Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. He said: "With an oath God promised that land to Abraham and his posterity after him forever, And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Israel, Now you, you are the sons of Abraham, and God will realise in you the promise made to Abraham and his posterity. Only love the God of Abraham, and go and take possession of your country which God gave to your father Abraham, and none will be able to resist you in battle, for God is with you [pg.129]

>an Unknown Chronicle from Khuzistan, Iran (7th Century AD):
God raised up against them [Sassinids] the sons of Ishmael, numerous as the sand on the sea shore, whose leader was mhmd, Neither walls nor gates, armour or shield, withstood them, and they gained control over the entire land of the Persians. Yazdgird sent against them countless troops, but the Arabs routed them all and even killed Rustam. Yazdgird shut himself up in the walls of Mahoze and finally escaped by flight. He reached the country of the huzaye and Mrwnaye, where he ended his life. The Arabs gained control of Mahoze and all the territory. They also came to Roman territory, plundering and ravaging the entire region of Syria. Heraclius, the Roman king, sent armies against them, but the Arabs killed more than 100,000 of them. When the catholicos Isho'yahb saw that Mahoze had been devastated by the Arabs and that they had carried off its gates to 'Aqula (Kufa) and that those who remained were wasting away from hunger, he left and took up residence in Beth Garmai, in the town of Karka [pg.186]

>Stephen of Alexandria (7th Century AD):
In the desert of Ethrib there had appeared a certain man from the so-called people of Korasinou, of the genealogy of Ishmael, whose name was Moamed and who said he was a prophet. He appeared in the month of Pharmuti, which is called April by the Romans, of the 932nd year from the beginning of Philip. He has brought a new expression and a strange teaching, promising to those who accept him victories in wars, domination over enemies and delights in paradise. [pg.304]

>The Doctrina Jacobi, a Jewish Source (7th Century AD):
When the candidatus was killed by the Saracens, I was at Caesarea and I set off by boat to Sykamina, People were saying "the candidatus has been killed," and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. I, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in the scriptures, and I said to him: "What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?" He replied, groaning deeply: "He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. Truly they are works of anarchy being committed today and I fear that the first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist. Indeed, Isaiah said that the Jews would retain a perverted and hardened heart until all the earth should be devastated. But you go, master Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared." [pg.57]

There are other sources after the 7th century (even a Chinese one) but they are not so relevant.

Source:Seeing Islam as others saw it by Robert G. Hoyland

Pretty much this

It's the same thing with the whole historicy of Jesus debate, except in this case it's even dumber. I get some historian being skeptical but this just looks like trying to say something just to write some future book a certain crowd will buy, despite the fact that evidence points to the contrary.

All of those sources are dated after the traditional date of his death in 632.

My favorite part of history are all these hidden warlords that unite all tribes, conquer absolutely everything, and nobody writes about.

Muhammad is the King Arthur of Arabia.

I was sympathetic to you until you used the phrase "Islamophobia"

Reza Aslan get out

This is true tho. Neither ancient historians nor experts on Islam take him serious. Dude would never get past a peer review process since he is a writer of fiction. He is almost on the same level as people claiming there were no Middle Ages or /pol/-macros.
>Not an argument.
I have more peer reviewed papers published than him (2). He has 0 which makes him a nobody in the world of science.
See what trained historians say about his works: theguardian.com/books/2012/may/04/in-shadow-of-sword-tom-holland

Basic objection:
>The geographical descriptions in the Quran and later traditions do not fit to Mecca. They rather point to a place somewhere in north-western Arabia, e.g. to Petra in Jordania.

This has been long known and nobody has been able to refute this.

>See what trained historians say about his works
If you read the thread you would see that this has already been addressed at Also you are being deceptive since it's an historian (singular) yet you lie and say historianS (plural) with your ebin reaction pic.

I agree his work is mostly founded in bullshit but peer review is cancer and doesn't really mean shit

It is but it's still the best method.
Those findings are decades old and are not really debated. The conclusions Holland draws are the problem. He stylizes himself as prêcher dans le désert when he just didn't consult the existing literature on the subject.+the dude doesn't even speak Arabic so his source criticism is inherently flawed. Also the guardian review wasn't posted before.

The Quran was written hundreds of years after the fact.
Its clearly rationalizing how people went from desert folklore to an abrahamic religious state running doctrine.

When the first mention of something VERY important is hundreds of years after it was allegedly important, you have to start asking questions.

True. He essentially presents a hypothesis that tries to solve the problem but it's not a convincing one and brings in lots of other problems (like the idea that Mecca therefore post-dates rather than pre-dates Islam).

Nevertheless even if we reject his hypothesis outright the fundamental problem still remains: Muhammed could not have been in Mecca based on the text of the Quran. One problematic passage for example:

>And it is He who sends down rain from the sky, and We produce thereby the growth of all things. We produce from it greenery from which We produce grains arranged in layers. And from the palm trees - of its emerging fruit are clusters hanging low. And [We produce] gardens of grapevines and olives and pomegranates, similar yet varied. Look at [each of] its fruit when it yields and [at] its ripening. Indeed in that are signs for a people who believe.
6:99

>peer review is cancer and doesn't really mean shit

Fuck you and people like you. Peer reviews, scientific journal publishes, and number of time you are quoted in academic works are THE best ways to tell good "science" (as far as history can be called such) from bad.

I'll add that such a problem does point to the religion being founded in a more Northern area, like Syria, and that is also significant in that it adds a great deal of evidence to the claim that the Quran is not pure Arabic (as claimed by Muslims) but has Syriac elements, elements which help make sense of the text but completely contradict long established Islamic dogma.

Ah good FINALLY I can stop worshiping Islam! Finally someone debunked it!

Praise Allah (pbuh) for Tim Holland liberating us all. I can finally marry my gay boyfriend.

No it wasn't. The Quran is the most contemporary source that exists to Muhammad. The Quran just doesn't mention Mecca by name is all.

>lmao spot the sandnig
So i prove you wrong and an idiot and you resort to insults. I'm a FUCKING WHITE MALE

Arabia was full of cities and civilisations, much of their works are still there, the Saudis just aren't keen on Pre-Islamic study, they like to portray Arabia before Islam as a wasteland and you foolishly believed it like the little knowledge-cuck you are.

lalallalalaLALALALALALAL not real not real unreliable not real!

>All of those sources are dated after the traditional date of his death in 632.
Just like almost all sources for historical figures.
I mean shit, sources for Alexander are like decades and centuries later

I don't give a shit about Islamophobia but it is a real thing thats so easy to make cash out of. Particularly in America

>but peer review is cancer and doesn't really mean shit
Sorry your quack science about Tunguska asteroid tablets didnt get published.

>The Quran was written hundreds of years after the fact.
Have you read it, because it clearly is written at the time just by the events and things it references, such as Byzantine-Sassanid conflicts and Ethiopian invasions of Arabia.

I have a book written in 2012 on my desk that also references these events. It is possible for the human species to write about the past.

>In the Quran it is mentioned that
No actually the Quran doesn't mention those things.

>>And it is He who sends down rain from the sky, and We produce thereby the growth of all things. We produce from it greenery from which We produce grains arranged in layers. And from the palm trees - of its emerging fruit are clusters hanging low. And [We produce] gardens of grapevines and olives and pomegranates, similar yet varied. Look at [each of] its fruit when it yields and [at] its ripening. Indeed in that are signs for a people who believe.
How does this prove anything?

Arabia especially near the coast is not all just some dry desert. Your high school geography is bad. You can farm the right plants there, i mean seriously what the fuck, do you really think trees don't grow in Arabia, that's its all just one giant sandscape? Dates and olives are like their main fruit export for fucks sake even today.

>I have a book written in 2012 on my desk that also references these events. It is possible for the human species to write about the past.
1. Why would they reference an obscure event
2. Why would they talk about it in present and future tense
3. If it was faked and written later, why not include some actually amazing predictions instead of random historical factions nobody in medieval times would ever know or remember.

Nobody in medieval times would know or remember the ethiopian (it was called differently then, no?) invasion of the arab peninsula either.
You are looking at it from a modern view point, they didn't have archeology, telephone, cameras back then, and settlements in the peninsula were far apart, news traveled slowly and I doubt people could even say who the invader was, nor would people away from the fighting easily believe such an invasion took place.

Yes exactly, so if it was written centuries later why would they jibber on about those details.

Whereas Muhammad saying the Romans will beat the Sassanids is clearly something he gambled on happening so he could whip it out later and say LOOK I AM A PROPHET.
Further the Quran constantly talks about Muhammad being challenged for not being a prophet because he can't do any miracles, so he keeps writing that his book is his miracle. That's quite clear evidence that he existed and the book is contemporary, otherwise it would just be like the bullshit hadith which say shit like he went on a magic horse and split the moon in half.

Apply the same scrutiny to Christianity and you find Jesus is no more real than the Sleeping Beauty

>peer review is cancer and doesn't really mean shit
peer review is to check the methodology, not to agree with viewpoints

It's only one example and it's talking about Mecca. A couple of olive trees here and there doesn't constitute rains and bounties of different fruits.