Denying an ancient/medieval historical figure you dislike because there's a "lack of sources" or something just makes no sense to me. I don't like Islam, I actually hate it. I still believe Muhammad existed though and that he was a terrible human being.
I believe all sources by default unless they contradict. IDK why anyone would do otherwise.
>>16555231What's the point of any historical inquiry? >I still believe Muhammad existed Why?
>>16555231whoever says this isn't denying mohammed existed because they dislike him you retarded dimwitted mongoloid, they merely stating that there's no reason to securely assume he really existed because supposedly there aren't enough credible sources
>>16555430"credible" is subjective.
>>16555231>why do historians inquire about history?Is this yet another thinly veiled christcuck thread?
>>16555431the point is that you're missing the point
>>16555436You can't claim that there's no reason to believe someone existed if there are sources of them having existed.
>>16555446only if those sources are actually trustworthy. something being or not being credible is not a matter of subjective opinion but a matter of logic. christian sources on jesus for example are likely to be less trustworthy in asserting that he existed and was exactly the way he's described in the gospels than non-christian sources because we can presume they're biased, therefore they are less credible. in the same way if there are records of mohammed that seem somewhat accidental and actually uninterested in painting him in either a good or bad light or mainting that he existed or not, and that have nothing to do with his followers, then these sources are more credible.
>>16555446There exist no indisputable references to Jesus from the 1st century, let alone from his supposed lifetime.
>>16555473>>16555475You can't claim that something didn't happen because there isn't enough evidence. You can only present counter-evidence that contradicts the original claims.
>>16555475There were indisputably Christians in Rome in the time of Nero.
>>16555488claiming that there's no reason to think something really happened is not the same thing as claiming it didn't happen. the first preposition leaves room for it to be true if there's evidence eventually, the second doesn't.
>>16555488>You can't claim that something didn't happen because there isn't enough evidence.No, but you can't claim that it happened for the same reason. That's a non-starter.>You can only present counter-evidence that contradicts the original claims.Actually, all I have to do is argue against what evidence you bring to the table. You're the one asserting a historical Jesus existed.>>16555489If you're referring to the Neronian persecution because of the fires, that's far from indisputable. But yes, Christians existed in the 1st century. This has little impact on Jesus existing as a historical person.
>>16555231He was a great guy though. He was known to be trustworthy and nice. He could have killed all his opponents after taking Mecca but he gave them mercy instead despite them mistreating him and his followers for more than a decade.
I accept most of the traditional Islamic history as correct and just interpret it rationally. Likewise, Jesus obviously existed, and I accept most of the Synoptics as probably resembling things that happened to an extent, including the personality of Jesus depicted in them, but John is clearly a later fanfic and of no value. Just be intelligent and reasonable and you can navigate old sources without having to engage in a whole absurdist debate over everything. I don't feel a need to reject all human-transmitted knowledge
>>16555231>JUST BELIEVE MY FAVORITE JEW WAS REAL OKAY?!!!I'm just not going to is all>>16555434Yes lol
>>16555794If you just throw out the magical stuff and assume the rest is true then you would also have to say there was a real Hercules and a real Merlin the Magician. I don't think that's a very viable method.
