Quote:
|
The first most important thing to point out is that there are no images of Muhammad anywhere in the world. Indeed, the vigor with which Muslims battle to prevent Muhammad imagery don't do justice to the historicity of this figure. The closest thing to images are outlines of human figures with absent faces.
|
This statement shows the author is ignorant of the fact that images of the Prophet(saw) were banned to avoid the Christian error of worshiping the Prophet instead of God. The prohibition on making and worshiping graven images dates way back to the 10 commandments. Something that appeared to get lost along the way as the Christians meddled with their religion. Especially the Catholics with their Churches filled with images and statues with places set out to kneel before and pray to them.
The Muslims simply did not want to copy the Pagans. Muhammed (saw) was just a messenger of God and so is not to be made into a figure of worship.
Quote:
|
Meanwhile, there is very little secular record that he actually existed as a person.
|
Well there is his grave with his body in it in Medina, loads of artifacts, and the foundations of his house in Mecca. But lets not let physical evidence of his existence get in the way of the opinion piece shall we?
Quote:
|
Another issue that historians struggle with is Mecca. Indeed, the city exists now, but there are very few actual records to date that prove that there was a major site of religion and international trade as the Quran and Muslims claims. Indeed, there has been no non-Muslim record of a major site of Asian trade known as Mecca existing, calling into deep question the existence of such a place as it is detailed in Muhammad's life.
|
Yeah ok, burn the history books and rewrite them. This article really is about as useful as used toilet paper.
I see it as just an opinion piece with no basis in reality.