As I said, you are free to believe anything you want. Instead of mindless name calling, post a link to something that demonstrates that Muhammed was a physical person.
Consider:
"The chances of authentic material surviving at their hands is exceedingly small. Indeed, in purely statistical terms it is minute. Bukhari is said to have examined a total of 600,000 traditions attributed to the Prophet; he preserved some 7,000 (including repetitions), or in other words dismissed some 593,000 as inauthentic. If Ibn Hanbal examined a similar number of traditions, he must have rejected about 570,000, his collection containing some 30,000 (again including repetitions). Of Ibn Hanbal's traditions, 1,710 (including repetitions) are transmitted by the Companion Ibn Abbas. Yet, less than fifty years earlier one scholar estimated that Ibn Abbas had only heard nine traditions from the Prophet, while another thought that the correct figure might be ten. If Ibn Abbas has heard ten traditions from the Prophet in the years around 800, but over a thousand by 850, how many had he heard in 700, or 632? Even if we accept that ten of Ibn Abbas' traditions are authentic, how do we identify them in the pool of 1,710? We do not even know whether they are to be found in this pool, as opposed to that of the 530,000 traditions dismissed on the ground that their chain of authorities were faulty. Under such circumstances it is scarcely justified to presume Hadith to be authentic until the contrary has been proven."
and
"Due to the extreme unreliability of these biographical materials concerning Mohammed, and the ahadith upon which the large portion of this biography is based, the quest for Mohammed must be directed away from polemical and often self-serving traditional accounts and towards the evidences provided by archaeology and from the accounts of observers who were closer to the fact than the later Muslim biographers and tradition-makers. We must understand that there is actually very little real evidence for Mohammed, at least as a "prophet" and religious leader. Concurrently, practically everything in the traditional account of the rise of Islam which has been pieced together from the Muslim traditions is not substantiated by evidential facts."
and
"From evidence unearthed in the sands of Palestine and other areas of Al-Shams (an Arabic term for the Syria-Palestine region), it appears that when the desert Arabs began to infiltrate Syria and the surrounding regions in force beginning in the first decade of the 7th century, they were still largely pagan, though many had adopted some form of Christianity, Judaism, or Abrahamism. The religion of the Arabs that eventually became Islam developed over the next century or so after the Arab takeover of Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia. Further, this development initially began in these regions, and was later given a redacted origin in the Hijaz, where Mecca and Medina are located."
concluding
"Even the Qur'an bears witness to the sinless perfection of Christ. In Surah 19:19, the angel speaks to Mary concerning her son to be born, Jesus. "He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son" (Pickthal translation). Muslims, both from the record of their own book, and from the record of the holy Scriptures of the Bible, which they are bound by the Qur'an to accept, must acknowledge and admit the sinless, perfect purity of the Lord Jesus Christ!
Thus, we see between Islam's Mohammed and the Lord Jesus Christ a sharp contrast. On the one hand, Mohammed, a man who killed, fornicated, coveted, and betrayed the trust of those with whom he had made a pact of peace. On the other hand, the Lord Jesus Christ, whom nobody, not even His bitterest enemies, could lay a charge to His account. While Mohammed went out to make war, Jesus Christ came from God to make peace, peace between sinful man and the holy God. "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ..." (II Corinthians 5:18). The record is clear, and the observer can clearly see which it was that was of God, this being Jesus Christ."
from this
http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch5.htmlLess polite:
http://skeptically.org/enlightenment/id3.htmland there's this:
"It is obvious that if the Meccans had been middlemen in a long-distance trade of the kind described in (traditional Islamic) literature, there ought to have been some mention of it in the writings of their customers... who wrote extensively about the south Arabians who supplied them with aromatics. (Despite) the considerable attention paid to Arabian affairs there is no mention at all of Quraysh (the tribe of Mohammed) and their trading center (Mecca), be it in the Greek, Latin, Syraic, Aramaic, Coptic, or other literature composed outside Arabia ." (p. 134)
"We don't know about the Myth of Mecca because we are afraid to. We, Americans and Westerners and participants of civilization, have been intimidated and frightened into examining the historical truth regarding Islam. Dare to criticize Islam and some crazed ayatollah will issue a fatwah calling for your death. Well, if there is one thing that we must learn from The Atrocity is that we cannot, we dare not be afraid any longer. The Atrocity was committed exclusively by Moslems in the name of Islam. True enough, President Bush, in his magnificent speech to Congress, said their actions blaspheme and insult Islam. But throughout the Arab world, from cafes in Beirut and Cairo to the streets of Nablus and Gaza, people laughed and celebrated their religion's slaughter of thousands of Americans. So we should feel no need to refrain from exposing that this slaughter was committed in the name of a make-believe myth."
THIS AT"
http://www.davidstuff.com/historical/mecca.htmhttp://www.cephas-library.com/islam_allah_the_moon_god.htmlhttp://radiobergen.org/powergame/islam.htmlGet Dr. Robert Morley's book, please.
Do you think it possible that studying something other than Islamic propaganda might give you a clearer vision of the HISTORICAL subject? Do you think that no one who passed thru the Arabian peninsula would ot have recorded the land-pirate of that supposed effect? Certainly, the Romans, Greeks Eygptians, Persians, etc etc could all write, for several thousand years. None of them would have commented? Please.
Name calling does not further your cause, educating yourself would.
