it's actually quite the opposite
Islam is too new of a religion to even be considered seriously.
Of all the Abrahamic religions, It's the newest.
No serious evidence of existence of Muhammad.
it's actually quite the opposite
There is actual evidence of Jesus's existence unlike Islam with Muhammad.
Islam is too new of a religion to even be considered seriously.
Of all the Abrahamic religions, It's the newest.
No serious evidence of existence of Muhammad.
Islam is too new of a religion to even be considered seriously.
Of all the Abrahamic religions, It's the newest.
No serious evidence of existence of Muhammad.
I realy can't tell if Dirty is trolling or just doesn't know?
It almost sounds like you think all ancient peoples decided to count to zero and it just so happened to coincide with JC, THEN flip to "positive" time and count up....
it is "new", and that's also why there's more evidence of the existence of Muhammad
I've never heard a serious argument that Muhammad wasn't a historical figure. Jesus on the other hand...
it is "new", and that's also why there's more evidence of the existence of Muhammad
I've never heard a serious argument that Muhammad wasn't a historical figure. Jesus on the other hand...
Dates in almost everywhere on the planet is BC/AD.
if that isn't historical enough for you, I don't know what is.
25th December sends the word into a frenzy...
New year sets time square and fire crackers buzzing!!!!
You want to talk historical figures?????????
The newness of Islam is what will do it in.
Channel 4 - Islam: The Untold Story (banned in the U.K.!) on Vimeo
There are no serious arguments against Jesus' existance either.
You saidwat!
I've never heard a serious argument that Muhammad wasn't a historical figure. Jesus on the other hand...
You said
Funny to me you want to declare Muhammad more of a historical figure when Islam is the one which is a new religion compared to Christianity.
Any religion formed hundreds of years after Christianity should not be taken seriously.