Myth Makers & Conspirators? Nope! We're MYTH BUSTERS!

In this video Kay, from SOCO films, asked Robert Spencer and Jay Smith to unpack whether David Wood was correct, that those of us who deny Muhammad existed are simply 'Myth makers', or Conspirators? She herself was in agreement with David, as least she was at the beginning of this discussion. She soon moved, however, to solidly on the fence. We ask that you watch this discussion and decide if you also are 'on the fence'. Robert began the discussion by questioning why David Wood was so belligerent at the beginning of the debate, much more so than when he did a similar debate he had with him 8 years ago, on the same subject? Jay responded that this was due to the atmosphere of the whole weekend, where David spent much of his time when near Jay teasing him and jesting with him, quipping that he would demolish him on this subject, much like a fighter would do with their opponent before a fight. This is quite normal, however, and typical of David when working with colleagues; thus, the sparring in the debate was primarily for the sake of the crowd, nothing more. That's not to take away from the fact that David absolutely believed the position he took in the debate, so that it was a proper debate, and the the two of them were seriously arguing for subjects they both held dear. Kay suggested that the 'principle of embarrassment' was actually a pretty good argument for why we can trust the 9th century Muhammad, suggesting that Muhammad pooping out oasis's all over the desert would not be something you would want to make up. Robert responded that 1) what may seem embarrassing to her was not so the the Abbasids who wrote it, and 2) these stories supported an Abbasid political agenda, such as the story of Zainab and Zaid which was created to shut down any notion that Muhammad could have an adopted son, since this would lead to succession battles which was damaging to the Abbasids, who wanted the Ulema decide who would gain power. Kay asked whether refraining from referring to these stories publicly might ruin David's ministry, to which both Jay and Robert quickly responded that David and others like him still needed to expose these embarrassing stories since it is that very embarrassing 9th century Muhammad that 99.9% of the Muslim continue to believe in. When asked what were his best arguments for denying the later Muhammad, Robert pointed to the 7th century Patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius, who in the 9th century Traditions purportedly speaks to the Caliph Umar in Jerusalem, and says only good and supportive things about Islam and Muhammad. Yet, when one looks at the 7th and 8th century references to Sophronius he never mentions Umar, nor Muhammad, nor Muslims, and refers to the Arab invaders of Jerusalem as 'Saracens' who destroyed churches, and sowed havoc and violence wherever they went; quite a contrast to the later Sophronius. Obviously, since the 7th-8th century references by Sophronius are much earlier, they would be the more historically credible. Robert also referred to Thomas the Presbyter, a 7th century Syriac Orthodox priest, who refers to a person named Muhammad who has a great following, and brings about an agreement between the Jews and the Christians. This reference to 'Muhammad' is not the 9th century traditional character, but seems to be referring to the 7th century Iyas ibn Qabisa, a Lakhmid Christian ruler, who lived and worked in Hira (southwest of Baghdad). It is he who brought about agreement between the rival factions of his day, yet who's nickname was 'Muhammad' which simply means 'The praised one'. This earlier Muhammad is nothing like the later 9th century Muhammad, and lived too far north, and much too early. Jay brought up the fact that in the debate David never introduced the 'Argument from Silence', which is the Muslim's favourite rebuttal to Jay's and Robert's paradigm. It could be that David either didn't know about it, or he didn't want to introduce it, since ironically, this very argument can now be reversed back upon the Muslims themselves, because their 9th century Muhammad has no historical support from the 7th century. Thus, it is their entire narrative which is now nothing more than an 'argument of silence', and our roles have been completely reversed. We no longer are the Myth-makers, nor the Conspirators, since we are now arguing from and with historical evidence; while they, without any evidence to support their Muhammad are simply forwarding myths about him, based on 100s of years of conspiracy. So, you now decide...who now are the myth makers and the conspirators, and who indeed are the "realists' who use historical evidence to support everything they say and claim? Robert Spencer's channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/JihadWatchVideo/featured Kay's SOCO channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/KaySocoFilms/featured © Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2020 (42,070) (Music: 'Small Adventure' by Rafael Krux, from filmmusic-io License CC BY)