Dear Josephus,

«Muhammed in body is dead and buried»

Without a body, Saint Muhammad is unable to defend himself in court.

Whatever the rotten culture of those people who claim to be his followers, the evidence, including the extensive forensic work of Robert Spencer, indicates that all that is nowadays attributed to Muhammad is based on a forgery which was carried out in the 790's, about 160 years after Muhammad's death - that was the biggest ever identity-theft in history.

We have the body of his teachings and behaviours upheld by his adherents that must be put before a Court; Rather than a few radical individuals claiming to be following Muhammed's interpretation.

Dear Josephus,

Courts require evidence and
proof as to how things are really being practiced
by most Muslims globally - (not fundamentalists
or extremists). Can you provide us with any just
to get things started. Judge Judy's book is full
of errors. You should Google the reviews of it
for yourself.

Dear Josephus,

«We have the body of his teachings and behaviours»

No, those alleged teachings and behaviours are not his!

Robert Spencer, a distinguished researcher of Islam as well as a formidable opponent of Islam as we know it, provides plenty of forensic evidence to that effect.

What you are asking, is to try a man on the basis of libel, who cannot even be present to defend himself. That too, when if indeed guilty then he has already been trialled by a higher court.

Foxy,
I have read all the supposed errors in Judge Judy's book and the counter comments by other researchers.

Yuyutsu, Obviously a large part of Sunni Islam accept the life and teachings ascribed all to Muhammed and his Sharia laws. If someone has falsified his teachings and behaviours then equally they must be debated in a court because it influences a large part of human ideas and behaviours that is detrimental to society.

Dear Josephus,

«If someone has falsified his teachings and behaviours then equally they must be debated in a court»

Now this would be a reversal of the onus of proof.

Can you prove that Muhammad ever did any of the atrocities attributed to him? or incited his followers to be wrongdoing?

You cannot. The evidence is so scant that (though I beg to differ) Robert Spencer believes that Muhammad did not even exist. Yet you want him to appear in court to clear his name...

You require a 6-7th century person to produce an alibi for accusations made in the late 8th century.

Not only the long-dead accused is unable to appear in court to defend himself - but also his historical accusers: they cannot be brought to testify under oath and if found scheming and libelling Muhammad (which I'm sure they were), the court would be unable to punish them for libel and perjury.