Net2004

Thomas The Presbyter (Writing c. 640 CE / 19 AH)

The 8th century BL Add. 14,643 was published by Wright who first brought to attention the mention of an early date of 947 AG (635-6 CE).[26] The contents of this manuscript has puzzled many scholars for their apparent lack of coherence as it contains an assembly of texts with diverse nature.[27] In relation to Islam and Muslims, there are two important dates mentioned in this manuscript.

AG 945, indiction VII: On Friday, 4 February, [i.e., 634 CE / Dhul Qa‘dah 12 AH] at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Mụhammad [Syr. tayyāyē d-Ṃhmt] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician YRDN (Syr. BRYRDN), whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region.

AG 947, indiction IX: The Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it; the Arabs climbed mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in [the monasteries of] Kedar and Benōthō. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest.[28]

It is the first date above which is of great importance as it provides the first explicit reference to Muhammad in a non-Muslim source. The account is usually identified with the battle of Dathin.[29] According to Hoyland, "its precise dating inspires confidence that it ultimately derives from first-hand knowledge".[30] This means that the time period between the death of Muhammad (June, 632 CE) and the earliest mention of him (4th February, 634 CE) is slightly over a year and half!

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/His.../earlysaw.html

the website lists early refereces to muhammad. there are also early references about islamic practices and hostile non muslim accounts against muhammad

Chili

Mohammed was a reformer like Luther and was an apostle short to be like Jesus.

J-D

As I understand it (subject to correction), those people who believe (at all) in the theory of descent from Ishmael/Ismail believe that he was the ancestor of the Arab people as a whole. However, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not Arabs. Just because they are Muslims is no reason for Indonesian, Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, Iranian, Turkish, Malay, or Kurdish Muslims (just for starters) to consider themselves descendants of Ishmael/Ismail (although a significant minority of them probably do have some Arab ancestors).

PhilosopherJay

Hi Net2004,

Thank you for the reference to http://www.islamic-awareness.org/His.../earlysaw.html. It seems to me that this presents extremely strong evidence that Mohammad did not exist or that he did not exist in the form that he is generally taken to exist.

First the text admits about the non-Moslem sources that "they are often precisely dateable which can't be said of early Muslim writings". We thus have to rely on the non-Moslem material to establish the historical reality of Muhammed.

Yet, there seems to be only two documents that establish Muhammed's existence before the 660's (30 years after the claimed death of Muhammed):
1) A Record Of The Arab Conquest Of Syria, 637 CE / 15-16 AH
2) Thomas The Presbyter (Writing c. 640 CE / 19 AH)

The first gets this description: "much faded note is preserved on folio 1 of BL Add. 14,461, a codex containing the Gospel accord to Matthew and the Gospel according to Mark." We are given a warning, "It is worthwhile cautioning that the condition of the text is fragmentary and many of the readings unclear or disputable." Because of its condition, we may dismiss it as strong evidence or put it into the category of extremely weak evidence.

It contains a single possible reference to Muhammed:
"and many villages were ruined with killing by... Mụhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives... from Galilee as far as Bēth [...] and those Arabs pitched camp beside..."



The note is also included on the excellent Christianorigins website by Peter Kirby: http://www.christianorigins.com/isla...#arabconquests
There, we can see that the note simply mentions a word "Muhmd" and not Muhammed at this point. Who or what the word "Mudmd" meant is unknown. It is simply a conjecture that it means Muhammed.
While the note may be from the time period being considered, it may also be ten, twenty, or one hundred years later. That this is a reference to Muhammed is speculative at best.

The second reference is from Thomas the Presbyter. We read "The contents of this manuscript has puzzled many scholars for their apparent lack of coherence as it contains an assembly of texts with diverse nature."

The text apparently comes from the year 640 or after. There are apparently two passages with dates referencing Arab battles

Note that the invaders are called "The Arabs" five times in these brief passages. Only in the first use are they referred to as "The Arabs of Muhammed" or more precisely in Syrian. tayyāyē d-Ṃhmt. Mudarras Kadhir Gaznavi at http://www.geocities.com/spenta_mainyu_2/Muhammad.htm suggests that the word Mhmt could have been an adjective meaning "praised" or "beloved". So the term could have meant "Arabs of the Praised One" or Arabs of the Beloved One."

True or not, it appears that that this is the best evidence, outside of undateable Moslem documents, for the existence of someone named Muhammed. For 30 years after his alleged death, it is only this single incoherent manuscript that seems to mention his name. So all we know about Muhammed is that one Christian after 640 apparently described a band of savage arabs as being "of Muhammed."

It should be noted that over half a dozen other sources over the next 50 years discuss the Arab/Saracen conquests without discussing Muhammed.

This leaves us with only one important document from the period 630-680 that apparently was written circa 661 by Sebeos, Bishop of the Bagratunis.
This portrays Muhammed as an agent of the Jews, promoting the Jewish agenda for the liberation of their holy land among the Arabs.

It suggests that at least some Christians did believe in the existence of an Arab leader/preacher/prophet named Muhammed by 661, and they believed that he united Arab people to become Jews. It does not suggest that they believed that he was the founder of a new religion. In fact, it suggests that they believed that he was a convert to Judaism.

If Muhammed existed is still an open question.

Warmly,
Philosopher Jay

Minimalist

True enough....but as with jesus the problems come from their followers.

Iasion

Well -

Those alleged documents written by Mohamed are as convincing as the letter of Jesus to Abgarus.

The references to the "Arabs of Mohamed" are not that soild either.

I think I'm becoming a Mohamed-Myther ;-)


Iasion