TaylorC

I've noticed that many people state matter-of-factly that Muhammad was a historical character, not very different at all from the depiction given of him by Islamic tradition, and yet they fail to provide sources or evidence to back up their assumptions. I can't say that I've done much research on the issue, but what is out there that testifies to the historical existence of Muhammad, as he is known in Islam?

youngalexander

There are any number of threads where this has been discussed. The latest is Prophet Muhammad probably never existed

Just search for Muhammad!
Welcome to BC&H.

TaylorC

Thanks, but I have one question I didn't see in those threads. There is a pretty extensive "history" of the wars and raids Muhammad participated in during his lifetime, but is there really no evidence for any of them? Not one historical account, no artifacts?

At the Battle of the Trench, it's estimated that Muhammad executed between 400-900 men who'd surrendered and enslaved the women and kids... and there's nothing in history about this outside of those late biographies and stuff?

Roger Pearse

While on holiday I was reading Albert Hourani, A history of the Arab peoples which said that all the biographies were written a century later, in the early Abbassid period, and reflect anti-Ummayad feeling. Unfortunately he's pretty vague on sources.

He writes (p.15):

Not a single footnote is given for these statements, drat him.

What I would like to see is a *list* of authors, and where we can get hold of these texts. What we need, surely, is access to all the primary sources.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

vid

quick wiki search... seems all very 3rd hand

Clinical

"There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding. His neighbours in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years of his death at the latest; a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and chariot". It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions.

Mohammed's death is normally placed in 632, but the possibility that it should be placed two or three years later cannot be completely excluded. The Muslim calendar was instituted after Mohammed's death, with a starting-point of his emigration (hijra) to Medina (then Yathrib) ten years earlier. Some Muslims, however, seem to have correlated this point of origin with the year which came to span 624-5 in the Gregorian calendar rather than the canonical year of 622.

If such a revised date is accurate, the evidence of the Greek text would mean that Mohammed is the only founder of a world religion who is attested in a contemporary source. But in any case, this source gives us pretty irrefutable evidence that he was an historical figure. Moreover, an Armenian document probably written shortly after 661 identifies him by name and gives a recognisable account of his monotheist preaching."

From Patricia Crone, who is not a friend of Islam at all.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-e...ammed_3866.jsp

The biographies of Muhammed written 100+ years after his death are certainly forgeries, but there is no doubt whatsoever that he existed as a historical person.

TaylorC

Interesting stuff, but the Doctrina Iacobi (the first Greek text mentioning the Saracen prophet) does not explicitly name or identify Muhammad as the "false prophet". The fact that this character is a Saracen and preached with sword and chariot is not really good evidence for calling him Muhammad, especially since the text says earlier that the prophet "was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come". That hardly sounds like Muhammad. I'm also having a hard time finding original sources of this text (the Doctrina Iacobi), as it seems to exist mostly in quotations by Crone, Ibn Warraq and others.

The other source does seem more credible though, and I will look into it. Thanks.

Clinical

It can only refer to Muhammed. No Saracen (Arab) prophet existed in that time except Muhammed.
The Quran does indeed say that the Torah and Injil (A book revealed to Eisa or Jesus as you know him) had prophecies about Muhammed but that these prophecies were lost because of the continuous tampering with the Torah over the years.
You can also read John of Damascus' (Who lived in the 7th century) polemic against Islam. He mentions Muhammed by name there.

andrewcriddle

Doctrina Jacobi may be of interest.

Andrew Criddle

TaylorC

Thanks, that article seems to confirm my suspicions though. It says no primary source has been found, although other authors have referenced it, and it also seems to doubt the idea of Muhammad being the prophet in the text.