hinduwoman

Hi, I have no problem believing that Muhammad was a real person, but I am questioning how influential he actually was during his lifetime.
Certainly he conquered a few tribes but was all Arabia united under him? Contemporary sources do not seem to have mentioned him.
Also I notice that the four Caliphs after him were all military geniuses and it is entirely possible it was they who was actually responsible for the united arabian empire.

Are there any non-Islamic sources on this?

Tammuz

We have already discussed the historicity of Muhammed. Personally I think that if not even Patricia Crone, John Wansbrough (now deceased or Ibn Warraq question his existence, then there are good reasons to believe that he actually existed.

Yes, he managed to unite all of Arabia, but he died quite soon after that. When he died, a couple of tribes returned to Paganism, and Musaylimah al-Kadhdhab (Musaylimah "the liar"), another preophet claimant appeared. So Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, had to force back everyone in line, during the so-called Riddah Wars ("riddah" means "apostasy").

You can see a map here on the territories of various Islamic rulers, or groups of rulers. The wine-red is what Muhammed ruled over by the time of his death. The read is the area the Rashidun Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Omar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan and Ali ibn Abi Talib) conquered and added to Islamic rule, and the yellow area is the area which the Umayyad dynasty conquered and added to the Islamic realm (though northern Spain was lost fairly quickly, perhaps other areas as well.

Bloodnf

Mohammed (pbuh) was elected the Amir (leader) of Medina in 622 AD. Mecca was conquered in 630 AD. In the following two years Taif and its surroundings were also conquered. The tribes of Arabia saw a new power rising and pledged allegiance to Islam. Mohammed (pbuh) died in 632 AD.

By today's standards or even by the standards of the day there were no major battles fought by Mohammed (pbuh).

rob117

Well considering that within a decade after his death his successors had conquered the Sassanid Empire it's not really implausible that he conquered Arabia. I don't understand all this hyperskepticism on the existence of religious founders.

lpetrich

Such skepticism is sometimes very justified.

Consider what the Church of Scientology says about its founder, Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, and what non-Scientologists say about him. Though L. Ron Hubbard is abundantly documented outside of the Church of Scientology, that Church nevertheless says things about him very different from what non-Scientologists say.

Likewise for Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism.

But we don't have similar high-quality outside sources for the founders of many earlier religions, and what comes down to us about them is much like what Scientologists say about L. Ron Hubbard and what Mormons say about Joseph Smith.

So I think that this seeming hyperskepticism is justified here.

adren@line

Skepticism of Mohhamed is not only deserved, but essential in understanding the nature of Islam and the claims of Muslims of Islam being a religion of peace.

Islam is essentially a religion that was spread through warfare and enforced through warfare. Prophet Mohhamed himself sent a letter to the current Shah of Iran asking him to convert to Islam "or else".

Soon after Mohhamed's death, the Arabs began a rapid offensive campaign of expansion in which they conquered most of the middle-east and south Asia. Keep in-mind these were the first Muslims, thus countering any claim of Islam being a religion of peace or self-defense.

premjan

The Arabs never conquered much of South Asia beyond Sind, it was the Afghans and Uzbek Mongols (Mughals) who did.

adren@line

Also the Turks and some Iranians.

And Bin Qusam only started with Sindh, and then moved into other parts of India. Sindh was only the starting point.

THe Chachnama itself mentions atleast half-a-dozen attempts by the Arabs to conqueor parts of India that were motivated by religious zeal. In all attemps they failed.

rob117

I don't think it merits denial of his existence, considering that his immediate successors are well-documented. A new religion did appear on the scene in the seventh century that united the various Arabian tribes. Movements like these have founders- exactly the point you made. Of course Muslim biographies of Mohammed contain legends; but his mere existence and role as founder is about as secure as Alexander's.

hinduwoman

As I said I am not denying Muhammad’s existence. In fact not even he conquered Mecca and Medina. All I want to know what outside sources are there about the extent of his military success.