Alias

Is there more historical evidence for Muhammad than there is for Jesus?

The historical debate about Jesus is already well known. Is there is similar debate regarding Muhamad?

In my brief research I discovered that like Jesus and the Bible the Quran is considered to be the number one source for information about the life of Muhammad. However, there are supppsed to be some non-Muslim historical texts from the seventh century that verify his existence.

Also, most of the Quran was written down during Muhammad's life.
At least I think it was.

mountainman

Just as a matter of interest does anyone know off-hand whether Muhammad issued minted coins like the Romans, in the epoch during the sixth century? Or not?

Huon

Arab-Sassanian coins bearing the legends Maawia amir i-wruishnikan (Mu‘āwiya, commander of the faithful). Obverse margin: bism Allāh ("In the name of God") originate from 41 AH / 661-662 CE, that is 30 years after the death of Muhammad.

Some infos about the writing of the Quraan could be found here :

http://www.sahihalbukhari.com/sps/sbk/

Sahih al Bukhari Volume 6. The Book of the Virtues of the Quraan

Note that Sahih al Bukhari (810-870 CE) is relatively late.

Roger Pearse

Considering that he lived 7 centuries later, there ought to be.

aa5874

I don't think Muhammad should be compared to Jesus.

Jesus is worshiped as a God and was described as a God that pre-existed before creation.

Muhammad should probably be compared to the unknown authors of the NT and of course there is no evidence for the unknown.

Doug Shaver

I would rate the evidence for each of them about the same, with two key differences. (1) There is also evidence against Jesus' existence but none, to my knowledge, against Muhammed's existence. (2) We have a book that allegedly was written by Muhammed while it is not even claimed (credibly) that Jesus ever wrote anything. Although the Quran attribution is not well supported, neither is there any evidence contradicting it.

Not that I've heard about.

I've read the Quran, though I did only skim a lot of it. I don't remember there being any biographical information in it. What historians think they know about Muhammed's life apparently is based on other sources.

All we have on the Quran's origin is Muslim tradition. According to that tradition, Muhammed wrote his alleged revelations as they came to him on whatever scrap of paper or equivalent material was handy at the time. Much alter, sometime after he died, somebody gathered all the scraps together and compiled them into a single book.

bacht

Right. A better comparison would be between Mohammed and Paul, both believed to be messengers who impacted real people and communities.

aa5874

But, immediately you will see another major problem, to which Paul would you compare Muhammad?

Scholars have deduced that there were more than one person called Paul.

The authors called Paul are the only witnesses to themselves, except for an unknown authors called Peter in the second epistles of Peter, and another unknown author of Acts.

Now, according to Eusebius in Church History 3.3.1, the second epistle of Peter does NOT belong to the canon, it is not genuine.

And Acts is not credible.

I don't think that Muhammad can be really compared to any character in the NT. It is like comparing Muhammad to Achilles or Apollo.

Toto

Qur'anic criticism tends to be a bit riskier on a personal level than Biblical criticism, so it is less developed. But there are some questions about the historical Mohammed.

Search for the historical Mohammed - notes from "Why I am Not a Muslim (or via: amazon.co.uk)" by Ibn Warraq, who must use a pseudonym to avoid having a fatwa against him.

Historicity_of_Muhammad

Clinical

Yes, there is.

According to Patricia Crone, who is far from being a friend of Islam, "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;" http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-e...ammed_3866.jsp