https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRZtUHUifas

Unlike historical evidence of saints and prophets from other religions around the world, there are no historical evidence of a ‘prophet’ named Muhammad, a Quran or Islam to have existed anywhere near the Middle Eastern region during his assumed lifetime (570-632 AD). The earliest historical mention, and very short and brief, only appear over 100 years after his death.

There are plenty of evidence of a historical figure such as the Buddha, Jesus, the Hindu teachers and Jewish saints that are spread over entire regions, and found mentioned far beyond their countries to verify their place in history. There is also plenty of evidence of Muslim saints to have been actual historical figures, post Islam.

But there is no historical evidence that Islam, Muhammad or the Quran existed at all during Muhammad’s lifetime, indicating that Muhammad could possibly not have been either a prophet or the founder of Islam.

From the time when Arabs conquered and invaded entire areas in the Middle East, there exist no historical evidence of a religion called Islam, of the Quran or of a prophet named Muhammad. Muhammad could very well have existed but plausibly as an ordinary man, a criminal, rather than a religious figure and founder of Islam which would explain the complete silence in history of his importance in the region.

Islam is the youngest of the five main religions in the world. Some Muslims consider Muhammad to be the restorer of an ‘uncorrupted original’ monotheistic faith of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets. However, that would disregard Muhammad as a prophet all together since that would indicate Muhammad had no knowledge of his own and merely recited ideas from the founders of religious thought, like a self-appointed priest. And that again would completely reject any indication that Muhammad was capable to restore any original faith. In addition, Muhammad’s ‘vision’ of Angel Gabriel telling him that he is a prophet and messenger is suppose to have appeared in 610 A.D. – merely twenty-two years before his death. Basically again, it shows that Muhammad was a self-appointed prophet, not selected or recognized by the people for any particular qualities, which may explain the historical silence on Muhammad’s life from that time.

Since Islam focus more on political ideologies than actual religious codes, one has to ask the question: was Muhammad a common warlord and highway robber of his time, tailored as a ‘prophet’ to be used by invaders as a political tool to conquer enemies and regions? Or was Muhammad simply a megalomaniac? Are 1 billion Muslims following the ideology of a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

Megalomania is a condition of grandiosity, a psycho-pathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, or omnipotence. ‘Megalomania is characterized by an inflated sense of self-esteem and overestimation by persons of their powers and beliefs’. Historically it was used as an old name for narcissistic personality disorder prior to the latter’s first use by Heinz Kohut in 1968, and is used these days as a non-clinical equivalent. It is not mentioned in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD).

After pursuing various issues Robert Spencer sums up what we know about the traditional account of Muhammad’s life and the early days of Islam.

- No record of Muhammad’s reported death in 632 appears until more than a century after that date.

-A Christian account apparently dating from the mid-630s speaks of an Arab prophet “armed with a sword” who seems to be still alive.

-The early accounts written by the people the Arabs conquered never mention Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. They call the conquerors “Ishmaelites,” “Saracens,” “Muhajirun,” and “Hagarians” but never “Muslims.”

-The Arab conquerors, in their coins and inscriptions, don’t mention Islam or the Qur’an for the first six decades of their conquests. Mentions of “Muhammad” are non-specific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross. The word can be used not only as a proper name but also as an honorific.

-The Qur’an, even by the canonical Muslim account, was not distributed in its present form until the 650’s. Contradicting that standard account is the fact that neither the Arabian nor the Christians and Jews in the region mention the Qur’an until the early eighth century.

- During the reign of the caliph Muawiya (661-680), the Arabs constructed at least one public building whose inscription was headed by a cross.

- We begin hearing about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, and about Islam itself in the 690’s, during the reign of the caliph Abd al-Malik. Coins and inscriptions reflecting Islamic beliefs begin to appear at this time also.

- Around the same time, Arabic became the predominant written language of the Arabian Empire, supplanting Syriac and Greek.

- Abd al-Malik claimed, in a passing remark in one hadith, to have collected the Qur’an, contradicting Islamic tradition that the collection was the work of the caliph Uthman forty years earlier.

- Multiple hadiths report that Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, governor of Iraq during the reign of Abd al-Malik, edited the Qur’an and distributed his new edition to the various Arab-controlled provinces— again, something Uthman is supposed to have done decades earlier.

- Even some Islamic traditions maintain that certain common Islamic practices, such as the recitation of the Qur’an during mosque prayers, date from orders of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, not to the earlier period of Islamic history.

- In the middle of the eighth century, the Abbasid dynastic supplanted the Umayyad line of Abd al-Malik. The Abbasids charged the Umayyads with impiety on a large scale. In the Abbasid period, biographical material about Mohammed began to proliferate. The first complete biography of the prophet of Islam finally appeared during this era—at least 125 years after the traditional date of his death.

- The biographical material that emerged situates Muhammad in an area of Arabia that never was the center for trade and pilgrimage that the canonical Islamic account of Islam’s origin depend on it to be. (pp.205-206)


Given these huge problems for the history of Islam, how does Spencer explain the rise of Islam? He proposes the need for a political theology that would reflect Arabic culture, Arabic language, and Arabic religion. When warriors from Arabia encountered the conquered cultures they observed that the Roman empire had a political theology for the purpose of binding the empire together. “The earliest Arab rulers appear to have been adherents of Hagarism, a monotheistic religion centered around Abraham and Ishmael.” (p.208) It was not as anti-Christian as Islam developed later since there were Arab coins with crosses on them. This religious model reached its height in 691 and there began to emerge a defiantly Arabic one.

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/islam-no-historical-mention-of-a-prophet-called-muhammad-up-to-732-a-d-was-he-a-caliph/comment-page-1/


I am guessing a riveting fully expounded response from pretend muslims that know nothing about history coming out of this one.

Then maybe its all just a misunderstanding and allah intended muhammed to look like an ass, pedophile and all the muslims on the planet to look like a bunch of babbling gullible fools.

Poor mohammed no one is defending their profit now. He is left out in the cold to rot away as a tall tale.

So much for all the breast beating muslims defending his honor.

there is no prophecy of moh in the bible.

despite the lie muzzies tell

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 28^th, 2015 at 10:20pm:

there is no prophecy of moh in the bible. despite the lie muzzies tell

That is correct they claim he was mentioned yet he was never mentioned once.

Funny how they need to authenticate the claim he existed in a book they consider heresy in one breath and mohammed said it was from allah in the next.

It was all a tale about making authentic mohammeds prophetic office valid which failed miserably.

Mohammed, are you working your way up to one of your meltdowns where you avenge your wounded pride on the Islam forum?

I’m curious.

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2015 at 10:32pm:

Mohammed, are you working your way up to one of your meltdowns where you avenge your wounded pride on the Islam forum? I’m curious.

You're not curious your just a troll mate. Try using a sock next time you may be more convincing matey.

Can no one defend the false prophet mohammeds honor ?

Maybe that is because him being a prophet is clearly BS.

To begin with, contemporary non-Muslim sources of the 7th century do not corroborate the canonical story. For example, the Doctrina Jacobi (a document dating to 634-40 CE and probably written by a Christian living in Palestine; p. 20), an account of the Arab conquest of Jerusalem by Sophronius — the patriarch who is said to have surrendered the city in 637 — and a letter written in 647 by the patriarch of Seleucia make no reference to the Arab conquerors as Muslims, or show any awareness of a religion called Islam.

The earliest account that can reliably be taken to refer to Muhammad is a chronicle by the Armenian bishop Sebeos, dating either to the 660s or 670s but containing material that sharply diverges from the traditional Islamic accounts: thus he has Muhammad “insisting on the Jews’ right to the Holy Land — even if in the context of claiming that land for the Ishmaelites, acting in conjunction with the Jews” (p. 32).

Only by around 730 CE, nearly one hundred years after Muhammad’s death in 632 CE according to the canonical story, do we see an account by John of Damascus make detailed reference to parts of the Qur’an, but even then he does not name the Qur’an or allude to the existence of a complete holy book for those he calls “Hagarians,” “Ishmaelites” or “Saracens” (but not Muslims).

Instead, we have reference to Qur’anic chapter titles like “The Women” (this is the fourth Sura of the Qur’an today), implying that he was drawing on fragments of text that were later incorporated into the Qur’an.

Arabic epigraphic evidence from the 7th century similarly fails to validate the canonical account. An inscription attributed to the first Umayyad caliph — Muawiya — in 677 or 678 CE makes reference to belief in God but gives no indication of belief in Muhammad as his messenger or the Qur’an as revealed scripture.

On coins from this period, we do find the word “Muhammad” inscribed, but curiously the inscription comes under kingly figures bearing a cross, a symbol of Christianity that is totally antithetical to traditional Islam (pp. 43-4).

Bearing in mind that “Muhammad” can also mean “the chosen/praised one,” the coins could well be conveying the idea that the ruler is praised or chosen in God’s name (p. 45). Alternatively, they could be referring to Jesus — at a time when the religion of the Arab conquerors was still a vague monotheism — or a proto-Muhammad figure still very much unlike the man depicted in the traditional accounts of his life. Even the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock — completed in 691 CE and often thought to be the first elaborations on traditional Islamic theology — could be referring to Jesus, explaining how he (“Muhammad”) is a mere messenger and not divine as orthodox Christianity held (pp. 56-7).

IT IS ONLY TOWARDS the middle of the 8th century (735 CE onwards) that we begin to see very clear epigraphic evidence referring to Muhammad as we know him from the Ahadith (plural of hadith) and Sira (pp. 61-2). This observation leads nicely to an examination of the reliability of biographical material from the Ahadith and Sira concerning the sunna (i.e. example) of Muhammad. The centrality of the Ahadith and Sira in interpreting various Qur’anic verses, whose meaning would otherwise be entirely obscure, cannot be overstated.

However, as Spencer points out, it is notable that the invocation of Muhammad’s example begins with the same caliph who had the Dome of the Rock built and issued the first coins invoking Muhammad as the Prophet of God: Abd al-Malik (p. 69), whose successors would do likewise.

Since Muhammad now became such an important figure as a paragon of moral virtue, there naturally arose a need for people to know what the Prophet said and did in various matters of life. The Ahadith in particular then became political weapons, liable to be completely fabricated. Even in the first half of the 8th century, one Islamic scholar wrote that the “emirs forced people to write hadiths” (p. 71).

Factionalism is an especially noteworthy phenomenon here behind the invention of Ahadith.

For example, in the midst of the dispute between the followers of the caliph Muawiya, who Shi’a believe usurped the place of Ali’s son and designated successor Husayn, and Ali’s followers who would later become the Shi’a, a hadith arose in which Muhammad declared that Ali’s father was burning in hellfire (p. 73), while Ali’s partisans invented a hadith in which Muhammad declared, “I go to war for the recognition of the Qur’an and Ali will fight for the interpretation of the Qur’an.”

It is little surprise that in light of all these disputes, the Ahadith are riddled with contradictions.

To be sure, Muslim scholars did try to devise criteria by which to separate forgeries from Ahadith they deemed to be authentic: for instance, how well a hadith is in accordance with the Qur’an. Yet however reasonable such a criterion may be, “it doesn’t get us any closer to what Muhammad actually said and did” (p. 81).

Another devised standard was the supposed reliability of an isnad (chain of oral transmission from the Prophet to the narrator), but this is even more dubious.

While Arabia may well have had “an established practice of memorizing poetry” (p. 84), the Ahadith are not pieces of poetry, and in any event must have been plagued by “embellishment, clarification, or alteration of any kind until the hadiths were finally collected and written down in the ninth century” (p. 85).

In all probability, the poet had his work dictated to a scribe. If the Iliad and Odyssey were subsequently memorized wholesale by bards, the bards were working from written texts, not via oral transmission of the poems.

If the Ahadith cannot be taken as a reliable guide to what Muhammad said and did, then what are we to make of Ibn Ishaq’s Sira? It is often noted that Ibn Ishaq’s biography, which does not in fact survive intact and is only partially preserved by later transmitters, dates over 100 years after Muhammad’s death in 632 CE. Tradition tells of earlier historians, but their purported works have not survived and little is known about their lives.

That Ishaq’s work dates so long after the time in which Muhammad supposedly lived is not proof of the Sira‘s unreliability, but the fact is that Ibn Ishaq would undoubtedly have been working from oral material that would have been embellished and fabricated.

Many of the stories transmitted by Ibn Ishaq would have been tailored to convince the audience that Muhammad was a prophet of God, hence tales of Christians already recognizing him as a prophet in his youth before his prophetic career began (p. 96).

One of the key reasons many critics of Islam think that the traditional accounts of Muhammad’s life are rooted in historical reality is the argument from embarrassment: that is, Muhammad is presented as doing things that might be deemed abhorrent to pious sensibilities. Ibn Hisham states that his own transmission of Ibn Ishaq’s work omits “things which it is disgraceful to discuss” (p. 88).

Even in the traditional accounts, there are still events recounted that have embarrassed Muslim apologists of the modern era: perhaps most notably, Muhammad’s marriage to his daughter-in-law Zaynab.

Yet as Spencer notes, “what constitutes a negative depiction is not necessarily constant from age to age and culture to culture” (p. 111). This is certainly true, for example, of the tradition that Aisha married Muhammad when she was six and consummated the marriage with him when she was nine: no one in the traditional accounts is shown having a problem with this betrothal (p. 112).

In any case, Spencer shows that the Zaynab incident is likely to have been a much later invention to explain the fact that there is an apparent doctrine in the Qur’an of a “prophetic bloodline”: that is, “the prophetic office is handed down from father to son” (p. 115).

Since Muhammad is regarded as the final prophet, it had to be emphasized that he did not have any sons — biological or adopted — who reached puberty. Thus, the status of Zayd as Muhammad’s adopted son had to be marginalized, hence the attendant Qur’anic doctrine delegitimizing adoption (Qur’an 33:4) and the emphasis that “Muhammad is not the father of any one of your men” (Qur’an 33:40).

Wow still no one defending the non existent Profit Mohammed.

moh was not foretold of in the bible.

despite the lies muzzies say

There is no mention of Jesus, the Buddha, Krishna, Abraham, etc, in any document outside the respective Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and Jewish texts. I don’t see why Muhammed would be any different.

Mind you, Archangel Gabriel exists in a number of texts, as is God.

Perhaps we should believe in God and the angels, and give their prophets a miss.

Karnal wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 5:55pm:

There is no mention of Jesus, the Buddha, Krishna, Abraham, etc, in any document outside the respective Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and Jewish texts. I don’t see why Muhammed would be any different. Mind you, Archangel Gabriel exists in a number of texts, as is God. Perhaps we should believe in God and the angels, and give their prophets a miss.

Thank you, genius.

How many mentions are there of Confucius in Roman, Greek, Christian, Jewish, Muslim texts?

Your relentless, reflex relativising is just too stupid.

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 10:29pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 5:55pm: There is no mention of Jesus, the Buddha, Krishna, Abraham, etc, in any document outside the respective Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and Jewish texts. I don’t see why Muhammed would be any different. Mind you, Archangel Gabriel exists in a number of texts, as is God. Perhaps we should believe in God and the angels, and give their prophets a miss. Thank you, genius. How many mentions are there of Confucius in Roman, Greek, Christian, Jewish, Muslim texts? Your relentless, reflex relativising is just too stupid.

Oh, old boy, where do you think the name Confucius comes from?

Hint: it’s Latin.

Karnal wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 8:44pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 10:29pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 5:55pm: There is no mention of Jesus, the Buddha, Krishna, Abraham, etc, in any document outside the respective Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and Jewish texts. I don’t see why Muhammed would be any different. Mind you, Archangel Gabriel exists in a number of texts, as is God. Perhaps we should believe in God and the angels, and give their prophets a miss. Thank you, genius. How many mentions are there of Confucius in Roman, Greek, Christian, Jewish, Muslim texts? Your relentless, reflex relativising is just too stupid. Oh, old boy, where do you think the name Confucius comes from? Hint: it’s Latin.

Thank you, idiot. Confucius was first translated into Latin in the 17th century.

Soren wrote on Mar 16^th, 2015 at 11:45am:

Karnal wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 8:44pm: Soren wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 10:29pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 5:55pm: There is no mention of Jesus, the Buddha, Krishna, Abraham, etc, in any document outside the respective Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and Jewish texts. I don’t see why Muhammed would be any different. Mind you, Archangel Gabriel exists in a number of texts, as is God. Perhaps we should believe in God and the angels, and give their prophets a miss. Thank you, genius. How many mentions are there of Confucius in Roman, Greek, Christian, Jewish, Muslim texts? Your relentless, reflex relativising is just too stupid. Oh, old boy, where do you think the name Confucius comes from? Hint: it’s Latin. Thank you, idiot. Confucius was first translated into Latin in the 17th century.

Ah. No translations.

How many mentions are there of Confucius in Roman,  Greek, Christian, Jewish, Muslim texts, old boy?

I’m curious.

Karnal wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 5:55pm:

There is no mention of Jesus, the Buddha, Krishna, Abraham, etc, in any document outside the respective Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and Jewish texts. I don’t see why Muhammed would be any different. Mind you, Archangel Gabriel exists in a number of texts, as is God. Perhaps we should believe in God and the angels, and give their prophets a miss.

The extant manuscripts of the writings of the 1st-century Romano historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity.[1][2] Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18.[1][3]

we have also found archaeological evidence of  the biblical King David in the Tel Dan Stele.

The Stele consists of several fragments making up part of a triumphal inscription in Aramaic, left most probably by Hazael of Aram-Damascus, an important regional figure in the late 9th century BCE. Hazael boasts of his victories over the king of Israel and his ally the king of the "House of David".

King David was a king. It makes sense that there would be historical references to him.

Do you have the Josephus quotes you mention? It would be interesting to see what they say.

There were Roman references to the cult of Paul from around the third century. There are also enigmatic references to Jesus-type figures as far away as Tibet, if you believe the reports.

There was a small cult in modern Syria, I think, who buried a teacher with crucifixion scars on his feet, hands and torso. He too was alleged to be Jesus. His grave still exists today.

Josephus makes two references to Jesus.  In one reference, he refers to the stoning to death of James in 62 C.E., calling James "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ."  The other, more significant reference to Jesus follows:

"About the same time there lived Jesus, a wise man for he was a performer of marvelous feats and a teacher of such men who received the truth with pleasure.  He attracted many Jews and many Greeks.  He was the Christ.  When Pilate sentenced him to die on the cross, having been urged to do so by the noblest of our citizens; but those who loved him at the first did not give up their affection for him.  And the tribe of the Christians, who are named after him, have not disappeared to this day."
- Antiquities 17.3.3. (81-96 AD.)

also roman historian Tacitus mentions jesus 30-40 years after his death.

" Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, and the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. "

Thanks, Pender. I hate to be a dirty little pedant, but no original copies of Tacitus exist - all are Medieval "copies".

The Jewish scholar Josephus, however, is a good source. I’m getting my source from Wikipedia, so who knows?

Good references.

At the end of the day since all Mohammed references began with a Caliph ordering people to write stories about him it is quiet obvious he was invented to support his political ideology.

It just goes to show how slow mentally or abused by a dictator the people were in the day in order to believe in a fictitious prophet that never even existed.

Having said that it is a very sad thing that there are so many gullible people in this world that actually believe the joke of islam that was played on them yet so many years ago and is still being milked for all it is worth until this very day.

Mohammed never even existed that much is historically clear.

If you need to bend your mind to think any reference to him magically appeared 60 years after his pretend death of his pretend existence by all means go ahead. It is priceless watching all the babble about islam that was all made up in the first place. These people are all so called self appointed scholars of islam so called educating the west yet can't afford the mental capacity to challenge the fools that are making fun of them and I am not talking about the kaffir I am talking about their own leaders. Clerics, mothers and fathers, sheiks and self appointed milking muslim leaders.

Somewhere up the chain someone is giggling hard at all muslims.

I'd say they live in a castle in Medina.

Islam clearly is a political ideology of one man gone viral.
It should go down in the history books as one of the greatest scams that ever existed.

Lets not even bring up halal and facing mecca what a cack. 

Mohammed never existed period.

Maybe Hot Breath you should watch the video in the OP in this thread and rebut that.

SweetLambo wrote on Mar 1^st, 2015 at 1:46pm:

Can no one defend the false prophet mohammeds honor ? Maybe that is because him being a prophet is clearly BS.

Clearly its all BS, its amazing what dopey arabs from countries that are dumps ruled by men who concoct tales to demand their allegiance on pain of death if they don't follow will believe.

In today's day and age you just have to shake your head at musseys who quote the Quran and argue over translated words like its all actually real. I mean  c'mon Mohammed the pedophile prophet of almighty god ROFL. Seriously.

Karnal wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 5:55pm:

There is no mention of Jesus, the Buddha, Krishna, Abraham, etc, in any document outside the respective Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and Jewish texts. I don’t see why Muhammed would be any different. Mind you, Archangel Gabriel exists in a number of texts, as is God. Perhaps we should believe in God and the angels, and give their prophets a miss.

Incorrect

LifeOrDeath wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 3:07pm:

Maybe Hot Breath you should watch the video in the OP in this thread and rebut that.

Have you been rebutted before?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Bottoms Up groggery.

Bottoms Up peccerpantsdown.

Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 17^th, 2015 at 8:42pm:

Josephus makes two references to Jesus.

Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 17^th, 2015 at 8:42pm:

He was the Christ.

Look into the background of Josephus and you will see why most modern scholars believe this to have been added in later (the first mention of this passage was by a man named Eusebius who lived several centuries after)