I'll take that as a no that you still have nothing....

Some sceptical scholars claim that Muhammad did not exist and that Islam is a fabrication made up in later centuries. But Leiden University’s Petra Sijpesteijn has demonstrated from her work on Arabic papyrus manuscripts that their claim is not true.

What was the origin of Islam and what went on at the dawn of Islamic history? In the past, scholars who wanted to research the subject had to rely on the official Islamic version of events which was only written down about 200 years after Muhammad’s death. Only relatively recently has interest grown in more objective but less accessible sources such as coins, inscriptions and texts written on papyrus.

Petra Sijpesteijn, professor of Arabic language and culture at Leiden University, says that this last source is especially important. “The papyri are in fact the only contemporary source for the first 200 years of Islamic history.”

Pioneer
Papyrus manuscripts have been found in their thousands in the sand and at ancient rubbish tips all over the Middle East but especially in Egypt. Dr Sijpesteijn explains that they are often difficult to read because they are partially destroyed, badly written out or in dialect. “But if you can read them, they offer a unique glimpse of ordinary life at the dawn of Islam.”

The study of Arabic papyri is in its infancy. Only a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of available manuscripts have been studied. As far as the work done so far is concerned, the Muslim faithful can set their minds at ease: Dr Sijpesteijn says the texts largely confirm the official Islamic version of events.

Disorganised horde
Dr Sijpesteijn distances herself from the small group of polemical colleagues, known as the ‘revisionists’,  who assert that the Prophet Muhammad probably did not exist. They say the Arabic conquerors were actually a disorganised horde of Bedouins who gained control of half the known world more or less by chance. Islam is said to have been dreamt up 200 years later in Iraq.

“From the papyri, it appears that the Arab conquests were indeed carefully planned and organised and that the Arabs saw themselves as conquerors with a religious mission. They also appear to have held religious views and followed customs which contain important elements of the behaviour and beliefs of later Muslims.

Dr Sijpesteijn says for example that, shortly after Muhammad’s death, there is already mention of a pilgrimage (hajj) and a tax to collect money for the poor (zakat). She has also come across a papyrus text written around 725 which names both the prophet and Islam.

Even so, her discoveries form a potential threat to the image some modern Muslims have of their history. The papyri contradict the belief held by many of today’s Muslims that Muhammad delivered Islam as a sort of ready-made package. “It looks as though Islam in its first centuries developed a form gradually. There was an awful lot of discussion about precisely what it meant to be a Muslim.”


https://www.rnw.org/archive/evidence-says-muhammad-existed

No. You've been proven wrong.

You should just accept it and move onto the next hysterical bit of propaganda from "Mulimwatch" or whatever the hell small-minded, one-eyed, intellectually challenged bigot site you frequent to dredge up these ridiculous 'validations' of your Islamophobia.

At least keep it fresh.

This topic is done now.

I'll keep an eye out if you can post any evidence of real substance when you don't need to rely on the mindless mothra trolls cut and pastes of nonsense.

He Man I gave you a perfectly legitimate piece of evidence - the Syrian fragment. It is an historical account written by a contemporary mentioning the arab leader Muhammad in the year 637. It is evidence of the existence of Muhammad less than 60 after his death - an exceedingly simple fact that is obviously too inconvenient for you. I have invited you to explain why its not evidence, you refuse to do so, which frankly just makes you look foolish. If it was so easy to dismiss as evidence you would be able to do so, and I'm sure you wouldn't hold back in doing so. Your refusal to do so just shows embarassingly clearly that you do accept it as evidence, but cannot bear to say so.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 8:00pm:


Stop embarrassing yourself. I already responded to that. It never mentioned mohammed at all. It aint rocket science my answer. Thats the 3rd time I have told you now.

Got any more evidence like REAL evidence like anyone at all who wrote "man this badassed muslim man called mohammed with his army attacked us and raped our girls"


Anything will do, not ridiculous stretches of the imagination like you put forward.

Deal with it for goodness sakes.

One of the earliest non-Muslim sources to possibly mention the prophet of Islam is a document known as the Doctrina Jacobi which was written by a Christian between 634 and 640. The document mentions the Saracens coming with an army and the prophet leading them. The writer was stopped by an old man well versed in Scripture and he inquired, “what can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens? He replied, groaning deeply: ‘He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword.’ (p.21) This unnamed prophet mentioned in the Doctrina was travelling with his army. Muhammad had died already. Moreover the full document speaks with reference to the anointed one, the Christ who was to come.”

“… there is not a single account of any kind dating from around the time the Doctrina Jacobi was written that affirms the canonical Islamic story of Muhammad and Islam’s origins.” (p.22)

The conquest of Jerusalem in 637 is mentioned by Sophronius, the patriarch of Jerusalem, who turned the city over to Umar, the conquering leader, but nothing is said about a holy book, or Muhammad, only that they were Saracens who were “godless.”

The first reference to the term Muslim comes in 690 by a Coptic Christian bishop, John of Nikiou. He wrote: “And now many of the Egyptians who had been false Christians denied the holy orthodox faith and lifegiving baptism, and embraced the religion of the Muslims, the enemies of God, and accepted the detestable doctrine of the beast, that is, Muhammad, and they erred together with those idolaters, and took arms in their hands and fought against the Christians.”





Got anything else ?

Any more evidence mohammed existed less than 60 years after his death ?

Anything at all ?

If not lets move on to the Qu'ran then, anything at all ?

I won't hold my breath

Yeah after his death, did he rise from the dead too

Still nothing