What Proof of Muhhammud Exists?

Post Reply New Topic

Guy sounds as well-substantiated as Jesus, which is to say completely legendary.

I'd love to see any examples of contemporary documentation that might substantiate his existence as a historical figure though.

This is a very common topic of debate. A quick google or YouTube search demonstrates that. Claiming that it’s a dangerous thing to talk about on a small Internet forum centered on neurodiversity seems like fearmongering nonsense.

As far as the main topic goes, I’m on the fence with whether he or Jesus were historical or not, not that I’m as familiar with Muhammad or Islamic scripture. Even if they were historical as many scholars suspect, they were likely so different from the way they’re depicted in religious writings that they might as well not have been real. I also wonder if they were an amalgamation of different historical people (not just the various legends that went into their depictions). There were many people claiming to be a messiah around the time of Jesus for instance.

I'd like to leave JDog and the squad for a future thread.

I agree that both questions seem frustrated by similar issues. There doesn't seem to be evidence from within their own lifetimes. Hypothetically there should exist a Y-chromosomal Muhhammud shared by all who claim descent from a male lineage of him. Them not sharing a Y-chromosome wouldn't entirely disprove a historic figure, but the amount of diversity within that pool might help shed some insight.

Yeah, I only mentioned Jesus because I have similar thoughts on the historicity of the two of them although I’ve often taken it as a point in Muhammad’s favor that he supposedly lived much later. I guess it’s not much of a point given the lack of evidence.

If he was so important, one would think there’d be evidence to support his existence which has made me think that he could’ve just been one dude among many or many who morphed into one, especially taking into account later writings.

!	Cornflake wrote:
	Several off topic posts have been removed. A few takeaways here -  Don't use slurs to describe Muslims.  Don't drunk-post - it just makes you look daft.  When people ask that you stick to the topic and you don't - that also makes you look daft. Repeating these will likely result in a short holiday from WP.

It seems that the historicity of Muhammad is more mythical than that of Jesus - Tacitus, Josephus Flavous, and other Roman sources wrote about Jesus; the story about Muhamed's historicity is murkier:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historici ... im_sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_f ... y_of_Jesus

Perhaps a bit less mythical than King Arthur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historici ... ing_Arthur

It's a recurring problem with historical figures who didn't write anything, but others wrote in their name or about them, like with Socrates (the guy most likely existed, but accounts of his life differ significantly), then Buddha (no historical proof exists, Buddhist cannon varies to an extraordinary degree even if some claim Tripitaka suffices as evidence), Zoroaster/Zaratustra (someone of that sort probably existed, but little is known about him), Confucius (the guy existed, but was later turned into some godlike being), Lao Tze (mythical, yes, but someone did write his work), Homer (one poet, two poets or many poets?)...

What is somewhat interesting is that Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tze, Zoroaster, and Socrates presumably lived in the same period that Jaspers called the axial age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_Age

Jesus and Muhammad are anomalies.

I plan on going into more depth about this topic in another thread, but the references you're mentioning aren't contemporary and are more along the lines of documenting what people believe rather than directly documenting him as a person.

My position is that evidence for both of them is weak, but not that that proves they absolutely didn't exist.

There's a lot of figures we could do this for, and I'm pretty interested to see what other figures people might wish to evaluate.

Yes, some contemporary experts claim that "We no longer have any sources that would allow us to write a detailed history of Muhammad with a rigorous and continuous chronology."

Or, more recently, more authors think that he didn't exist. These are a few of them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_Muhammad_Exist%3F
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossroads_to_Islam
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122669909279629451

Regarding Jesus, IMHO, he's mentioned more as a hearsay.
There was a Wiki page that mentioned about a dozen of Jesuses at the time of the Nazareth guy, most of whom claimed supernatural powers, but I can't find it. It was a popular name back then, so no wonder.

Was people really up in here bad-mouthing Muslims? People need to grow up and learn to read.

You compare Muhammad to Jesus in his supposed ahistoricity, yet I thought it was generally agreed Jesus existed. Jesus fans didn't just invent him out of whole cloth. He was likely a Jewish holy man of some kind who performed ministry in Roman Palestine and accumulated followers.

Al-Muqaddimah is a great channel for Islamic history and he did a nice video on whether Muhammad existed


His conclusion was that Muhammad probably existed in some capacity, similar to Jesus. Traders and others in the Near East returning from Arabia to the Roman Empire or elsewhere reported the spread of a new religion founded by a prophet named Muhammad. His immediate family and descendants are also fairly wel-attested in the historical record iirc.

Oops sorry, I've been punished anyway with a 2 day hangover. My apologies.

Yeah this is reasonable. I think all great religious leaders are based on real people. Even Krishna, Siva, thor and Odin were likely once people who became deified.

Keep in mind like Jesus and Buddha, Muhammed was illiterate so others wrote about him after he died, while he was alive and of course writing incorporated copious volumes of scripture written before his time. How accurately they reflect the real man is debatable. But discussing this is controversial.

Btw, it is argued that he was not illiterate; that something Muslims claim to prove his prophecy.
But the idea he was illiterate was probably an error of vocabulary.
The word « Ummi » in the days of Mohammad meant pagan or any non-Christian/Jewish Arab; the word changed in meaning with time to mean illiterate; but he was a « prophet for ummis » - most likely referring to his people.

There’s not much evidence for Mohammad’s existence.

But Khalid Ibm al Walid’s battles are well documented; he is known as one of the smartest field commanders in the antiquity (Total War games’ fans will understand), similar to Alexander the Great and Hannib’aal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_ibn_al-Walid

Whether he contributed anything is moot, the complete Quran was actually compiled 30 years after Muhammed's death. As with Buddhist scriptures and Christian scriptures, people other than the original prophet most likely inserted their own words, interpretations etc. therefore the question of whether he existed and whether accounts of his life are accurate or fictional is kind of irrelevant. People obey what they think the prophet's said...actually they have no idea whether he said anything in the Quran even if he was a flesh and blood human.

Umm… I am atheist for the record, so I was not being defensive for the sake of a pedo warlord.

Just pointing out that there’s no consensus that Mohammad, if he really existed, was illiterate (He was a merchant, from a powerful tribe, and a wealthy woman married him, so it is very unlikely he was really illiterate, plus the word Ummi meant something else back then).
The word Ummi is being translated to illiterate in the English translations but that doesn’t necessarily mean it is the right word.