I've read this article before but I don't know what's going on with him as of late.
However, the scholar is wrong for several reasons:
Many of the primary sources used in Islam are classified as mutawattir - meaning that the number of people to have reported an incident or a text - is so great such that a conspiracy to forge the information is almost impossible. For example, consider a person that has never been to China, yet he believes that China exists, because the number of people that have actually been there and spoken about it is too great for it to be a lie. Similarly, many of the sources of Islam (including the Quran), are classified as mutawattir for this very reason. There are so many people who met and saw the Prophet (pbuh) that it's impossible that he never existed.
Furthermore, Islam derives its laws from these primary sources, and even to this day if a ruling or position is put forward then it must be backed up with scholarly evidence, which includes stating the reliability of the sources used. Islam does not rely on a clergy that makes arbitrary decisions regarding sacred laws. If a person believes that the Prophet (pbuh) never really existed, then the inference is that the sources which the law is derived from is simply man made, and thereby taking their belief out of the realm of divinely revealed religion and into the sphere of mere opinions and conjectures.
What I find the most surprising thing about this scholar, in a strange way, is that he still says that he's a "Muslim" while denying the existence of the Prophet (pbuh).
To deny the Prophet (pbuh) is to deny everything about Islam, because by doing so, he has rejected the first pillar of Islam, which is to believe that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad (pbuh) is the messenger of Allah. Therefore, it is a clear contradiction if he believes that Muhammad didn't exist and yet make the claim that he is still a Muslim (or a believer of Islam).
However, the scholar is wrong for several reasons:
Many of the primary sources used in Islam are classified as mutawattir - meaning that the number of people to have reported an incident or a text - is so great such that a conspiracy to forge the information is almost impossible. For example, consider a person that has never been to China, yet he believes that China exists, because the number of people that have actually been there and spoken about it is too great for it to be a lie. Similarly, many of the sources of Islam (including the Quran), are classified as mutawattir for this very reason. There are so many people who met and saw the Prophet (pbuh) that it's impossible that he never existed.
Furthermore, Islam derives its laws from these primary sources, and even to this day if a ruling or position is put forward then it must be backed up with scholarly evidence, which includes stating the reliability of the sources used. Islam does not rely on a clergy that makes arbitrary decisions regarding sacred laws. If a person believes that the Prophet (pbuh) never really existed, then the inference is that the sources which the law is derived from is simply man made, and thereby taking their belief out of the realm of divinely revealed religion and into the sphere of mere opinions and conjectures.
What I find the most surprising thing about this scholar, in a strange way, is that he still says that he's a "Muslim" while denying the existence of the Prophet (pbuh).
To deny the Prophet (pbuh) is to deny everything about Islam, because by doing so, he has rejected the first pillar of Islam, which is to believe that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad (pbuh) is the messenger of Allah. Therefore, it is a clear contradiction if he believes that Muhammad didn't exist and yet make the claim that he is still a Muslim (or a believer of Islam).
