Did Muhammad exist?
February 12, 2018 at 4:21 am
(This post was last modified: February 12, 2018 at 4:22 am by Fake Messiah.)
There doesn't seem to be other historical data about Muhammad except in Quran and a sira, that is, one of the various traditional biographies of Muhammad, which also relies upon the Quran and collections of hadith (traditional sayings attributed to the prophet) as resources.
Muslims believe that the hadith were compiled by Muhammad's followers shortly after the prophet's death in 632 CE and these eyewitnesses completed the task within two decades. In reality, the evidence demonstrates this process actually began roughly a century after that time - and continued for generations.
Each of these hadith must come with an isnad (a chain of named authorities who vouchsafe its testimony) to authenticate its claims about the prophet. But let's face it: it was all too easy to forge either one as needed. One could simply invent names freely to create an isnad out of whole cloth; or even better, just tack on an existing one that had already won the approval of the ulama.
Indeed a Muslim that lived in those times when hadith were compiled, Shu'bah ibn Al-Hajjaj, declared that roughly two-thirds of them were fabrications - and modern researchers are even more skeptical.
So it looks like Muhammad's biography (just like that of Jesus) first emerges decades or more after the fact, grows more elaborate with time, spawns a tremendous number of forged teachings in his name; and none of the supposedly impeccable eyewitness sources vouching for him can be verified, let alone taken at face value.
Muslims believe that the hadith were compiled by Muhammad's followers shortly after the prophet's death in 632 CE and these eyewitnesses completed the task within two decades. In reality, the evidence demonstrates this process actually began roughly a century after that time - and continued for generations.
Each of these hadith must come with an isnad (a chain of named authorities who vouchsafe its testimony) to authenticate its claims about the prophet. But let's face it: it was all too easy to forge either one as needed. One could simply invent names freely to create an isnad out of whole cloth; or even better, just tack on an existing one that had already won the approval of the ulama.
Indeed a Muslim that lived in those times when hadith were compiled, Shu'bah ibn Al-Hajjaj, declared that roughly two-thirds of them were fabrications - and modern researchers are even more skeptical.
So it looks like Muhammad's biography (just like that of Jesus) first emerges decades or more after the fact, grows more elaborate with time, spawns a tremendous number of forged teachings in his name; and none of the supposedly impeccable eyewitness sources vouching for him can be verified, let alone taken at face value.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
