It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.

[pocaracas]

"All those references" were 3 and all posthumous... there's a nice hint for you.

But in total there was like 17 references, counting the ones which mention Muhammad as the Messenger of God (and not just a leader), which you intentionally ignored.

Of course I ignored them.. post Abd al-Malik and stuff...
If this guy is the one who instated the religion, then it stands to reason that anything that comes after is somewhat biased.

If he was as leader as islam likes to claim, then some contemporary, as in while he was alive, writings about him would be likely...
I mean, we're talking about a guy who's the leader of all arabia... and expanding!... how could he accomplish that without writing orders and dealing with local tribal leaders and other stuff.... you know, like what the romans were doing 600 years earlier!!

The answer is that most people during that time were illiterate, along with Muhammad who belonged to an illiterate Bedouin tribe, the Quraish. Writing was very uncommon in that time and place. And even if there were some contemporary writings of Muhammad (or from Muhammad), it's very unlikely that those writings would still be intact, especially if they were written on paper or on scrolls.

That answer doesn't fly.
The same could be said of christians in 1st century Israel... and yet, we have scrolls and stone inscriptions.
Actually, it seems there were people writing in the Arabian peninsula well before Mohammad came along. So it stands to reason that some of the people vanquished by Mohammad's tribe would mention it, somehow... and yet, silence.
I know it's "absence of evidence".... not "evidence of absence", but it is a hint of absence.

And still, Muslim historians have transmitted that Muhammad sent letters to various kings and governors (to invite them to Islam) which were all written by his scribes.

From the very first paragraph about those letters:

According to al-Tabari in his History of the Prophets and Kings, Muhammad decided after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah to send letters to many rulers of the world, inviting them to Islam. [1][2][3] Most critical scholars doubt this tradition, however.

erm... I'm no scholar, so I can't criticize any of it... but they do.
It's like that was a later addition to the tradition, in order to consolidate the impression that Mo did everything right, huh?

How the hell did one man establish himself as the leader of all those tribes?
Easy answer: al-Malik.

That's funny. You gave an answer with no explanation at all. Well then, using your own question I'm going to ask you now:

How the hell did this one man establish himself as the leader of all those tribes?

He succeeded Marwan I (684–685) who "was the fourth Umayyad Caliph" and whose "short reign was marked by a civil war among the Syrian Arabs as well as a war against Abdullah ibn Zubayr who continued to rule over the Hejaz, Iraq, Egypt and parts of Syria. Marwan was able to prevail in Syria at the Battle of Marj Rahit, the result of which was a new Marwanid line of Umayyad caliphs. He was also able to recapture Egypt and Syria from Abdullah, but was not able to completely defeat him."

This Marwan I followed Muawiya II who inherited an empire "in a state of disarray with Abdullah bin Zubayr claiming to be the true caliph and holding the Hejaz as well as other areas." (683–684)
"Traditionally, Mu'awiya is shown to have had no interest in politics, perhaps with justification. He is said to have claimed that only by mistake of the hereditary principle was he Caliph and under no other means would he have ever been chosen. Yet it is said that his courtiers persuaded him to remain Caliph as he was kind and would do some virtuous deeds. Some say they did this to prolong their own power or because it was ungrateful for Mu'awiya to give back the power given to him by God.

Once a truce had been made in 683, Mu'awiya turned to domestic affairs. He did not involve himself for many months with Zubayr, even when fighting continued and when the truce had obviously been broken in all but name. Mu'awiyya passed three laws which he said were necessary. Firstly, he said that the rights of women should be protected, secondly that no man should be put to death because of a crime, and thirdly that the charity tax should be made compulsory. These laws were removed once he had died."

There was a nice chap...

Before him, we had Yazid I, " the second Caliph of the Umayyad Caliphate (and the first one through inheritance). Yazid was the Caliph as appointed by his father Muawiyah I and ruled for three years from 680 CE until his death in 683 CE."

"Upon succession, Yazid asked Governors of all provinces to take an oath of allegiance to him. The necessary oath was secured from all parts of the country. Husayn ibn Ali (grandson of Muhammad) and Abdullah ibn Zubayr (grandson of Abu Bakr) refused to declare allegiance. Yazid sent Marwan, a soldier in his army, to assist in this task.[6][7] An early historical account of the issue of obtaining bai'ah (pledge of allegiance) by Yazid I was chronicled by 9th Century CE historian Al-Tabari who recorded that Yazid's only concern, when he assumed power, was to receive the oath of allegiance from the individuals who had refused to agree with Muawiyah's demand for this oath of allegiance for his son Yazid."

Why would those grandsons refuse that?

And then we come to the very fist caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty: Muawiyah I, 661–680.
"Muawiyah was politically adept in dealing with the Eastern Roman Empire and was therefore made into a secretary by Muhammad.[4] During the first and second caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar (Umar ibn al-Khattab), he fought with the Muslims against the Byzantines in Syria."
How curious that they should write "fought with the muslims".

But also, "Muawiyah worked as a scribe for Muhammad." what?!?!
Where are these writings?!?!?

Anyway... carrying on...
Before that guy came Ali ibn Abi Talib, 1st Shia Imam, 4th Caliph of Rashidun Caliphate, ruling over the Islamic Caliphate from 656 to 661.

Before that, you had Uthman(644–656). "was a companion of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and the third of the Sunni Rashidun or "Rightly Guided Caliphs". Born into a prominent Meccan clan of the Quraysh tribe" and "He was also the prophet's son-in-law twice, being married to two of the prophet’s daughters Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum. Under the leadership of Uthman, the empire expanded into Fars in 650 (present-day Iran), some areas of Khorasan (present-day Afghanistan) in 651 and the conquest of Armenia was begun in the 640s.[3]"


Bah... I've had it.... All I see are rulers ascending and dying quickly. Their main purpose is war and the first few claim to have some kinship with the conveniently already dead Mohammad.
Perhaps the claim isn't that bogus, as they're from the same tribe... and a tribe is practically just an extended family.

But there's one hitch.... all these wiki pages and their sources... they're biased by the muslim religion...
Many of these caliphs stem from the same tribe you claim were illiterate, so no actual records should exist on them... and yet, the wiki pages seem pretty full. Where did the information come from?
Oral tradition would have carried with it the muslim seal of approval, or bias... a seal which we'd like to remove from the record.
And oral tradition would scarcely carry details of Muawiya II 1 year reign... and yet, there they are... suspicious...
Now the problem becomes not "absence of evidence", but "abundance" where absence is expected.
Reminiscent of J.C.'s lineage in the bible, with the requirement that it goes straight back to Adam&Eve, passing Abraham and Noah. Too much detail where little or none is expected... highly suspicious.

How big is the muslim reach by 635CE?
How big was it when he allegedly started?
How long did it take?

Conversion to Islam started to occur very soon after Muhammad began to preach at around the age of 40, when he first received revelation. Then the Muslim ummah (community) started to grow during the rest of his life and in the years following his death. All of this is well-documented in history. We have exact dates and accurate knowledge of the events. And once again they all support that the rise of Islam goes back to only one man: Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah

Nice links you gave me, thanks!
I confess my ignorance of most muslim-related stuff, so I welcome any opportunity to learn a bit more.

I found something curious on that first link, though:

Only in subsequent centuries, with the development of the religious doctrine of Islam and with that the understanding of the Muslim ummah, did mass conversion take place. The new understanding by the religious and political leadership in many cases led to a weakening or breakdown of the social and religious structures of parallel religious communities such as Christians and Jews.[9]

The caliphs of the Umayyad dynasty established the first schools inside the empire, called madrasas, which taught the Arabic language and Islamic studies. They furthermore began the ambitious project of building mosques across the empire, many of which remain today as the most magnificent mosques in the Islamic world

As I said way up there... Abd Al-Malik was the guy who made it the "state religion"... the guy who made arabic the "state language"... the guy, most likely, had his scribes write the qur'an as a political tool, following the best practices of the romans when they took on the bible.

The whole thing is suspicious and reeks of power-play at work.
Sorry, your religion sounds like a rehash of previous religions, not just in the way the main figure is absent from contemporary records, but also in the way that figure was used as a means to control the populace.... (or maybe the main idea was just control of the army and that spilled over?)