• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Historicity of Mohammad (Non-Muslim sources)

Ilisrum

Active Member
Alright! There are plenty of posts about the historicity of Jesus. This one's about the historicity of Mohammad, the Prophet of Islam. Some claim that the earliest biographies are unreliable because they're late and Islamic. Granted, they are; BUT... like the biographies of Jesus, they contain some degree of truth.

Dated Texts Mentioning Prophet Muhammad From 1-100 AH / 622-719 CE

OK, so the link is from an Islamic perspective, but it gives an example of early non-Muslim examples of the prophet. It goes along the same line as "the non historicity of Jesus" debate among non-educated people.

On Friday, 4 February, at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Mụhammad [Syr. tayyāyē d-Ṃhmt] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician YRDN (Syr. BRYRDN), whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region.
At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Mụhammad], a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. He said: 'With an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his seed after him for ever. And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Ismael. But now you are the sons of Abraham and God is accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only the God of Abraham, and go and seize the land which God gave to your father Abraham. No one will be able to resist you in battle, because God is with you.[32]
Then God raised up against them the sons of Ishmael, [numerous] as the sand on the sea shore, whose leader (mdabbrānā) was Mụhammad (ṃhmd). Neither walls nor gates, armour or shield, withstood them, and they gained control over the entire land of the Persians. Yazdgird sent against them countless troops, but the Arabs routed them all and even killed Rustam. Yazdgird shut himself up in the walls of Mahoze and finally escaped by flight. He reached the country of the Huzaye and Mrwnaye, where he ended his life. The Arabs gained countrol of Mahoze and all the territory. They also came to Byzantine territory, plundering and ravaging the entire region of Syria. Heraclius, the Byzantine king, sent armies against them, but the Arabs killed more than 100,000 of them.
So.. like the argument about the historicity of Jesus, it's a non-issue.
 

Bismillah

Submit
Concerning your first link it is ascribed to the battle of Dathin. I'm not sure what type of site you are trying to pass off as authentic but this battle involved the Rashidun Caliphate (the Rightly Guided Caliphs) that is those who came to power after the Prophet's death.

Secondly
According to the near-contemporary Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati, the Muslim victory was celebrated by the local Jews, who had been a persecuted minority within the Roman Empire.

Battle of Dathin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of the second account it takes into account the context of the wars between the Romans and Persians. Both these empires were opposed by the inhabitants for brutally persecuting them during their campaigns while the Orthodox Church labeled these groups, including the Nestorians, as heretics. They largely welcomed the Arabs who destroyed both the Persians and Romans due to their weakened state from their lengthy campaigns.
 

Ilisrum

Active Member
I'm not posting anything anti-Muslim here. I'm stating that the arguments against the historicity of the Prophet Mohammad are unfounded.

I just began studying the origins of Islam not too long ago, so I'm far from from an expert. I just thought the link was interesting for these Islamophobes out there.
 

Bismillah

Submit
I apologize, I thought you were taking the other potion. But I still do not understand why these accounts refer to a battle in the wrong context and the wrong time?
 

Ilisrum

Active Member
But it doesn't match with historical sources?

Honestly dude, the Muslim accounts were written 100+ years after the facts they describe. Who can say if they happened as described in the Islamic sources.

Either way, it's irrelevant. Mohammad existed, and he was a religious teacher whom Abraham and the One True God was central to his teaching. If the historical accounts don't match up it's no different than say, Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem. We know it happened, but the accounts differ somewhat significantly.
 

Ilisrum

Active Member
So, in essence, there is no point to this thread.

Exactly. I guess Christianity has more influence than Islam in Western society. Even so, the question still comes up in Western atheist circles.

My point was to discuss the historical evidence of Mohammad outside of traditional Muslim sources.
Much like I have an interest in Jesus and James the Just (Josephus), which is also debated, but irrelevant.
 
Top