Muhhamad never existed.

[F0uad]

Well, there is little doubt that, as Kilgore Trout put it, several people named Muhammad lived then and there.

The significant doubt is how accurate the reports of that specific leader are.

Maybe I am missing something, but how would DNA tests or hair help on that? Perhaps in establishing that the same one person has been in several places at specific times?

I am talking about which belongings belonged to him.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Who is many? According to my knowledge Secular Historians do agree that the the Prophet (peace and blessings upon him) did many things that are told in the hadiths.

How can a guy be promoted from the Sunnah while the Sunnah is promoted from him? The hadiths told us that the Prophet (peace and blessings upon him) send letters to different people and empires we still have these letters in existences, the hadiths talk about places, tribes, structures and all these things can be verified. If a Hadith tells us that the Prophet(peace and blessings upon him) build something with hes companions and this building is still in existences and is dated back to hes time will you then still deny he build it? With your argument i can deny all history books.

We even the Byzantine empire historians writing about Mohammed´s(peace and blessings upon him) in the year 634. We also have John Bar Penkaye a East Syriac Nestorian Christian who wrote about the prophet. There are so many sources, evidence that i can give that the historical Mohammed peace and blessings upon him) was the man as is described in the hadith even by Non Islamic sources.

When I say many I mean Muslims and non-Muslims. They do not accept Sunnah and hadiths compiled to Muhammad or else they would be Muslim and Shias do not accept the same ones. Shias assigned different deeds to Muhammad and each party will say contradicting things as you already know. IF both accepted the same actions then I would see Sunnis placing a turbah on the ground before sujud. The stories are split internally and externally

The sources state his existence which is not what I am referring to. I am questioning the nature of his existence.
The Byzantine war does not provide much to say about Muhammad's message. This is only assumed and more emphasis of information is put on conquest and conquering. It is the narrations Muslims have which tell about this.

Also what do the written texts which are admittedly claimed to be provided far after Muhammad's death have anything to contribute? Textual information such as this is not highly valid.
You say hadiths validate this but this is like saying I prophesy in 2008 that Obama will win the election....and it is 2013. This information is ASSIGNING Muhammad's existence through known facts. That is called rewriting history or supplemented history.

 

[F0uad]

When I say many I mean Muslims and non-Muslims. They do not accept Sunnah and hadiths compiled to Muhammad or else they would be Muslim and Shias do not accept the same ones. Shias assigned different deeds to Muhammad and each party will say contradicting things as you already know.

The sources state his existence which is not what I am referring to. I am questioning the nature of his existence.
The Byzantine war does not provide much to say about Muhammad's message. This is only assumed and more emphasis of information is put on conquest and conquering. It is the narrations Muslims have which tell about this.

Also what do the written texts which are admittedly claimed to be provided far after Muhammad's death have anything to contribute? Textual information such as this is not highly valid.
You say hadiths validate this but this is like saying I prophesy in 2008 that Obama will win the election....and it is 2013. This information is ASSIGNING Muhammad's existence through known facts. That is called rewriting history or supplemented history.

Ok i get your point so your argument is that the narrators and narrations of the Hadiths aren't reliable right?

Well you said the Sunnah but dont we get the Sunnah from the mutawatir hadiths? You cant say Sunnah without mentioning the hadiths..

 

[LuisDantas]

Ultimately it comes down to far too many people with far too little of an unified agenda assuring us of his existence, it seems to me.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Ok i get your point so your argument is that the narrators and narrations of the Hadiths aren't reliable right?

Well you said the Sunnah but dont we get the Sunnah from the mutawatir hadiths? You cant say Sunnah without mentioning the hadiths..

I am aware of where the Sunnah comes from but it is the varying difference between Sunni and Shia hadith I am mainly referring to. What they attribute to Muhammad from varyinng hadiths to the Sunnah of Muhammad.

Just so you are aware the thread title is not literal.

 

[F0uad]

When I say many I mean Muslims and non-Muslims. They do not accept Sunnah and hadiths compiled to Muhammad or else they would be Muslim and Shias do not accept the same ones. Shias assigned different deeds to Muhammad and each party will say contradicting things as you already know. IF both accepted the same actions then I would see Sunnis placing a turbah on the ground before sujud. The stories are split internally and externally

The sources state his existence which is not what I am referring to. I am questioning the nature of his existence.
The Byzantine war does not provide much to say about Muhammad's message. This is only assumed and more emphasis of information is put on conquest and conquering. It is the narrations Muslims have which tell about this.

Also what do the written texts which are admittedly claimed to be provided far after Muhammad's death have anything to contribute? Textual information such as this is not highly valid.
You say hadiths validate this but this is like saying I prophesy in 2008 that Obama will win the election....and it is 2013. This information is ASSIGNING Muhammad's existence through known facts. That is called rewriting history or supplemented history.

I just forgot to mention your argument makes no sense you first say that Mohammed(saws) is not like the hadiths then you say that the hadiths rewrote history...

 

[Sha'irullah]

Ultimately it comes down to far too many people with far too little of an unified agenda assuring us of his existence, it seems to me.

Everything attributed to Muhammad is treated as divine including the way he eats. ALL details are supposedly recorded and anything undesirable is left out. Leaving most Muslims to believe prophets are infallible although not directly stated. Most Shi'ites though openly attest to this concept though like Catholics and their treatment of the Pope

 

[F0uad]

I am aware of where the Sunnah comes from but it is the varying difference between Sunni and Shia hadith I am mainly referring to. What they attribute to Muhammad from varyinng hadiths to the Sunnah of Muhammad.

Just so you are aware the thread title is not literal.

There is not huge disagreement between the two the only thing is validating one person or using a different system of recognizing a legitimate hadith, sometimes Sunnis and Shias agree on the hadiths most don't even disagree except on the part of the Caliphate what was after the prophet so i think its totally irrelevant.

 

[F0uad]

Everything attributed to Muhammad is treated as divine including the way he eats. ALL details are supposedly recorded and anything undesirable is left out. Leaving most Muslims to believe prophets are infallible although not directly stated. Most Shi'ites though openly attest to this concept though like Catholics and their treatment of the Pope

Please be careful of what you say, the majority of Muslims don't belief that prophets are infallible we belief they are examples to follow. Didn't Mohammed(saws) say he asked each day for forgiveness. I can give you many examples to show that Muslims do not belief such thing nor that such thing is written in any literature.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I just forgot to mention your argument makes no sense you first say that Mohammed(saws) is not like the hadiths then you say that the hadiths rewrote history...

How can I know if hadiths are fabricated and no other definitive story exist about Muhammad with the details the hadith provide.

You are claiming that I know how Muhammad behaved and the hadiths are incorrect. I am claiming both as opposites I nor the hadiths know how Muhammad behaved.
If what you said was the case then why would I be putting forth a question on this thread?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Please be careful of what you say, the majority of Muslims don't belief that prophets are infallible we belief they are examples to follow.

I never said Muslims believe the prophets are infallible I said most are under the impression of such as they deny any negative attribute given to any prophet. Please provide to me a few errors you believe Muhammad made. Then watch another person rip your argument apart about how Muhammad could have made a possible mistake on certain issues.
See where this is going

Didn't Mohammed(saws) say he asked each day for forgiveness. I can give you many examples to show that Muslims do not belief such thing nor that such thing is written in any literature.

I said the exact opposite of what you claim. I never said it is written in any narration yet alone the Qur'an that prophets are infallible. This is only implied to people because of the 100% absolute perfect of the behavioral attributes given to Muhammad. Everything he did was permissible for a Muslim or Muislimah to do. Muslims do not assign error to Muhammad and I have been around them for 2 years. I have shared more then enough time in my local jama'ah to know what Muslims believe first hand. If one assigns a few mistakes to Muhammad then he can bring everything into question which is why absolute perfection of the Qur'an is stated. Yet despite some people and their believe int he perfection of Muhammad's word what do they think of of about the words of others and their attributes aligned to Muhammad? These are ordinary folk and are not divinely guided. Why do their words have so much validity. One of the common methods of validating hadith is by the Mu'tazila usage of mutawatir which is to go through the chain of transmission and confirm by its repeated statement utter from different people. But like any piece of folklore a myth will spread and be remembered. Does not make it any more true.
I have ever heard a ridiculous notion provided to denounce the "Satanic Verses" stating that a prophet of god can only make 1 mistake in his life time. This was aimed to denounce any mistake made by Muhammad obviously. I will try finding the article for your but it is sad honestly

 

[maxfreakout]

None of the ancient religious founders actually existed as historical individuals, historicity is just a modern delusion. Religion originates in myth, not history.

 

[Sha'irullah]

None of the ancient religious founders actually existed as historical individuals, historicity is just a modern delusion. Religion originates in myth, not history.

The thing though is that myth is often assigned to truth. Myths always involve real people but stories that exceed them always occur making them myth. This is the structure of good story telling. Mixing fact with fiction

 

[LuisDantas]

One does wonder why there is such an insistence that Muhammad should not even be represented as a human being.

 

[Sha'irullah]

One does wonder why there is such an insistence that Muhammad should not even be represented as a human being.

He is given the equal omnipresence of Allah honestly and the pictures of him provided are mostly done by Shia actually. The mention of Muslims is obvious throughout history but Muhammad is extremely vague and it is not always assigned by name.
One can find Muslims, Islam, Arabs but usually specific mentioning of Muhammad is not provided in outside sources until a litter later. Usually this is tied in by Islamic records though

 

[Matemkar]

Salam brother Sterling.. As always, I referred to some books and I think I am done.. It is up to you whether or not to study them.. But please keep denominations out of it.. You are making disagreements of denominations on minor issues an excuse to question the existence of the Holy Prophet of Islam (pbuh&hp).. If you are willing to question certain things about him, then please make a thread and call the ones interested so that you can discuss it.. like a thread for discussion with sunni brethren who are interested.. And if not agreed, then a shia one.. You can do both.. What I am saying is you are making stress upon disagreements which are not on the basic teachings about him (his existence, his life, the holy book he brought etc.) and showing this as an enough evidence to have doubts about him. I still have problems with the silly thread title.. However, I read that you do not mean it literally.. Ok, I won't make any more comments on Quran and Prophet's life as I think the references I shared earlier are enough for one who wants to study..

But, one thing, you talked about infallibility in shia islam.. Please note that, the attributes such as being infallible can only be related to servants, not to the Lord.. And, if a person always obeys God (and it is a must for the five Arch Prophets, because God wouldn't send mistaken beings to lead his slaves.. It would mean leading them to disobedience/sinning..), he is infallible.. If their subscribers follow them, they also are infallibles.. If not then fallibles.. But, God can not be infallible.. He is not subject to the set of rules so that He can become either fallible or infallible.. He sets the rules.. Thus, by believing in ismah, I do not give the attributes of God to his slaves.. Rather, I give the attributes of slaves to themselves.. If I believed God is infallible, it would mean God is a subject.. Subhanallah.. He is beyond being fallible or infallible (i.e a subject to the rules set by a greater authority).. And, lastly, it is strange that brother fouad said most muslims do not believe in ismah/infallibility. Though ismah is also there in sunni islam.. Ismah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And it is among the six attributes for Prophets (sidq, amanah, fatanah, ismah, tabligh, adalah) in sunni islam.. So, I am wondering who the most muslims are the brothers here are talking about. As far as I know Shias and Sunnis form 90+% of Muslims..

Ok.. Brother sterling, in the discussions from now on, please do not stress on denominations and make them an excuse to reject the basic concepts.. I totally understand you.. I am partially like you.. (You know in basic teachings the denominations do not differ and about the minor things) I still hold some sunni beliefs and accepted mostly shia irfaani beliefs.. What I mean is, one does not have to agree on all the teachings of a certain denomination.. And, I see you are aware of that.. The understanding of Tawheed you always mention is great.. And I saw that reasoning in the music thread also.. And, I ask you to use the same logic in the concept of Prophethood.. Really it is absurd.. Maybe I am just stuck at the thread title.. I do not know.. Ok, thank you for your understanding.. ma salam

 

[Plato]

Is it possible that Muhammad never existed or not in the way we think? This has been pondering on the back of my mind for quite some time and has finally struck me later on after reading Sahih Muslim

I have been reading into this and have taken note of numerous accounts of Muhammad and have realized something, they are all from Muslim sources. No nonreligious ones exist to any greater degree.
Numerous events mentioned in ahadith that should have produced evidence in other cultures do not exist.
The Qur'an was produced during a time when a true Arabic script did not exist and was recorded from recitation supposedly. Now considering the natur eof hafiz now I would not find this odd but lately I have.
The production of hadith assigning details about Muhammad did not occur until far much later after his supposed death as well. When pondering about Muhammad people often fail to realize most information known about him comes from ahadith which are very shaky records about Muhammad. All hadith manipulate and control the Muslim life to a greater degree and seem to be more politicized and often add unnecessary mythology to the Qur'an such as Dajjal and the Night Journey by Muhammad.
One is mostly copied from the book of Revelations and the other is beyond mythological.
All of the used historical accounts of Muhammad had to be reproduced and written including the Qur'an.
Muhammad may have never existed or was perhaps a small figured in Arabic history depending on how you view it.
I know for a fact that the Qur'an circles much information from the Taurat and the Gospels while later information from the NT was added int he hadith. Oneof the biggest shockers for me is the exact detailshadiths give off and how they just so happen to coincide with Muhammad. Numerous records of precise information recorded years after his supposed death and they remained incurculation for over a century until written down. They appear more like bits of legend and folklore then oral information passed on. People cannot remember the color of other's eyes yet alone whether or not they removed their locks of hair before prayer and the constant usage of Muhammad's eating with his right hand.
I shall provide more information later such as the historical oddities

Well, I'm very sure Muhammad existed....The same is also often asked by people about Jesus...how do we know he existed? Well, let me ask you....3000 years from now or even 1500 years from now....how are we going to know...you or I, or the people reading these words existed...you think someone is going to save our ID card for 3000 years? Of course not.
We know Muhammad existed because it would be impossible...to make up a the whole fake person, to make up his whole history, to make up Arabian history, to make up all his sayings and teachings, to alter the whole historic record, to do it consistently...and...keep it secret...etc...No way! (same for Jesus or any other historic figure).
What's more interesting is....could Muhammad's teachings have originally been different???
We know the Prophet died 632AD and from his own words that the Quran was meant to be recited. We also know the Quran was not written down till the order of Caliph Uthman over 20 years later...656AD. In that 20 year period (634-656) mostly under the greatest warrior Caliph 'Umar' great new territories had been taken in war, some of them from the other 'children of the book' (Jews/ Christians)... all the Persian Empire, Egypt, Palestine etc. So, the new Muslim leaders at Jerusalem, Damascus, etc. ruled over and mixed with Christians and Jews for 20 plus years before the Quran started to be written down in final form 656AD......Could Christian and Jewish ideas have been picked up and written in in this period? Did the rulers feel a need to justify the conquests of Umar (especially against the other children of the book) and so add to or alter some of Muhammad's teachings? The official written Quran of Uthman was ordered by he and the government....and then in 656AD...he had every other copy/ version/ prior writing....burned....but his official one.... that we have today.....True?...
In reading the Quran as a whole I've always been struck by what seems to me to be 2 threads running through it....A main one...what you'd expect of religion....being tolerant, fair and gentle...and the minor one....giving excuse for violence, warfare, intolerance in certain exceptions. I've always wondered if it is possible that 'minor thread' was added in by the warrior 'Umar' and the official 'Uthman' in that 20 year period before the Quran was finally written and others burned, to justify their own warlike conquests of that time and then became part of the religion?
This certainly would go a long way in explaining how Islam's book of.....'surrender'....peace...the equality of all men...and the love and worship of God...could also....(as written)....call for war, violence, intolerance...in certain circumstances.
What if the warriors Umar and Uthman put that in there to cover their own actions, not thinking it of great consequence at the time...but then it became set in the unchanging Quran???
P.S. The 'Hadith' were not written till the mid 800's or more....200 years at least...after the Prophet's death and are the rulings and sayings of the men of that time...not the words/ rulings of the Prophet....correct?
In this they are like the Jewish 'Talmud' the rulings and ideas of rabbi's from the Middle Ages....right?

 

[LuisDantas]

Jesus' existence I find considerably easier to doubt, though. Very few reliable dates, very little outside confirmation, and he is even mysteriously absent for nearly all of the time even in his own canon.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he was never meant to be taken for a literal living person.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Sorry for necroposting but my old thread came up in google(irony at its finest).

The liklihood of Muhammad existing int he WAY THAT WE KNOW and even Muslims as well is very unlikely. I have just did some reading of al-Kutub al-Sittah and I have taken strong notice of how utterly scattered the nature of Muhammad is and the various travels and descriptions of him. His entire existence is varied and vague, more so when he is not depicted. The very nature of him not being depicted is odd itself to be truthful knowing how Arabs and Persians are in centuries past.His character is practically deified and given supreme perfection in the accounts describing him. For example the overly exaggerated claims about Muhammad's character such as him constantly being displayed as honest give weigh to this I should add.

Muhammad may have not been a singular person to only being a minor character in history.

The very literary form of the Qur'an is clearly evident of a literate person although it is heavily scattered and compiled poorly. The form it was written in consist with constant editing and its copying of Gnostic texts and Apocryphal canon of the Bible.

It is easily concluded for me that Muhammad was not a significant character in history and the true foundation of Islam did not come about till later with constant changes and textual productions such ahadith and the compilation forming the Sunnah.

 

[Desert Snake]

Is this relevant to anything?