Not really, just a generally true statement.
No
What non-Islamic sources confirm any of this?
Some of the handful of non-Islamic sources that exist from near contemporary periods contradict the orthodox sources on chronology (for example some have Muhammad leading the invasion of Palestine 2 years after he supposedly died). Or if we look at the verses about Dhul Qarnayan that seem to derive from the Syriac Alexander romance, their timing in Quranic chronology seems wrong
Other sources confirm there was a historical Muhammad and he was seen as a prophet, but there is basically nothing that confirms anything more than the most rudimentary outline of his basic existence.
I said
some of the people, events, and chronology of the life and conquests of Muhammad are confirmed by other sources. The Quran does not offer much if anything. Yes many of the sources would be narratives in history, with some first hand testimony. Of course there are conflicts and errors, like most ancient scripture they are only supported by a mixed source of narratives.but some are confirmed by multiple sources.
The problem with Christianity is we absolutely have nothing during his life, and very limited to no provenance concerning the scripture until it was compiled more than 50-100 years or more after Jesus died. Can we Trust any chronology of the life of JEsus? Contradictions abound with a lack of witnesses.
en.wikipedia.org
The life of Muhammad is known as the
Sira and was lived in the full light of history. Everything he did and said was recorded. Because he could not read and write himself, he was constantly served by a group of 45 scribes who wrote down his sayings, instructions, and his activities. Muhammad himself insisted on documenting his important decisions. Nearly three hundred of his documents have come down to us, including political treaties, military enlistments, assignments of officials, and state correspondence written on tanned leather. We thus know his life to the minutest details: how he spoke, sat, slept (sic), dressed, walked; his behavior as a husband, father, nephew; his attitudes toward women, children, animals; his business transactions and stance toward the poor and the oppressed
Early Islamic history is also reflected in sources written in
Greek,
Syriac,
Armenian, and
Hebrew by Jewish and Christian communities, all of which are dated after 633 CE.
[2] These sources contain some essential differences with regard to Muslim sources, in particular regarding the chronology and Muhammad's attitude towards the Jews and
Palestine.
[2] According to Neva and Koren, no Byzantine or Syriac sources provide any detail on "Muhammad's early career ... which predate the Muslim literature on the subject".
[47]
According to Syriac and Byzantine sources studied by historian S.P. Brock,
[48] "The title 'prophet'" applied to Muhammad "is not very common, 'apostle' even less so. Normally he is simply described as the first of the Arab kings, and it would be generally true to say that the Syriac sources of this period see the conquests primarily as Arab, and not Muslim".
[49][50]
Non-Muslim sources
There is a reference recording the Arab conquest of Syria (known as
Fragment on the Arab Conquests), that mentions Muhammed. This much faded note is preserved on
folio 1 of
BL Add. 14,461, a codex containing the Gospel according to Matthew and the Gospel according to Mark. This note appears to have been penned soon after the
battle of Gabitha (636 CE) at which the Arabs inflicted crushing defeat of the Byzantines. Wright was first to draw the attention to the fragment and suggested that "it seems to be a nearly contemporary notice",
[51] a view which was also endorsed by Nöldeke.
[52] The purpose of jotting this note in the book of Gospels appears to be commemorative as the author appears to have realized how momentous the events of his time were. The words "we saw" are positive evidence that the author was a contemporary. The author also talks about olive oil, cattle, ruined villages, suggesting that he belonged to peasant stock, i.e., parish priest or a monk who could read and write. It is worthwhile cautioning that the condition of the text is fragmentary and many of the readings unclear or disputable. The
lacunae (gaps in the text) are supplied in square brackets:
What do you think this is?
What is?
