Islam Did Mohammed exist?

[mindlight]

Most Muslims believe that Mohammed was a real historical person asserting the Koran or Hadith as the proof. But does this claim survive a proper scrutiny of the evidence. Was Mohammed in fact an Arab construct created later out of various accounts with no actual basis in historical reality and then crafted by Caliphs into the modern format of Islam?

How do you know that Mohammed actually existed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

In their 2003 book Crossroads to Islam, Yehuda D. Nevo and Judith Koren advanced a thesis, based on an extensive examination of archaeological evidence from the early Islamic period, that Muhammad may never have existed, with monotheistic Islam only coming into existence some time after he is supposed to have lived.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Bye_Mohammed

Pressburg English review of Goodbye Mohammed

"http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.de/2011/10/pressburg-hypothesis-did-muslims.html"

"Pressburg believes that Islam arose not in the 7th century AD, as standard historical accounts claim, but in the 9th or even 10th centuries. He believes the Muslims constructed a fake history stretching back hundreds of years, working up a fable of religious revelation and conquest that is now accepted by almost everyone, even those who reject the divine inspiration claimed for it.

The truth, as Pressburg tells it, is that no one called Muhammad existed. The tales of his life and sayings are simple inventions. Even the historical accounts of Muslim battles are invented, he believes. For example, Muslim historiography (and now standard history because the Muslim story has been accepted by everyone) tells of a decisive battle at Yarmuk fought between Byzantine forces and the Muslims. Pressburg notes there is no evidence this battle ever took place. Contemporary Byzantine chronicles say nothing of it: either its aftermath or the extensive preparations the gathering of such a large army would have required. Mohammedan history tells of how Muhammad sent a letter to the Byzantine emperor ordering him to convert to Islam or lose his empire. Byzantine sources say nothing of this.

As Pressburg tells it, the standard Muslim accounts that tell of Caliphs succeeding the Prophet are false. The men today presented as Muslim caliphs were not Muslims at all, but Christians. Later generations of the people we now know as Muslims reinterpreted them into the Islamic tradition. This point is substantiated with historical evidence. Coins minted under the rule of these “caliphs” still exist, for example. They bear the symbol of the Christian cross and the ruler’s boast that he was protector of the remains of John the Baptist in Damascus. This is certainly a curious choice for a Muslim caliph.

According to this interpretation, what we now know as Islam started out as a divergent branch of Christianity, one that spread widely among Arabs. It is undisputed that the theological tumult of the time gave rise to many different branches of Christianity, and that these divergent interpretations of sometimes minor points of doctrine were clung to with a fierceness that now seems strange to us, giving rise to violence and persecution. One of the key points of dispute related to the doctrine of the Trinity and whether Jesus Christ was a manifestation of God or just his messenger. This school of Christianity that flourished in Arab areas scorned the doctrine of the Trinity that achieved ascendancy elsewhere."

 

[Hieronymus]

Judging by the many detailed writings about him, i'd say he did exist.

 

[mindlight]

Judging by the many detailed writings about him, i'd say he did exist.

But can those "detailed writings" be trusted. There is actually a major discussion about these accounts which are often second or third hand. That coupled with a tendency for Arab exaggeration ( for example the scale of the Arab victory at Yarmouk is impossible - there were not that many deployable troops in the Byzantine empire) casts major doubts on the sources.

1) so are these accounts fictional constructs and the Arab advance better explained by the power vacuum caused by a strategic retreat following overextension by the Byzantine empire after its war with Persia.

2) is there both an element of truth and of exaggeration forcing a reinterpretation of the texts.

Or

3) The accounts are true as Muslims say.

See Norbert Pressburgs book:
What the Modern Martyr Should Know: Seventy-Two Grapes and Not a Single Virgin: The New Picture of Islam

 

[Limo]

This never been serious/scientific allegations.

It's not like Jesus Christ where a long period of his life is missed in Gospels and didn't left any materialized evidences. Even Gospels are not El-Messiah's Gospel. it's Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John

Prophet Mohamed left untouched book Quran, a great nation which his Caliphates extended on the account of the 2 world poles empires at that time Romans and Persians.
The companions recorded everything about the Prophet: his genuine, grand father, mother, and father's life, his birth, infantry, childhood, youth, man, elder, normal/prophet, governor,,,
They recorded his moves, travels, wars, trips.
They recorded his activities walking, sleeping, laughing, crying, angers, happiness, marriages, clothes,,,,
His saying was recorded from generation to another with a scientific validation of attitude and history of the people transferred the sayings. The scientific way of authentication and approvals of chains of transferring his sayings are more trusted than that was used in the transfer of Gospels.

Islam can never be a branch of Christianity. If it's true then it would be another church. Nevertheless, there is no much common between Pauline-Christianity and Islam other than the name of the prophet "El-Messiah". Also, Islam is a comprehensive system with Shariah near to Judaism.

If there is no agreement and we suppose that Islamic historians exaggerated about Al-Yarmouk battle (just 5 years from Prophet's death) , it has nothing to do with religion and not an evidence of nonexistence of the Prophet.
We know that history is written by winners.

 

[withwonderingawe]

I'm going to break a rule and jump in here, delete me if ya want.

From the wic article
Karl-Heinz Ohlig comes to the conclusion that the person of Muhammed was not central to early Islam at all, and that at this very early stage Islam was in fact an Arabic Christian sect (likely Ebionite, Arian and/or Nestorian, based on the recorded Ebionite faith of Khadija, Muhammad's first wife, and the Arianism and/or Nestorianism of her cousin,[dubious – discuss] the monk Bahira, mentioned by John of Damascusan early 8th century apologetic text where he hypothesises a fictional story that Bahira might have taught Muhammad, such accusations having made by the Quraish themselves in Mecca) which had objections to the concept of the trinity, and that the later hadith and biographies are in large part legends, instrumental in severing Islam from its Christian roots and building a full-blown new religion

I've believed this for some time. The Trinity was not universally accepted across Christianity there were holdouts. Mohammed was trying to confront a false teaching.

This is an alternative translation of 4:171 Arberry:
"People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, 'Three.' Refrain; better is it for you. God is only One God. Glory be to Him -- That He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian."

He recognizes Jesus is the Messiah, and messenger of God which Jesus himself said he was but Jesus never called himself God, meaning God the Father. He said the Father is greater than I. Jesus was a spirit sent to inhabit the little body growing in Mary's womb. That spirit was Yahweh the mediator between God/Allah/El and mankind. Glory to God that he has a son. Jesus/Yahweh is the creator of the physical which he did under the direction of God the Father/El/Allah.

 

[mindlight]

This never been serious/scientific allegations.

I believe it was a Communist historian who first questioned the historicity of Mohammed just 100 years ago. Up until then the narrative was broadly accepted as it is written in the Muslim world. The dominant position in Islamic studies today remains that he existed but the dissenting voices to this view argue a more compelling case than before.

It's not like Jesus Christ where a long period of his life is missed in Gospels and didn't left any materialized evidences. Even Gospels are not El-Messiah's Gospel. it's Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John

The Christian view of inspiration compares quite favourably as grounds for authenticating the bible accounts of jesus as opposed to the Qurans accounts of Mohammed. The very nature of the Quran is meant to be top down revelation from God through Gabriel while the bible is composed of many witnesses and was confirmed by the consensus of the early church. The opportunities to abuse what was actually MOhammeds message are clearer in the Muslim top down view because in the end this perspective on what constitutes the canon of the Quran was something enforced by the wish of a military and political elite interested in united the Arab peoples into a coherent fighting force with a single creed.

Prophet Mohamed left untouched book Quran, a great nation which his Caliphates extended on the account of the 2 world poles empires at that time Romans and Persians.

There are alternate views on what MOhammed said. Non Muslim sources like that Sebeos for example:

"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"

This narrative places Mohammeds story in a biblical context and as an alternate view of Monotheism with the sons of Ishmael (the Arabs) as its reference point. So even if we accept that Mohammed or someone like him existed there is still the question as to whether the Quran and Hadith faithfully testify to what he actually said and did.

The companions recorded everything about the Prophet: his genuine, grand father, mother, and father's life, his birth, infantry, childhood, youth, man, elder, normal/prophet, governor,,,
They recorded his moves, travels, wars, trips.
They recorded his activities walking, sleeping, laughing, crying, angers, happiness, marriages, clothes,,,,
His saying was recorded from generation to another with a scientific validation of attitude and history of the people transferred the sayings. The scientific way of authentication and approvals of chains of transferring his sayings are more trusted than that was used in the transfer of Gospels.

A great deal of that is hearsay and the top down model of truth imposition that existed in the caliphates of that time means that it is perfectly possible a great many conflictual and contrary narratives have simply been ignored or destroyed.

Islam can never be a branch of Christianity. If it's true then it would be another church. Nevertheless, there is no much common between Pauline-Christianity and Islam other than the name of the prophet "El-Messiah". Also, Islam is a comprehensive system with Shariah near to Judaism.

Islam in practice has more in common with Old Testament Judaism than with the new covenant of Christ. But Christianity and Judaism are monotheistic religions even despite the Christian view of the Trinity. The differences on doctrines of creation and judgment are less profound than on those of Redemption and of the nature of God and most especially the identity of Christ

If there is no agreement and we suppose that Islamic historians exaggerated about Al-Yarmouk battle (just 5 years from Prophet's death) , it has nothing to do with religion and not an evidence of nonexistence of the Prophet.
We know that history is written by winners.

I see these accounts as symptomatic of a trend in Arab scholarship to exaggerate or paint a rosy picture of their achievements. Since this battle took place only 4 years after the death of Mohammed and there appears to be considerable deceit in the account why should we trust the general commitment of scholars writing Hadith or copying versions of the Quran?

 

[mindlight]

I'm going to break a rule and jump in here, delete me if ya want.

From the wic article
Karl-Heinz Ohlig comes to the conclusion that the person of Muhammed was not central to early Islam at all, and that at this very early stage Islam was in fact an Arabic Christian sect (likely Ebionite, Arian and/or Nestorian, based on the recorded Ebionite faith of Khadija, Muhammad's first wife, and the Arianism and/or Nestorianism of her cousin,[dubious – discuss] the monk Bahira, mentioned by John of Damascusan early 8th century apologetic text where he hypothesises a fictional story that Bahira might have taught Muhammad, such accusations having made by the Quraish themselves in Mecca) which had objections to the concept of the trinity, and that the later hadith and biographies are in large part legends, instrumental in severing Islam from its Christian roots and building a full-blown new religion

I've believed this for some time. The Trinity was not universally accepted across Christianity there were holdouts. Mohammed was trying to confront a false teaching.

This is an alternative translation of 4:171 Arberry:
"People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, 'Three.' Refrain; better is it for you. God is only One God. Glory be to Him -- That He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian."

He recognizes Jesus is the Messiah, and messenger of God which Jesus himself said he was but Jesus never called himself God, meaning God the Father. He said the Father is greater than I. Jesus was a spirit sent to inhabit the little body growing in Mary's womb. That spirit was Yahweh the mediator between God/Allah/El and mankind. Glory to God that he has a son. Jesus/Yahweh is the creator of the physical which he did under the direction of God the Father/El/Allah.

Yes the Arian debate was still fresh in the Christian world and the Collyridian heresy seems to be what the Quran actually opposes in sura 5. Christians have never asserted tritheism or that Mary was a goddess equal to God. But out of this climate of errors and idols maybe a Christian sect developed a version of Monotheism that ended up attacking the Christian empires of the region and undermining them.

That Mohammed may therefore have been a monotheist who was not the person painted in the Quran but nor was he a traditional Christian. The construction of the Mohammed myth would then be on that foundation and according to the agenda of the emerging Caliphates out to conquer and subdue the Persian and Roman worlds.

 

[Chesterton]

I watched this debate and I'm undecided. Both of them make good points.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/battle-of-yarmuk-islamic-historical-revisionism.7963545/

As I asked in the above thread, what would you replace the historical narrative with?

The fact is that we have no good Byzantine sources for the period, so the lack of Byzantine references really does not mean anything as this was a very turbulent period. Their historians which we have extent only start writing again in the ninth century and probably garble the earlier years after about 630.

Besides, I think there is a profound problem here. Islam does not see itself as a separate religion at that stage, but saw Judaism and Christianity as being merely previous prophet's revelations within one religious tradition.
Christianity did also not consider Islam a separate religion until recently. It was merely seen as a heresy, for instance Dante has Mohammed in hell with the other heretics.
So to think there was some conspiratorial invention of Mohammed to differentiate Islam from Christianity makes little sense.

Islam used Christian symbolism throughout its history and in fact continues to do so. For instance the Crescent and Star symbol we associate with Islam today, actually refers to the Virgin Mary (via an association with Constantinople which may have derived it originally from Diana, but this is debatable).
The Islamic world still shows deference to John the Baptist, Zechariah, David, Jesus etc. so Caliphs boasting about them fits perfectly as does the use of the cross, as they were clearly merely imitating Byzantine coinage.

While I agree the Islamic narrative is not entirely accurate, the idea of a 'prophet' synthesising a religious tradition from ideas prevalent in his time like Ebionism, Docetism etc. makes sense and united arab tribes overrunning Byzantine and Sassanian lands after their ruinous internecine wars of the preceding century is also highly plausible.
I think these modern historians that would rewrite conventional history would need to present a far stronger case than those who merely think that centuries of histiography is probably fairly accurate.

As I said though, the Islamic narrative is probably not perfect. Case in point the Satanic Verses 'added' to the Koran. This makes it highly plausible that Mohammed reached an accomodation with Pagan Meccan worship which he later rescinded when he gained enough power.

 

[mindlight]

I watched this debate and I'm undecided. Both of them make good points.

Interesting find. I also watched the author of does Mohammed exist v Answers for Muslims guy. The answers for Muslims guy argued that the embarrassing things that Muslims of the period had left in which might discredit the message were evidence that Mohammed existed while the author suggested that they were programmed answers to the kinds of questions that people of the time were asking. So the one narrative is of an actual prophet and the other of a military - political elite fabricating his existence or building on it as part of their plans to conquer the region. So that Mohammed feared his revelation might have come from demons, that he was suicidal after receiving it and that on one occasion he received verses from Satan that he then subsequently corrected were all pertinent points of discussion. That he slept with 9 year olds, beat his wives or indeed had 13 wives due to convenient revelatory dispensations would not have been a problem to Arabs of the time.

 

[mindlight]

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/battle-of-yarmuk-islamic-historical-revisionism.7963545/

As I asked in the above thread, what would you replace the historical narrative with?

The fact is that we have no good Byzantine sources for the period, so the lack of Byzantine references really does not mean anything as this was a very turbulent period. Their historians which we have extent only start writing again in the ninth century and probably garble the earlier years after about 630.

Besides, I think there is a profound problem here. Islam does not see itself as a separate religion at that stage, but saw Judaism and Christianity as being merely previous prophet's revelations within one religious tradition.
Christianity did also not consider Islam a separate religion until recently. It was merely seen as a heresy, for instance Dante has Mohammed in hell with the other heretics.
So to think there was some conspiratorial invention of Mohammed to differentiate Islam from Christianity makes little sense.

Islam used Christian symbolism throughout its history and in fact continues to do so. For instance the Crescent and Star symbol we associate with Islam today, actually refers to the Virgin Mary (via an association with Constantinople which may have derived it originally from Diana, but this is debatable).
The Islamic world still shows deference to John the Baptist, Zechariah, David, Jesus etc. so Caliphs boasting about them fits perfectly as does the use of the cross, as they were clearly merely imitating Byzantine coinage.

While I agree the Islamic narrative is not entirely accurate, the idea of a 'prophet' synthesising a religious tradition from ideas prevalent in his time like Ebionism, Docetism etc. makes sense and united arab tribes overrunning Byzantine and Sassanian lands after their ruinous internecine wars of the preceding century is also highly plausible.
I think these modern historians that would rewrite conventional history would need to present a far stronger case than those who merely think that centuries of histiography is probably fairly accurate.

As I said though, the Islamic narrative is probably not perfect. Case in point the Satanic Verses 'added' to the Koran. This makes it highly plausible that Mohammed reached an accomodation with Pagan Meccan worship which he later rescinded when he gained enough power.

Interesting post thanks. The Satanic verses might be considered a proof of Mohammeds actual existence as it fits the narrative of his life. Weak and forced to flee from Mecca builds an army in Medina and returns to conquer.

I think 3 narratives are possible here and I do not have a settled preference - hence the OP:

1) Mohammed existed as claimed and is simply a false prophet. The Quran records his "prophecy" and this was faithfully passed down.

2) Mohammed existed but his message was far more in accordance with the Jewish and Christian monotheism and assorted heresies of the time. But Mohammed own more confused or conflictual words were redacted by a military political elite in order to cement their control and contrast it with the Persian and Byzantine empires of the time.

3) That the gap between Mohammeds life and authenticated records suggests the whole Mohammed story is a myth engineered by the previously mentioned political - military elite and possibly built on the lives of multiple commanders from a pool of increasingly successful Arab military commanders

 

[mindlight]

Having begun reading Pressburgs book I have already read a number of interesting observations:

1) If the Quran was a revelation that came to Mohammed how come some 25-30% of the content can be traced to earlier Aramaic sources and indeed mainly Christian sources. If Gods language is meant to be Arabic then how come there are so many non Arabic words in the Quran and such bad Arabic grammar. Also how come there are so many abrogations in the Quran and that its 114 suras often seem so contradictory and confusing. Would they be understandable at all without the innumerable accompanying commentaries. If the Arabic is not good enough to be Gods then maybe it isn't. If God speaks Arabic then Mohammeds revelation was not from him. If his revelation was not his revelation but rather constructed from earlier sources then did Mohammed exist at all. Afterall it is claimed he was an illiterate who passed on only what he heard. So why did Gabriel & Mohammed merely repeat the words of Christian scholars in the words he gave? Moses is mentioned 136 times, Mary 34 times, Jesus 24 times and Mohammed only 4 times (begging the question in Pressburgs view what Muhammed might have meant). Though clearly heavily redacted was the original book based on Jewish / Christian texts and preoccupied with them rather than with a brand new revelation. Having said that the Quran makes numerous errors with the biblical material it may echo. If this was not a new revelation but rather the distortion and confusion of an older one then did its prophet exist at all?

2) When they created the Cairo Quran in 1924 they used 9th century rules to form the text. They made assumptions about how the text should be read that were not present in the original version. A modern Quran uses a system of diacritical dots that were most likely not present in the original Quran. For both reasons we cannot be sure that this translation is the Quran that came from the 7th century, or indeed provides the proper interpretation of words and phrases, making it more likely that the whole story was a later fabrication by intent or by mistake and indeed that its central character Mohammed may not have existed at all.

3) Muslims trace their understanding of the Quran to the original Uthmann Quran. But there is no historical evidence that he even existed. Fragments of a Quran was found at Saana dating to the eighth century. But this version contradicts the Cairo version. Another version from the Topkapi palace also differs from the Cairo version. This shows that the paper trail back to the original Quran most likely contains errors and that we cannot be sure what the original Uthmann Quran said and know for sure that alterations have occurred since the Quran was written. If this is the case then we do not know the original Mohammed or if indeed he even existed. There are centuries of fog between us and him.

 

[Limo]

-

Let us agree on something, If you want to proof something, quote me by trusted Islamic sources not by nonislamic sources which I don't consider at all.
One is not responsible about what others say about him. Sebeos or others are writing with Christian heart.

I believe it was a Communist historian who first questioned the historicity of Mohammed just 100 years ago. Up until then the narrative was broadly accepted as it is written in the Muslim world. The dominant position in Islamic studies today remains that he existed but the dissenting voices to this view argue a more compelling case than before.

I'm not aware about this writing in Islamic world at all . Please add references for trusted writers.

The Christian view of inspiration compares quite favourably as grounds for authenticating the bible accounts of jesus as opposed to the Qurans accounts of Mohammed. The very nature of the Quran is meant to be top down revelation from God through Gabriel while the bible is composed of many witnesses and was confirmed by the consensus of the early church. The opportunities to abuse what was actually MOhammeds message are clearer in the Muslim top down view because in the end this perspective on what constitutes the canon of the Quran was something enforced by the wish of a military and political elite interested in united the Arab peoples into a coherent fighting force with a single creed.

I said that we've full history of the Prophet during all his life but Gospels missed full history of Jesus-Christ till 12 years then silent again till 30 years. Then Jesus left no materialized trace.
Also Gospels writers are not eye witnesses at all. According to gospels, Mark and Luke are not disciples.
So, the doubt of nonexistence of Jesus-Christ has bases but not the case with the Prophet.

There are alternate views on what MOhammed said. Non Muslim sources like that Sebeos for example:

"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"

This narrative places Mohammeds story in a biblical context and as an alternate view of Monotheism with the sons of Ishmael (the Arabs) as its reference point. So even if we accept that Mohammed or someone like him existed there is still the question as to whether the Quran and Hadith faithfully testify to what he actually said and did.

What Sebeos or any other Christian have written has nothing to do. I can't discuss thoughts bases on feelings without evidences from Islamic sources

A great deal of that is hearsay and the top down model of truth imposition that existed in the caliphates of that time means that it is perfectly possible a great many conflictual and contrary narratives have simply been ignored or destroyed.

It's criticized/challenged/verified scientifically by Islamic scholars, Caliphates has nothing to do with this science.

Islam in practice has more in common with Old Testament Judaism than with the new covenant of Christ. But Christianity and Judaism are monotheistic religions even despite the Christian view of the Trinity. The differences on doctrines of creation and judgment are less profound than on those of Redemption and of the nature of God and most especially the identity of Christ

It's news that Pauline-Christianity is a monotheistic religions. I wish Jews agree with you. Jews don't even recognize Jesus-Christ as a real character in their old books. They didn't even notice him.
There are common practices between Moses's Shariah which has been followed and practiced by El-Messiah and Mohamed's Shariah. As all are from Almighty.
Pauline-Christianity and Jesus-Christ character has nothing common with Moses, El-Messiah, and Mohamed except for a name "El-Messiah"

I see these accounts as symptomatic of a trend in Arab scholarship to exaggerate or paint a rosy picture of their achievements. Since this battle took place only 4 years after the death of Mohammed and there appears to be considerable deceit in the account why should we trust the general commitment of scholars writing Hadith or copying versions of the Quran?

We differentiate in Ismal between 3 sciences :

• Quran : It's transferred by thousands to thousands in every generation. We've the original copy written in Othman's era. We've a copy even older than Othman's one which is known as Birmingham Quran manuscript witch is written during the Prophet's life.
• Hadeeth : which are Prophet's sayings, history, and deeds. These narrations have been studied a lot till we know what is true and what is false
• History : it's just stories transferred among people. Islamic historians didn't do a lot to verify/challenge. It's just a story written by someone.

So, there is no mix between the first 2 and the last one.
By the way, the effort paid in verifying/challenging the history is much more than what has been paid to verify/challenge the Gospels. We know all writers and their original books exist. But you don't know the exact name of Gospels writers, their father name, born, death, travel. You're missing any original writings by Gospels writers.

 

[Armoured]

I'm fairly certain Mohammed started out as a mascot for the Mecca Chamber of Commerce's tourism initiative, and things just got out of hand.

 

[Limo]

I'm going to break a rule and jump in here, delete me if ya want.

From the wic article
Karl-Heinz Ohlig comes to the conclusion that the person of Muhammed was not central to early Islam at all, and that at this very early stage Islam was in fact an Arabic Christian sect (likely Ebionite, Arian and/or Nestorian, based on the recorded Ebionite faith of Khadija, Muhammad's first wife, and the Arianism and/or Nestorianism of her cousin,[dubious – discuss] the monk Bahira, mentioned by John of Damascusan early 8th century apologetic text where he hypothesises a fictional story that Bahira might have taught Muhammad, such accusations having made by the Quraish themselves in Mecca) which had objections to the concept of the trinity, and that the later hadith and biographies are in large part legends, instrumental in severing Islam from its Christian roots and building a full-blown new religion

I've believed this for some time. The Trinity was not universally accepted across Christianity there were holdouts. Mohammed was trying to confront a false teaching.

This is an alternative translation of 4:171 Arberry:
"People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, 'Three.' Refrain; better is it for you. God is only One God. Glory be to Him -- That He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian."

He recognizes Jesus is the Messiah, and messenger of God which Jesus himself said he was but Jesus never called himself God, meaning God the Father. He said the Father is greater than I. Jesus was a spirit sent to inhabit the little body growing in Mary's womb. That spirit was Yahweh the mediator between God/Allah/El and mankind. Glory to God that he has a son. Jesus/Yahweh is the creator of the physical which he did under the direction of God the Father/El/Allah.

To complete the Islamic belief picture, El-Messiah was a human but no father, no more no less.
Almighty is the creator of all physical and non-physical

 

[Limo]

Having begun reading Pressburgs book I have already read a number of interesting observations:

1) If the Quran was a revelation that came to Mohammed how come some 25-30% of the content can be traced to earlier Aramaic sources and indeed mainly Christian sources. If Gods language is meant to be Arabic then how come there are so many non Arabic words in the Quran and such bad Arabic grammar. Also how come there are so many abrogations in the Quran and that its 114 suras often seem so contradictory and confusing. Would they be understandable at all without the innumerable accompanying commentaries. If the Arabic is not good enough to be Gods then maybe it isn't. If God speaks Arabic then Mohammeds revelation was not from him. If his revelation was not his revelation but rather constructed from earlier sources then did Mohammed exist at all. Afterall it is claimed he was an illiterate who passed on only what he heard. So why did Gabriel & Mohammed merely repeat the words of Christian scholars in the words he gave? Moses is mentioned 136 times, Mary 34 times, Jesus 24 times and Mohammed only 4 times (begging the question in Pressburgs view what Muhammed might have meant). Though clearly heavily redacted was the original book based on Jewish / Christian texts and preoccupied with them rather than with a brand new revelation. Having said that the Quran makes numerous errors with the biblical material it may echo. If this was not a new revelation but rather the distortion and confusion of an older one then did its prophet exist at all?

2) When they created the Cairo Quran in 1924 they used 9th century rules to form the text. They made assumptions about how the text should be read that were not present in the original version. A modern Quran uses a system of diacritical dots that were most likely not present in the original Quran. For both reasons we cannot be sure that this translation is the Quran that came from the 7th century, or indeed provides the proper interpretation of words and phrases, making it more likely that the whole story was a later fabrication by intent or by mistake and indeed that its central character Mohammed may not have existed at all.

3) Muslims trace their understanding of the Quran to the original Uthmann Quran. But there is no historical evidence that he even existed. Fragments of a Quran was found at Saana dating to the eighth century. But this version contradicts the Cairo version. Another version from the Topkapi palace also differs from the Cairo version. This shows that the paper trail back to the original Quran most likely contains errors and that we cannot be sure what the original Uthmann Quran said and know for sure that alterations have occurred since the Quran was written. If this is the case then we do not know the original Mohammed or if indeed he even existed. There are centuries of fog between us and him.

What do you call "Pressburgs interesting observations" are just a group of illusions that any one who has studied Islam and Quran realizes how ignorant claims they're.
I'll list some points that shows vague ignorance about Islam, I challenge you to get trusted Islamic references for them:

• Give a list of the 25-30% in Quran that can be traced to earlier Aramaic sources and indeed mainly Christian sources ?
• Where are these Aramaic sources ? Are there any Christian Aramaic Sources ?
• Give a list of all non-Arabic words ? Give a list of bad Arabic grammar ?

Prophet didn't repeat words of Christian scholars in the words he gave. You said that words like Moses is mentioned 136 times, Mary 34 times, Jesus 24 times. Again, this is complete ignorance of Islam:

• Allah told us about all these characters in unique names that may not appear in any previous writings. For example we have nothing call Jesus. We've a prophet called Isa or El-Messiah who was a prophet and human his mother called Mariam
• Allah told us in Quran about most of previous prophets. Some of them never mentioned in Torah (There is no true Injiil) book of Ise

Quran is not a copy or changed copy of neither Torah nor Gospels because:

• The false pens have changed the scribes
• Quran is much comprehensive
  
• Quran is absolutely free of errors

What is this "Cairo Quran" ?
It exists only in Pressburgs fictitious book.
The oldest original copy 14-15 years after Prophet's death is written in Uthman's era exists till date as is in Istanbul. It's the same as my copy, same as internet copy, same as Birmingham university copy, or any other trusted copy on earth. It's memorized by millions today.

 

[Niblo]

The oldest original copy 14-15 years after Prophet's death is written in Uthman's era exists till date as is in Istanbul. It's the same as my copy, same as internet copy, same as Birmingham university copy, or any other trusted copy on earth. It's memorized by millions today.

Same as my copies, too. And my son's

 

[mindlight]

Regarding the Aramaic origins of significant parts of the Quran. The initial research was done by Theodor Noeldeke in 1890 and expanded on by Guenter Lueling in the 1960s. The school of thought that is arguing this view today is the Saarbrucken school which is a part of the Revisionist School of Islamic Studies.

The central thesis of this school includes the following arguments:

"Besides the discussion of the historicity of Muhammad as a historical person and the Quranic text attributed to him, Islam has to engage in the following debates:

• Traditional texts which had shaped Islam for centuries - yet not from the beginning - are not true.
• The Quranic text has not been handed down to our times unharmed.
• Even in the Quran, God's word is in many respects clothed in human words.
• Muhammad did not live in Mecca.
• The relationship between Muhammad and Jews and Christians was different than always thought it had be."

 

[withwonderingawe]

To complete the Islamic belief picture, El-Messiah was a human but no father, no more no less.
Almighty is the creator of all physical and non-physical

There is an official statement by the Mormon church which says; " The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, .... and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals". We believe God sent many prophets to all nations with varying degrees of light and understanding.

There are some Mormons who do believe Mohammed was a prophet sent to Ishmael's family and those who were descendants of Abraham outside of Israel. But, they feel Islam has gone into apostasy just as the Jews and Christians did before them.

The Jews went into apostasy and began worshiping "the daughter of a strange god" see Mal 3. They squished El and Yahweh into one being. The Christians went into apostasy when they did the same thing and created the Trinity. Islam did when they reject Jesus as being the Son of God.

We feel that the true God is El/Allah, from him all light and power flows. He created/organized everything spiritual first "before it was in the earth and before it grew" Gen 2. Yahweh was his first born of the spirits or souls and then El created the rest of us spiritually also, we are called his children because He created us.

What we call angels are these spirits, often in the Old Testament Yahweh is referred to as "the angel of the Lord" meaning the spirit of Yahweh. In your Quran it says;

“And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: ‘I am going to create a human (Adam) from sounding clay of altered black smooth mud. So when I have fashioned him and breathed into him (his) soul created by Me, then you fall down prostrate to him.” (Quran 38:71-72)

that fits very nicely into Mormon doctrine.

The spirits exist in heaven as angels, El called us together to explain how he was going to create the earth and we would be sent down to it to become men and women in order to learn good and evil. The angel/spirit Michael became Adam and head of the human family.

Yahweh was the first and greatest of all these angels, he was perfectly righteous in all his thoughts. El chose him to be his second in command, to be 'Lord of Host'. He instructed Yahweh on how to create and then allowed him to created or organize all things physical. It was He who created the physical earthly body of Adam and put Michael's soul into it.

But we always have to remember Yahweh acts in behalf of and under the authority of El/Allah. He is El/Allah's mediator or messenger between man and Himself.

In the Arberry translation of 4:171 it says
"...say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him...."

The Spirit of Yahweh left El's presence and entered the body of baby Jesus, that body was created by El. Yahweh is the Messiah, he lived a perfect life and died on the cross for our sins. His body went into the tomb and his Spirit returned to El. After three days His Spirit returned to his body and lifted it up unto life everlasting to never die again. He opened the path so that we all can be resurrected and return to the presence of El/Allah.

Once again Arberry translation of 4:171
"...God is only One God. Glory be to Him -- That He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian."

In Jesus intercessory prayer he says;
" These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee.." John 17

The Son brings glory to the Father/El, Allah

 

[mindlight]

Let us agree on something, If you want to proof something, quote me by trusted Islamic sources not by nonislamic sources which I don't consider at all.
One is not responsible about what others say about him. Sebeos or others are writing with Christian heart.

I'm not aware about this writing in Islamic world at all . Please add references for trusted writers.

The point is that Sebeos is a contemporary reference to the text that contradicts the Muslim account and therefore raises questions about it. Your view is tantamount to saying I will only listen to people who agree with me. The links I have provided give reasons why that might not be an honest view.

We differentiate in Ismal between 3 sciences :

• Quran : It's transferred by thousands to thousands in every generation. We've the original copy written in Othman's era. We've a copy even older than Othman's one which is known as Birmingham Quran manuscript witch is written during the Prophet's life.
• Hadeeth : which are Prophet's sayings, history, and deeds. These narrations have been studied a lot till we know what is true and what is false
• History : it's just stories transferred among people. Islamic historians didn't do a lot to verify/challenge. It's just a story written by someone.

So, there is no mix between the first 2 and the last one.
By the way, the effort paid in verifying/challenging the history is much more than what has been paid to verify/challenge the Gospels. We know all writers and their original books exist. But you don't know the exact name of Gospels writers, their father name, born, death, travel. You're missing any original writings by Gospels writers.

The Birmingham manuscript appears at first sight to be a solid and perhaps insurmountable challenge to the revisionist school and to Pressburg. Differences with later Qurans unlike with the multiversion Quran found at Saana ( also dated 7th century) are not significant. This would support the view that the audit trail goes back to Mohammed and adds credibility to the view he was a real person. However the dating was only of the parchment not the ink and the style indicates a later writing.

Hadiths are a chaotic and contradictory mess and you would be hard pressed to authenticate any of their connections to the life of Mohammed.