Muslims: Did Muhammad Actually Exist?

[arabic_catholic]

There is a lot of unresolved Christianity in Islam. Of all the biblical figures mentioned in the Qur’an, only Jesus is held to have had a virgin birth. Why is this important, if Muhammad himself is not said to be born of a virgin?

My personal view is that, probably, Muhammad, when he was a caravaner, visited the area of Syria and Palestine and really did converse with Christians and Jews. Plus, there were both Jews and Christians in Arabia. He picked up a lot. If you read the Surah of Yusuf and the story of Joseph in Genesis, you are immediately struck with the similarities. Frankly, I love the one in the Qur’an. There is an ecstatic quality to it.

Somehow Muhammad had to accept either the teachings of Christianity or the rigid monotheism of Rabbinic Judaism (there are good arguments that the monotheism of the Rabbis was a direct reaction to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, but the division between Christianity and Judaism was settled by the time of Muhammad). The Qur’an resembles the Old Testament far more than it resembles the New Testament. While Jesus has a place of prominence in the Qur’an, his teachings and his Church do not.

Her is a good point to think about , south Palestine was a place where many heresies went to . Muawiyah I , while he was govnor of syria , before he became Caliph was a oneness monotheist , but he never claim to be a muslim , in fact , his message to the roman Empror , was invitation to deny Jesus and accept the God of his father Abraham . isn’t this , too jewish ? ‘’ If you wish to live in peace, renounce your vain religion , in which you have brought up since infancy . Renounce this Jesus , and convert to the Great God whom I serve , the God of our Father Abraham … if not , how will this Jesus whom you call Christ , who was not even able to save himself from the jews able to save you from my hands? ‘’

Jesus was not able to save himself of the jews ? are you serious ? Jesus never die at the cross according to muslims ! yet Muawiah says Jesus couldn’t save himself . This is pure contradictory with the islamic tradition , it shows how the religion change over the year!

 

[arabic_catholic]

Thank you

One of our own Saints clearly recognized Muhammad as a true person who established the Islam, so I don’t care what some modern guy says regardless of his claim to have done indepth research. A little puzzled as to why Catholic Answers would promote his ideology that differs with that of a recognised Saint.

Moving on.

That is a poor way in dealing with the matter ,with all due respect .in fact this is an anti-intellectualism statement from you , and Catholics need to reject this way of thinking . The Saint wrote in 730 AD 100 year after the death of muhammad , what he did write is important , to understand islam quran and muhammad , he wrote it at the same time ibn ishaq wrote the biography about muhammad (really !) .whatever the saint wrote is reflecting on what muslims at the time were saying ( I am not sure even he call them muslims ) .he treat the quran is texts rather then one book which agree with a previous christian preacher who saw the quran and surat al baqara as two separate books !!. his writing about islam is not binding on us as true historical material about the life of muhammad , saints are humen ! and sometimes they contradict one another , some Saint said kill the apostate , do you want to follow him too ?

Jesus Christ! was Henri Lammene work on islam an ideology that should not be allowed! was Alphonso Mingana who started the theory of the Syriac Quran (ans was proven later to be true) is a guy who is driven by ideology .

Mr. Spencer , is one of the few Catholics who are saying and writing the truth about islam and he do great job in defending the western Civilization . you just reminded me with the muslim argument when they debated spencer on TV . ‘’ what is the prove of muhammad existince ? … the quran said so, therefore it’s true!! ’ the only different you turned a saint to a quran . one last point , Have you ever heard about a German professor Muhammad Sven Kalisch؟ , who was convert to islam , and the first german to teach islamic theology in university (I might be wrong on this) , in 2008 , he left islam after doing honest research and came to the conclusion that all we know about muhammad is a myth and legend .

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

According to orthodoxwiki.org, St John was born in 676, 42 years after Damascus fell.

Ah, Wikipedia said 645 or 676. In any case his parents would have known and told him.

 

[Holly3278]

I am not a Muslim but I thought I would comment anyway. I definitely do believe he existed. However, I can say with 100% certainty that he was not a prophet of God. If anything, he was a false prophet and possibly a heretic of one of the Christian heresies.

 

[Mark_Antony]

Ah, Wikipedia said 645 or 676. In any case his parents would have known and told him.

A bit of off topic,but how can it be 645 or 676?It’s 31 years difference.

 

[Mark_Antony]

I am not a Muslim but I thought I would comment anyway. I definitely do believe he existed. However, I can say with 100% certainty that he was not a prophet of God. If anything, he was a false prophet and possibly a heretic of one of the Christian heresies.

I never understand how Muslims believe that Jesus was a result of virginal conception,that He ascended to Heaven,that *He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, * and still worshiping Muhammad.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

A bit of off topic,but how can it be 645 or 676?It’s 31 years difference.

I know, strange.

 

[GaryTaylor]

please read the document .

I did, Thanks.

• he was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come ( he was talking about a christ that the jews at the time waited not be confused by Jesus ) .

Read the article, Thanks Again.

• He says also that he has the keys of paradise,.

Many say many foolish things, fact of life.

• find out about the prophet who has appeared .

Intersting, first you assume he “has” appeared, and next you assume he “is a prophet”. Thats your burden of proof. We are trying to determine “if” in fact he appeared.

does this look to you like the prophet of islam ?.

Whats a prophet of Islam look like, please enlighten us If you believe Mohammad was a prophet “AMEN” not the point of the OP or my concern.

the document was written between 634- 640.

muhammad died in 632 , ! if you read the document it says ‘’ the prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracen ‘’ so it’s talking about a living person and this document agrees with another one by armenian bishop who claims that muhammad led an army of 12,000 jews , with saracens to take over the Holy Land ! remember the document you put says ‘’ and we jews overjoyed ‘’ because of the killing of byzantine by the arabs, all of this is older then any islamic document we posses.

“its a 7th century Greek Christian anti-Jewish polemical tract set in Carthage in 634 but written in Palestine “sometime” between 634 and 640” Its written in past-present.

My point is this…

“What is significant here is the possibility that Jews and Arabs (Saracens) seem to be allied together during the time of the conquest of Palestine and even for a short time after”

“This document is plausibly one of the most archaic elements of the Islamic tradition, its agreement with the earliest external accounts of the origins of Islam is highly significant”

“To be sure, the picture given in the Doctrina Iacobi seems garbled, and many of its details disagree with the traditional account (for example, in seeming to describe the prophet as leading the armies of the Saracens himself). … Yet one could hardly expect a Byzantine source from this early and turbulent period to get all the details right. Even later, most Byzantine sources displayed gross misunderstanding of matters Islamic, just as Muslim sources generally did of matters Byzantine.” – Colin Wells.

You have proof when Mohammed died? I’m looking at “only” his existence in external “proof”. Not the accuracy of the events described, not how Christians. Muslims or Jews feel about him, or how events changed by those describing the accounted events[this is common]. Or how Islam views him today.

In other words existing works from the period of his life from an external source which indicate he “existed” only. How valid the actual work is yet another story, its appears to be “authentic” being the point.

Peace

 

[Vasilis92]

I never understand how Muslims believe that Jesus was a result of virginal conception,that He ascended to Heaven,that *He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, * and still worshiping Muhammad.

He is a Prophet of God in Qur’an,the last Prophet to guide the people of Israel.
They believe neither that he was crucified nor that he resurrected and he was a mortal man,like the other Prophets (This could help you en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_of_Islam ).

 

[DeSanto]

I listened recently to “Searching for Muhammad” a Catholic Answers show with the guest: Robert Spencer.

catholic.com/radio/shows/searching-for-muhammad-7264

I was extremely surprised to hear that there is no historical evidence that the Prophet Muhammad actually existed.

What do Muslims think about this? Have you ever considered the possibility? Have you ever investigated this? If so, what did you discover?

Also curious about the coins Robert Spencer discovered that had Muhammad on them & on the other side the Cross. What do Muslims make of that historical evidence? Did early Muslims believe in the Cross and later change the belief? And what about the different versions of the Qur’an found?

I just saw this thread and am also very interested in this subject. I haven’t read through any post yet and am getting ready to check out your link. I have never heard of the possibility that Muhammad never existed but, I can tell you what I’ve learned so far in my studies is that the reason, probably, for the cross on the coin, was that supposedly Muhammed had some strong Christian influences and drew much from the “ingeel” (ie the bible). Muslims will tell you that if they have any questions, they are to refer to the ingeel. Of course they believe since then in the ingeel has been corrupted. Now, as far as the different versions of the Quran, there is deffinately some historical evidence that shows the corruption of their book. (ref: the first burning of the Quran) They really have no way to refute it but to say the interpreter was well learned and able to recite and rewrite, word for word, the entire thing. There were also disputes over translations. I will go into more detail and gather some references when I have more time. In the mean time, I will read through the thread, get brought up to speed and get acquainted with you guys. Looking forward to learning more in this subject!

 

[DeSanto]

Jesus Christ! was Henri Lammene work on islam an ideology that should not be allowed! was Alphonso Mingana who started the theory of the Syriac Quran (ans was proven later to be true) is a guy who is driven by ideology.

Forgive me for butting in here. I was just reading through some post and I couldn’t help but notice…and again, forgive me if I have misunderstood but…I believe you have used our Lords name in vein! I understand if you are newly converted but, as a Catholic, you should know this is not a small offense. No disrespect intended, just a friendly reminder. Peace be with you.

 

[DeSanto]

As to the poisoning by a Jewess, I find something strange in the story of al-Baidwawi: “Then she took a deadly poison that kills instantly and poisoned the lamb, putting more poison in the leg and shoulder.”

He goes on to state: "Then Muhammad sent for this Jewess and asked her, “Have you poisoned this lamb?” She said, "You have acquired certain powers with which you judge those who are not loyal to you. You killed my father, my uncle and my brother. . . So I said, “If he is a king, then I would be relieving us of him, and if he is a prophet, he will be able to perceive.’” It was said that he pardoned her, while others say he commanded her to be put to death and crucified. When Muhammad fell ill just before his death, he said to Aisha, “Aisha, I still feel the effect of the poisoned food I ate; this is the time of my demise by that poison.”

If the poison was one that kills instantly, how did Muhammad go on for some time talking about it and confronting the Jewess? I think the story is made up based on an elaborated rumor.

I also find something strange about this senario. Whether he was killed instantly or not, being a Prophet, would he not have foreseen his attempted murder and prevented it? Also, does the fact that his death was achieved through the “lamb” have any significance?

 

[jakasaki]

I also find something strange about this senario. Whether he was killed instantly or not, being a Prophet, would he not have foreseen his attempted murder and prevented it? Also, does the fact that his death was achieved through the “lamb” have any significance?

Welcome to CAF ~

I don’t know how the word of “lamb” got into the poison story. According to the hadith written by Bukhari, it was sheep meat.

 

[DeSanto]

Welcome to CAF ~
**
Thank you! I’ve actually been here for a few months but I wanted to change my user name so I had to make a new profile. I absolutely love this site and feel already I could go for a degree in theology with the amount of information I have gained in this very short time!**

I don’t know how the word of “lamb” got into the poison story. According to the hadith written by Bukhari, it was sheep meat.

**
I almost didn’t even say anything about it because I’m sure it’s just some weird coincidence, but I threw it out there anyway.**

 

[GaryTaylor]

I was just reading through.

Welcome to CAF.

 

[Contarini]

Thank you

One of our own Saints clearly recognized Muhammad as a true person who established the Islam, so I don’t care what some modern guy says regardless of his claim to have done indepth research.

Sainthood doesn’t make your historical opinions any more authoritative.

On the other hand, I don’t consider Spencer the most reliable historical source either–he’s an honest controversialist who has certainly done a lot of research, but very much driven by an ideological agenda. (Everyone has a bias, of course, but Mr. Spencer’s is more overt and more controlling than that of most historians–I also note that his scholarly credentials are limited, though that shouldn’t be used to rule him out of consideration as a valid source.) Spencer is naturally going to be drawn to the more radical, revisionist side of the scholarly spectrum on Muhammad.

I think there are valid questions to be raised about the “standard” account, though, just as the questions raised by historical critics about the Gospels are in principle valid. The major difference is that Christian scholars have taken the revisionist accounts seriously. Muslims tend not to engage seriously with these kinds of challenges, and of course in the Muslim world (and even to some extent in the West, especially Europe) it’s not physically safe to be a revisionist. (In other words, many Muslims do “engage seriously,” but by violence rather than by rational argument!)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Mr. Spencer , is one of the few Catholics who are saying and writing the truth about islam and he do great job in defending the western Civilization

In other words, you evaluate him not actually based on the scholarly merits of his case but based on your ideological agreement with him.

That’s not a healthy way to approach historical questions.

Edwin

 

[DeSanto]

Welcome to CAF.

Thank you Gary!

 

[arabic_catholic]

In other words, you evaluate him not actually based on the scholarly merits of his case but based on your ideological agreement with him.

That’s not a healthy way to approach historical questions.

Edwin

here is the thing , bring me a point about islam he makes , like for example , the interpretation of the verse of the sword ,and I will give you the source from arabic (both modern and ancient) , if he brought one thing about islam in his book ‘’ the truth about muhammad ‘’ which is not found and backed up by the islamic tradition and Islamic judges , then you have a point . However I am sure you will fail on this . because you are following an ideology too

 

[arabic_catholic]

Forgive me for butting in here. I was just reading through some post and I couldn’t help but notice…and again, forgive me if I have misunderstood but…I believe you have used our Lords name in vein! I understand if you are newly converted but, as a Catholic, you should know this is not a small offense. No disrespect intended, just a friendly reminder. Peace be with you.

Thanks