Did Muhammad Exist? Yes He Did

Ali Sina

Ali Sina is the author of Understanding Muhammad and Muslims.

41 Responses

  1. Richard says:

    The more interesting point about the debate raised by this article is this.
    The allegedly “moderate” Muslims are between a rock and a hard place.

    The rock is the theory that Muhammad didn’t exist. In that case their faith is founded on a complete fiction. In that case they have no rational reason to continue in it.

    The hard place is the alternative that he did. If he did then one has to accept the Islamic sources that describe his life. At best they describe a man who was mentally sick and deluded.

    There simply is no viable history that allows a rational moderate islam. If you disbelieve the information that tells you that he was a genocidal warlord then you are also forced to disbelieve the information that tells you he existed.

    In a sense it really doesn’t matter whether he existed. If he did then his character and actions tell you his revelations cannot be from God (by their fruits shall you know them). If he didn’t then the supposed revelations are invented by later authors – and therefore cannot be from God.

    Islam is false either way.

    Personally I tend to agree with Ali Sina that he did exist – but I do sometimes wonder if he was actually a single person. The Meccan and Medinan Koran are so different that it is hard to believe that they were written by the same hand.

  2. Richard says:

    @MES

    Sorry – I didn’t read the first bit of your comment properly – after that you did such a good job I thought it was for real!

    Well done!

  3. MES says:

    @Richard, I told it sarcastically. The point I wanted to make is muslims always blame their victims and justify their actions. Those who misbehave with women blame their dressing style isn’it? They -muslims are blinded by faith

  4. Richard says:

    @MES
    . Do you know the people of your Persia, Byzantine empire and parts of my India were oppressed by tyrannical rulers who taxed heavily?
    Who told you that?

    The main problem with the Persians and Byzantines was that they fought each other. In other ways they were the most advanced and civilised empires that had ever existed up to that time (perhaps along with the Chinese).

    Let me remind you of what patriarch Sophronius of Jerusasem said when the Muslim mob arrived there:

    “Why are the troops of the Saracens attacking us? Why has there been so much destruction and plunder? Why are there incessant outpourings of human blood? Why are the birds of the sky devouring human bodies?
    … the vengeful and God-hating Saracens, the abomination of desolation clearly foretold to us by the prophets, overrun the places which are not allowed to them, plunder cities, devastate fields, burn down villages, set on fire the holy churches, overturn the sacred monasteries, ”

    Doesn’t sound much like “liberation” to me!

    Face it. Your prophet was a pirate. His followers were a bunch of brigands and everything they owned was stolen!

  5. MES says:

    @Ali Sina,
    Let me empathize with muslims and see things in their eyes. You know something, no matter how hard you criticize islam no problem because muslims will learn more and iman will get stronger. . Do you know the people of your Persia, Byzantine empire and parts of my India were oppressed by tyrannical rulers who taxed heavily? islam is a system of liberation. I will tell you an analogy for you to understand it better. I went to a house and it’s owner’s wife and children told me that this impotent man is oppressing them and even physically torturing his wife & children. They asked me to kill the owner of the house and liberate them. By Allah’s will I was able to kill him and then I took his wife and children home so that I can take good care of them just like I treat my other wives and children back home. verily Allah is most merciful and all knowing

    As a side note that disbelieving man will be sent to hell on day of judgment to rot eternally in hell fire

  6. Phoenix says:

    @Adapter Mangos(@TamIMisledUs)

    To be fair, you have not provided us with any counter factual arguments against the article. A refutation entails presenting evidence to disprove the oppositions arguments. You have not done this, you merely denigrate the article and the writer.

  7. Someone tweeted

    Jorge smith
    ‏@jorgesmithian

    @AliSinaOrg @TamIMisledUs @elmer_clark7 @BasimaFaysal @NavedAliOrg lol seriously do you understand what slavery and brainwashing is? Evolve.

    To which I replied ” Do you know me at all? Search my name.”

    This was not to brag about my importance as you imply but to show this person’s error.

    Anyway. I am done with you as I don’t like your tone. You accused me of self importance and that alone is enough for me to see you are not an honest person and are not after truth. I m not going to waste my time with people like you. Also all your so called arguments are no argument at all. You are merely an angry person with little knowledge and a gigantic ego which you project on others. Good bye.

  8. Adapter Mangos (@TamIMisledUs) says:

    Never in my statements here have I been rude to you.

    I have been scathing about the lack of rigour which can be seen in your own statements. But that is criticism of your statements, not rudeness. In view of those unreliable statements, I have determined to treat you as an unreliable witness. That is not being rude either. That is just common sense.

    I did advise you to withdraw this book not to embarrass yourself. That could lead to undoing much of the good work you have done so far – so how could that be rude?

  9. Adapter Mangos (@TamIMisledUs) says:

    “and that is why I ignore you.”

    Which provides a very good pretext for not having to deal with my criticism.

  10. Adapter Mangos (@TamIMisledUs) says:

    “There is no arrogance in me while there is plenty in you…”

    By that, you mean that I have the temerity to call into question your dogmatic incoherent argument that mohammad did exist. Whether this is arrogance or not is irrelevant. What matters is not what/who I am. What matters is the strength of my arguments. Those arguments which you will seem willing try any ploy in order to mask your failure to address.

  11. Adapter Mangos (@TamIMisledUs) says:

    “Obviously you thought I am a Muslim.”

    I don’t know how you came to that conclusion. There is not a shred of evidence to show it.
    But, that would seem to be “obviously” in the same way as in –
    “Obviously mohammad (the mohammad to be found in the muslim myths) existed”, when there is not a shred of evidence to prove that conclusion.

  12. Adapter Mangos (@TamIMisledUs) says:

    “I asked you do you know who I am in response to you saying I have blind faith in Islam.”

    I have never once said you have blind faith in islam. My tweets imply the contrary. But then would be for you to take notice of the evidence, wouldn’t it?

  13. I asked you do you know who I am in response to you saying I have blind faith in Islam. Obviously you thought I am a Muslim. There is no arrogance in me while there is plenty in you and that is why I ignore you. It is my tradition to ignore arrogant rude people and have been doing so for the last 18-19 years.

  14. Adapter Mangos (@TamIMisledUs) says:

    @AliSina
    The argument you present here for the existence of muhammad is deeply flawed.
    As you fail to answer any of my fundamental criticisms (yet one more sign of your arrogance?), there is no point in continuing here with yet more detailed criticisms.
    So I shall now be exposing the flaws in this article to a much wider audience.
    You should consider getting your publisher to pulp any copies of this book in order to avoid serious embarrassment to you, although this pre-release document may have let the djinn out of the bottle.

  15. Adapter Mangos (@TamIMisledUs) says:

    @AliSina
    As you created this mess of a chapter, it is not surprising that you fail to see its flaws, of which there are many.
    As I mentioned on twitter, in response to your arrogant authority ploy (“you know who I am?”), up until now I have name checked you as a brave ex-muslim with exceptional insight into the evil of islam,

    No more.

    This chapter of your book shows you to be an extremely unreliable witness. If there is some aspect where I find you to provide proper evidence of some key point, I will reference that. But before that I will make absolutely sure that I do not associate my good name with the kind of sloppy reasoning which you present here.

  16. Ali Sina says:

    @Guest

    The Quran 30:2-3 says “The Romans are vanquished, in a near land, and they, after being vanquished, shall overcome.” As it happened, in a war that took place between the Persians and the Romans, the latter had been defeated. A few years later (627 A.D), after Muhammad’s death, in another war, the Romans became victorious. As far as Muslims are concerned this is a clear case of prophecy that had come true.

    The Quran was compiled during the caliphate of Uthman (644-656), while the outcome of the wars between the Persians and the Romans had been decided a quarter of century earlier. Would Uthman or the editors of the Quran allow an incorrect statement in their holy book? What are the chances that Muhammad made no such prediction or what he said was wrong and his words were adjusted to reflect what had occurred? To allow a verse that would prove the Quran wrong meant the end of Islam. And knowing about Muslims proclivity to attribute miracles to their prophet it is almost certain that they would have not left Muhammad’s false predictions unchanged.

  17. guest says:

    @Ali, There is a Muslim who pretends that verse 30 :2 to 4 shows that Allah predicted that the Romans will defeat the Persians with few years. Thus The quoran is miraculous.
    Do you know of any concrete proof that these 3 verses are not miraculous? I could not find anything on the web yet.

    Thank you

  18. Muhamad Azizi says:

    Something miss in this article and it is the most thing which all the Muslims in the world ignore. I would like to mention it shortly to Muslims. All Muslims should know that during Muhammad time Arabia was getting two prophets : Muhammad with his Islam one side and prophet Musaylimah from Banu Hanifah other side; calling each other liar. Both claim having scripture. Situation push to the single bloody battle call Yamama battle. The winner will eliminate the loser. That day it was not forgiveness, no tolerance, no peace, no compassion, no humanism, no multicultural, no leave it to Allah do his work, no you with your own and me with mine own(Q:109). NO, NO, NO. It was just a bloody, ungodly, anti-believe, intolerant, anti-multicultural battle in all of his form and the group of Muhammad under Kalifa Abu- bakar won. This is the way brought Muhammad to you as prophet and Musaylimah was eliminated. An other way around Muhammad could be eliminated and Musaylimah could be your prophet today. Please Dr. Sina tell us more about prophet Musaylimah, he was getting his scripture with lot of followers, his biography please. He was calling Muhammad a liar.

  19. Steve says:

    @Phoenix “Also, why do you keep referring to Steve as Achmed? Do you guys know each other personally?” I guess this guy thinks that anybody who believes muhammed was a historical person and who does not buy into his conspiracy theory must be a Muslim.

  20. Steve says:

    tamimisledus

    “The hadith are rife with contradictions. There is a whole branch of islamic “study” which claims to sift out the “false” hadith from the “true” hadith. Not that, in any case, can any of them be independently proved to be true.” You obviously don’t know anything about how Muslim scholars collected Hadith and classified them. Read this article http://lostislamichistory.com/imam-al-bukhari-and-the-science-of-hadith/

    A few quotes “What makes Sahih al-Bukhari so unique was Imam al-Bukhari’s meticulous attention to detail when it came to the compilation of hadiths. He had far stricter rules than other hadith scholars for accepting a hadith as authentic. The chain of narrators for a particular hadith had to be verified as authentic and reliable before Imam al-Bukhari would include that hadith in his compilation. For example, the first hadith in the book begins:
    “We have heard from al-Humaydi Abdallah ibn al-Zubayr who said that he heard from Sufyan, who said he heard from Yahya ibn Sa’eed al-Ansari who said he was informed by Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Taymi that he heard ‘Alqama ibn Waqqas al-Laythi say that he heard ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab say on the sermon pulpit that he heard the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ say: ‘Actions are only by intentions…’”
    This chain of six narrators was meticulously inspected by Imam al-Bukhari. In order for him to consider the hadith authentic, he had to study the lives of all the people in the chain in depth. He studied where and when the narrators lived, in order to make sure that if someone narrates from someone else, they must both have been in the same place at the same time and have actually met and discussed hadith. Other hadith scholars did not all require evidence that two consecutive narrators met personally, but Imam al-Bukhari’s strict requirements is what makes his compilation unique.

    Imam al-Bukhari also studied the lives of narrators, to make sure they were trustworthy and would not fabricate, or change the wording of a hadith. If he discovered that someone in a chain openly sinned or was not considered trustworthy, that hadith was immediately discarded and not included in his book unless a stronger chain for it existed.

    Using his strict guidelines for hadith acceptance, Imam al-Bukhari was the first to make a systematic approach to classifying hadith. Each hadith he analyzed was labelled as either sahih (authentic), hasan (good), mutawatir (recurrent in many chains), ahad (solitary), da’eef (weak), or mawdu’ (fabricated). This system for hadith then became the standard by which all hadiths were classified by other hadith scholars.”

    “One of the common accusations made by non-Muslims against Islamic sciences and the study of hadith is that there is no way of verifying the hadith and that they should not be used as a source of belief or law. This argument is based on a very rudimentary and flawed understanding of how the hadith were collected and the incredible amount of effort scholars such as al-Bukhari put into verifying their authenticity. With the monumental work of al-Bukhari and other scholars of hadith, we have been able to know what words and actions can truly be attributed to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ even 1400 years after his life.”

    These people devoted years of there lives studying this and going through thousands of Hadith are you expecting us to believe some rulers got together and fabricated every single one of these stories and all the narrators and all the sources listed? And managed to fool all these scholars and nobody suspected anything? This is one of the most wildest conspiracy theories I have ever heard.

  21. Ali Sina says:

    @Phoenix

    I have already made everything clear. Unless my arguments are refuted I see no reason to rehash them. Steve already summarized the main points for those who did not have time to read the entire article.

  22. Phoenix says:

    @tamimisledus

    Steve has provided some good rebuttals aginst your objections. Why not refute that while you wait for Ali Sina’s response.

    And don’t worry, he will respond. He’s not an elitist who believe blog commenters are beneath him and not worth his time and effort.

    Also, why do you keep referring to Steve as Achmed? Do you guys know each other personally?

  23. tamimisledus says:

    Achmed:

    Are you so ignorant, or are you just an out and out liar?

    The hadith are rife with contradictions. There is a whole branch of islamic “study” which claims to sift out the “false” hadith from the “true” hadith. Not that, in any case, can any of them be independently proved to be true.

    Dealing with you is just a waste of my time. You have absolutely nothing of value to add to this debate.

  24. Steve says:

    tamimisledus

    “Still wrong” That’s why you can’t show me one thing I was wrong about? It’s seems your main argument is this “As I have previously pointed out, in seeking to prove that muhammad existed, you cannot rely on the islamic texts which tell the supposed stories of muhammad.
    That is the equivalent of claiming that the content of the koran where *allah* “reveals” himself proves that *allah* made those “revelations” This argument might hold weight if these stories including claims of performing great miracles and such things. But they don’t “The biography of Muhammad is intricate. It contains many details, some of them embarrassing to Muslims. Attempts have been made to hide them, deny them, justify and rationalize them. Take the examples of the massacre of the Bani Qurayza, the episode of the Satanic verses, the story of Muhammad’s sexual vagary with his maid Mariyah, the quarrels between his wives and their rebellion against him, the accusations of adultery against Aisha and Mariyah, the story of him being under the influence of magic, and hallucinating of having sex with his wives, and countless stories that depict him as a crazy, ruthless, rapist, genocidal torturer. Why would anyone want to fabricate stories so demeaning to their prophet and embarrassing to them?” To add why are rulers going to bother making up stories like that and not instead claim he had the power to perform miracles and was full of humane qualities like mercy and compassion?

    Also note unlike the stories in the Christian bible which contradict each other and do not reference a single source the hadiths are consistent, attested to by multiple people and all list the source.

    It’s beyond me why people put so much energy into theories (conspiracy theory really) like this which most probably are not true anyway and would not make any practical difference even in the unlikely event that they are true.

  25. tamimisledus says:

    “We don’t need more than the Islamic texts to know that Muhammad existed.”
    Ali, how brazen can you get?
    We need a lot other than the islamic texts to know that muhammad existed.
    As I have previously pointed out, in seeking to prove that muhammad existed, you cannot rely on the islamic texts which tell the supposed stories of muhammad.
    That is the equivalent of claiming that the content of the koran where *allah* “reveals” himself proves that *allah* made those “revelations”.

  26. tamimisledus says:

    Achmed (Steve):

    Still wrong.
    You are making many of the same errors as Ali Sina. I will be dealing as I see fit with the errors made by Ali Sina.
    If after that I think it appropriate, I will deal with anything worthwhile you may have added to the debate.
    But I will not be doing that if you do not significantly improve the presentation of your arguments over your latest stream of consciousness.
    As part of that presentation, if you think that Ali Sina’s arguments need support, please present them to Ali Sina, not to me.

  27. Steve says:

    @tamimisledus
    “Steve: Reference my General observation regarding the use of the histories of muhammad.
    You are wrong.” You said “References to unproven texts (hadith, etc) do not count as proof.It is not enough to show that he could have existed.” I did not claim these *prove* his existence I said the data is best explained by the hypothesis that Muhammad was a historical person and not a myth made up by Arab imperialists.

    “Ali Sina cannot in any case use the history of muhammad to prove that muhummad existed.
    If we draw comparisons with science, it would be like assuming that the Ptolemaic system was true and use that to prove it was true.” I am not assuming he existed I am saying the data best fits with the hypothesis he existed.

    “What little “evidence” Sina has provided is insubstantial and is consistent with a whole series of equally viable hypotheses” Okay what other hypothesis do these facts fit 1) Muhammad’s character and embarrassing episodes in his life recorded. Why would a person inventing a perfect prophet invent these stories? 2- Out of thin air “Muhammad was survived by thousands. Their names, their genealogy and their relationship with each other and with their descendants who were actual historic figures are recorded.” Presumably all these people – his family members, his companions and there descendants was also made up as well? And then based on that Arab rulers fooled millions based on completely made up data? 4 – The Earliest Sources About Muhammad. 5 -The Quran Derives From the Bible “Although this is to a great extent true, especially in the case of the Meccan verses, the Medinan verses are almost entirely about incidents that happened in the life of Muhammad. One cannot even make sense of them unless one is familiar with the stories behind them.” 6- The poor quality of the Quran “If Islam were invented to give someone’s rule legitimacy, as it is claimed, wouldn’t it be more rational to commission a learned person to write a more sensible and coherent holy book?” 7- Why A Villain Prophet? “Despite so many claims of Muhammad’s greatness what is missing in the Sira are tales of his kindness and humanity” “Despite so many miracles attributed to him in the Sira, according to the Quran, Muhammad could not perform any. He is extolled and panegyrized, eulogized and exalted, and yet, the stories about him betray him as a thug, a ruthless torturer, a violator of his words, a sexual pervert, and a violent man unable to control his rage and passion. It makes no sense to fabricate a prophet and make him look so evil to such an extent that some historians felt the need to tamper with the history and hide the ugliest details of his life.” 8- The Enormous List of Protagonists “The biographies of Muhammad, generally give a long list of the first, second and third generation of believers, non-believers, friends and foes that played a role in the history of Islam. There are thousands of names with their short genealogy and they are all related to each other. In his Book of Grand Classifications (Kitab Tabaqat Al-Kobra) Ibn Sa’d has compiled short biographies of thousands of early believers, both men and women. What was the point of going through that much pain?” 9- Why Someone Else? “If a religion was needed to provide legitimacy for a ruler, and such thing could be done, wouldn’t it be more logical that he claim the divine right for himself and declare himself the prophet king? Why build the personality cult around someone else?” 10 The Birmingham Quran: The Case Closed “The carbo dating of the parchment folios strongly suggests that the animal from which it was taken was alive during the lifetime of Muhammad or shortly afterwards. This means that the parts of the Qur’an that are written on this parchment can, with a degree of confidence, be dated to less than two decades after Muhammad’s death. They also reveal the text of the Quran has undergone little or no alteration since it was compiled by Uthman.”

    So then what other hypothesis are equally valid based on this data? What other hypothesis explains the Birmingham Quran? Please enlighten us.

    “The whole of science of the last two centuries (and before) is littered with “best” hypotheses which have later been shown to be false in one or more key aspects.” Right now the best hypothesis is that Muhammed existed if in the future data comes in which indicates he was made up then you will have something until then you haven’t got anything.
    “5)
    Science is only viable in limited scenarios. Science does not form a reliable method at arriving at all truths. The scientific method can help shed some light on this topic. It cannot be used as a means of determining the truth of this matter.” Whats your method for determining the truth of this matter then?

  28. tamimisledus says:

    Ali Sina.

    Understandably, having written several books on muhammad, you have a vested interest* in his existence.
    But you should try not to let your decisions be influenced by that. (Though I guess you will come forward to deny such bias, conscious or not).
    But muhammad’s non-existence does not undermine the fundamentals of your criticisms of muhammad.
    If he did not exist (as I and others contend), then your criticisms are equally valid of the evil fictional character that muslims, over time, created. In fact if muslims created the fiction of muhammad, this reflects very badly directly onto those muslims,
    Of course, this latter point alone does not mean that you should change your view. But I hope that it will help you to stand back a little and judge the case against muhammad’s existence with more objectivity

    * Let us be clear, I am the last person to claim that because you have a vested interest, you must be wrong.

  29. tamimisledus says:

    Phoenix:

    Like you I am keen to hear Ali Sina’s response. (to my so far incomplete criticism of his arguments).
    However, I fear that he is hoping that others (such as Steve below) will step into the breach on his behalf and save him the bother.
    Even though I have not completed my criticisms, I don’t see that he, or any of those who might rush to his aid, has much of a leg to stand on. Certainly not on the case he has presented here.
    I didn’t enter into this exchange with one of the greatest non-muslim authorities, without having the utmost confidence in my position on this.

  30. tamimisledus says:

    Steve: Reference my General observation regarding the use of the histories of muhammad.
    You are wrong.

    Below I break down my argument into simple steps to make it easier for you to follow. Additionally I have pointed out the flaws in your attempted refutation of my criticisms.

    1)
    If Ali Sina wants to prove that muhammad existed, he has to provide the evidence (data) that he existed. It is not enough to prove that it is possible that he existed.
    2)
    Ali Sina cannot in any case use the history of muhammad to prove that muhummad existed.
    If we draw comparisons with science, it would be like assuming that the Ptolemaic system was true and use that to prove it was true.
    3)
    What little “evidence” Sina has provided is insubstantial and is consistent with a whole series of equally viable hypotheses.
    4)
    The best scientific (most probable) hypothesis is not necessarily the correct hypothesis.
    For example, the Ptolemaic system was the best scientific hypothesis for over two millennia until it was replaced by the heliocentric model.
    The whole of science of the last two centuries (and before) is littered with “best” hypotheses which have later been shown to be false in one or more key aspects.
    5)
    Science is only viable in limited scenarios. Science does not form a reliable method at arriving at all truths. The scientific method can help shed some light on this topic. It cannot be used as a means of determining the truth of this matter.

  31. Phoenix says:

    Ali Sina,

    We are looking forward to your response to tamimisledus.

  32. Steve says:

    tamimisledus
    “Major observation:
    If you want to prove that muhammad existed, you have to give concrete evidence that he actually existed. References to unproven texts (hadith, etc) do not count as proof.
    It is not enough to show that he could have existed.
    You have not provided evidence here which counts as proof that he did exist.” No all he has to do is show that the data best fits the hypothesis that Muhammad was an historical person and not an invention of Arab imperialists. This is like how biologist show that different species share DNA sequences this is best explained by the hypothesis of common descent and not creationism.

  33. tamimisledus says:

    Major observation.
    Because you may have succeeded in demonstrating, if you have, that one of your opponent’s arguments is incorrect, that does not prove that all his/her arguments are incorrect. This is an implied ad hominem, a major flaw in arguing a case. It is also arguing from the particular to the general, another serious failure in reasoning.
    Each argument must be examined in its own right, without reference to any other on which the argument does not depend, or to the person presenting the argument.
    To use one failure, or for that matter multiple failures, would be similar to arguing that (say) Newton’s scientific theories were wrong because he believed in alchemy. His belief in alchemy has no bearing on the truth of his scientific theories.

  34. tamimisledus says:

    Major observation:
    It is not enough to prove that your opponents are wrong. You have to prove that you are right.

  35. tamimisledus says:

    Over and over again, in your argument you assume the existence of muhammad. In this context, that is just circular reasoning; assuming the truth of the topic which is being examined.
    It is the very similar to the argument presented by many muslims that the koran is the revelation of *allah*’s will because it says it is the revelation of *allah*’s will. [I realise that I am over simplifying, but even you must understand the broad analogy]

  36. tamimisledus says:

    Major observation:
    If you want to prove that muhammad existed, you have to give concrete evidence that he actually existed. References to unproven texts (hadith, etc) do not count as proof.
    It is not enough to show that he could have existed.

    You have not provided evidence here which counts as proof that he did exist.

  37. tamimisledus says:

    “Some of the arguments presented by the revisionists lack any credibility. Take the example of Christoph Luxenberg’s claim
    …..

    Why was such a nonsensical argument taken seriously? All one has to do to see that this is an absurd argument is to read the verses.”

    Second observation.
    Proving that your opponent is wrong cannot be taken as proof that you are right.

  38. tamimisledus says:

    “Some of the arguments presented by the revisionists lack any credibility. Take the example of Christoph Luxenberg’s claim
    …..

    Why was such a nonsensical argument taken seriously? All one has to do to see that this is an absurd argument is to read the verses.”

    First observation.
    When presenting an argument, you need to give reference to that argument. Your rewording of that argument without giving the opportunity to examine it in detail is not sufficient for a rigorous examination.
    This applies whether or not your argument is correct.

  39. tamimisledus says:

    The purpose of this question is to determine whether or not it is reasonable to believe that muhammad existed. As a corollary of that, we have to determine whether the “histories” of muhammad are true. If the histories are not true, then the muhammad contained in them did not exist.
    When attempting to prove that muhammad existed, you just cannot use the “histories” as evidence. Equally, if you wish to use any part of the koran, you must prove that the koran is true before you can use it as evidence.
    Therefore the greater part of this excerpt which assumes the truth of the “histories” is just excess irrelevant verbiage. It offers no evidence for the existence of muhammad.

  40. tamimisledus says:

    There are multiple failures to apply rational analysis here. Some are addressed in my comments below. Some I hope to address later in a wider forum. Beware that because I do not address a particular point does not mean I agree with any of the points you raise.

  41. Walter Sieruk says:

    There can be little doubt , if any at all that, Muhammad, the founder and prophet of Islam is exist. He really lived and did and a powerful impact on history and carries through to modern times. Nevertheless, there is some debate if the claim of Muhammad of being a prophet is true. Some informed people say the Muhammad was a “prophet pretender.” There is some merit to such a statement. Still, there is Christian Bible- based view that Muhammad might had been a prophet but the important thing for Christians to understand and know that Muhammad was not a prophet send by God .Instead Muhammad was a deceitful lying false prophet send by Satan to start a false religion which leads many people astray and straight into hell. In fact, Jesus had predicted and warned about the coming of such men as Muhammad. For Jesus warned “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Mathew 7:15. The Bible further warns that “many false prophets are gone out into the world.” First John 4:1. [K.J. V.] To further explain this in some detail the following is reiterated. With Islam so much in the news and in such great power in some countries, as Saudi Arabia and Iran, it’s a good thing to define what Islam really is .Of the many ways Islam may be described, one of them is that a religion of denial. Meaning that Islam denies that Jesus is the Son of God. As in the Son of God Who is God the Father. Furthermore, Islam denies the Jesus is God the Son. In addition, Islam denies that Jesus is God. Before going over these three denials of Islam it first should the stated the Bible instructs the way to tell if a prophet or religious teacher is really from and of God or not is do the teachings and doctrines of that prophet of teacher really fit in accord what is found in the Bible ? For if that prophet or teachers and teachers doctrines that are in contradiction to the Bible then that prophet is a false prophet and that religious teacher is a false teacher and thus in doctrinal error and darkness. Likewise if a religion had teachings and doctrines that are in contradiction that is religion is in error also part of the world of darkness and is therefore a false religion. As the Bible instructs in Isaiah 8:20. “To the law of the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” [K.J.V.] With this clearly stated, three things should be known. First, that Islam denial that Jesus is the Son of God is in great contradiction to the teaching of the Bible . Which reveals the Jesus is the Son of God? As seen in ,for example Matthew 3:16,17. 16:15,16. Luke 1:35. John 3:16, 17, 36. First John 2:22,23. 4:14,15. 5:12,13. Second, that Islam denies that Jesus is God the Son is in strong contradiction to the Bible. As found in Hebrews 1:6-8. With emphasis on verse 8. Third, Islam’s denial that Jesus is God is in great contrast to the doctrine and teaching of the Bible. That Jesus is God may be found in ,for example, John 1:1;3. Colossians 1:15-17. 2:9. Romans 9:5 Second Peter 1:1. Titus 2:13. First John 5:20. Moreover, to further discover that the Bible teachings that Jesus is God all a person has to do is to compare the Old Testament with New Testament to see that Jesus is God. As in comparing Isaiah 45:22,23. with Philippians 2:5-11. Also by comparing Psalm 89:8,9. with Mathew 8:23-27. will reveal that Jesus is God. Likewise , by comparing Psalm 62:5-7 . with First Corinthians 10:4. shows the Deity of Jesus. Even by comparing the News Testament books together will show that Jesus is God. As in comparing Romans 14:12. with John 5:22. will show Jesus to be God. The list can go on but this should be enough, for all who are willing to see the truth , that Jesus is, indeed, the Son of God. That Jesus is God the Son and that Jesus is God. The imams and mullahs as well as the other apologists for Islam will try to “explain’ this all away by making the claim that the Bible had been corrupted by Christians ,through time, and that’s way the Bible reads as it does. This claim, very much, underestimate the Power of God to protect and preserve His Word ,through time , and to keep in intact and away from the corruption of men. In conclusion, in light and information of the Bible in can be seen Muhammad was a false prophet and that Islam is a awful and terrible doctrinal error concerning it teaching about the Nature of Jesus and therefore Islam is part of the world of darkness. So Islam with its strong contradictions to the Bible is a false religion, Proverbs 14:12. So all dear Muslims are thus invited to leave the false religion of Islam and come the and receive the Jesus of the Bible who is the only way to heaven ,John 14:6. and the True Light of the world. John 8:12.
    For additional Bible based information there is the Christian internet site which replies to the many claims made by the imams and mullahs and the other apologists for Islam. It’s answering-islam.org

%d bloggers like this: