In search for the historical Mohammed

[manfred]

There are no early Islamic sources about Mohammed or the Qur'an . This has some to conclude that he was really a later creation, or a conflation of several people.

There are however some hints at Mohammed in other, Jewish and Christian texts..... There is a document called the "Doctrina iacobi" originally in Aramaic, which dates from 634, two years after Mohammed's assumed death. It is a discussion between two Jewish friends, one of whom became a Christian, which caused some upset and lengthy discussions. In amongst all of that, there is this passage:

“When the candidatus [i.e. Sergius, a member of the Byzantine imperial army in Palestine] was killed by the Saracens, I was at Caesarea and I set off by boat to Sykamina. People were saying "the candidatus has been killed," and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. I, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in scriptures, and I said to him: "What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?" He replied, groaning deeply: "He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. Truly they are works of anarchy being committed today and I fear that the first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist. Indeed, Isaiah said that the Jews would retain a perverted and hardened heart until all the earth should be devastated. But you go, master Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared." So I, Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had met him that there was no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men's blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible [i.e. not credible]”.

This is a most fascinating passage, as it clearly speaks of a "prophet" from the "Saracens" (i.e. The Arabs) who was a fighter and he also spoke of a "Messiah". Given the date, it is almost inescapable that this is talking about Mohammed.

He was not accepted by the Jews and Christians, on account of his violence, the source says.

But is this the "Mohammed" of Islamic traditions? The first interesting part is that Mohammed is placed at the LEVANT. The narrator is in what today is Northern Central Israel and he is embarking on a journey to Cyprus, when he heard about the "prophet". The Jews (are you listening, eagle? JEWS in Palestine in 634) were happy at first about the attack on the Byzantines, but did not think much of the "prophet" claim.

It also worth noting that this "prophet" claimed had the "keys of paradise" which is a reference to Matthew's gospel and Peter. This testimony makes Mohammed essentially a Christian heretic who claimed to be the successor of the apostle Peter and was sent to prepare for the day of judgement, or the (second?) arrival of the Messiah.

So, the earliest sources portray Mohammed as a sort of "prophet" of a vaguely Christian variety, but with an army and a sword.... he "morphed" later into the "seal of the prophets" and Jewish and Christian reference points were shed.

So we can say that while Mohammed was most likely a historical figure, but the Islamic version of his life is far removed from the real Mohammed.

[manfred]

Many things Muslims (and some others) believe about Mohammed are in fact fabrications, and date much later than suggested.

This is a translation of the so-called Ashtiname, a letter attibuted to Mohammed granting protection to Christian monasteries:

Spoiler! :

This is a letter which was issued by Mohammed, Ibn Abdullah, the Messenger, the Prophet, the Faithful, who is sent to all the people as a trust on the part of God to all His creatures, that they may have no plea against God hereafter. Verily God is Omnipotent, the Wise. This letter is directed to the embracers of Islam, as a covenant given to the followers of Jesus the Nazarene in the East and West, the far and near, the Arabs and foreigners, the known and the unknown.

This letter contains the oath given unto them, and he who disobeys that which is therein will be considered a disbeliever and a transgressor to that whereunto he is commanded. He will be regarded as one who has corrupted the oath of God, disbelieved His Testament, rejected His Authority, despised His Religion, and made himself deserving of His Curse, whether he is a Sultan or any other believer of Islam. Whenever Christian monks, devotees and pilgrims gather together, whether in a mountain or valley, or den, or frequented place, or plain, or church, or in houses of worship, verily we are [at the] back of them and shall protect them, and their properties and their morals, by Myself, by My Friends and by My Assistants, for they are of My Subjects and under My Protection.

I shall exempt them from that which may disturb them; of the burdens which are paid by others as an oath of allegiance. They must not give anything of their income but that which pleases them—they must not be offended, or disturbed, or coerced or compelled. Their judges should not be changed or prevented from accomplishing their offices, nor the monks disturbed in exercising their religious order, or the people of seclusion be stopped from dwelling in their cells.

No one is allowed to plunder these Christians, or destroy or spoil any of their churches, or houses of worship, or take any of the things contained within these houses and bring it to the houses of Islam. And he who takes away anything therefrom, will be one who has corrupted the oath of God, and, in truth, disobeyed His Messenger.

Jizya should not be put upon their judges, monks, and those whose occupation is the worship of God; nor is any other thing to be taken from them, whether it be a fine, a tax or any unjust right. Verily I shall keep their compact, wherever they may be, in the sea or on the land, in the East or West, in the North or South, for they are under My Protection and the testament of My Safety, against all things which they abhor.

No taxes or tithes should be received from those who devote themselves to the worship of God in the mountains, or from those who cultivate the Holy Lands. No one has the right to interfere with their affairs, or bring any action against them. Verily this is for aught else and not for them; rather, in the seasons of crops, they should be given a Kadah for each Ardab of wheat (about five bushels and a half) as provision for them, and no one has the right to say to them 'this is too much', or ask them to pay any tax.

As to those who possess properties, the wealthy and merchants, the poll-tax to be taken from them must not exceed twelve drachmas a head per year (i.e. about 200 modern day US dollars).

They shall not be imposed upon by anyone to undertake a journey, or to be forced to go to wars or to carry arms; for the Muslims have to fight for them. Do no dispute or argue with them, but deal according to the verse recorded in the Quran, to wit: ‘Do not dispute or argue with the People of the Book but in that which is best’ [29:46]. Thus they will live favored and protected from everything which may offend them by the Callers to religion (Islam), wherever they may be and in any place they may dwell.

Should any Christian woman be married to a Muslim, such marriage must not take place except after her consent, and she must not be prevented from going to her church for prayer. Their churches must be honored and they must not be withheld from building churches or repairing convents.

They must not be forced to carry arms or stones; but the Muslims must protect them and defend them against others. It is positively incumbent upon every one of the follower of Islam not to contradict or disobey this oath until the Day of Resurrection and the end of the world.

If this letter were authentic, it would be mentioned by Mohammed himself or his companions at least in the Sahih hadiths. Muslim Caliphs would have known that there are limits to what they can do vis-a-vis Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians as this would have been their template for conduct towards other religions. The fact is that many Muslims are hearing about this document for the very first time. Also, many other Christian churches, Jewish and Zoroastrians would have copies of this or at least would have been aware of this document. Especially if it was mandatory for their own survival. Besides Mohammed would have come across as a compassionate and trustworthy human being who kept his word, which would have been a role model for Muslims all over the world. Muslims would have been holding up this as an example to show that Islam was indeed a peaceful religion. Obviously this document is a fabrication.

There are other, similar letters, and NONE can be traced to the times of Mohammed. All also are first remarked on after the period of the collection of hadith was over.

[Ariel]

Every day I learn something new from you Manfred. Thank you. Those stories are fascinating.

[Hombre]

But Mohammad body is said to rest in a grave right inside the great Mosque in Madinah

[manfred]

There are essentially the same problems with the so-called "constitution of Medina"... allegedly from 622
A text that confers protection and rights to the Jews of Medina....

The first issue is how the text starts... (there are several versions, but all have similar statements)

“Believe in Allah and the last days”
“Accept Allah and Muhammad as the ultimate arbiter”
“Help one another fight mutual enemies”
“Contribute to the war effort”

We are told eight tribes signed up to this... What kind of Jew would agree to make Mohammed the arbiter of religion? Do Jews not have Rabbis?

Interestingly the Banu Quraiza are not listed among those who signed it, so it is difficult to argue that they owed Mohammed any kind of allegiance based on this.

But apart from the pre-preposterous notion that Jews readily and happily accepted Mohammed as a religious and secular ruler in 622 there is another problem...

Why is this not mentioned in the Qur'an or the hadith? This would be a very important issue, so why is it left out? The answer is very simple: it did not exist yet.

The first we hear about it is in the Sira of Muhammad by ibn Ishaq (died 767), and Abu ‘Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam (died 838).


Why did the Jews, whenever attacked by the Muslims not raise this document up high in their defence?

The Qur'an and hadith are very hostile to Jews, so this document does not fit in with the rest of Islamic texts.

Another problem is that there is not archaeological evidence of Jews in what today is Medina: If there is no extant archaeological evidence for Jews in Yathrib/Medina, then it is impossible that the so-called “Constitution of Medina” is historically valid; rather, it is either a legendary, apocryphal construct or it refers to Mohammed having settled not in Medina at all but somewhere further North, where there were Jewish communities.

[Takeiteasynow]

In order to identify the historical Muhammad you have to understand:

• the role of Messianic Judaism in the sixth century AD and its origin;
• the religion of the Jewish-Arab tribes in the Syro-Levant area and Himyar.
• what happened in the period between the start of the Intertestamental period and the events of the early sixth century;
• the role of the so called 'Late Antique Little Ice Age' - a long-lasting Northern Hemisphere cooling period in the 6th and 7th century AD, during the period known as late antiquity - which forced many Arab tribes to migrate north;

Then finally you have to match the linguistical patterns with the archeological evidence so all circumstantial evidence can be included and explained.

This all of course in the notion that big historical changes happen in resourceful areas.

[manfred]

Please add your own thoughts, takeiteasynow!

[Takeiteasynow]

That's easier said then done. We have a lot of material but as stated before, it's validity depends on what happened between 200 BC and 600 AD.

But it's not that difficult to define targets such as a religious leader who would readily and happily be accepted by Jews in the early 7th century - the historical record mentions only one candidate who rules the Levant between 622 till possibly 656.

But for now we'll continue with the Petra thread.

[frankie]

There is mounting evidence that Mohammed is just a figment of someones imagination to give 7th century Arabs a common purpose, both politically and religiously.
The name Abdul Malik comes into focus on more than one occasion with this very objective in mind,whilst listening to Jay Smith and Roberts Spencer, both who have studied the Islamic faith,and are qualified scholars on the subject.

The historical evidence for an actual person called Mohammed who brought Islam to the world is scant, as evidenced by both speakers,however, there is more than enough evidence to show that Abdul Malik is one man who is the architect of the foundations of Islam.

Take time to listen,they shed light into the deepest recesses of the foundations of Islam,much of which you may not have heard of before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... e=emb_logo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

btw Jay Smith has his own channel Pfander Films where he discusses in more depth the origins of Islam and its prophet Mohammed.

[manfred]

The problem for Muslim tradition as I see it is that we don't have reliable direct evidence from the 7th (before 691) century for
a) The man Mohammed - was there one or several? What did he really say and do?
b) The city of Mecca - surely not a "trade route" city. At best, a back water... no sources for its existence at all until long after Mohammed. Why is there no Kaaba in sources before 691?
c) The Qur'an - the earliest sources do not mention a Qur'an but merely a "text most dire", as John of Damascus describes is called "the hefer"....
d) a people calling themselves Muslims - no Muslim coinage about Mohammed or the early Qalifs, the fist one from 696.
e) a religion called Islam - also not mentioned until much later.....

A lot of that is from A LOT later, up to 200 years. Sometimes Muslims point to the two documents I mentioned, but they are very unlikely to be genuine, for the reasons given....

That, together with late Qibla for Mecca, suggests that ALL aspects of Islam have been thoroughly revised and bear little resemblance to real events.

[Takeiteasynow]

The theory from Jay Smith and Robert Spencer is interesting but has some serious flaws like the lack of a common source or origin: what led towards the rise of new Arab Empires? The name Muhammad is known before the rise of Islam (for instance Naijran, Yemen - circa 525 AD), the concept of the 'anointed one' was well known and widespread in the Near East as part of Messianic literature where in some variants Jesus replaced the role of the original Jewish prophet Messiah ben Joseph. Contemporary accounts describe that (Arab) Jews built the Dome of the Roch which architecture is based upon the Qasr al-Bint at Petra and innovative technologies of construction from Bosra. And of course there never was an Arab empire that stretched from 'Andalusia to India'.

The foundations of Islam are much older than the 7th century where carbon-dating of pre-Quranic manuscripts indicate centuries. Yet it is ridiculous to debate its origin without considering many contemporary accounts or literature and recent developments in linguistical and archeological science. So either they leave out material on purpose or are incompetent. Or perhaps because they are devoted evangelists?

[manfred]

The trouble is we have an "official" Islamic history, but a lot of that makes not much sense, and falls apart in investigation.

As to carbon dating, that sadly is not always fool proof. First, not all things can be dated that way, they must have carbon in the first place to be dated, carbon from a living source.

Then there is another problem. For example the "Birmingham manuscript" of parts of the Qur'an pre-dates Mohammed. So does that prove conclusively that the Qur'an is older than Mohammed? No it does not, at least not beyond doubt. Why? Because the writing on a parchment can be put there at any time after the parchment was made. We only know the EARLIEST date of the writing but not the actual.

If you say that people leave out fact either out of ignorance or out of academic dishonesty, then you should supply what is missing. I look forward to seeing it!

[Takeiteasynow]

That's why you should ignore the official dogma at all times and focus on what really matters - a logical chain of events. You 're right on carbon dating but that phrase was taken literally from the video - with new developments such as databases of pre-Islamic Arab scripts (Oxford's Oceania) it is now easier to track early concepts that were labeled Islamic many centuries later.

If you say that people leave out fact either out of ignorance or out of academic dishonesty, then you should supply what is missing. I look forward to seeing it!

Well aren't most gamma scholars ignorant and prefer to reside in the bubble of their discipline? And now it is my responsibility to take them out?

Basically Mo's new biography is ready with the exception of the Nazarite component - still waiting for the English translation of the famous French work which was supposed to be published in early last year.

[manfred]

Well aren't most gamma scholars ignorant and prefer to reside in the bubble of their discipline? And now it is my responsibility to take them out?

Well, in general, if we are critical of something should we not bring some evidence?

I am not asking for much, just that you follow the things up you tell us about. You said a lot very generally, so perhaps narrow it down to just an aspect of it. It is not about taking anybody "out" but to get as rounded and as complete a picture as we can put together.

[Hombre]

Another problem is that there is not archaeological evidence of Jews in what today is Medina: If there is no extant archaeological evidence for Jews in Yathrib/Medina, then it is impossible that the so-called “Constitution of Medina” is historically valid; rather, it is either a legendary, apocryphal construct or it refers to Mohammed having settled not in Medina at all but somewhere further North, where there were Jewish communities.

Khaybar was a large oasis near madinah where more then 10,000 Jews had lived there until Muhammad killed 700 of their man, looted they proprieties & sold their women into slavery. It ruins remain intact to this day

[manfred]

Yes,we do have some evidence of a Jewish settlement there, NORTH OF MEDINA, as I said. But the battle of Khaybar is only known to us from source 200 years after the death of Mohammed. Is that sufficient evidence?

Is there a JEWISH source for this event? That would be very useful.

[Takeiteasynow]

Another problem is that there is not archaeological evidence of Jews in what today is Medina: If there is no extant archaeological evidence for Jews in Yathrib/Medina, then it is impossible that the so-called “Constitution of Medina” is historically valid; rather, it is either a legendary, apocryphal construct or it refers to Mohammed having settled not in Medina at all but somewhere further North, where there were Jewish communities.

Khaybar was a large oasis near madinah where more then 10,000 Jews had lived there until Muhammad killed 700 of their man, looted they proprieties & sold their women into slavery. It ruins remain intact to this day

The presence of Jews in the northern Hijaz or Khaybar (90 km north of modern Medina) is only mentioned in traditional Muslim historiography but cannot be independently confirmed either by outside sources, contemporary accounts, inscriptions or archeology.

In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever for the claim that the oasis of Khaybar ever had a Jewish population of 10,000 citizens. This hadith is fabricated.

Source: A Companion to Religion in Late Antiquity, Josef Lössl, ‎Nicholas J. Baker-Brian, 2018

[manfred]

The absence of other evidence does not AUTOMATICALLY mean that the Islamic account cannot have any truth to it either, it just means what he said, we cannot be sure.

Maybe there was an Arab warlord who really did raid an oasis with mostly Jewish population and created a massacre. Attacks of this nature were not unusual in medieval Arabia. Was he called Mohammed? Call himself a prophet? I cannot tell, can anyone?

We do know that there were some Jewish and Christian settlements in Northern Arabia, mostly because of a desire to escape the influence of the Byzantine emperor or the perpetual war with Persia. (The Christians were generally a minority denominations, such as Nestorians, which were also not welcome in Byzantium) there are inscriptions from before Islam....

What is also very telling that many of these used a Nabatean script from modern day Syria, a sort of cursive used in Syriac, and , rarely, Aramaic, .... the first Qur'anic texts also used that script. The use of a SCRIPT from the levant in Arabia suggests a fairly close cultural link, over a significant period of time.

To entirely invent a Jewish presence in Arabia would have resulted in ridicule and plain denial. So I am not so sure ....

[Eagle]

There are no early Islamic sources about Mohammed or the Qur'an . This has some to conclude that he was really a later creation, or a conflation of several people.

There are however some hints at Mohammed in other, Jewish and Christian texts..... There is a document called the "Doctrina iacobi" originally in Aramaic, which dates from 634, two years after Mohammed's assumed death. It is a discussion between two Jewish friends, one of whom became a Christian, which caused some upset and lengthy discussions. In amongst all of that, there is this passage:

“When the candidatus [i.e. Sergius, a member of the Byzantine imperial army in Palestine] was killed by the Saracens, I was at Caesarea and I set off by boat to Sykamina. People were saying "the candidatus has been killed," and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. I, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in scriptures, and I said to him: "What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?" He replied, groaning deeply: "He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. Truly they are works of anarchy being committed today and I fear that the first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist. Indeed, Isaiah said that the Jews would retain a perverted and hardened heart until all the earth should be devastated. But you go, master Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared." So I, Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had met him that there was no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men's blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible [i.e. not credible]”.

This is a most fascinating passage, as it clearly speaks of a "prophet" from the "Saracens" (i.e. The Arabs) who was a fighter and he also spoke of a "Messiah". Given the date, it is almost inescapable that this is talking about Mohammed.

He was not accepted by the Jews and Christians, on account of his violence, the source says.

But is this the "Mohammed" of Islamic traditions? The first interesting part is that Mohammed is placed at the LEVANT. The narrator is in what today is Northern Central Israel and he is embarking on a journey to Cyprus, when he heard about the "prophet". The Jews (are you listening, eagle? JEWS in Palestine in 634) were happy at first about the attack on the Byzantines, but did not think much of the "prophet" claim.

It also worth noting that this "prophet" claimed had the "keys of paradise" which is a reference to Matthew's gospel and Peter. This testimony makes Mohammed essentially a Christian heretic who claimed to be the successor of the apostle Peter and was sent to prepare for the day of judgement, or the (second?) arrival of the Messiah.

So, the earliest sources portray Mohammed as a sort of "prophet" of a vaguely Christian variety, but with an army and a sword.... he "morphed" later into the "seal of the prophets" and Jewish and Christian reference points were shed.

So we can say that while Mohammed was most likely a historical figure, but the Islamic version of his life is far removed from the real Mohammed.

It is a fictional Greek Christian apologetic with gross factual errors. Scholars have noted that Byzantine sources of this period and even much later on, are often garbled when it comes to reporting details about Islam. The story speaks of Jacob, a former Jew forecfully converted to Christianity and that progressively becomes a missionary zealot. He makes several encounters and debates including one in which reference is made of a prophet from “the Saracens” “who is proclaiming the arrival of the Anointed One who is to come, the Christ".

The passage is a polemic, written in the backdrop of the crumbling Christian empire. It is not a historical account by any means, and is only aimed at consoling its audience in Christ in 2 ways; that no hopes of salvation can be found in another, especially not one aiming to invade the empire, and that even this false prophet confirms Christ's return

"So I, Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had met him that there was no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men’s blood. He also says that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible".

For centuries in later Byzantine polemics, Muhammad would be mocked with similar terminology, being the bearer of the keys to heaven. This is typically a Christian phrase which appeals to a Christian audience. Surely no upstart Arabian prophet can dare claim to possess what belongs to Christ alone. The prophet Muhammad of course never claimed such a thing and only Allah in the Quran is the posessor of the keys of the heavens and earth 39:63,42:12.

The first interesting part is that Mohammed is placed at the LEVANT.

News of him, not him personally.

[Takeiteasynow]

The absence of other evidence does not AUTOMATICALLY mean that the Islamic account cannot have any truth to it either, it just means what he said, we cannot be sure.

Maybe there was an Arab warlord who really did raid an oasis with mostly Jewish population and created a massacre. Attacks of this nature were not unusual in medieval Arabia. Was he called Mohammed? Call himself a prophet? I cannot tell, can anyone?

Or perhaps an UFO from planet M-H-M-D was falsely identified as a prophet? Any historiographic account that can't be confirmed by any other scientific discipline is irrelevant until evidence does emerge. And sometimes it does - for instance the the Salomon temple: it can be found at Tel Moza, 3 miles northwest of Jerusalem.

To entirely invent a Jewish presence in Arabia would have resulted in ridicule and plain denial. So I am not so sure ....

Of course there is evidence of Jewish presence is the Hijaz but that's restricted to the northwest of the Arabian Peninsula and Himyar.

What is also very telling that many of these Christians used a Nabatean script from modern day Syria, a sort of cursive used in Syriac.

Indeed - the first churches were built in southern Nabataea.