Did Muhammad Exist?: An Academic Response to a Popular Question - Dr. Joshua Little

coming soon...
4:06 - Introduction
17:00 - Part 1: The Sources for Muhammad
20:14 - Part 2: Problems with Biographical Hadith
21:28 - Problem 1: Prior Probability of Fabrication
25:32 - Problem 2: Reports of Fabrication
26:28 - Problem 3: The Lateness of the Sources
29:39 - Problem 4: Bias
35:40 - Problem 5: Propaganda
38:33 - Problem 6: Anachronisms
46:45 - Problem 7: Supernatural
49:54 - Problem 8: Implausible Scenarios
55:14 - Problem 9: Internal Contradictions
55:57 - Problem 10: External Contradictions
57:25 - Problem 11: Implausible Transmission
1:02:28 - Problem 12: The Lateness of Isnads
1:09:08 - Problem 13: The Madinan Bottleneck
1:13:00 - Problem 14: The Mode of Transmission
1:13:41 - Problem 15: The Growth of Material
1:14:38 - Problem 16: Early Rapid Distortion
1:18:49 - Problem 17: Artificial Narrative Structures
1:23:30 - Problem 18: Storyteller Construction
1:25:11 - Problem 19: Exegesis in Disguise
1:27:09 - Problem 20: Amnesia and Discontinuity
1:30:28 - Problem 21: No Effective Countermeasures
1:36:43 - Summary
1:37:37 - Part 3: The Rise of Muhammad Mythicism
1:41:30 - Consequent Skepticism
1:44:21 - Consequent Mythicism
1:46:27 - Crone and Cook: Revisionist but not Mythicist
1:49:11 - The Western Mythicist Tradition
1:52:57 - Nevo and Koren
1:53:35 - Ohlig et al.
1:54:00 - Jansen
1:54:45 - Robert Spencer
1:57:33 - Part 4: The Arguments for Muhammad Mythicism
1:57:38 - Argument 1: Argument from Silence
1:58:32 - Argument 2: “Muhammad” = Jesus
2:00:37 - Argument 3: Mythic Biography
2:02:20 - Summary
2:02:30 - Part 5: Criticisms of Muhammad Mythicism, Part 1: The Worst-Case Scenario
2:02:38 - For the Sake of Argument...
2:05:16 - Counter 1: Pan-Islamic Agreement
2:10:00 - Counter 2: Trans-Sectarian Agreement
2:13:31 - Counter 3: Inexpedient Agreement
2:15:47 - Counter 4: Non-Mythic Biography
2:20:32 - Counter 5: Silence ≠ Non-Existence
2:25:49 - Counter 6: “Muhammad” ≠ “Chosen One”
2:31:33 - Counter 7: “Muhammad” is a Proper Name
2:35:48 - Counter 8: No Jesus Connection
2:39:15 - Counter 9: Silence ≠ Non-Existence Again
2:43:00 - Summary of Worst-Case Scenario
2:45:30 - Part 6: Criticisms of Muhammad Mythicism, Part 2: The More Optimistic Scenario
2:45:55 - Counter 10: Early Common Links
2:47:17 - Counter 11: The Constitution of Madinah
2:49:00 - Counter 12: The Quran
2:52:26 - Counter 13: Non-Muslim Writings
2:58:52 - Thomas the Presbyter (c. 640 CE)
3:00:09 - The Chronicler of Khuzistan (c. 660 CE)
3:00:53 - Pseudo-Sebeos (c. 660s CE)
3:03:44 - Counter 14: The Reliability of Genealogy
3:06:08 - Summary of More Optimistic Scenario
3:07:37 - Part 7: Some Comments on Mythicist Methodology
3:07:43 - The Mythicist Strategy
3:09:40 - Explanations that create more problems than they solve
3:10:34 - Unnecessary Contradictions
3:12:25 - Conclusion
3:13:00 - Questions

[@MSL21c]

4:06 - Introduction 17:00 - Part 1: The Sources for Muhammad 20:14 - Part 2: Problems with Biographical Hadith 21:28 - Problem 1: Prior Probability of Fabrication 25:32 - Problem 2: Reports of Fabrication 26:28 - Problem 3: The Lateness of the Sources 29:39 - Problem 4: Bias 35:40 - Problem 5: Propaganda 38:33 - Problem 6: Anachronisms 46:45 - Problem 7: Supernatural 49:54 - Problem 8: Implausible Scenarios 55:14 - Problem 9: Internal Contradictions 55:57 - Problem 10: External Contradictions 57:25 - Problem 11: Implausible Transmission 1:02:28 - Problem 12: The Lateness of Isnads 1:09:08 - Problem 13: The Madinan Bottleneck 1:13:00 - Problem 14: The Mode of Transmission 1:13:41 - Problem 15: The Growth of Material 1:14:38 - Problem 16: Early Rapid Distortion 1:18:49 - Problem 17: Artificial Narrative Structures 1:23:30 - Problem 18: Storyteller Construction 1:25:11 - Problem 19: Exegesis in Disguise 1:27:09 - Problem 20: Amnesia and Discontinuity 1:30:28 - Problem 21: No Effective Countermeasures 1:36:43 - Summary 1:37:37 - Part 3: The Rise of Muhammad Mythicism 1:41:30 - Consequent Skepticism 1:44:21 - Consequent Mythicism 1:46:27 - Crone and Cook: Revisionist but not Mythicist 1:49:11 - The Western Mythicist Tradition 1:52:57 - Nevo and Koren 1:53:35 - Ohlig et al. 1:54:00 - Jansen 1:54:45 - Robert Spencer 1:57:33 - Part 4: The Arguments for Muhammad Mythicism 1:57:38 - Argument 1: Argument from Silence 1:58:32 - Argument 2: “Muhammad” = Jesus 2:00:37 - Argument 3: Mythic Biography 2:02:20 - Summary 2:02:30 - Part 5: Criticisms of Muhammad Mythicism, Part 1: The Worst-Case Scenario 2:02:38 - For the Sake of Argument... 2:05:16 - Counter 1: Pan-Islamic Agreement 2:10:00 - Counter 2: Trans-Sectarian Agreement 2:13:31 - Counter 3: Inexpedient Agreement 2:15:47 - Counter 4: Non-Mythic Biography 2:20:32 - Counter 5: Silence ≠ Non-Existence 2:25:49 - Counter 6: “Muhammad” ≠ “Chosen One” 2:31:33 - Counter 7: “Muhammad” is a Proper Name 2:35:48 - Counter 8: No Jesus Connection 2:39:15 - Counter 9: Silence ≠ Non-Existence Again 2:43:00 - Summary of Worst-Case Scenario 2:45:30 - Part 6: Criticisms of Muhammad Mythicism, Part 2: The More Optimistic Scenario 2:45:55 - Counter 10: Early Common Links 2:47:17 - Counter 11: The Constitution of Madinah 2:49:00 - Counter 12: The Quran 2:52:26 - Counter 13: Non-Muslim Writings 2:58:52 - Thomas the Presbyter (c. 640 CE) 3:00:09 - The Chronicler of Khuzistan (c. 660 CE) 3:00:53 - Pseudo-Sebeos (c. 660s CE) 3:03:44 - Counter 14: The Reliability of Genealogy 3:06:08 - Summary of More Optimistic Scenario 3:07:37 - Part 7: Some Comments on Mythicist Methodology 3:07:43 - The Mythicist Strategy 3:09:40 - Explanations that create more problems than they solve 3:10:34 - Unnecessary Contradictions 3:12:25 - Conclusion 3:13:00 - Questions

[@kschacherer92]

this was a great episode. thanks for all the awesome content terron and roxanna, i have learned so much!

[@atb00sh]

Very informative, thank you all

[@manlike2323]

This is extremely resourceful

[@tunisoft7465]

An academic talking about Islam? This is my kind of video. Thank you!

[@imran6256]

This episode is beyond awesome, every minute of it.

[@markorbit4752]

enjoying this very much. well done

[@childofthe80s60]

The best lecture I ever heard on this topic.

[@Truth21a619]

Amazing video ❤

[@Sosarchives]

As a christian it bothers me that these comments don’t bother listening, it reminds me of posts or videos of scholars attesting to the Jesus historicity and the comment section being filled with mythicists accusing literal PHDs of making stuff up. It should not affect your beliefs if these figures exist or not. Listen to actual scholars not internet apologists😂 🤦‍♂️ Anyhow, Dr little is a great scholar of Islam, his research is well appreciated.

[@user-nl3hg7xy7m]

Muslims never pay attention to rubbish called mistakenly as scientific research. We believe in all great prophets Adam, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, David Solomon, Jesus Christ and Muhammad. We believe they existed one day on this earh. They were all messangers from god to mankind to guide them to the right path. Non of them had a bad character as they were depicted in the old testament. David and Betshbae as an example, this is considered blasphemy according to Islamic religion.

[@paulthomas281]

It doesn't matter what you consider as blasphemous. It also doesn't matter what you believe. Fine, believe that Moses and Abraham existed. Believers who don't study history believe this. Non-believers and believers who do study history don't think that Moses and Abraham existed. Why? Because they study history and don't swim around in their little pond of the present, they don't swim around in received ideas. They swim outside their little pond and, let me repeat myself, study the past.@@user-nl3hg7xy7m

[@paulthomas281]

When you say "great prophets", the rest of us say fictional patriarchs of the Jewish people.@@user-nl3hg7xy7m

[@SagucuTegin]

Yes i believe Hobbits also. Lord Of The Rings was Great book.​@@user-nl3hg7xy7m

[@VictorPanteleimon]

​@@user-nl3hg7xy7mdefine blasphemy please. And by that measurement is Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, Muhammad's marriage to his adopted sons wife, Muhammad's permission of rape at awtas, also considered blasphemous?

[@imaginationscene]

Just adding thanks for this presentation to Dr. Little if he sees this. 🙂

[@akashicturtle1827]

What was the article referenced at 2:23:40-ish, about Muhammad becoming more important with time? The author is named “Adam Gayson”….?

[@skepsislamica]

www.academia.edu/86862349/Ballaghan%C4%81_%CA%BFan_an_Nab%C4%AB_Early_Basran_and_Omani_Ib%C4%81%E1%B8%8D%C4%AB_understandings_of_sunna_and_siyar_%C4%81th%C4%81r_and_nasab

[@akashicturtle1827]

Thank you!! @@skepsislamica

[@dodgysmum8340]

This is fantastic. Two points on which I would have further queries for Dr Little that perhaps others have ideas on: 1) In these well known non-Muslim contemporary sources (eg Sebeos, the one from the Persian Empire) I have just realised that Muhammad is very much spoken of in "current" terms as being the leader of the invading armies of Syrian Palestine and Persia. But according to the traditional narrative he was dead at the time. How do we explain this? Just the time taken for the news to travel? 2) Little's focus on the Sunni/ Shia split and other politics that divided the Ummah really drove home for me, that elements of the traditional narrative are hard to write off. However, on the timing of the codification of the Quran, isn't this actually one area where even at the time all parties would be keen to push for the earliest possible date. Thank you all so much for giving an ignorant non-specialist access to some really interesting ideas which can be hard to delve into without a guide.

[@-__--__-_--]

Greetings, just wanted to let you know your twitter bio youtube link is broken, same as your youtube bio twitter link

[@theonlyway5298]

I'd like to ask Joshua what is this phenomenon of adopting "the new group's arguments" called? Is there a technical term for this behaviour please? Does anyone know?

[@roman_lopez]

I don't see why he says Muslims and 'religion of Islam' come from a later date when the Quran clearly refers to it in several instances. The religion near Allah is al-islam.

[@Stardust475]

In another Codex of the Sahaba it says "the deen with Allah is hanafiya."

[@roman_lopez]

@@Stardust475 yet 'deen' and 'al Islam' are not in a single verse, there are several. I wonder if this codex you refer to replaces al-islam with hanifiyya in each instance

[@Stardust475]

@roman_lopez It was Abdullah ibn Masoud codex "Inna deen inda Allahi Islam" His codex omitted Islam in that verse. Early Arabs didn't refer to themselves as Muslim but as believers. It was an ecumenical group of other faiths incl in " muminoon"

[@roman_lopez]

@@Stardust475 I'm aware of Fred donners theory and it seems plausible that early followers of Muhammad may have used both terms to refer to themselves, as does the Quran. There's epigraphical evidence of the use of Muslims, I Believe (I'll double check in a moment.) Although almumineen is more official. I'm skeptical of the level of ecuminalality that was present... It's clear that there were treaties and agreements. The Quran seems to draw a fairly broad line of differences between the believers and ahl al kitab.

[@Stardust475]

@roman_lopez There's coins with menoras and crosses, with Jesus' name in Syriac ( which looks like MHMD in Arabic but its actually Syriac) from Umayyad times. Then, under Yazid Zorastrian fire altars ( some amhave suggested he wasnt a believer) There's so much more information incl Tang Dynasty diplomatic archives that dont line up with SIN.

[@economician]

Really good lecture! I am a follower of the Inarah and theologically I am a Quranist. I have pointed out some of dr Joshua`s critique to them. For example they lack experts in unitarian christianity on their team who could help them out with better explaining their hypothesis to the academic world. This would also push away the trinitarian missionaries who are abusing their work. Another problem is that they do not adress properly the existence of the prophet in the Quran. For what seems obvious is that two persons are carrying the title Mo 1) Jesus the son of Mary carries the title Muhammad (the Praised one) 2) the prophet of the Quran carries the title Ahmad( the even Moore praised one) because he Will bring exegetical victory over those who persecute the unitarian believers. The third problem is that their Akkilles aka dr Christoph Luxemberg operates from the shadows because of fear for his life and they really need to stress the lingvistic question if they are going to have A chance to enter academia.

[@user-od8wv7wf3k]

Off course Our master Muhammad did exist صلى الله عليه وعلى اله الطيبين الطاهرين وسلم تسليما كثيرا

[@dqschannel]

Is there anyway to his powerpoint?

[@Ghaziabadpoonch]

The bibliography?

[@elioxman8496]

I think the most convincing argument in historicity of Mohammad is the fact than none of the following khalifs suggested another name for the founder of Islamic state, for example someone from their family, and this in spite of hostilities among them, bloody conflicts, assassinations etc. Of course the biographical details of Mohammad are very sketchy and Hadith literature is not very helpful in gaining knowledge about life of historical Mohammad.

[@sabahjameel4037]

I really enjoyed dr Little's presentation but I do miss the reasoning/structure behind determining those 21 problems, looks very arbitrary to me or did I miss something? If this is the case, it's really pity cuz it takes allot away from his work which is otherwise has quiet sensible arguments. Love the channel and the hosts - keep on doing what you do!

[@alexdevitry7842]

He gave a very detailed three hour lecture regarding the problems and how he arrived at them elsewhere

[@homer1273]

4 hours he has been explaining and you still didn’t get his arguments?????

[@mashruralam5795]

2:51:18 educated Shias don’t agree with the Quran. Some Shias believe some verses were moved to wrong chapters. Some Shias believe entire chapters are missing from the Quran. Other Shia qurans contained apocryphal chapters. Shia Hadiths claims that Ali had his own mushaf of the correct Quran. Other Hadiths claim revelation continued after Mohamed with Ali.

[@irfanmehmud63]

Yes, Shias don't agree with present Quran's arrangements but they agree altogether that it was Uthman who canonized the early Quran which is the point.

[@aloksahu5660]

@@irfanmehmud63 h

[@dunharrowfarm7815]

There is Pan-Christian agreement regarding the identity of the Gospel authors, but academics still doubt its true.

[@martinriexinger5824]

The background of the Inâra group is Catholic.

[@fahadabid]

Excellent Presentation and most accurate to the point lecture/Video i have ever seen. Also the point he made that no True scholar believes in Mythiscim is so true.

[@asbjrnbergh7172]

Dr. Little said the researchers weren't afraid of being threatened, but what could happen if some of them concluded that Muhammad had never been to Mecca? That could destroy the economy of Saudi Arabia. By the way, as far as I know, Patricia Crone was threatened!

[@henrimourant9855]

Uhh no. I don't think it would destroy the economy of Saudi Arabia. The average person doesn't care what scholars think. Virtually all critical scholars of early Christianity conclude that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem and yet there are still tons of Christian pieces who still go to Bethlehem.

[@lesmen4]

Muhammad was a title supposedly given to Jesus ?

[@sayedhasan707]

Yes and Zaid who mentioned in Quran was the title of Jesus's son😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@messianicmumin]

Tang dynasty Chinese diplomatic records a different faith origin to Islam than the SIN

[@brothersgrim07]

Bring Al-Jallad back!

[@daviesp2003]

Just arguments no solid arqueological proofs!!!

[@alexleb1019]

I am French and I do not speak English, can I have a summary of the conclusion in a few lines please

[@skepsislamica]

My co-host speaks and teaches French

[@alexleb1019]

@@skepsislamica ah bah c'est cool je vis dans le 91 en ile de france , banlieue parisienne, Je suis tomber sur votre chaine par Hazard et je m'intéresse de plus en plus à l'islam de manière historique après avoir vu une vidéo d'un homme qui s'appelle "odon la fontaine" et qui remet en cause l'islam à travers l'histoire

[@skepsislamica]

Salut, c’est Roxanna ici, la femme dans la vidéo. Quelles sont vos questions sur la conclusion de Dr Little? Son argument est essentiellement que ceux qui disputent l’existence du Prophète n’ont aucune preuve historique objective. Et qu’il y a en effet une longue liste de preuves qui démontre son existence.

[@alexleb1019]

@@skepsislamica Bonsoir Roxanna ,merci pour la réponse donc pour le Dr Little le prophète a bien exister et c'est une bonne chose, mais pour lui les hadiths retrace t'il la vie du prophète ??ou le fait qu'ils ont étaient compilés tardivement les rends peu crédible ?

[@skepsislamica]

Dr Little a écrit beaucoup sur le sujet des hadiths. Il propose pleins de raisons pour croire que la majorité ne remonte pas au Prophète et qu’ils sont des fabrications des générations ultérieures.

[@lesmen4]

Tom Holland ?? .

[@sjaved1869]

Muhammad, a myth or not. Pan-Islamic sources - hadith, ummayad, hashimite, arabic, syrian etc - may not be all that reliable . However, Trans-sectarian (sunni, shia, ibadi etc) agreement points strongly to the existence of Muhammad. The general narrative about his birth, parents, children etc are accepted in trans-sectarian groups. Mythicism/ Historian Even if you change some aspect of the narrative, such as, Muhmmad was born in Syria, but he is still the same person. How many pieces of information need to be changed to alter the narrative?

[@aloksahu5660]

lmao. this is completely against the Standard Islamic narrative. so you are saying 1.8 billion muslims who rever macca as masjid al haram is wrong & the original masjid al haram is in Syria. this is much more disturbing for a muslim rather than believing mohmmad a pure fictional character

[@dqschannel]

One needs to remember Muhammad or MHMD or MHMT was a title and not a name.

[@dressin3767]

He debunked this claim in the very video that you are commenting.

[@aloksahu5660]

​@@dressin3767nowhere he debunked this. he only said while talking about mohmmad of islam we shouldn't use this logic.

[@dressin3767]

@@aloksahu5660 he absolutly debunked that claim, by showing that arabic titles are always definite and that Muhammad is not

[@aloksahu5660]

@@dressin3767 His arguments are vague. He said mohmmad mythishists claim that mohmmad was a title & noone used this name for individual. While no mohmmad mythishists ever said that mohmmad word never used for individuals. Instead they say that there are many mohmmads in the region durin 7th century

[@dressin3767]

@@aloksahu5660 no this is not what mythicists clam. They claim that Muhammad was a christological title for jesus, which Joshua demonstrated to be false

[@agazaman]

Why many muhadith is Persian?

[@SagucuTegin]

Name of Mohammad was a name of grade in the Middle East. Like Japanese 'Shogun' or 'Sultan'. There were dozens of Mohammads in the Middle East. Even Jesus called Mohammad by Arabs.

[@dressin3767]

Source: trust me bro

[@unhingedconnoisseur164]

gotta love how joshua spent the first hour and a half ranting about something that wasn’t that related to the subject matter thank you joshua very cool

[@MCXM111]

He's got his own little agenda going. Just don't pay attention to the first part of presentation. His arguments about unreliability of ahadith are not new and have been debunked many times.

[@unhingedconnoisseur164]

@@MCXM111 u should watch br. farid’s stream if u haven’t already

[@user-yz1dl3eu8l]

I have seen the titles of the timeline for the moment. I remark : 1) that the silence of the sources about Mecca seems not addressed whereas the figure of Muhammad is identified to it in the Muslim narrative. No Mecca is no Muhammad. 2) The silence of the sources about Jews in the North Peninsula seems not addressed as well (the efforts of Hoyland about it are not convincing). Both (Mecca/Jews) are key points of the Muslim narrative about Muhammad. 3) When the non Muslims sources speak of Muhammad, they draw from what say their Muslims contemporaries: they have no reasons to not believe them. Muslims themselves have been taught by their authorities that there was a 'prophet' called Muhammad: they have no rationale reasons to not believe them. In what seems the earliest non Muslims sources, there are no attestation of someone who have encountered Muhammad whereas he is supposed to have died 20 years ago. The non Muslims sources until the end of the 7th c. do not attest of: Hijaz Mecca Kaba Abu Bakr Abu Sufyan Aicha Arabic texts regarding the Biblical Revelation being the Arab sacred texts. Ali is attested (by non Muslims sources): he has nothing to see with Mecca of the Peninsula but to Al Hira (Iraq). At last, about that the silence ≠ of non existence, silence is more likely to mean non existence than no silence means no existence.

[@slippingsnake]

"...No Mecca is no Muhammad...." nope, the exclusiv feature for Mohammed is producing the Quran, regrdless of the Location. 7th century Mecca was a waterhole with no Agriculture to feed a Settlement, let alone a Trading Hub with plenty of Camels and Caravns traveling through. So this is a Myth but doesn't mean that he didn't live somewhere else.

[@user-yz1dl3eu8l]

@@slippingsnakeIn the Muslim narrative Muhammad is identified with Mecca. The issue is that there is no Mecca before Islam. So there is no Muhammad.

[@alonzoharris9049]

@@user-yz1dl3eu8l There is no Mecca before Islam?🥴🤣 All historians accept Mecca to be historical. Your conspiracy theories of a shift from place has no source or evidence. You are just making claims up. People like you are funny. They demand all kind of ‘evidence’. But they make up all sorts of claims with no evidence. Show me a historical source where a shift takes place.

[@ainulhussain9490]

​@@user-yz1dl3eu8lstop it man. Stop lying.

[@ob1kendobe]

Muhammad’s life has reached us via mass transmission with uninterrupted chains of narration coming from so many different sources and locations it’s impossible that conspiracy or fabrication could have “made him up”

[@markorbit4752]

uthman compiled the quran because he was afraid that it would get corrupted or forgotten just a few years after muhammed died. yet you think muslims could transmit saying of muhammed accurately before writing them down 200years later?

[@user-vz6vf5zn9t]

Islam Is Huge Fabrication

[@nasirfazal5440]

Who the hell is burried in Medina?..Prof.Dr.Nasir Fazal Cambridge

[@urbandsouza7279]

All your lies go forever in the wind

[@MCXM111]

I've listened to the first part of the video so far, professor's criticism of the ahadith is a joke to be honest. Nevertheless, I will watch the whole thing to see his conclusions.

[@user-vz6vf5zn9t]

I don’t Muhummed existed, The Arab Christian Called Jesus Muhammad as a Title meaning praise worthy.

[@user-yz1dl3eu8l]

They never called Jesus Muhammad...

[@eren5148]

lmao this is one of the most stupid things I've ever read , no one literally no one called Jesus muhammed, they called him isa or yousha يوشعا but never Muhammed.

[@trinitymatrix9719]

The islamic hejazi mohammad almost certainly never existed. Please watch the groundbreaking research done by Dr. Jay Smith amongst others. "Mohammad" derives from the syriac language and religious texts that talks of a title, not a name, called "The praised one"

[@skepsislamica]

Groundbreaking research my behind

[@fahadabid]

hahah😂@@skepsislamica

[@Notreallyhereanymore]

@@skepsislamicaJay smith is not to be taken seriously. He is a Christian missionary

[@alonzoharris9049]

Jay Smith is not even his real name. His credentials can’t even be verified. He never punished any academic paper. He is just an internet troll who avoids real discussions.

[@trinitymatrix9719]

You just described yourself perfectly there 🤭🤭@@alonzoharris9049

[@kilianklaiber6367]

So first he doesn't have a dog in the game, but in minute 15 following it is clear that his purpose and aim is to prove that Mohammed existed. Come on, be honest! I appreciate the effort you are making in proving his existence and this is very good for debate. But, do be honest!

[@kilianklaiber6367]

By the way, your very first counter argument "pan islamic agreement" is not even an argument. The "argumentum ad populum" is a logical fallacy.

[@kilianklaiber6367]

I immediately saw the "constitution of medina" as one of your main proofs for Muhammad's existence. However, we do not have the original document! "No copy of the Constitution of Medina has ever been found. We only know of its existence from excerpts included in early Muslim sources, the earliest of which is "Al-Sīrah Al-Nabawiyyah" of Ibn Hisham (early 800s CE)." So the earliest "source" for this document is the Sirah by Ibn Isham? That is around 200 years too late? You do not even mention this problem! Why did all millions of the muslims fail to ever mention this document for 200 years? Originally, I wanted to binge watch this whole episode and looked at the table of contents. But this is not serious scholarship!

[@skepsislamica]

His having no dog in the fight is based on the fact that if Muhammad existed or didn't exist doesn't matter to him in the grand scheme of things. His presentation proving his existence doesn't change that at all. And I believe the pan Islamic agreement is a good argument considering that you'd have to identify which Muslim group it was who created the person of Muhammad and then successfully sold it to their Muslim opponent's as the founder of Islam. Shia and Ibadi charge Sunnis with many deviations from Islam's original state. Surely creating a prophet who didn't exist would be one of them. And concerning the Constitution of Media, not having the original document was not an obstacle for academics in establishing the fact that it's an archaic document from when Islamic tradition alleged.

[@kilianklaiber6367]

@@skepsislamica Well, if it didn't matter to him, then he would have given a different presentation. That Muslims agree that Mohammed existed is no evidence whatsoever, since they wouldn't be Muslims if they believed otherwise. Shia and Sunni's both are religiously devoted to Mohammed's existance. Not having an original document and the first mention of the supposed 200 years after it's creation is a huge obstacle for establishing the existence of a document. It means that your belief has no foundation!

[@kilianklaiber6367]

@@skepsislamica "was not an obstacle for academics" is an unscientific appeal to authority. The fallacy is called "argumentum ad verecundiam".

[@user-vz6vf5zn9t]

Muhammad is only mentioned 4 times in the Quran and it always in a verse talking about Jesus. Everything we know about Muhammad comes hundreds of year later in the Hadith.

[@tunisoft7465]

Has been debunked though. Please make more research about this because your take is very shallow.

[@slippingsnake]

The Quran has plenty of verses that are personalized for a "prophet" wich for sure is not Jesus, like in Sura 33 when the Quran explains how to get the wife from the adaptovie Son. But this is also the only point where 1 of the companions (Zaid) is thematized, everyone else is abscent. So if the Quran ws not taylor-made for Mohammed who wrote it?

[@tunisoft7465]

@@slippingsnake Tailor-made, that's a good point. But the point you brought up particularly defies that in a way that may surprise you. The verses about Zaid and his wife Zaynab mention something that proves the Quran was not tailor-made for Prophet Muhammad as the verses show that the Prophet was kind of embarrassed by this because Arabs never did such a thing. (marrying a woman who was married to an adopted son). So the Quran mildly blames the Prophet for wanting to conceal the matter. Why would the Prophet include these verses if the Quran was made to glorify him. Verses: quran.com/33?startingVerse=37 This is actually called "The criterion of embarrassment". just look it up. Compare this with other literature from people who claimed to divine or prophetic or whatever. They always only glorify themselves. The Quran on the other hand, reproches the prophet on a few occasions. To give you more context about this, Allah wanted to end adoption and to prove to Arabs that an adopted son is not really your son. The wisdom behind this is to make fathers feel the responsibility towards their sons (among other things). There's still something called Kafala (sponsorship?) if you want to take care of a kid but he never becomes your son and doesn't take your lastname.

[@DusTman761]

​@@slippingsnakeWho taught you every time the Koran says prophet refers to Muhammad? your traditions? Your tradition says that Abraham had 2 wives while the Koran never indicates that Abraham had 2 wives, the Koran mentions Abraham's wife who happened to be Isaac's mother but never indicates that Abraham had more than 1 wife.

[@Notreallyhereanymore]

@@DusTman761Hagar was his other wife

[@traveleurope5756]

Was this supposed to be a scholarly argument or polemic? He is on the border of polemics unfortunately.

[@ainaltair3217]

The final verdict after scrutinizing all sources is that Muhammad EXISTED.

[@Galmala94]

It surely is a scholarly view. Muhammad skepticism is even more fringe view than Jesus skepticism.

[@sabriya7647]

Is this even worth wasting time on?

[@skepsislamica]

Idk. Decide after you watch it.

[@henrimourant9855]

It definitely is. It was extremely interesting. It's always good to know how we know things.

[@mohamed-fp3wl]

No, it isnt. The Islamic tradition produced objective sciences (Hadith Sciences) to investigate and discriminate the mostly oral reports that were circulating within first 2 hundred years. It laid down strict criteria for interrogating reports that were being attributed to the PRophet through explicit chains of narration (I heard from x, from y, from the Prophet). Conclusion was identifying majority as either fabricated or weak. Hence, we have a clear understanding of what the Prophet said or did not say. As for Prophet himself, all these reports (from vastly different places) were in agreement that their reports went back to a person named Muhammad who claimed Prophecy and lived (for last ten years of his life) and passed away in MAdinah-a well-known place that continued to be visited by thousands of Muslims uninterrupted. His own companions ruled immediately after him and all unorthodox sects agreed on this. Problem is missionaries and academics who work on the assumptions underpinning valid criticism of the interrupted transmission and constitution of the Bible and person of Jesus. As for the Quran, its transmission and preservation is even more reliable than the Hadith.

[@maur_sault750]

Keep up the great work. The Muhammed that I was born hearing about. The greatest human ever. Definitely did not exist

[@abdulmoeed5527]

How you came to this ?

[@maur_sault750]

@@abdulmoeed5527 by reading his biographies and hadith literature

[@rashiqraquib1641]

Prophet Muhammad who delivered the Qur'an clearly existed, as evidenced by this entire video if you actually watched any of it. It's that much of the extra-revelatory legends that came after him are ahistorical inventions.

[@maur_sault750]

@@rashiqraquib1641I did watch it entirely so please do not assume anything about my viewing and I have also studied Islam for many many years academically. So what from my comment did you take objection to? Because it seems from your reply you definitely did not read my comment

[@abdulmoeed5527]

@rashiqraquib1641 Thanks for comment But I think we know what's myth and what's not in books oh Ahadith.