Talk:Historicity of Muhammad

Historical authenticity of the Qur'an

The statement "All or most of the Qur'an was written down by Muhammad's companions while he was alive, but it was primarily an orally related document" is not my understanding. I have read that most of his sayings were transmitted orally for about 20-30 years before being written down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.166.4 (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Overview

I killed this section because it was unreferenced and seemingly unfactual. --Aminz 00:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This entire piece seems to have been taken over by Muslim revisionists. The point of the article is surely to detail the sceptical investigation into the historical figure of Mohamed and voracity of Islamic and historical texts in relation. It needs a major re-edit. I'll have a think. 124.181.201.178 02:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Borsabil

Summary

Like many other figures e.g. Jesus and Moses there is no evidence he existed other then his religious sources. This I find very puzzling both because of the people in the region and the times he lived. I think reading this others are puzzled too. BernardZ 23:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

BernardZ, historicity of Muhammad is almost certain. It is different from that of Jesus, not to speak of Moses. We know about Muhammad more than any other person from ancient times. --Aminz 00:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ: we know much about Jesus. In fact, we know about a lot of people more than Muhammad. LutherVinci (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesus was in his time a minor figure. Moses is a long time ago. Muhammad would have been neither. I find it puzzling that we have nothing outside of Islamic sources to show BernardZ 04:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As the article says, there are non-Muslim sources as well. In any case, you should support your statement through scholarly sources. --Aminz 05:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That reference in that article is hardly an authoritarian reference BernardZ 06:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

At least it is an scholarly source passing WP:RS requirements if not an authoritarian reference --Aminz 06:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC) In fact Muhammad or any other figure related to revelation is not a matter to dispute. The prevailing idea of Islam proves the prophecy of Quran that any other religious figure is not so much successful on both religios and secular levels.~~zikr

Qur'an in the House of Manuscript in Sana'a.

There are major differences in it between the current Qur'an and it. I have not found any scholarly references yet to this but I think we should add something about what is an incredible find here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BernardZ (talk • contribs) 05:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

I have decided to make a page on this Qur'an and maybe people can supply more details on it BernardZ 04:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not the mainstream view of academics. --Aminz 02:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

why are...

Why are what appear to be some fairly non-mainstream opinions about Muhummad the only items under the "Information on Muhummad" section? Definitely not neutral. 72.74.16.200 01:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hillenbrand cite

The years given in YOUR Hillenbrand cite, 645-690, do not match those at Qur'an in the House of Manuscript in Sana'a, 790-835, for exactly the same article. This should be checked in the original article by Hillenbrand and corrected at whichever page has it wrong. ThuranX 12:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Propriety of the quotefarm tag

Don't see the problem, assume it's a stale tag, opening this § for discussion. Lycurgus (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources for the historical Muhammad

This section states that there are:

"Non-Muslim sources written in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Hebrew by the Jewish and Christian communities".

However it does not go on to elaborate exactly what they are. Elsewhere in the article Harald Motzski is quoted saying:

"At present, the study of Muhammad, the founder of the Muslim community, is obviously caught in a dilemma. On the one hand, it is not possible to write a historical biography of the Prophet without being accused of using the sources uncritically, while on the other hand, when using the sources critically, it is simply not possible to write such a biography".

This suggests that there are no non-Muslim sources. Should this statement about the existence of non-Muslim sources be removed? --Pappa (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've added a rewrite template. This article really needs some work, but I wouldn't know where to start. --Pappa (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Muhammed didn't exist (?)

I've just smoothed this article a bit - some of the English was a bit unfortunately phrased.

I see that some contributors seem to think it should be a "why Muhammed never existed" article. Since no reputable and qualified person holds such a silly view, it can't sensibly be the subject of a Wikipedia article; really, it cannot. But I think this article has real value to everyone if it lists the source data for the life of Mohammed, and it is doing this fairly well. Surely any *theories* about Muhammed should be those published by academics, and listed with references (as some are), or else omitted? After all, who wants to read amateur hate-driven opinions, in which some wonk tries desperately to fabricate a lie? (I should say that I'm not a Moslem, and interested in, but not at all sympathetic to Islam; but what *I* need is *facts* about this subject;-- i.e. what is the data on which any opinion must be based? Opinion we can all do for ourselves, after all. If I do have to enter a debate with someone, I would very much rather that I got my facts right.)

Now I see that someone put in stuff about non-Moslem sources "confirming" the Koran. Surely such wording is liable to bring accusations of pro-Moslem POV? On this basis I've modified this to making it possible to compare accounts - which it is. That doesn't express an opinion either way. But if we do want to say that these sources confirm something in the Koran, we need to be more precise as to what it confirms --after all it certainly doesn't confirm the Moslem religion! -- and we should give references to western academic literature in each case. Let's give hard data, eh? Some of the points -- such as Muhammed being a merchant -- *do* confirm what the Koran says.

One other point: I did wonder whether all this stuff on the authenticity of the **Koran** is actually in the right place? Surely it must be duplicating stuff in the Koran article? I've not done anything to it, but it seems doubtful that it should be here. I suggest that this page is basically a list of sources, and for reliability etc links to the individual page for the source? Roger Pearse (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. The article should not be "Why Muhammad never existed", but it also shouldn't be "Muhammad certainly existed, but we don't have evidence for that". All alleged sources have to be listed. You cannot claim there are many non-Moslem sources if you don't list them accurately with date of writing and so on. From critical point of view, religious sources like the Qur'an or hadith are the least reliable. Mcek (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

The article currently reads:

According to Encyclopædia Britannica, Muhammad is "the only founder of a major world religion who lived in the full light of history and about whom there are numerous records in historical texts, although like other pre-modern historical figures not every detail of his life is known"

I added {{rs}} to this because WP:RS says that says that secondary sources are preferred over tertiary sources. It's true that WP:RS says that tertiary sources can be used to give overviews/summaries as long as secondary sources are given for the more detailed points. However, the detailed points that follow seem to basically contradict the given summary ("when using the sources critically, it is simply not possible to write ... a historical biography of the Prophet"). Also, while I realize that a high-level summary can't be totally precise, phrases like "full light of history" seem unnecessarily vague. Muhammad's life straddled the border between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, is that really what springs to mind when one says "full light of history"?

I'm not necessarily suggesting that this be removed (I would have preferred an inline version of {{refimprove}} instead). Rather, if it was possible to replace it with the secondary sources that Encyclopedia Britannica used, then this position could be given more clarity and reliability. --Underpants 15:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition) is a dated text, from 1912. I don't see how it can be considered as embodying the state of play with regard to scientific research on this subject

While you could quote it somewhere in the article, it clearly can't stay in the opening paragraphs, and it cannot be presented almost as the "final word" on the issue of "information on Muhammad"

I agree with Underpants: authoritative secondary sources (preferably, from a wide spectrum of opinions) should be presented, and not a 1912 tertiary source.Giordaano (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad's stuff

Shall we inlcude Muhammad's letters to the Heads-of-State? Shall we also include Relics of Muhammad ? Faro0485 (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal correspondence would have been a great primary source, but unfortunately these letters to heads of state you refer to were standard letters, rather resembling modern day direct mail, meant to advertise the Prophet's brand new-and-improved religion. (Join now - double your rewards in heaven! Only while stocks last!) The relics have the same problems as relics of holy figures in other religions - their authenticity is questionable and can't be relied upon to give much insight into the historical personality. Gymnophoria (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think they should be included because it mentions his name, and the end of each letter it is stamped "Muhammed the prophet of God"--BelalSaid (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible weasel words

How is it that finding a copy of the Qur'ran dating to 645 AD (15 years after the Qur'ran was written) makes the historical accuracy of the book unlikely? Would an archeologist only be convinced by finding the original draft by Muhammad himself? I think the quote provided should be taken with consideration. LutherVinci (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This article could really use

A picture of Mohammed to illustrate who is being talked about, as it is unclear to any casual reader what is happening in the article when one of the only pictures is just a stack of papers. 69.166.47.133 (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

inb4 jihad.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.169.38 (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Doctrina Jacobi and Hoyland's Seeing Islam as others saw it

A serious ommission is lack of mention of Doctrina Jacobi, a Byzantine anti-Jewish tract, dated to just two years after the accepted date fo the death of Muhammad, stating that a "Saracen Prophet" had arisen out of Arabia. The tract is cited by even sceptics Cook and Crone as proof of the historicity of Muhammad. Reference should also be made to the book "Seeing Islam as Others Saw it" by Hoyland, which reconstructs a Muhammad and Early Islam compatible in the broad strokes with that based on Muslim historiography. Ybgursey (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. Go ahead.Giordaano (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ignaz Goldziher and the non-historicity of Muhammad

According to a recent article by Barbara Köster in the austrian daily Die Presse, Orientalist schoolar Ignaz Goldziher questioned the historicity of Muhammad as the quran presents it. As she reports, Muhammad lived in the 6th or 7th century BEFORE christ, and Islamic tradition would rather have been established as a Jewish Christian cult of arabic tribes relying on bad translations of an aramaic primal quran. Does anybody know if this theory has any support in modern science? --Derbeobachter (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it is not supported. See Seeing Islam as Others Saw It--BelalSaid (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)