₦airaland Forum

Let me start by saying that if you have any opinion to the contrary, present it.

Evidence that Islam is a man made religion.

The claims in Islamic books such as the Quran and Hadith include:
1. Islam started in Mecca.
2. Muhammed lived in the 7th century B.C.
3. The Quran was written shortly after Muhammed's death.
4. Mecca as a city existed since the days of Abraham, as a popular trade and reliigious center, where, first worshippers flocked for pilgrimage.

These claims have not been changed for a long time, at least not commonly. The evidences were mainly circulating in academic and scholarly circles. And all the while, researchers continued to dscovers evidences.

Unfortunately, and to the disappointment of many faithful of the Islamic religion, the evidences reveal that the Islamic claim about Mecca, Muhammed and the foundations fo the religion are false.

Findings by researchers and acheologists show that:
1. Islam started in Jordan, not Mecca.
2. The earliest Muslim kiblah faced Petra in Jordan, not Mecca.
3. Those who wrote the Quran did so after the Masjid in Jerusalem was built, and coins were invented, which is decades after Muhammed was claimed to have died.
4. There was no Muhammed, Mecca or pilgrimage to Mecca until decades or even centuries after they were purported to be in existence.

Before you start raising questions, this 5-minute video will guide you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Z8kegepbs?si=t842kalWgwZL54uQ

Findings that suggest that Muhammed never existed. However, I believe he existed, but his legend was exaggerated and passed through some human inventions before it was written down as Hadith and Quran.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy_iD6Lf6MY?si=IKonGcK8jtAp1qRF

Renouned scholar Dr Jay Smith discusses the evidences and what it means for Islam.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40DclW84HkM?si=OHlC1IHc5PIVKxkV

Wetin dey inside that black wall way i dey see 4 mecca huh? Any idea

emperorz:
Wetin dey inside that black wall way i dey see 4 mecca huh? Any idea

Not a religious person.

But that wall u see is an energy gathering mechanism. It was supposed to be a good thing for humans but was reconfigured to drain human energy instead. Reasons are numerous though

Not tryna make comparisons here but that mechanism is present in the vatican in another form. Its not a stone, or black BUT its a cubic wall.

Make i burst ur head. The Jews have it too in another form. Not black, but a cubic wall too

The heads of the christain faith (Pope), islam (caliph or imam) and jews (grand rabbi) ALL MEET ONCE A YEAR TO DISCUSS THE LATEST IN THEIR FAITHS AND HOW BEST TO CONTROL PEOPLE.

Disclaimer - Don't believe everything u read or see online. I might as well be saying trash BUT
..........

Laughing Out Loud..


Man made religion.. and it's the only religion that's not worshipping a supernatural human being dubbed as GOD.


Laughing..

On a logical level, you are too wrong


Laughing

Laughing...


Its bible that's written by unknown authors and was written years.. after the death of jesus.


If you want to argue about Islam, if you can't quote Qur'an and hadith to support yourself..

You have no case

Natbrowny:
Not a religious person.

But that wall u see is an energy gathering mechanism. It was supposed to be a good thing for humans but was reconfigured to drain human energy instead. Reasons are numerous though

Not tryna make comparisons here but that mechanism is present in the vatican in another form. Its not a stone, or black BUT its a cubic wall.

Make i burst ur head. The Jews have it too in another form. Not black, but a cubic wall too

The heads of the christain faith (Pope), islam (caliph or imam) and jews (grand rabbi) ALL MEET ONCE A YEAR TO DISCUSS THE LATEST IN THEIR FAITHS AND HOW BEST TO CONTROL PEOPLE.

Disclaimer - Don't believe everything u read or see online. I might as well be saying trash BUT
..........

i know the vatican one that is were deep secrets are kept only open 1 a year it can't be access by any individual i don't think the pooe is allowed in there too if not once year .....or are you taking about the tomb of Jesus Christ?

butterfly777:
Let me start by saying that if you have any opinion to the contrary, present it.

Evidence that Islam is a man made religion.

The claims in Islamic books such as the Quran and Hadith include:
1. Islam started in Mecca.

Islam is the religion all Prophets of Allah practised from Adam, Noah till the last of them Muhammad.
Noah, Abraham, Moses, Aaron, and all others were Muslims!

2. Muhammed lived in the 7th century B.C.

This doesn't change the above fact that Islam was what was sent to him. The laws may vary!

3. The Quran was written shortly after Muhammed's death.

The Qur'an was recited during the Prophet's lifetime though not compiled in one script. It was compiled in one script less than two years after the Prophet died.

4. Mecca as a city existed since the days of Abraham, as a popular trade and reliigious center, where, first worshippers flocked for pilgrimage.

This still does not negate the fact that the only religion acceptable to Allah our creator is Islam!

AntiChristian:
Islam is the religion all Prophets of Allah practised from Adam, Noah till the last of them Muhammad.
Noah, Abraham, Moses, Aaron, and all others were Muslims!

This doesn't change the above fact that Islam was what was sent to him. The laws may vary!

The Qur'an was recited during the Prophet's lifetime though not compiled in one script. It was compiled in one script less than two years after the Prophet died.

This still does not negate the fact that the only religion acceptable to Allah our creator is Islam!

You were just saying "this does not change the fact..." Which fact?

If your religion is based on lies and fallacies, you have no fact to stand on. Islam is not fact, it is a concction based on lies. If Mecca didn't exist when Muhammed claimed it did, if Muhammed wasn't alive when Quran said he was, and if there was no pilgrimage when Islam claimed there was, then, Islam is false religion.

Open your eyes.

Mind you, Islam is not the religion of Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. It is a lie told by Muhammed. Yahweh did not mention the name of any religion. What he gave us is instruction from genertion to generation, until Jesus through whom the religion of God is perfected.

AntiChristian:
Islam is the religion all Prophets of Allah practised from Adam, Noah till the last of them Muhammad.
Noah, Abraham, Moses, Aaron, and all others were Muslims!

This doesn't change the above fact that Islam was what was sent to him. The laws may vary!

The Qur'an was recited during the Prophet's lifetime though not compiled in one script. It was compiled in one script less than two years after the Prophet died.

This still does not negate the fact that the only religion acceptable to Allah our creator is Islam!

You didnt attempt to disprove any of points. You were just saying it doesn't change the fact that Islam is ...

Islam can't be a religion of God if it was built on lies.

butterfly777:
Let me start by saying that if you have any opinion to the contrary, present it.

Evidence that Islam is a man made religion.

The claims in Islamic books such as the Quran and Hadith include:
1. Islam started in Mecca.
2. Muhammed lived in the 7th century B.C.
3. The Quran was written shortly after Muhammed's death.
4. Mecca as a city existed since the days of Abraham, as a popular trade and reliigious center, where, first worshippers flocked for pilgrimage.

These claims have not been changed for a long time, at least not commonly. The evidences were mainly circulating in academic and scholarly circles. And all the while, researchers continued to dscovers evidences.

Unfortunately, and to the disappointment of many faithful of the Islamic religion, the evidences reveal that the Islamic claim about Mecca, Muhammed and the foundations fo the religion are false.

Findings by researchers and acheologists show that:
1. Islam started in Jordan, not Mecca.
2. The earliest Muslim kiblah faced Petra in Jordan, not Mecca.
3. Those who wrote the Quran did so after the Masjid in Jerusalem was built, and coins were invented, which is decades after Muhammed was claimed to have died.
4. There was no Muhammed, Mecca or pilgrimage to Mecca until decades or even centuries after they were purported to be in existence.

Before you start raising questions, this 5-minute video will guide you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Z8kegepbs?si=t842kalWgwZL54uQ

These discussions tend to being profoundly long and in the end not so relevant. Let me just say a little.

The rise of Islam in the early 7th century CE not BCE assuming you mistyped earlier is one of the most well-documented shifts in the history of Late Antiquity. A wealth of evidence from manuscripts and inscriptions to coins and accounts from non-Muslim sources anchors the life of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the nascent Muslim community firmly in the context of western Arabia, particularly in Makkah and Madinah. Efforts to trace the origins of Islam to other locations or times, like the so-called “Petra theory,” simply don't hold up against the substantial evidence we have.

Early Qurʾānic Manuscripts

The story of the Qurʾan's text begins during the Prophet’s lifetime, when revelations were memorized and recorded on various materials. Radiocarbon-dated parchment fragments show that the Qurʾan was already circulating within just a few decades after Muhammad's death in 632 CE.

Take, for instance, the Birmingham Qurʾan fragments (Mingana 1572a), which have been dated with 95% confidence to between 568 and 645 CE. This places them in the very first generation of Islam and their consonantal structure aligns with the standard text that was later codified under Caliph ʿUthman. Additionally, the Ṣanʿa palimpsest, uncovered in Yemen, reveals an earlier text dating back to around 578–669 CE, along with a later upper text. This offers a rare glimpse into early variations in writing without changes in doctrine (Sadeghi & Goudarzi, 2012). By the early 8th century, monumental Qurʾans like the Topkapi and Samarkand codices showcase the development of the Kufic script and the solidification of the textual tradition (Deroche, 2014).

Epigraphic Evidence

Inscriptions carved in stone and on buildings provide solid chronological markers for the presence of Qurʾanic text and the Islamic identity. For example, the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, completed between 691 and 692 CE, features extensive Kufic inscriptions quoting Surahs Maryam and Al-Ikhlaṣ, including the declaration “Muhammad is the Messenger of God” (Nevo, 1994). Similarly, the Umm al-Jimal inscription in Jordan, dated to 64 AH (683–684 CE), represents a significant piece of Arabic writing from that era.

Don't absolutely believe everything you pick up on YouTube or anywhere social media. The levels of deception are heightening by the minute.

honesttalk21:
These discussions tend to being profoundly long and in the end not so relevant. Let me just say a little.

The rise of Islam in the early 7th century CE not BCE assuming you mistyped earlier is one of the most well-documented shifts in the history of Late Antiquity. A wealth of evidence from manuscripts and inscriptions to coins and accounts from non-Muslim sources anchors the life of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the nascent Muslim community firmly in the context of western Arabia, particularly in Makkah and Madinah. Efforts to trace the origins of Islam to other locations or times, like the so-called “Petra theory,” simply don't hold up against the substantial evidence we have.

Early Qurʾānic Manuscripts

The story of the Qurʾan's text begins during the Prophet’s lifetime, when revelations were memorized and recorded on various materials. Radiocarbon-dated parchment fragments show that the Qurʾan was already circulating within just a few decades after Muhammad's death in 632 CE.

Take, for instance, the Birmingham Qurʾan fragments (Mingana 1572a), which have been dated with 95% confidence to between 568 and 645 CE. This places them in the very first generation of Islam and their consonantal structure aligns with the standard text that was later codified under Caliph ʿUthman. Additionally, the Ṣanʿa palimpsest, uncovered in Yemen, reveals an earlier text dating back to around 578–669 CE, along with a later upper text. This offers a rare glimpse into early variations in writing without changes in doctrine (Sadeghi & Goudarzi, 2012). By the early 8th century, monumental Qurʾans like the Topkapi and Samarkand codices showcase the development of the Kufic script and the solidification of the textual tradition (Deroche, 2014).

Epigraphic Evidence

Inscriptions carved in stone and on buildings provide solid chronological markers for the presence of Qurʾanic text and the Islamic identity. For example, the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, completed between 691 and 692 CE, features extensive Kufic inscriptions quoting Surahs Maryam and Al-Ikhlaṣ, including the declaration “Muhammad is the Messenger of God” (Nevo, 1994). Similarly, the Umm al-Jimal inscription in Jordan, dated to 64 AH (683–684 CE), represents a significant piece of Arabic writing from that era.

Don't absolutely believe everything you pick up on YouTube or anywhere social media. The levels of deception are heightening by the minute.

Thank you for this response.

However, they do not prove that Islam was manufactured by human beings over the years.

- Evidence for Islam in the 7th Century? You probably misunderstood the things you sighted as evidence on this. Researchers have examined many texts, books, writings and inscriptions as well as rocks, and coins. There is no one that that suggests that Mecca existed before the advent of Islam. No coin, trade receipt, historical record, or religious record ever new a place called Mecca before some years after Muhammed died of he lived.

Even the Bible ought to have references to Mecca if it existed in the days of Prophet Abraham, Moses, etc, but no such trace.

On Muhammed, despite Muhammed's purported influence as religious and political leader in Arabia, leading wars and conquering Kingdoms, the Muhammed of Islam is not found written about in any document - outside the Quran- by anybody who lived in those times. Suggestions about a prophet, or new religion emerging among the Arabs started emerging scantily through writers like John of Damascus, who wrote the book "The Heresies of the Ishmelites".

Note, the term Muslims was no even know yet, they were called "Ishmaelites". And they were seen as heretic sects of anti-trinitarin Christians.

- Birmingham manuscripts dating? The carbon dating of the Birginham manuscripts is about when the animal was killed and the skin for writing made. It doesn't reflect when the writing was done on the animal skin. You can have a new notebook for decades without writing on it. So, it doesn't serve as reliable evidence of early history of Islam, Muhammed or Mecca.

- Dome of the Rock as evidence for Islam?
Ironically, the Dome of the Rock, which is a popular mosque in Jerusalem, is on one the most obvious arguments against Islam. It shows that some events recorded in the Quran happened after Muhammed's supposed lifetime. How? It is fairly known among apologists that the Dome of the Rock was built decades after Muhammed's supposed death, yet the Quran recorded that Muhammed visited the mosque and prayed there. How can a dead man visit a mosque that wasn't built in his lifetime?

Besides, if such an important person as Muhammed was expected to be visited Jerusalem, non-Islamic historians who have known about it and reference to it would have existed, yet there is known.

So, there is still lack of evidence of the existence of Mecca before Islamic books, Muhammed when Islamic books claimed he lived, or any pilgrimage to Mecca from the days of Abraham, Moses, etc.

Yet, the evidence show that Islam started in Jordan. The first Kiblah point to Jordan. The Haffs Quran was written in Jordnian writing style. Islamic records started emerging during a political season in Jordan. The people recorded in history who conquered Jerusalem and put monotheist writings on the Dome the Rock are (I think) Jordanian.

So, indications are strong that Islam didn't start when it was claimed to start, where it was claimed to start, and with events it claimed to have at its beginning.

This 12-minute video also offer more details on the falsehood in Islamic creation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BF2NwE2mOg?si=CFaxgdLddraxQw-1

butterfly777:
This 12-minute video also offer more details on the falsehood in Islamic creation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BF2NwE2mOg?si=CFaxgdLddraxQw-1

As I stated earlier you cannot absolutely believe what you view on YouTube. Take the effort to verify.

The assertion that the Qur’an doesn’t mention Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh) is simply not true. His name is clearly stated in four verses (3:144, 33:40, 47:2, 48:29), and he’s also referred to as ‘Aḥmad’ in 61:6, along with various titles like ‘the Messenger’ and ‘the Prophet’ that unmistakably point to him.

The speaker in the video seemed a bit unprepared, which doesn’t indicate a lack of understanding in doctrine. Using a moment of pressure to claim a theological win overlooks both the facts in the Qur’ān and centuries of scholarly work.

Perhaps you should read some more of the Qur'an yourself and not rely on what people say about it.

I have said enough please.

honesttalk21:
As I stated earlier you cannot absolutely believe what you view on YouTube. Take the effort to verify.

The assertion that the Qur’an doesn’t mention Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh) is simply not true. His name is clearly stated in four verses (3:144, 33:40, 47:2, 48:29), and he’s also referred to as ‘Aḥmad’ in 61:6, along with various titles like ‘the Messenger’ and ‘the Prophet’ that unmistakably point to him.

The speaker in the video seemed a bit unprepared, which doesn’t indicate a lack of understanding in doctrine. Using a moment of pressure to claim a theological win overlooks both the facts in the Qur’ān and centuries of scholarly work.

Perhaps you should read some more of the Qur'an yourself and not rely on what people say about it.

I have said enough please.

First of all,

honesttalk21:
As I stated earlier you cannot absolutely believe what you view on YouTube. Take the effort to verify.

The assertion that the Qur’an doesn’t mention Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh) is simply not true. His name is clearly stated in four verses (3:144, 33:40, 47:2, 48:29), and he’s also referred to as ‘Aḥmad’ in 61:6, along with various titles like ‘the Messenger’ and ‘the Prophet’ that unmistakably point to him.

The speaker in the video seemed a bit unprepared, which doesn’t indicate a lack of understanding in doctrine. Using a moment of pressure to claim a theological win overlooks both the facts in the Qur’ān and centuries of scholarly work.

Perhaps you should read some more of the Qur'an yourself and not rely on what people say about it.

I have said enough please.

- First of all, your assumption that my source of learning about Islam is just through YouTube. That's no true.
- Secondly, you seem not to get the speaker well. He didn't say that Muhammed's name wasn't mentioned in the Quran. He said Muhammed's name wasn't mentioned in a non-Islamic source of the time he was claimed to have leaved. This creates doubt about the truth of his existence when Hadith claimed he was alive.

- That said, we have to respect the YouTube as a good source of learning. One just has to be objective and also examine ther sources of learning.
- Still, there is no evidence to show that early history of Islam is not man-made.

My God show us the truth in Jesus name.

butterfly777:
- First of all, your assumption that my source of learning about Islam is just through YouTube. That's no true.
- Secondly, you seem not to get the speaker well. He didn't say that Muhammed's name wasn't mentioned in the Quran. He said Muhammed's name wasn't mentioned in a non-Islamic source of the time he was claimed to have leaved. This creates doubt about the truth of his existence when Hadith claimed he was alive.

- That said, we have to respect the YouTube as a good source of learning. One just has to be objective and also examine ther sources of learning.
- Still, there is no evidence to show that early history of Islam is not man-made.

My God show us the truth in Jesus name.

If you read through my ending paragraph in my initial response you will note I mentioned YouTube and other social media sources. Note my statement that information on YouTube wasn't absolute. I didn't say it was all false.

You stand with the video you shared from the YouTube channel Theological apologia which is engaging faith in Christ through Theological apologetics. Well you know that the view of apologetics is their propaganda dressed in scholarship.


Now,the idea that there are no non-Islamic references to Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh) from his lifetime is simply not true.

In fact, there are several non-Muslim sources from that time or just after that which mention him. Take, for instance, the Byzantine chronicler Theophanes from the early 8th century and the Armenian bishop Sebeos from the mid-7th century; both describe him as the leader of the Arabs who preached belief in one God.

Additionally, the Doctrina Jacobi, written around 634 CE just two years after his death talks about ‘a prophet among the Saracens’ who was active in Arabia. These accounts stand apart from Islamic tradition and provide solid evidence of his historical presence and leadership.
Just because some records are silent doesn’t mean we should ignore the positive evidence that does exist.

Sebeos, writing in the mid-7th century just a few decades after Muḥammad’s death, describes him as a merchant-prophet who brought the Arabs together to worship the God of Abraham, prohibited idolatry, and led them in conquests driven by their faith (Sebeos, c. 660s).

Although his account comes from a Christian perspective, it’s quite detailed and gives insight into how early Islam presented itself.

On the other hand, Theophanes the Confessor, writing in the early 9th century, portrays Muḥammad as a false prophet swayed by a heretical Christian monk and suggests that the Arab conquests were a form of divine retribution for the sins of the Byzantines (Theophanes, c. 810). While Sebeos provides a more contemporary and less contentious viewpoint, Theophanes reflects the later theological animosity of the Byzantine perspective.

Essentially the idea that Prophet Muḥammad pbuh is missing from non-Islamic history is simply not true. There’s a critical Christian text from his time, the Doctrina Jacobi (634 CE), which mentions ‘a prophet among the Saracens’ who preached about God and Paradise. Just a decade later, the Syriac Thomas the Presbyter Chronicle refers to ‘the Arabs of Muhammad’ in the context of battle. By the 660s, both the Armenian bishop Sebeos and the Khuzistan Chronicle recognize Muhammad pbuh as a leader, lawgiver, and teacher of monotheism. That gives us four independent, non-Islamic sources in just 30 years and is pretty solid early evidence compared to many ancient historical figures!

You may not like the disagreement in Jesus being the begotten son of God; a supreme one has no need for this, as well as disagreement about his crucifiction however in essence Muslims worship one Allah.

Be assured in your chosen faith despite our differences and at the appropriate point we all will know.

These claims are very new, absurd and very funny

The best part, no reputable theologian nor historian holds these views.

Sterope:
These claims are very new, absurd and very funny

The best part, no reputable theologian nor historian holds these views.

They are not new.

Even if they are new, it doesn't mean they're wrong.

No reputable scholar supports them? Let me mention just a few: Dr Jay Smith, Dr Robert Spencer. And probably Dr Shabir Ally.

They are very new and laughably absurd. No one that knew Islam during and subsequently after the prophet said this nonsense. Their only claim was Muhammad as possessed.

In fact when Christians claimed he didn't exist, it took a few sensible theologians that he did exist and now only foooolisssh people still claim that nonsense.

All Christian Apologists and none of them reputable. I am surprised that you don't know that Dr Jay Smith has been described is a charlatan.

If you bring me 100 theologians, 99 will look at you a fooool....

Shabir Ally? Are you alright at all?

butterfly777:
They are not new.

Even if they are new, it doesn't mean they're wrong.

No reputable scholar supports them? Let me mention just a few: Dr Jay Smith, Dr Robert Spencer. And probably Dr Shabir Ally.

His assumption is right

Many wannabe Islam critics love YouTube and upon further inspection at times you know nothing about Islam.

For example, it takes a simmmmpleton to discount many materials aboit Islam because one or two charlatans say so. I worry for your critical thinking.


When we claim the Bible (John and Matthew) was most likely not written by eyewitnesses, that would be a MAJORITY opinion not the opinion of few charlatans.

butterfly777:
- First of all, your assumption that my source of learning about Islam is just through YouTube. That's no true.
- Secondly, you seem not to get the speaker well. He didn't say that Muhammed's name wasn't mentioned in the Quran. He said Muhammed's name wasn't mentioned in a non-Islamic source of the time he was claimed to have leaved. This creates doubt about the truth of his existence when Hadith claimed he was alive.

- That said, we have to respect the YouTube as a good source of learning. One just has to be objective and also examine ther sources of learning.
- Still, there is no evidence to show that early history of Islam is not man-made.

My God show us the truth in Jesus name.

When you have verifiable facts/letters including wars between early Muslims and non Muslims. We can't say the same about Christianity.

There was a time modern Christian theologians and the West claimed Prophet Muhammad never existed until they realised it was all an absurd claim.

honesttalk21:
If you read through my ending paragraph in my initial response you will note I mentioned YouTube and other social media sources. Note my statement that information on YouTube wasn't absolute. I didn't say it was all false.

You stand with the video you shared from the YouTube channel Theological apologia which is engaging faith in Christ through Theological apologetics. Well you know that the view of apologetics is their propaganda dressed in scholarship.


Now,the idea that there are no non-Islamic references to Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh) from his lifetime is simply not true.

In fact, there are several non-Muslim sources from that time or just after that which mention him. Take, for instance, the Byzantine chronicler Theophanes from the early 8th century and the Armenian bishop Sebeos from the mid-7th century; both describe him as the leader of the Arabs who preached belief in one God.

Additionally, the Doctrina Jacobi, written around 634 CE just two years after his death talks about ‘a prophet among the Saracens’ who was active in Arabia. These accounts stand apart from Islamic tradition and provide solid evidence of his historical presence and leadership.
Just because some records are silent doesn’t mean we should ignore the positive evidence that does exist.

Sebeos, writing in the mid-7th century just a few decades after Muḥammad’s death, describes him as a merchant-prophet who brought the Arabs together to worship the God of Abraham, prohibited idolatry, and led them in conquests driven by their faith (Sebeos, c. 660s).

Although his account comes from a Christian perspective, it’s quite detailed and gives insight into how early Islam presented itself.

On the other hand, Theophanes the Confessor, writing in the early 9th century, portrays Muḥammad as a false prophet swayed by a heretical Christian monk and suggests that the Arab conquests were a form of divine retribution for the sins of the Byzantines (Theophanes, c. 810). While Sebeos provides a more contemporary and less contentious viewpoint, Theophanes reflects the later theological animosity of the Byzantine perspective.

Essentially the idea that Prophet Muḥammad pbuh is missing from non-Islamic history is simply not true. There’s a critical Christian text from his time, the Doctrina Jacobi (634 CE), which mentions ‘a prophet among the Saracens’ who preached about God and Paradise. Just a decade later, the Syriac Thomas the Presbyter Chronicle refers to ‘the Arabs of Muhammad’ in the context of battle. By the 660s, both the Armenian bishop Sebeos and the Khuzistan Chronicle recognize Muhammad pbuh as a leader, lawgiver, and teacher of monotheism. That gives us four independent, non-Islamic sources in just 30 years and is pretty solid early evidence compared to many ancient historical figures!

You may not like the disagreement in Jesus being the begotten son of God; a supreme one has no need for this, as well as disagreement about his crucifiction however in essence Muslims worship one Allah.

Be assured in your chosen faith despite our differences and at the appropriate point we all will know.

Sterope:
His assumption is right

Many wannabe Islam critics love YouTube and upon further inspection at times you know nothing about Islam.

For example, it takes a simmmmpleton to discount many materials aboit Islam because one or two charlatans say so. I worry for your critical thinking.


When we claim the Bible (John and Matthew) was most likely not written by eyewitnesses, that would be a MAJORITY opinion not the opinion of few charlatans.

You're asked to give convincing evidence that Muhammed, Mecca, Hajj, and Islam as we know it today was at the early times claimed by Islamics sources.

Instead, you're complaining about YouTube. How is your alfas better than YouTube. One can learn from anywhere a long as you have an open mind.

Sterope:
When you have verifiable facts/letters including wars between early Muslims and non Muslims. We can't say the same about Christianity.

There was a time modern Christian theologians and the West claimed Prophet Muhammad never existed until they realised it was all an absurd claim.

Those references youre referring to are mainly from Muslim sources. Having unbiased non-Muslim sources is necessary.

Sterope:
They are very new and laughably absurd. No one that knew Islam during and subsequently after the prophet said this nonsense. Their only claim was Muhammad as possessed.

In fact when Christians claimed he didn't exist, it took a few sensible theologians that he did exist and now only foooolisssh people still claim that nonsense.

All Christian Apologists and none of them reputable. I am surprised that you don't know that Dr Jay Smith has been described is a charlatan.

If you bring me 100 theologians, 99 will look at you a fooool....

Shabir Ally? Are you alright at all?

Sister stop being sentimental and be objective.
Shabir Ally who recently renounced Islamic Hadith records as being unreliable.

Someone already has provided you with enough evidence.

Again, you are absurd, your claims are absurd that I genuinely worry about your lack of critical thinking. No jokes. I will lowk to believe that you went to school.

butterfly777:
You're asked to give convincing evidence that Muhammed, Mecca, Hajj, and Islam as we know it today was at the early times claimed by Islamics sources.

Instead, you're complaining about YouTube. How is your alfas better than YouTube. One can learn from anywhere a long as you have an open mind.

Sterope:
Someone already has provided you with enough evidence.

Again, you are absurd, your claims are absurd that I genuinely worry about your lack of critical thinking. No jokes. I will lowk to believe that you went to school.

Not every cited material is valid, so making reference to some materials does not automatically translate to giving VALID evidence.

And neither does your sentimentality serve as evidence.

Meanwhile, ♨️ see how Islam was manufactured from Christianity and how it started in Syria, not Mecca. You may also learn why there were different Muhammeds in different kingdoms. 👇


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KddsTs3HHAA?si=XTEpFOhpqop4Li6N

How the Standard Islamic Narrative Was Fabricated.