(Click here for the link)
“DISMANTLING ISLAM HISTORICALLY”
A Response to Raymond Ibrahim on why Muhammad didn’t Exist
Dr Jay Smith
Calvary Chapel Chino Hills
July 6, 2025
INTRODUCTION
Finally, a response to the Historical Critique
My Story on Islam’s Origins since 1992, in London
~1992: I started going to Speaker’s Corner, London ( Photos of Jay debating at Speaker’s Corner )
• I began using Polemics “Btsomp”
~1994: I took Dr Gerald Hawting’s class on the ‘Origins of Islam’ at SOAS
• I began using Historical Criticism against Islam at Speaker’s Corner
~1995: I debated Dr Jamal Badawi at Cambridge University ( Photo of Jay vs Dr Jamal Badawi)
• I gave 10 Historical challenges which he couldn’t answer
~ 1997: Colin Chapman had me debate Dr David Marshall at Selly Oaks
College, Birmingham
Topics:
1) Should we use Polemics with Muslims?
2) Should we employ Historical Criticism?
Result:
• 25 supported Dr Marshall, 25 supported me
• Split evenly between Academics and missionaries
• Explained by Dr Peter Riddell
Photos of :
Dr Gerald Hawting
Jay vs Dr David Marshall
Colin Chapman
Dr Peter Riddell
Since then, our material has matured
So, has the Criticism, ironically by a Christian
• Calvary Chapel Chino Hills – Sept. 15, 2023 (2.5 million views)
• Calvary Chapel Chino Hills – Dec. 4, 2023 (700,000 views)
• Raymond Ibrahim – April 9, 2025 (18,000 views)
• Raymond Ibrahim – April 11, 2025 (8,000 views)
Raymond Ibrahim’s 10 Suppositions
1) Muhammad is one of the most historically supported people in history.
2) Muhammad has more historical support than Jesus.
3) If Muhammad didn’t exist, how do we understand the Sunni/Shia divide?
4) There are no incontrovertible proofs of Muhammad’s non-existence.
5) Since the Traditions about Muhammad are so embarrassing, why write them?
6) Mecca, is not an argument against Muhammad.
7) No one can prove or disprove historical data.
8) It comes down to a matter of faith.
9) Claims against Muhammad’s existence are merely an academic and subjective exercise.
10) The best Polemic is to prove how irrelevant Muhammad is for us today!
Let’s go through all 10 and see if Ibrahim is correct about Muhammad…
MUSLIM’S CLAIMS
Their “Standard Islamic Narrative” (SIN)
Muslim’s SIN’s Traditional Claims
For the last 1400 years…
~ Muhammad was the last and greatest prophet,
• He modeled ‘Islam’ as the paradigm for the world
• He received the Qur’an as the ‘final’ revelation for the world
~ The Qur’an, his revelation, was sent down only to him between 610 – 632 AD
• It is the greatest, the only perfectly preserved, and the final revelation
• It corrects all previous revelations
~ Mecca was the city Muhammad was born in, and lived in for the first 52 years of his life.
Thus, Islam is completely dependent on:
▪ THE QUR’AN = ‘The Book’
▪ MUHAMMAD = ‘The Man’
▪ MECCA = ‘The Place’
▪ Since these 3 areas are foundational to Islam, we should investigate them
▪ At the time they all existed (i.e. the early 7th century)
▪ In the place they existed (i.e. the Hijaz = Central Western Arabia)
▪ Notice, if you confront and destroy one of those legs, the other two fall as well….
With that in mind, let’s now look at Raymond’s 10 suppositions and assess them…
Supposition #1
“Muhammad is one of the most historically supported people in history”
(Map of Middle East)
According to the ‘Standard Islamic Narrative’ (SIN)
Islam’s early Expansion
• Muhammad’s Empire (632 AD)
• The ‘Rushidun Period’(632-661 AD)
• The Umayyad Dynasty(661-750 AD)
A Timeline of Islam’s Emergence (according to the “SIN”)
• Muhammad is born 570
• The Qur’an is first revealed 610
• Mi’raj 621
• Hijra 622
• Mecca 630
• Muhammad dies 632
• Abu Bakr 632 - 634
• Umar 634 - 644
• Qur’an compiled 652
• Uthman 644 - 656
• Ali 656 - 661
[ Conclusion: Islam was fully formed, in the Hijaz, by 661 AD! ]
Question: How do we know all of the above? Where did it come from?
Sources for the ‘ISLAMIC TRADITIONS’ (SIN)…according to Muslims
Sira = Biography of Muhammad
Hadith = Sayings of Muhammad
Tafsir = Commentaries on the Qur’an
Tarikh = Histories of Mankind
• Muhammad dies 632 AD
• Abd al-Malik (692 AD)
• Abbasids (749 AD)
• Ibn Ishaq (died, 765 AD)
• Ibn Hisham (d.833 AD)
• Al Waqidi (d.835 AD)
• Al Bukhari (d.870 AD)
• Sahih Muslim (d.875 AD)
• At-Tirmidhi (d.884 AD)
• Ibn Majah (d.887 AD)
• Abu Dawud (d.899 AD)
• An-Nisa’i (d.915 AD
• Al Tabari (d.923 AD)
[ Conclusion: Muhammad was
revealed 84 years after the
Abbasids created him, 141 years
after he was first introduced, yet
201 years after he supposedly lived!
Raymond, however, considers this
200-year gap as perfectly
acceptable, and thus not a problem! ]
The problem of Distance & Direction
The Islamic Traditions say everything happened in Mecca and Medina (in the Hejaz)
Yet, all of the writers of the Traditions worked in Baghdad, which is 1,200 mi. too far north.
Ibn Hisham (The Sira) is from Basra
But he grew up in Cairo
Cairo – Mecca = 990 mi.
Basra – Mecca = 1,200 mi.
Al Bukhari (The Hadith) is from Bukhara
Bukhara – Mecca = 2,600 mi.
Al Tabari (The Tafsir & Ta’rikh) is from Tabaristan
Tabaristan - Mecca = 1,700 mi.
Conclusion: None of the Traditional writers lived or worked in Mecca or Medina. They were too far to the north of Mecca, and came from the West and East of Baghdad
NOTE: Doesn’t Raymond Ibrahim realize that these Abbasids (Post 750 AD) are too far away?
But which Muhammad is Raymond Ibrahim supporting?
The “Muhammad” of Islam requires four things:
• He must have used the name “MUHAMMAD”
• He must have lived in the city of Mecca
• He must have received the Qur’an (all 114 Suras)
• He must have existed in the 7th century
Conclusion: All four of the above criteria (the man, the place, the book, and the time) must be fulfilled in order to prove that the Muhammad of Islam actually existed.
Let’s start with the name itself
• Raymond Ibrahim suggests that we can find the name “Muhammad” in a written text
• But that name requires 4 consonants and 3 vowels, in a written form
• In the 7th century or earlier, in Arabic, it would have been simply ‘mhmd’ because there were no vowels in Arabic that early, just 16 consonantal letters. The vowels were only created and added in the 8th and the 9th centuries. The earliest Qur’anic manuscripts prove that point…
Samarkand Manuscript
Sana’a Manuscript
Ma’il Manuscript
Petropolitanus Manuscript
Topkapi Manuscript
(With help from research introduced by Mel from “Islamic Origins”, a researcher from Ireland)
What does the word “Muhammad” look like today?
محمد
It has 3 vowels: Dhamma, Fatah & Fatah
But these vowels didn’t exist in the 7th century.
They were introduced in the 8th-9th centuries.
So, what did that word look like in the 7th century?
daal mim ha mim
How, then, would you pronounce this word?
“MAHMAD” or “MAMED”, but not “Muhammad”!
Conclusion: We should be looking for “MHMD” in the 7th century, not “Muhammad”!
How do we know ‘MHMD’ should be pronounced ”Mamed”?
John of Damascus, in 730 AD writes it in Greek as “Mamed”
ού χρόνου καὶ δεύρο ψευδοπροφήτης αύτοῖς άνεφύη Μάμεδ έπονομαζό-μενος
δς τή τε παλαιά και νέα διαθήκη περιτυχών, όμοίως άρειανώ
προσομιλήσας δήθεν μοναχω ίδίαν συνεστήσατο αίρεσιν. Καὶ προφάσει
γραφήν ύπὸ έν τή παρ' (15)
αύτου βίβλω χαράξας γέλωτος άξια τὸ σέβας αύτοϊς ούτω παραδίδωσι,
Λέγει ένα θεον είναι ποιητὴν των όλων, μήτε γεννηθέντα μήτε γεγεννηκότα.
Αένει τον Χριστον λόγον είναι τούῦ θεου
τὸ δοκείν θεοσεβείας τὸ ένος είσποησάμενος, έξ ούρανοῦ
θεοῦ κατενεχθήναι έπ' αύτὸν διαθρυλλείῖ. Τινα δε συντάγματα
and from that time until now, a false prophet, called Mamed, sprung up among them; who, after conversing with an Arian monk concerning the Old and New Testament, fabricated his own heresy. And after ingratiating himself and gaining favor from the people under a false pretense of piety, he spread rumors that a book had been sent down to him from heaven by God. Thus, heretical pronouncements inscribed in his book and worthy of laughter, were instead handed down to them as something to be revered.
What does MHMD mean in Arabic?
MHMD means "the praised one", or "the blessed one", or "the anointed one"
• Or even “the Messiah” later on..
• Thus, it is not a name but a title
• It was first used in Ugaritic in 1400 BC
• Then it was used in Hebrew, in 1000 BC, and is found in the Bible 11 times
• i.e. Song of Solomon 5:16 = ‘Machmad’ = “Altogether Lovely”, referring to Solomon
• It was subsequently employed by Saint Ambrose in the 4th century AD as a title for Jesus Christ, the Messiah
• From the 4th century other church father’s employed MHMD to refer to Jesus Christ.
Examples of Church Fathers, who interpreted the Song of Songs passage as the Church and Christ, and subsequently used “MHMD” for Christ:
Origen, an early 3rd century Christian theologian, interpreted the Song of Songs 5:16 passage as the unique Scripture where the eschatological nuptials of Christ and his Bride are present
Saint Ambrose in the 4th century AD introduced the ideas that the Song of Solomon 5:16 passage reference to ‘MHMD’ was to be considered a title for Jesus Christ, the Messiah
Gregory of Elvira (d. 392AD)
St John Cassian (360-435AD)
St Augustine (396-430AD)
Apponius in the middle of the 7th century
Conclusion: “MHMD” was a common title for Jesus by the 7th century in the church in that part of the world, so we shouldn’t be surprised when we find it written in many places, at that time
But the Jews also considered the MHMD as the “anointed one”…
Notice this 523 AD Inscription
6th century Jewish rock Inscription
• This rock inscription was found in situ in Biʾr Ḥimà, Najraan (today Yemen).
• It is part of a Jewish Himyaritic inscription dated to 523 AD.
• It says: “rb-Hd b-mḥmd”
• Translation: “[By the] Lord of Jews. By the Mhmd”
мача, rеаds ‘DМHМ' іn Sаbаіс sсrірt frоm rіght tо lеft.
Synopsis:
MHMD means “the praised one”, or “the blessed one”, or “the anointed one”
• Or even “the Messiah” later on..
• So, it’s not a name but a title
• It was first used in Ugaritic in 1400 BC
• Then it was used in Hebrew, in 1000 BC, and is found in the Bible 11 times
• i.e. Song of Solomon 5:16 = ‘Machmad’ = “Altogether Lovely”, referring to Solomon
• It was subsequently employed by Saint Ambrose in the 4th century AD as a title for Jesus Christ, the Messiah
• Then by the “Jews” from a 523 AD inscription; so that we can find 7-8 inscriptions with this title
• Thus, by the 7th century, the Christians used MHMD to refer to the returning ‘Messiah’, while the Jews
used MHMD to refer to the Messiah yet to come (and at times interchanging it with ‘Messiah’)
Conclusion: Therefore, the term “MHMD” was well known in that part of the world, and at that time, but it was not pronounced as “Muhammad”…. that is how we now pronounce it today, and there lies the confusion for Raymond Ibrahim.
Knowing that, let’s now look to see exactly when “Muhammad’s” story was created within Islam itself.
HOW WELL DID THE MUSLIMS PRESERVE MUHAMMAD’S STORY?
Are there any eye-witnesses to what Muhammad did or what he said?
The Problem with Extant Manuscripts
• Problem: When anyone asks Muslims how they can be sure that the story they have of Muhammad is true, they point to numerous books on their bookshelves and claim that they were written by those who knew Muhammad; that they saw what he did and heard what he said. But they never show us their original “extant” codices or manuscripts, nor do they ever give us any forensically tested dates concerning when exactly those books were originally written
• To be valid witnesses for Muhammad we must have these traditional writer’s original “extant” manuscripts to look at, in order to know whether they really wrote what they are purported to have written
• Remember, the compilers of the prophet’s life and sayings all worked under the authority of the Muslim Caliphs. So, they would have had access to durable writing material, such as Parchments and Vellum (i.e. using animal skins), unlike our earliest Christian writings, which were all written on Papyrus (non-durable leaves). So, the Muslim written texts should still be in existence even today, a mere 1400 years later. Consequently, there is no excuse not to have the original manuscripts
• Let’s find out what we now know about the “extant” manuscripts of the Sira (his biography), the Hadith (his sayings), the Sahaba’s codices (his companions) and the Tabi’un’s codices (the 2nd generation), as well as the Ta’rikh (his history) and the Tafsir (his commentaries).
The ”Sahaba” and the “Tabi’un”
The Sahaba = The eye-witness, or the “Companions of the Prophet”.
The Tabi’un = Those who received what they knew from the Sahaba.
Claim: The Sahaba/Tabi’un of Muhammad (7th- 8th centuries) – This is a lie!...take a look…
• Muwatta ibn Malik: 9th century (200 years later)
• Sahifa Hamman B. Munabbih: 12th century (500 years later)
• Musnad ibn Hanbal: 13th century (600 years later)
• Musanaf Abdul Razzaq: 13th century (600 years later)
• Musnad al-Tayalisi: 13th century (600 years later)
• Abi Shaybah: 13th century (600 years later)
Conclusion: These documents were all supposedly created in the 7th century; yet they don’t begin to appear until the 9th – 13th centuries; thus, from 200 – 600 years too late!
This suggests that they were all written by others 100s of years later…Consequently, they are All REDACTED ATTRIBUTIONS!
Sahaba (Companions of Muhammad = 7th century), & the Tabi’un (the 2nd generation = 8th century)
Let’s put their compilations on to a TIMELINE:
• Muhammad dies 632 AD
←Between the 9th – 13th centuries. Thus 200 – 600 YEARS TOO LATE!→
• Muwatta ibn Malik (9th century AD)
• Sahifa Hamman B. Munabbih (12th century AD)
• Musnad al-Tayalisi (13th century AD)
• Musanaf Abdul Razzaq (13th century AD)
• Musnad al-Tayalisi (13th century AD)
• Abi Shaybah (13th century AD)
CONCLUSIONS: Muslim scholars believe that the stories surrounding Muhammad’s life were written by the ‘Sahaba’ or the ‘Tabi’un’ (1st and 2nd generations from the prophet); thus, by eyewitnesses (our equivalent would be John and Matthew). Yet, they were all written by others over 200 – 600 years later and simply redacted back to the 7th & 8th centuries! Thus, they are all probably fraudulent!
What about the Muwatta of Ibn Malik?
Recent Muslims claim: “It’s from the 9th century, so it is indeed very early…”
Let’s take a look at this claim:
• There is a partial copy of the Muwatta in Dublin’s Chester Beatty Library (Mss. 3001). It is described as ‘The second ‘third’ of a celebrated treatise on Islamic jurisprudence’ and is dated to 890 AD. (Arberry, Arthur J., A Handlist of the Arabic Manuscripts, Volume I, Mss. 3001 to 3250, Dublin: Emery Walker, p. 1)
• The oldest complete manuscript of the ‘Muwatta’ currently known dates to approximately 1030 AD and is the earliest surviving ‘Muwatta’ manuscript in complete form. This manuscript was copied on gazelle parchment in a beautiful early Andalusi hand, indicating its Maghrebi-Andalusian provenance. It follows Yaḥyā al-Laythī’s transmission (the most widely received version of Malik’s text) as preserved through the Andalusian scholarly tradition (https://qurantalkblog.com/2025/05/07/oldest-surviving-manuscript-of-imam-maliks-muwatta/)
• In other words, as of today, the circa 1030 AD manuscript is the earliest fully extant copy of Imam Malik’s work.
Any manuscripts older than the 5th century AH exist only in fragmentary form, or as a few folios (Al-Muwatta by Malik b. Anas (d. 179/795) [The Recension of Yahya¯ b. Yah.ya¯ al-Laythı¯ (d. 234/848)] A translation of the Royal Moroccan Edition, Edited and translated by Mohammad Fadel & Connell Monette, Published by the Program in Islamic Law, Harvard Law School, Distributed by Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts 2019)
• Most important, however, the Muwatta is only about rules of Jurisprudence, and not about early Islam, so it doesn’t help us with any historical data on how Islam actually began, or who Muhammad was. This also explains why the “Muwatta” is never included as one of the major Islamic Traditions, since it doesn’t belong to that genre.
Let’s relook at the Sahaba (Companions of Muhammad = 7th century), & the Tabi’un (the 2nd generation = 8th century) Let’s redo the compilations on a new & corrected TIMELINE:
600 ¹ 650 700 750 800 850 ² 900 950 1000 1050 1100 ³ 1150⁴ 1200⁵ ⁶ ⁷ ⁸1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850
¹• Muhammad dies 632 AD
²• Muwatta ibn Malik (Partial) (9th century AD)
³• Muwatta ibn Malik (COMPLETE) (11th century AD)
( ¹ ←Between the 11th–13th centuries. Thus 400 – 600 YEARS TOO LATE!→ ³ )
⁴• Sahifa Hamman B. Munabbih (12th century AD)
⁵• Musnad Ibn Hanbal (13th century AD)
⁶• Musanaf Abdul Razzaq (13th century AD)
⁷• Musnad al-Tayalisi (13th century AD)
⁸• Abi Shaybah (13th century AD)
CONCLUSIONS: There simply weren’t any ‘Sahaba’ or ‘Tabi’un’ (1st and 2nd generations from the prophet). So, we have nothing written down by any eyewitnesses. What we do have were all written by others over 400 – 600 years later and simply redacted back to the 7th & 8th centuries! Thus, they are all probably fraudulent!
The “Sira” (Biography of Muhammad)
Who really created our Sira?
Alfred Guillaume, taken from Ibn Ishaq, or Ibn Hisham, or…? ( Book title : THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD, *A TRANSLATION OF ISHAQ’S SIRAT RASUL ALLAH, WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES BY A. GUILLAUME, Karachi, Oxford University Press)
• We have 36 different biographies written down in the last few hundred years, but who wrote the standard work which everyone uses today?
• It was Heinrich Ferdinand Wustenfeld (1808 – 1899), who between 1858 – 1860 compiled the Sira ( details click here )
• Taken from libraries and museums in 6 mostly European cities (Fez, London, Oxford, Dublin, Paris & London)
• Then translated into French and English, & “sanitized” by Guillaume and others later on
• Furthermore, in 1967 Fouad Sezgin compiled another Sira from documents found in Morocco
Conclusion: The man whom Muslims are dependent on to know who their prophet is or what he did, is an elderly German linguist who wrote Muhammad’s story 160 years ago, thus over 1,000 years too late!
To make this point stronger, let’s put the extant SIRA compilation on to a TIMELINE:
600 ¹ 650 700 750 800 ² ³ 850 900 950 1000 1050 ⁴ 1100 1150 1200 1250 ⁵ ⁶ 1300 ⁷ 1350 1400 ⁸ 1450 1500 1550 ⁹ 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850¹⁰
¹• Muhammad dies 632 AD
↑
200 - 300 YEARS
↓
²• Ibn Hisham (died 833 AD)
³• Al Waqidi (died 835 AD)
⁴• Fez (Qarawiyyun mosque) – only partial = 1063 AD
⁵• OR 6475 (British Library, London) - 1278 AD
⁶• MS. Arab (Bodleian Library, Oxford) - 1324 AD
⁷• Chester Beatty Library (Dublin, Ireland) - 1331 AD
⁸• BnF (Paris, France) - 1420 AD
⁹• MS 19320 (SOAS Library, London) - 1589 AD
¹⁰• Wustenfeld (1860 AD)
( ⁴ ←Everything is compiled between the 11th – 19th centuries. Thus 400 – 1,200 YEARS TOO LATE!→ ¹⁰ )
CONCLUSIONS: Every Western and Muslim scholar believes that the SIRA compilation was just 200 – 300 years after Muhammad, which is bad enough. Won’t they be surprised when they find that they are really much later; between the 11th – 19th centuries, in other words between 400 – 1,200 years after Muhammad!
The “Hadith” (Sayings of Muhammad)
Who really created the 9th – 10th Century Hadith?
Muslims claim that all the Hadith were compiled in the 9th-10th centuries, but that is a lie! Let’s see when their earliest extant manuscripts were actually created…
• Abu Dawud: 11th century (400 years after Muhammad)
• An-Nasai: 12th century (500 years after Muhammad)
• Ibn Majah: 13th century (600 years after Muhammad)
• Jami’ At-Tirmidhi: 14th century (700 years after Muhammad)
• Sahih Muslim: 14th century (700 years Muhammad)
• Sahih Bukhari: 14th–15th centuries (700-800 years after Muhammad)
Conclusion: Not one of the Hadith were compiled in the 9th – 10th centuries. Their final extant manuscripts were not created until the 11th -15th centuries, which is 400 – 800 years later! Thus, not one of them ever heard a word Muhammad said!
HADITH compilations on to a TIMELINE:
600 ¹ 650 700 750 800 850 ² ³ ⁴ ⁵ ⁶900 ⁷ 950 1000*¹ 1050 1100*² 1150 1200*³ 1250 1300*⁴ *⁵ 1350 *⁶ 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850
¹• Muhammad dies 632 AD
↑
200 - 300 YEARS
↓
²• Al Bukhari (dies 870 AD)
³• Sahih Muslim (dies 875 AD)
⁴• At-Tirmidhi (dies 884 AD)
⁵• Ibn Majah (dies 887 AD)
⁶• Abu Dawud (dies 899 AD)
⁷• An-Nisa’i (d.915 AD)
*² Abu Dawud (11th century AD)
*³ An-Nisa’i (12th century AD)
*⁴ Ibn Majah (13th century AD)
*⁵ At-Tirmidhi (14th century AD)
*⁶ Sahih Muslim (14th century AD)
*⁷ Al Bukhari (14th-15th centuries AD)
(*² ←Everything is compiled between the 11th – 15th centuries. Thus 400 – 800 YEARS TOO LATE!→ *⁷ )
CONCLUSIONS: Every Western and Muslim scholar believes that the HADITH compilations were just 200 –300 years old, which is bad enough. What will they say when they are told that they are really much more recent; between the 11th – 15th centuries, in other words between 400 – 800 years too late!
Let’s now put Al Tabari’s extant TA’RIKH/TAFSIR compilations on to a similar TIMELINE:
600 ¹ 650 700 750 800 850 900 ² 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 ³ 1250 ⁴ 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 ⁵
¹• Muhammad dies 632 AD
↑⇑⇑
300 YEARS
↓
²• Al Tabari (dies 923 AD)
⇑⇑
600 YEARS TOO LATE!
⇓⇓
³• Istanbul, Koprului 1041 (C) = 1244 AD
⁴• Istanbul, Koprului 1041 (C) = 1253 AD
⁵• Michael Jan De Geoje (1879-1901 AD)
• The edition of Al Tabari which everyone uses today was compiled by Michael Jan De Geoje, the professor of Arabic at Leiden University, Holland between 1879 – 1901, and is known as the ‘Leiden Edition’.
• Yet, De Goeje used two 13th century Arabic manuscripts from Turkey as his model. These were written 600 years too late!
CONCLUSIONS: So, even Al Tabari’s Ta’rikh, and his Tafsir are not 10th century originals, but are much later 13th century compilations which were merely attributed back to Al Tabari 300 years earlier. Yet, they are still 600 years too late! What’s more, it took a Dutch scholar to compile them 1,200 years later!
An Overview of the late dates for the EXTANT MANUSCRIPTS for everything we know about Islam’s Origins.
600 ¹ 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 *1000 ² ³1050⁴ 1100⁵ 1150⁶ 1200⁷ ⁸ ⁹ ¹⁰ 1250 ¹¹ ¹² ¹³1300 ¹⁴ ¹⁵ ¹⁶ ¹⁷1350 1400¹⁸ ¹⁹ 1450 ²⁰ 1500 1550 ²¹ 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850²² 1900 ²³
¹• Muhammad dies 632 AD
↑
Muslims Claim
200 – 300 years too late
↓
* (1000)
²• Muwatta ibn Malik (COMPLETE) (11th century AD)
³• Abu Dawud (11th century AD)
⁴• Fez (Qarawiyyun mosque) – only partial = 1063 AD (11th century)
⁵• An-Nisa’i (12th century AD)
⁶• Sahifa Hamman B. Munabbih (12th century AD = 500 years too late)
⁷• Musnad Ibn Hanbal (13th century AD = 600 years too late)
⁸• Musanaf Abdul Razzaq (13th century AD = 600 years too late)
⁹• Musnad al-Tayalisi (13th century AD = 600 years too late)
¹⁰• Abi Shaybah (13th century AD = 600 years too late)
¹¹• Istanbul, Koprului 1041 (C) = 1244 AD (13th century)
¹²• Istanbul, Koprului 1041 (C) = 1253 AD (13th century)
¹³• OR 6475 (British Library, London) - 1278 AD (13th century)
¹⁴• Ibn Majah (13th century AD)
¹⁵• MS. Arab (Bodleian Library, Oxford) - 1324 AD (14th century)
¹⁶• At-Tirmidhi (14th century)
¹⁷• Chester Beatty Library (Dublin, Ireland) - 1331 AD(14th century)
¹⁸• Sahih Muslim (14th century AD)
¹⁹• BnF (Paris, France) - 1420 AD (15th century)
²⁰• Al Bukhari (14th - 15th centuries AD)
²¹• MS 19320 (SOAS Library, London) - 1589 AD (16th century)
²²• Wustenfeld (1860 AD) (19th century)
²³• Michael Jan De Geoje (1879-1901 AD) (20th century)
² ←Reality: Between the 11th – 16th centuries. Thus 400 – 900 YEARS TOO LATE! → ²¹
Sahaba/Tabi’un (7-8 Century)
10th – 13th century.
Hadith (9-10 Century)
11th – 15th century.
Sira (9 Century)
11th – 15th century.
Tafsir & Tarikh (10 Century)
11th – 15th century.
CONCLUSIONS: We’ve been told that the stories surrounding Muhammad’s life were written by those who saw and heard him, thus by eyewitnesses; or by others within a few generations. Yet, we see above that everything we know about Muhammad was originally created 400 – 900 years after he presumably lived; yet not canonized into written texts until 1,200 – 1,270 years later, suggesting it’s ALL fraudulent!
CONCLUSIONS: Looking at this timeline above, how can Raymond suggest that “the history of Muhammad is one of the best supported in history”? How can he say that when those who wrote it did so a full 400 – 900 years after he presumably lived? What’s more, what will he do with the fact that much of it was not canonized into written form until 1,200 – 1,270 years later?! Is this the best in history?
A Comparison: “Christians” have done similar things as well…
• The Gnostic Gospels, 52 found in the Nag Hammadi library, Egypt, written in Coptic, purporting to tell us the stories of Jesus’ childhood; yet were all written in the 4th century, and redacted back to the 1st century.
• For instance, the ‘Gospel of Thomas’ (a Muslim favorite), and the ‘Gospel of Judas’ were written around the 2nd century AD but are attributed by their authors to have been written by the disciples of Jesus Christ himself.
• The 'Gospel of Barnabas’ (the favorite gospel quoted by Muslims today) was written around 1634 AD but was attributed to the companion of Paul in the 1st century.
• They were all written in order to give credibility and authority for those works. So, this practice of redactions and attributions is common in every religion.
• The difference is that while the later Muslim Traditions are ALL considered authoritative, the later Christian Traditions are ALL considered fraudulent, and not even used today by the church.
What does this all mean?
• We’re not suggesting that there never was someone named Ibn Hisham, or Al Waqidi, or al Bukhari, or Muslim, or even al Tabari; or for that matter, any of the other “Traditional Writers”
• These men could very well have lived, and in the 9th – 10th centuries where they are attributed
• Thomas and Judas and even Barnabas were very real men who were historical characters in the early church, and well respected, and that was why the later compilers attributed their works to them
• Similarly, that is why I believe later Muslims attributed the stories to these earlier men
• Consequently, what Muslims today contend these Traditional writers wrote, they have no support for historically, since they have little to nothing of what they wrote (outside of the Muwatta, which is not a member of the Islamic Traditions, so it shouldn’t be included in this discussion)
• All that Muslims can now be certain of is what the later Abbasids, and even the early Ottomans believed happened in the 7th – 8th centuries, since everything that had been written earlier had been destroyed, and then replaced with completely new stories to fit a new agenda…
Conclusion: when compared to Christianity, which has manuscript evidence within the first century, Islam is much less historically supported; contrary to what Raymond Ibrahim contends. Yet it shouldn’t be, considering how recent it supposedly was created, and all of it written on vellum (animal skins).
Supposition #2
“Muhammad has more historical support than Jesus”
Supposition #2
Muhammad is much more historically supported than Jesus, yet we accept Jesus’s historicity. So, isn’t this hypocritical?
Raymond Ibrahim: “I find it amazing that whereas Christians rightfully cite Josephus, Pliny, and Tacitus as early proof of Christ’s existence [i.e. 1st & 2nd centuries), the non-Muslim references to Muhammad — which, objectively speaking, are even more compelling, since they were written much closer to their subject’s lifetime (i.e. 9th and 10th centuries) — are dismissed as irrelevant by those who would make him a figment of our imagination”.
• Raymond Ibrahim, therefore, claims that “since Muhammad is far more historically supported than Jesus Christ, by denying his historicity, we are not only being inconsistent, but possibly dishonest”
So, is he correct; is the historical support for Muhammad greater than that for Jesus Christ? Let’s find out…
My Response: ⇩
Supposition #2 = 7th century Evidence for Muhammad.
Both Raymond Ibrahim and I agree that there are many very early 7th century (mostly non-Muslim, and even Christian) references to the word “MHMD” (notice I didn’t say “Muhammad”); the first, only 2 years after he died, whereas the first non-Christian reference to Jesus doesn’t appear until 60 years after he died!
Raymond Ibrahim gives us only 4 Examples, so let’s go through them:
1) The Doctrina Iacobi circa 634 AD, citing a dialog on 7/13/634, where Justice describes what his brother Abraham writes to him regarding a "deceiving prophet" who had appeared amidst the Saracens, and Abraham recalling a conversation with a Jewish scribe who called that prophet a deceiver who comes with swords and chariots... and claims to have the “keys to Paradise”.
2) Thomas the Presbyter (634 AD) citing a battle between the Romans and the followers of “Mhmt”.
3) A Syriac flyleaf fragment (636 AD) which mentions Muhammad by name: "many villages were ravaged by the killing of ‘Mhmd’..."
4) The Coptic Bishop, John of Nikiou (he puts it at 641 AD, but it’s actually 690s) refers to Islam as "the detestable doctrine of the beast, that is ‘Mhmd’."
Note: not one of these references uses the name “Muhammad”, only use MHMD, or MHMT!
1) The ‘Doctrina Iacobi’ Problems:
• Saracen prophets can’t say ‘the Christ who was to come’, Surah 33:40, since Muhammad is the last prophet
• It assumes ‘Muhammad’ is alive in 634, but the Traditions say he died in 632 AD
• This prophet ‘has the keys of paradise’ which confronts the Islamic Traditions
• This prophet fits a Judeo-Christian Monotheist background
• (This is ‘Christ’ = ‘Christos’ in Greek = ‘Mashiah’ in Hebrew). Who was to come, not Muhammad
• He has the ‘Keys of Paradise’ (from Matthew 16:19 – referring to Peter’s papal authority in the Catholic Church)
• Spoke Aramaic, not Arabic (Jews wouldn’t know Arabic, and Muhammad wouldn’t have known Aramaic)
The Doctrina Iacobi: A Greek Christian polemical tract, from Carthage (Tunis), but written in Palestine, by a Christian meapologist. It refers to a ‘Saracen’ prophet, with a sword, who has the ‘Keys of Paradise’
Conclusion: There is no reference to the name ‘Muhammad’, no reference to this prophet being a Muslim, or belonging to the religion of Islam, nor any reference to the city of Mecca, nor of his book the Qur’an. He could be anybody! In fact, he sounds more like an Arab/Christian brigand, employing the status of a prophet to gain for himself more credibility and authority. There’s just nothing Islamic about this “Saracen Prophet”!
2) Thomas the Presbyter (634 AD)
Later revised in the 8th century
Thomas refers to “a battle between the Romans and the ‘Tayaye d-Mhmt” which happened east of Gaza in 634 AD
• Problems: ‘Mhmt’ is the Pahlavi (Persian) way of spelling ‘Mhmd’, thus he would have come from our present-day Iraq, which is 1,200 miles to the north of Mecca
• The Tayaye dominated the Lakhmid region so much that the area of Mesopotamia became known as “Tachkastan” in the 7th century, which is the “land of the Tayy”
• Note on the map (red circle ) where the Tayaye were located. Too far north to be the “Muhammad” of the Hijaz of Western Central Arabia
• He fights in Gaza, yet none of Muhammad’s battles were in Gaza, nor anywhere near that far north
• As before, could this be another ‘Mhmd/t’, someone who is referred to as ‘The praised one’, an honorific title for the leader of the Tayaye?
3) A Syriac Flyleaf
Battle of Yarmuk (636 AD)
6th century Syriac copy of Matthew & Marks Gospels
On the 636 AD Flyleaf is written, “In January the people of Homs (Syria) took the word for their lives and many villages were ravaged by the killing of the Arabs of Mhmd…” – Known as the Battle of “Gabitha” or “Yarmuk”
• Problems: The battle is well documented but note that it says ‘Arabs’. Who were the 7th c. Arabs? They lived in today’s Jordan and Syria, not down in the Hijaz, so too far north to be the “Muhammad” of Islam
• The Arabs defeated the Byzantines at this battle, but according to the S.I.N. Muhammad died in 632 AD, so 4 years earlier, and he certainly never travelled to Syria for any battles
• Could this be yet again another 7th century, northern ‘Mhmd’; thus, someone who is simply referred to as an honorific ‘Praised one’?
(Map of Yarmuk) (Arabia 2nd Century map)
4) John Nikiou (690s)
Coptic Christian Bishop (690s AD)
• The Coptic Christian bishop, John of Nikiou writes, “and now many of the Egyptians who had been false Christians denied the holy Orthodox faith and life-giving baptism, and embraced the religion of the Muslims, the enemies of God, and accepted the detestable doctrine of the beast, that is, Muhammad, and they aired together with those idolaters, and took arms in their hands and fought against the Christians, and one of them… embraced the faith of Islam… and persecuted the Christian.” (Nevo and Koren, Crossroads to Islam, 2003:233-234)
• Problems: The earliest manuscript of this quote is from a 1602 AD Ethiopic translation from the Arabic, which was from an earlier Greek translation, none of which exists today, suggesting once again that this is a later redaction to the 7th century.
• That is the reason it includes the name “Muhammad” and “Muslims”, which were unknown in the 7th century, and only introduced around 730 AD.
What about Christianity’s historical record?
Let’s use the Crucifixion of Jesus as an example.
The Qur’an in 7th-8th century:
Sirah 4:157 And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain”
The Historical Record:
• Thallus Greek (Samaritan history. 52 AD)
• Phlegon Greek (Rome writer 1st century.)
• Lucian Greek Satirist (2nd century)
• Mara Bar-Serapion’s Letter Pagan (73 AD)
• Josephus Jewish (AD 37 to 90)
• Tacitus Roman history (110 AD)
• Greek, Roman, and Jewish Historians from the 1st – 2nd century ALL agree that it was Jesus who was on the Cross
Conclusion: Even with just this example, we can see that Christianity has a better record than Islam historically.
What about Christianity’s Textual record?
Christianity’s Emergence, according to our “Traditions”
Note: Most scholars would put the dates for the books of the New Testament in this timeline much earlier. We are using the latest possible dates, to make our point clearer.
Year AD : 33¹ 37 41 45 49 53 57 61² 65³ 69⁴ 72 76 80⁵ 84 88 ⁶ 92
John (Sira & Hadith) 90 AD (57 years)
¹• Jesus Dies 33 AD
²• Book of Acts (Tahrikh) 52 – 62 AD (20 – 30 years)
³• Paul’s letters (Tafsir) 48 – 65 AD (15 – 34 years)
⁴• Mark (Sira & Hadith) 70 AD(37 years)
⁵• Matthew & Luke (Sira & Hadith) 80 AD (47 years)
⁶• John (Sira & Hadith) 90 AD (57 years)
(¹• ←Within 29 – 57 years of Christ’s death for the whole N.T.→ ⁶•)
Conclusion: All of the New Testament writers lived in the same place Jesus lived, and they either knew him personally, or they got their material from others who saw what he did, and heard what he said.
Comparing Christianity vs Islam
When were the earliest biographies and sayings for both faiths written?
▪ Christianity 15 – 60 years later, written by those from the same area
▪ Islam 400 - 900 years later, & hundreds of miles too far north
▪ Which would you guess is more authoritative?
As a comparison: If we had to depend on sources for Jesus, comparable to what Muslims are dependent on for Muhammad, Jesus would not begin to appear until the 3rd – 5th centuries!
With statistics like these, how can Raymond Ibrahim suggest that Muhammad is much more historically supported than Jesus?
Supposition #3
“If Muhammad didn’t exist, how do we understand the Sunni/Shia Divide?”
Supposition #3 = What about the Sunni/Shia Divide?
a) “If Muhammad didn’t exist, then no descendants existed either”.
b) “So, how can we understand the Sunni-Shia divide?”
c) “Why would there be a huge contention involving the blood descendants of a man who had never existed?”
My Response #3a
1) To begin with, the first we even hear about Ali as Muhammad’s choice is with Sahih al Bukhari vol.5, book 64, hadith 4416, & Sahih Muslim vol.44, hadith 2404a, while the counter argument that Ali was not Muhammad’s choice (due to Aishah) is found in Sahih al Bukhari vol.5, book 64, hadith 4459 (so, just 43 hadith later), proving that his companions didn’t even know this.
2) Remember, The Canonical version of Sahih Bukhari doesn’t appear until the 14th – 15th centuries, so this is probably a much later story, redacted back.
3) More importantly, this is a political dispute (between Persians and Arabs), not theological, so it could have been created at any time (i.e. by either the Abbasids, or the Ottomans in the 14th – 15th centuries), and then redacted back, first to al-Bukhari, and then to the person of Muhammad himself, in order to give authority to whichever position (Persian or Arab) you needed the authority for. This isn’t surprising, as movements, both political and religious, often split, and the Sunni/Shia divide could easily have arisen for the same reason as the earlier Abbasid revolt, which at its roots was due to disquiet over the earlier Umayyad dynasty.
My Response #3b
4) An example: King Arthur and Camelot are completely legendary, but don’t tell Henry the VII, or even his son Henry the VIII that. In order to leave Rome, he based his “Ecclesiastical Appeals Act of 1533” on the grounds that since King Arthur had ruled an Empire; he, as his progeny and heir could also rule the empire of Britain. Indeed, Henry’s propagandists went further, and claimed his descent from Brutus, legendary founder of Britain (after whom Britain was supposedly named), and the great-grandson of the legendary Aeneas of Troy, whose progeny, Romulus and Remus, allegedly founded Rome. Yet, no academic historian believes in the historicity of either Aeneas, or Romulus, or Brutus or Arthur; so, the fact that there were people – indeed, Kings – who claimed to be their offspring proves nothing (Dr. Pat Andrews 2025)
Supposition #4
“There are NO incontrovertible proofs of Muhammad’s NON-Existence”
Supposition #4 = No Evidence for Muhammad’s Non-Existence
a) “There are no incontrovertible proofs of Muhammad’s non-existence”.
Response: I don’t have to prove a thing here. The statement makes no sense to begin with…how can someone prove someone who did not exist? It is the person who claims that someone did exist who bears the burden of proof, not me.
b) Raymond admits in his video that he hasn’t looked at any of our evidence.
Response: The fact that he hasn’t even looked at our arguments, suggests that he is either naïve, or simply arrogant, or is being typically Arabic with his ‘one-up-man-ship’ style
c) The theories we have, Raymond believes, “are only out there because those of us who perpetrate them use them simply out of a dislike of Islam”.
Response: While it is true that I dislike Islam, I absolutely love Muslims. They are my favorite people. However, isn’t Raymond just as guilty of disliking Islam, which would invalidate his later arguments for Muhammad’s existence based on the Traditions? Be careful, that argument goes both ways.
Supposition #5
“Since the Traditions about Muhammad are so embarrassing, why write them?”
Supposition #5 = Why is Muhammad so Embarrassing?
“The 200 - 300-year-old Traditions are so embarrassing. Why would they write them for a man who they believed was their paradigm for all time, if he never existed?”
Response:
a) He is only embarrassing to Raymond when compared to Jesus, because he views Muhammad through a Christian cultural grid.
b) Remember that Muslims don’t compare Muhammad through the grid of Jesus Christ. Therefore, they love his virility, his violence, and his denigration of others.
c) In fact, Muslims tell me that when compared to Jesus (who never married, or never had a family, never ruled, never went to war, nor stood up to his oppressors, and never owned anything), who then is the more relevant for today as a model? For them, it’s Muhammad!
d) What’s more, Muhammad’s Depression, attempted Suicide, Demon possession, cross dressing, even homosexual tendencies are all crisis's that every prophet goes through, but were not overcome by them, as they then conquered them, proving that they were true prophets. And the same happened to Muhammad, a true prophet because he surmounted these problems, in their eyes.
Supposition #6
“Mecca is not an argument against Muhammad”
Supposition #6 = Mecca doesn’t confront Muhammad
a) “Mecca is not an argument against Muhammad”.
b) Though Raymond Ibrahim didn’t watch any of our videos on Mecca, his response suggest that we are simply arguing from silence, and “An absence of evidence does not prove the evidence of absence”.
c) “At some point in the future references for Mecca in the 7th century and earlier will appear”.
1) An example is the city of Troy, which no one considered historical until Heinrich Shlemin discovered it in the 1800s in Turkey.
Response:
a) If there was no Mecca, then it doesn’t matter which ”Muhammad” or Mhmd you find, if he isn’t from Mecca, then he isn’t the Muhammad of Islam. So, it absolutely does matter!
b) In 1995 we had almost no evidence. But today (2025) we have all of the evidence (coins, inscriptions, buildings, manuscripts, etc…). So, it is now the Muslims who are arguing from silence.
c) His example of Troy is a non-sequitur, since we have ample references from ancient history for the existence of Troy; we just didn’t know where it was situated, until now. Conversely, we have no references from ancient history for even the existence of any place called Mecca, in Arabia.
Why is Mecca so important? Because it still exists, & thus can be researched
• Islam is dependent on 3 things:
the Book (Qur’an),
the Man (Muhammad)
and The Place (Mecca)
• When you begin to attack the Place (Mecca), the other two begin to wobble
• But once you destroy the Place (Mecca), you destroy the other two as well
If we eradicate Mecca, then there is no Islamic Muhammad, nor an Islamic Qur’an.
So, let’s begin by looking at what Muslims claim for Mecca.
What Muslims Claim
MECCA is the oldest and best-known city in history
• Mecca is where Adam and Eve were thrown down to, from theGarden of Eden (Surah 7:24)
• Mecca is where Abraham lived when he destroyed the idols within the Ka’aba (Surah 21:51-71)
• Mecca is the center of trade North, South, East and West(Montgomery Watt’s ‘Trade Route Theory’)
So, it should be one of the best known and best documented places in history!
Inferences to ‘Mecca’ in the Qur’an
Mecca is the center of Islam, and the center of history
(Note: none of the verses below use the word “Mecca“. It‘s only implied)
•“The first sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah(Does Bakkah = Mecca)”? (Sura 3:96)
•Mecca is the “mother of all settlements.” (Sura 6:92 & 42:7)
•Mecca was where Adam & Eve were caste down to (Sura 7:24)
•Mecca was where Abraham lived in 1900 BC (Sura 21:51-71)
•Mecca was where Muhammad was born and lived until 622
•Mecca became the center for the Qibla in 624 (Sura 2:149-150)
• The above imply people have lived there from the very beginning
• Yet, the only reference to ‘Mecca’ in the Qur’an is in Sura 48:24…Why only once, if it is so important?
References to Mecca in the 9th & 10th Century Islamic Traditions:
Conclusion: In the Qur’an Mecca is referred to as `The Place of the Prophet’, but in the 11th-15th c. Traditions the Mecca they portray suggests the author/s lived much further north!
• In a valley, & a parallel valley (Ibn Hisham; Al Bukhari 2:645, 2:685, 3:891, 2:815, 2:820, 4:227)
• Safa & Marwah had shrines to idols atop them before Islam (Ibn Hisham pg.30)
• With a stream (Al Bukhari 2:685)
• With fields (Al Bukhari 9:337)
• Has Trees (Sahih al-Tirmidhi 1535), Grass (al Bukhari 9:337), fruit (Al Bukhari 4:281), Clay and Loam (Al Tabari VI 1079 p.6), Grapes, Grain, Pomegranates (Surah 6:99)
• Has ‘Olive Trees’ (Surah 6:99, 141; Surah 16; Surah 80)
• With Mountains overlooking the Kaa’ba (Ibn Hisham; Al Bukhari 2:645, 2:685, 3:891, 2:815, 2:820, 4:227)
• Where the Pagans (“Mushrikoun”) raised Livestock (Surah 4:119)
Yet, Mecca is not in a valley, as its nearest mountains are 2 miles away, and it has none ofthese vegetations listed above, because it’s in a DESERT, so it’s too arid and dry tosupport any of the above, according to modern soil studies! (Gibson 2011:233)
Conclusion: In the Qur’an Mecca is referred to as `The Place of the Prophet’, but in the 11th-15th century Traditions the Mecca they portray suggests the author/s lived much further north!
CONCLUSIONS from Mecca #1
• We begin with Mecca because it is foundational for both Muhammad and the Qur’an; so, without it, they both fall, because it doesn’t matter which Muhammad or which Qur’an you find, if they are not from Mecca, they are not the Muhammad or the Qur’an of Islam
• Since Mecca is the earliest and most important city in the history of Mankind, it has to be the center of the world, and therefore certainly the best known
• References suggest that Mecca had lush vegetation, such as fruit trees, grass, grains and streams, which make no sense as Mecca has always been in a desert with bad and depleted desert soil
CONCLUSIONS from Mecca #2
• Ironically, though it’s claimed to be the greatest city in history, the Qur’an itself only refers to it once (in Surah 48:24), signifying that the authors either didn’t consider it that important, or it only came into existence later on
• Even the Arabic word endings used in the Qur’an do not come from Mecca, but from Nabataean Aramaic, which is again situated 600 miles further north
• Geographically speaking, the Qur’an places almost all of its sixty-five referenced areas 600 – 1,000 miles further north than Mecca (Ad = 23 times, Thamud = 24 times, and Midian = 7 times) suggesting the authors of the Qur’an came from much further north
CONCLUSIONS from Mecca #3
• Interestingly, the 7th century Arabs called themselves “Ishmaelites”, or “Haggarenes", "Muhajirounes", “Maghrayes” & were called “Saracens”. Nowhere are there any references to anyone called “Muslims”, or to the religion of “Islam” this early
• Mecca is where Muslims contend that between 70 –300 prophets were buried; yet, with all the buildings being constructed there, requiring deep foundations, they have yet to dig up even one
• It seems the Saudi Arabians, because of Mecca’s lack of history, are cementing up all the evidence, suggesting even they are either skeptical of its history or they don’t want the rest of the world to find out.
[ ¹ Prophet's Wife's House: The house of the Prophet's wife Khatijah was destroyed and replaced with a public toilet block. After lengthy negotiations the site was briefly excavated with artifacts found dating back to the Prophet's time. ]
[ ² The Prophet's Birthday House: The building where the Prophet once lived lies just a few hundred yards from the Grand Mosque. Currently a library, the fear is that it could suffer the same fate as his wife's house when mosque expands. ]
[ ³ Expansion of the Grand Mosque: In order to accommodate the ever growing pilgrim members, the authorities have begun a 1490 m expansion. Houses have been pulled down, and it is likely that the old Ottoman and Abbasid columns will also go. ]
The photos Saudi Arabia doesn't want seen – and proof Islam's most holy relics are being demolished in Mecca
The authorities in Saudi Arabia have begun dismantling some of the oldest sections of Islam’s most important mosque as part of a highly controversial multi-billion expansion.
Photographs obtained by The Independent reveal how workers with drills and mechanical diggers have started demolishing some Ottoman and Abbasid sections on the eastern side of the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca.
The building, which is also known as the Grand Mosque, is the holiest site in Islam because it contains the Kaaba – the point to which all Muslims face when praying. The columns are the last remaining sections of the mosque which date back more than a few hundred years and form the inner perimeter on the outskirts of the white marble floor surrounding the Kaaba.
The new photos, taken over the last few weeks, have caused alarm among archaeologists and come as Prince Charles – a long term supporter of preserving architectural heritage – flew into Saudi Arabia yesterday for a visit with the Duchess of Cornwall. The timing of his tour has been criticised by human rights campaigners after the Saudis shot seven men in public earlier this week despite major concerns about their trial and the fact that some of the men were juveniles at the time of their alleged crimes.
Many of the Ottoman and Abbasid columns in Mecca were inscribed with intricate Arabic calligraphy marking the names of the Prophet Muhammad’s companions and key moments in the founder of Islam’s life. One column which is believed to have been ripped down is supposed to mark the sport where Muslims believe Muhammad began his heavenly journey on a winged horse which took him to Jerusalem and heaven in a single night.
To accommodate the ever increasing number of pilgrims heading to the twin holy cities of Mecca and Medina each year the Saudi authorities have embarked upon a massive expansion project. Billions of pounds have been poured in to increase the capacity of the Masjid al-Haram and the Masjid an-Nabawi in Medina which marks where Muhammad is buried. King Abdullah has put the prominent Wahabi cleric and imam of the Grand Mosque, Abdul Rahman al-Sudais, in charge of the expansion while the Saudi Binladin Group – the country’s largest firms – has won the construction contract.
While there is little disagreement over the need to expand, critics have accused the Saudi regime of wantonly disregarding the archaeological, historical and cultural heritage of Islam’s two holiest cities. In the last decade Mecca has been transformed from a dusty desert pilgrimage town into a gleaming metropolis of sky scrapers that tower of the Masjid al-Haram and are filled with a myriad of shopping malls, luxury apartments and five star hotels.
But such a transformation has come at a cost. The Washington-based Gulf Institute estimates that 95 per cent of Mecca's millennium-old buildings have been demolished in the past two decades alone. Dozens of key historical sites dating back to the birth of Islam have already been lost and there is a scramble among archaeologists and academics to try and encourage the authorities to preserve what little remains.
Many senior Wahabis are vehemently against the preservation of historical Islamic sites that are linked to the profit because they believe it encourages shirq – the sin of idol worshipping.
But Dr Irfan al-Alawi, executive director of the Islamic Heritage Research Foundation which obtained the new photographs from inside the Grand Mosque, says the removal of the Ottoman and Abbasid columns will leave future generations of Muslims ignorant of their significance.
“It matters because many of these columns signified certain areas of the mosque where the Prophet sat and prayed,” he said. “The historical record is being deleted. A new Muslim would never have a clue because there’s nothing marking these locations now. There are ways you could expand Mecca and Medina while protecting the historical heritage of the mosque itself and the surrounding sites.”
There are signs that King Abdullah has listened to concerns about the historical destruction of Mecca and Medina. Last October The Independent revealed how new plans for the masjid an-Nabawi in Medina would result in the destruction of three of the world’s oldest mosques on the west hand side of the main complex. However new plans approved by King Abdullah last week appear to show a change of heart with the bulk of the expansion now slated to take place to the north of the Masjid an-Nabawi.
However key sites are still at risk. The Independent has obtained a presentation used by the Saudis to illustrate how the expansion of Mecca’s main mosque will look. In one of the slides it is clear that the Bayt al-Mawlid, an area which is believed to be the house where Muhammad was born it, will have to be removed unless plans change.
The Independent asked the Saudi Embassy in London a number of questions about the expansion plans and why more was not being done to preserve key historical sites. They replied: “Thank you for calling, but no comment.”
..
How Saudi is destroying Islamic Heritage
Photographs obtained by The Independent reveal how workers with drills and mechanical diggers have started demolishing some Ottoman and Abbasid sections on the eastern side of the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca.
Archaeologists fear billion-pound development has led to destruction of key historical sites
The building, which is also known as the Grand Mosque, is the holiest site in Islam because it contains the Kaaba – the point to which all Muslims face when praying. The columns are the last remaining sections of the mosque which date back more than a few hundred years and form the inner perimeter on the outskirts of the white marble floor surrounding the Kaaba.
Archaeologists fear billion-pound development has led to destruction of key historical sites
The new photos, taken over the last few weeks, have caused alarm among archaeologists. Many of the Ottoman and Abbasid columns in Mecca were inscribed with intricate Arabic calligraphy marking the names of the Prophet Muhammad’s companions and key moments in his life. One column which is believed to have been ripped down is supposed to mark the spot where Muslims believe Muhammad began his heavenly journey on a winged horse, which took him to Jerusalem and heaven in a single night.
While there is little disagreement over the need to expand, critics have accused the Saudi regime of wantonly disregarding the archaeological, historical and cultural heritage of Islam’s two holiest cities. In the last decade Mecca has been transformed from a dusty desert pilgrimage town into a gleaming metropolis of skyscrapers that tower over the Masjid al-Haram and are filled with a myriad of shopping malls, luxury apartments and five star hotels.
The Washington-based Gulf Institute estimates that 95 per cent of Mecca’s millennium-old buildings have been demolished in the past two decades alone.
Dozens of key historical sites dating back to the birth of Islam have already been lost and there is a scramble among archaeologists and academics to try and encourage the authorities to preserve what little remains.
The Mecca Royal Clock Tower is the ugliest construction yet, looming over the Haram mosque at a height of 1,900ft, with a five-star hotel, a five-floor shopping mall, two heliports and a conference centre within it’s bulk. Mecca authorities flattened a mountain, and destroyed an Ottoma-era fortress to accommodate its construction, but its appearance has drawn revulsion from locals and critics as an “architectural absurdity” and a “kitsch rendition of Big Ben.”
..
Grand mufti defends demolition of holy sites in Mecca
The cleric also stressed that the nation should thank the government over the demolitions since the move aims at increasing the capacity of Masjid al-Haram, therefore it is legitimate.
Saudi regime enjoys full US support and its ruling system is an exact copy of the British monarchial system. Britain also has been the founder of monarchy in the Arabian Peninsula.
According to photographs taken by activists, some holy sites, associated with Ottoman and Abbasid eras, on the eastern side of the Masjid al-Haram have recently been destroyed under a development plan implemented by Osama bin Laden’s family business.
The Masjid al-Haram is the holiest Islamic site and houses Kaaba, the point to which all Muslims face when praying.
The segments under demolition are the last remaining parts of the mosque, dating back to more than a few hundred years ago.
One column which has reportedly been razed marks the spot where Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) started his heavenly journey or Me'raj (Night Ascension) to al-Quds (Jerusalem) and to the Heaven in a single night.
Many of the Ottoman and Abbasid columns at the Masjid al-Haram contain Arabic calligraphy marking the names of the Prophet’s companions and remarkable moments in his life.
...
CONCLUSIONS from Mecca #4
• When we ask the surrounding civilizations if they have heard of the city of Mecca, not one knows of its existence, including those empires which are situated immediately close by
• Yet, other much less significant towns close to Mecca (i.e. Ma’rib, Sana’a, Najran, Taif, Yathrib, Khaybar, Petra and Mamre) are all well-known and well documented; but not Mecca
• When noting the trade route through these towns, we find that they are all located on the Western Plateau, while Mecca is over 3,000 feet down below it, proving it was not on any trade route
CONCLUSIONS from Mecca #5
• Yet, neither the Land trade route (along the Arabian Western plateau), nor the Red Sea trade routes (along the East African coast) supports an early Mecca, proving none of the trade went via Mecca at all, confronting the notion that it was the center of trade
• Mecca, before 741 AD (which is considered the earliest documentary evidence for it anywhere), simply has no history, and even that reference is located in Southern Turkey, which is too far north
• When Ptolemy in the 2nd century wrote his book on ‘Arabian Geography’, he never listed Mecca, so that none of the earliest 15th-16th century European maps of Arabia have Mecca listed on them either
CONCLUSIONS from Mecca #6
• The reason? NO WATER: Trade needs people, and people need water, food and towns, all of which never existed in Mecca until the mid 8th century, over 100 years after Islam was supposedly created
• Despite Muslim’s claims for the ZamZam well (that Allah provides its “inexhaustible water” for over 1 billion believers), it gets all its water from desalinization plants built by American and European companies
• Because of Mecca’s water problem Queen Zubaydah’s Aqueduct was built in 801 AD, which then had to be refurbished 9 times in the subsequent 974 years due to the overbearing need for potable water; and then finally replaced with desalination plants after 1926 AD
Top 5 Desalination Plants in Saudi Arabia (2025)
Saudi Arabia is in a geographical location that records low rainfall levels. Its desert environment and high temperatures result in regular water shortage problems. Desalination plants in Saudi Arabia function as a reliable source of potable water for its people. Thereby, resolving water scarcity issues.
KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) is renowned in the world for desalination plant projects. Its advanced desalination technology ensures the production of large volumes of desalinated potable water. Hence, meeting the supply-demand ratio of its people.
1. An Overview of Saudi Arabia Desalination
The desalination plants in Saudi Arabia evolved into a large water supply industry for millions of people. Through RO (Reverse Osmosis) technology, seawater is passed through a semipermeable membrane, leaving fresh water behind.
Desalination Plant in Saudi Arabia .
With the rise in water shortage and awareness about the desalination process, a department ‘Desalination Of Saline Water’ was formed in early 1965. Thereby, building their first desalination plants in AI Wajh and Duba, desalination plant Jeddah, and Khobar.
Through years of research and innovation, desalination plants in Saudi Arabia improved their desalination process and capacity. A few notable achievements include Ras Al Khair, Shuaiba 3, Al Khafji, Rabigh 3and JWAP (Jubail Water and Power Company ).
2. Top Desalination Plants In Saudi Arabia (By Capacity)
Saudi Arabia is well-equipped with large-capacity desalination plants. Here is the list of desalination plants in Saudi Arabia that serve the purpose of fulfilling the water demand of its people.
2.1. Ras AL Khair Power and Desalination Plant
The Ras AL Khair desalination plant is considered the biggest desalination plant in Saudi Arabia and the largest desalination plant in the world. It produces 2,998,000 cubic meters of water per day. It is located on the eastern coast of Ras Al Khair Industrial city. The Ras AL Khair desalination plant cost is around USD 7.2 billion.
This project was commissioned in April 2014. The Ras Al Khair plant is owned and operated by the SWCC (Saline Water Conversion Corporation of Saudi Arabia). The desalination technology used in this project is MSF (Multi-Stage Flash) and RO.
The Ras AL Khair power and desalination plant collects water from the Persian Gulf and performs MSF and RO. This project is a hybrid model and comprises eight MSF and 17 RO units.
It majorly supplies clean water to Riyadh and Hafr AL-Batin the largest cities of Saudi Arabia. The Ras AL Khair is a power and desalination plant as it includes a power plant generating 2400 MegaWatts of electricity.
2.2. JWAP Desalination Plant
The Jubail desalination plant is renowned as an integrated power and water facility. This biggest plant in Saudi Arabia is a joint venture between Marafiq and Saudi Electricity Company. It was commissioned in 2010. It is located in Jubail.
The JWAP desalination project was funded by the PIF (Public Investment fund) and Marafiq Consortium. It includes ENGIE, GIC (Gulf Investment Corporation) and ACWA power projects.
....
CONCLUSIONS from Mecca #7
• Muslims have no idea why all of the earliest Qiblas were facing Petra (or Jerusalem) up to 706 AD, nor why none are facing Mecca until 715 AD. This suggests Mecca was chosen in the 8th century as their final sanctuary
• The antecedents for the current Meccan pilgrimage (Circumambulation, Safa & Marwa), are all from Jerusalem, and are only poor copied facsimiles
In Conclusion: Certainly, someone, somewhere, at some time should have known about this city; yet no-one, anywhere, nor at any time has, proving that it never existed at the time of Muhammad, nor during early Islam. So, if Mecca didn’t exist, then what “Muhammad” is Raymond referring to? His Muhammad had to be born, & grow up there until he was 52.
Supposition #7
“No one can prove or disprove historical data”
Supposition #7 = It all comes down to ‘faith’
“Since nothing historical can be really proven or dis-proven, those who love Muhammad (Muslims) will continue to believe his existence, regardless of what we contend”.
• “Jesus Christ supposedly didn’t exist either for the last 200 years, yet billions of people still believe he did”.
• “No one will investigate the historical claims about Muhammad, just as no Christians did against Jesus Christ’s existence, so it is not worthy of our time”.
Response:
a) Suggesting that nothing historical can be proven is not academic. His earlier example of Troy suggests that historical claims can be proven; and have.
b) Raymond is correct; the common ‘person-on-the-street’ won’t investigate Muhammad’s existence, as it is not healthy (i.e. you wouldn’t live very long). This is primarily for the academics, who are the future leaders of Islam, and who can sway many more Muslims against Islam than you-or-me.
Supposition #8
“It all comes down to a matter of Faith”
Supposition #8 = It’s all a matter of faith
• “It all comes down to a matter of faith”.
• Why would anyone listen to a [white American] Christian speak about the existence of their beloved prophet, when they have faith that he existed”.
• “Muslims will either laugh, or mock anyone trying to say that Muhammad didn’t exist, because it comes across to them as ludicrous and even arrogant”.
Response:
a) True, most of those who support this material are fellow middle class educated Westerners, like myself. But it is beginning to take traction all over Africa, Asia and even the Americas
b) In our experience, however, laughing or mocking (using ad hominem) suggests that the person has either no responses, or knows that he has lost the argument, which can lead to confusion, then conviction, followed by conversion. And that has been our experience with the Historical Critique.
Supposition #9
“Claims against Muhammad’s Existence are merely an Academic, or Subjective exercise”
Supposition #9 = This is only an academic exercise
“Since claims against Muhammad cannot be proven, they are merely academic, and subjective”
"You simply dislike Muhammad, and therefore your viewpoint is totally inconsequential, and thus the weakest argument”.
“No one will investigate the historical claims about Muhammad, just as no Christians did against Jesus Christ’s existence, so it is not worthy of our time”.
Response:
• The terms “academic” or “subjective” don’t negate the evidence which we have and have nothing to do with the historical proof of Muhammad’s existence.
• What’s more, Raymond’s claims against Muhammad’s morality and relevancy are equally academic and subjective, and therefore equally inconsequential.
Supposition #10
“The Best Polemic is to prove how irrelevant Muhammad is for today”
“The best response to change Muslim’s minds, and convert them, Ibrahim believes, is to show how irrelevant Muhammad and his god are for people today”.
“It is a “Tried and Proven” methodology”
“Everyone uses it”
“You will get many more converts”
Response:
a) I used it for 30 years, because “everyone used it” since it was the only polemic we had, but with little success (only a few converts)
b) I felt “dirty” using these arguments (i.e. violence and misogyny)
c) It causes more anger, resulting in creating walls, and censorship by the Muslims (and Westerners)
d) People in Muslim dominated countries cannot use the “Internal Polemic against Muhammad”, as that is what causes them anger. Therefore, it’s too dangerous.
What do we mean by “Polemics”?
Polemics = “Going on the offence”
3 Areas of Polemics
1) Internal Polemics (Ibrahim’s favorite)
2) Cultural Polemics (His 2nd favorite)
3) External Polemics (His least favorite)
#3) External Polemics
Confronting the existence of the book, the man, and the place
1) Confronting Mecca Historically
• Did it exist in the 7th century, or before?
2) Confronting Muhammad Historically
• Did he exist in the 7th century, in Mecca and Medina?
3) Confronting the Qur’an Historically
• Did it Exist in the 7th century, and has it been preserved perfectly for 1400 years?
Conclusion: This form of polemics confronts the very foundations of Islam without confronting the people or their revelation, or their prophet, and lowers the anger .
Why is this ‘Historical Critique’ so popular?
1) It is visual: Everything we use has to do with pictures of coins, rocks, buildings, maps, timelines and manuscripts. Even speaking fast, you still got the ‘gist’ of what are saying
2) You don’t have to know Arabic to understand it, or use it: Arabic frightens Westerners to engage publicly
3) It is foundational to everything Muslims believe: It features one book, one man, and one place; yet, without any one of the three, Islam “falls to pieces” and is destroyed
4) We have the Evidence: So, it’s the Muslims who now ‘argue from silence’, and not us
5) It is Historically neutral, and therefore NOT Islamophobic, or “hate speech”: Thus, everyone can use it
6) But I really would prefer that only Christians use it…why?
• Because Christians have the only book, the only man and place which have passed these criticisms
• Thus, we understand its power and have the right to use it publicly…but mostly….We are the only ones who have a better response, and the only solution = Jesus Christ!
CONCLUSIONS
When all is said and done…
CONCLUSIONS
Our Remit was to investigate Muhammad’s existence
Sources: It is obvious that everything Raymond Ibrahim (Christian apologist) and the Muslims are dependent on for their ‘book, man and place’ are based on the “Traditions” / Standard Islamic Narratives (SIN) which are 400 – 900 years too late, & 100s of miles too far to the north
Mecca proves probably the biggest problem for both Raymond Ibrahim and for Muslims
• The SIN refers to a place with much vegetation, existing since Adam & Eve, & with 300 prophets buried
• Yet, it’s not referred to until 741 AD, and none of the early maps show Mecca at all
• Patricia Crone debunked Watt’s land based ‘Trade-Route Theory’ going through it back in 1987
• We debunked the Red Sea Trade via Arabia, proving it was all via Africa, because it had water
• All of the 7th century Qiblas were facing Petra or Jerusalem up to 706 AD, and not Mecca until 715 AD
• None of the surrounding empires ever heard of the Mecca, maybe because it lacked WATER
• Most of the stages of the Hajj were simply borrowed from other places, primarily Jerusalem
Muhammad: The coins prove that the area under “Islam” was either Christian until 692 AD, or later
• The Rock inscriptions prove that a nascent Islam didn’t appear until around 730 AD, or later
• All of the references for MHMD are too far north, or refer to Jews, & even to Jesus, the ”The anointed one”
• This suggests that the earliest references to MHMD are all to the anticipated Messiah, Jesus Christ!
So, why does Raymond believe that this is the weakest Polemic?
• Probably because he has never used it, nor possibly understands its importance or its creditility
• Because he knows that if I’m correct, he will have nothing left to throw at the Muslims
Conclusion: Nonetheless, the onus is now on Raymond Ibrahim to prove to me and to the rest of you that his “Muhammad”, who was born, grew up, and lived in Mecca and Medina (in the Hijaz) between 570 – 632 AD, and received all 114 Suras of the Qur’an before he died; that this Muhammad actually existed. I don’t have to prove any of this, because I’m absolutely sure he did not exist!
Yet, by Casting Doubt on Islam
Now Our Muslim Friends can Consider a Better Place, a better Book, and a better Man…Jesus, and His Gospel.
So, let’s “bring them home”!
82/82 slides
No comments:
Post a Comment