Did Muhammad Exist?: An Academic Response to a Popular Question - Dr. Joshua Little
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- coming soon...
4:06 - Introduction
17:00 - Part 1: The Sources for Muhammad
20:14 - Part 2: Problems with Biographical Hadith
21:28 - Problem 1: Prior Probability of Fabrication
25:32 - Problem 2: Reports of Fabrication
26:28 - Problem 3: The Lateness of the Sources
29:39 - Problem 4: Bias
35:40 - Problem 5: Propaganda
38:33 - Problem 6: Anachronisms
46:45 - Problem 7: Supernatural
49:54 - Problem 8: Implausible Scenarios
55:14 - Problem 9: Internal Contradictions
55:57 - Problem 10: External Contradictions
57:25 - Problem 11: Implausible Transmission
1:02:28 - Problem 12: The Lateness of Isnads
1:09:08 - Problem 13: The Madinan Bottleneck
1:13:00 - Problem 14: The Mode of Transmission
1:13:41 - Problem 15: The Growth of Material
1:14:38 - Problem 16: Early Rapid Distortion
1:18:49 - Problem 17: Artificial Narrative Structures
1:23:30 - Problem 18: Storyteller Construction
1:25:11 - Problem 19: Exegesis in Disguise
1:27:09 - Problem 20: Amnesia and Discontinuity
1:30:28 - Problem 21: No Effective Countermeasures
1:36:43 - Summary
1:37:37 - Part 3: The Rise of Muhammad Mythicism
1:41:30 - Consequent Skepticism
1:44:21 - Consequent Mythicism
1:46:27 - Crone and Cook: Revisionist but not Mythicist
1:49:11 - The Western Mythicist Tradition
1:52:57 - Nevo and Koren
1:53:35 - Ohlig et al.
1:54:00 - Jansen
1:54:45 - Robert Spencer
1:57:33 - Part 4: The Arguments for Muhammad Mythicism
1:57:38 - Argument 1: Argument from Silence
1:58:32 - Argument 2: “Muhammad” = Jesus
2:00:37 - Argument 3: Mythic Biography
2:02:20 - Summary
2:02:30 - Part 5: Criticisms of Muhammad Mythicism, Part 1: The Worst-Case Scenario
2:02:38 - For the Sake of Argument...
2:05:16 - Counter 1: Pan-Islamic Agreement
2:10:00 - Counter 2: Trans-Sectarian Agreement
2:13:31 - Counter 3: Inexpedient Agreement
2:15:47 - Counter 4: Non-Mythic Biography
2:20:32 - Counter 5: Silence ≠ Non-Existence
2:25:49 - Counter 6: “Muhammad” ≠ “Chosen One”
2:31:33 - Counter 7: “Muhammad” is a Proper Name
2:35:48 - Counter 8: No Jesus Connection
2:39:15 - Counter 9: Silence ≠ Non-Existence Again
2:43:00 - Summary of Worst-Case Scenario
2:45:30 - Part 6: Criticisms of Muhammad Mythicism, Part 2: The More Optimistic Scenario
2:45:55 - Counter 10: Early Common Links
2:47:17 - Counter 11: The Constitution of Madinah
2:49:00 - Counter 12: The Quran
2:52:26 - Counter 13: Non-Muslim Writings
2:58:52 - Thomas the Presbyter (c. 640 CE)
3:00:09 - The Chronicler of Khuzistan (c. 660 CE)
3:00:53 - Pseudo-Sebeos (c. 660s CE)
3:03:44 - Counter 14: The Reliability of Genealogy
3:06:08 - Summary of More Optimistic Scenario
3:07:37 - Part 7: Some Comments on Mythicist Methodology
3:07:43 - The Mythicist Strategy
3:09:40 - Explanations that create more problems than they solve
3:10:34 - Unnecessary Contradictions
3:12:25 - Conclusion
3:13:00 - Questions - Розваги
4:06 - Introduction
17:00 - Part 1: The Sources for Muhammad
20:14 - Part 2: Problems with Biographical Hadith
21:28 - Problem 1: Prior Probability of Fabrication
25:32 - Problem 2: Reports of Fabrication
26:28 - Problem 3: The Lateness of the Sources
29:39 - Problem 4: Bias
35:40 - Problem 5: Propaganda
38:33 - Problem 6: Anachronisms
46:45 - Problem 7: Supernatural
49:54 - Problem 8: Implausible Scenarios
55:14 - Problem 9: Internal Contradictions
55:57 - Problem 10: External Contradictions
57:25 - Problem 11: Implausible Transmission
1:02:28 - Problem 12: The Lateness of Isnads
1:09:08 - Problem 13: The Madinan Bottleneck
1:13:00 - Problem 14: The Mode of Transmission
1:13:41 - Problem 15: The Growth of Material
1:14:38 - Problem 16: Early Rapid Distortion
1:18:49 - Problem 17: Artificial Narrative Structures
1:23:30 - Problem 18: Storyteller Construction
1:25:11 - Problem 19: Exegesis in Disguise
1:27:09 - Problem 20: Amnesia and Discontinuity
1:30:28 - Problem 21: No Effective Countermeasures
1:36:43 - Summary
1:37:37 - Part 3: The Rise of Muhammad Mythicism
1:41:30 - Consequent Skepticism
1:44:21 - Consequent Mythicism
1:46:27 - Crone and Cook: Revisionist but not Mythicist
1:49:11 - The Western Mythicist Tradition
1:52:57 - Nevo and Koren
1:53:35 - Ohlig et al.
1:54:00 - Jansen
1:54:45 - Robert Spencer
1:57:33 - Part 4: The Arguments for Muhammad Mythicism
1:57:38 - Argument 1: Argument from Silence
1:58:32 - Argument 2: “Muhammad” = Jesus
2:00:37 - Argument 3: Mythic Biography
2:02:20 - Summary
2:02:30 - Part 5: Criticisms of Muhammad Mythicism, Part 1: The Worst-Case Scenario
2:02:38 - For the Sake of Argument...
2:05:16 - Counter 1: Pan-Islamic Agreement
2:10:00 - Counter 2: Trans-Sectarian Agreement
2:13:31 - Counter 3: Inexpedient Agreement
2:15:47 - Counter 4: Non-Mythic Biography
2:20:32 - Counter 5: Silence ≠ Non-Existence
2:25:49 - Counter 6: “Muhammad” ≠ “Chosen One”
2:31:33 - Counter 7: “Muhammad” is a Proper Name
2:35:48 - Counter 8: No Jesus Connection
2:39:15 - Counter 9: Silence ≠ Non-Existence Again
2:43:00 - Summary of Worst-Case Scenario
2:45:30 - Part 6: Criticisms of Muhammad Mythicism, Part 2: The More Optimistic Scenario
2:45:55 - Counter 10: Early Common Links
2:47:17 - Counter 11: The Constitution of Madinah
2:49:00 - Counter 12: The Quran
2:52:26 - Counter 13: Non-Muslim Writings
2:58:52 - Thomas the Presbyter (c. 640 CE)
3:00:09 - The Chronicler of Khuzistan (c. 660 CE)
3:00:53 - Pseudo-Sebeos (c. 660s CE)
3:03:44 - Counter 14: The Reliability of Genealogy
3:06:08 - Summary of More Optimistic Scenario
3:07:37 - Part 7: Some Comments on Mythicist Methodology
3:07:43 - The Mythicist Strategy
3:09:40 - Explanations that create more problems than they solve
3:10:34 - Unnecessary Contradictions
3:12:25 - Conclusion
3:13:00 - Questions
Where are the links for the papers discussed in the video? They were said to be in the description...?
An academic talking about Islam? This is my kind of video. Thank you!
As a christian it bothers me that these comments don’t bother listening, it reminds me of posts or videos of scholars attesting to the Jesus historicity and the comment section being filled with mythicists accusing literal PHDs of making stuff up.
It should not affect your beliefs if these figures exist or not. Listen to actual scholars not internet apologists😂 🤦♂️
Anyhow, Dr little is a great scholar of Islam, his research is well appreciated.
Muslims never pay attention to rubbish called mistakenly as scientific research. We believe in all great prophets Adam, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, David Solomon, Jesus Christ and Muhammad. We believe they existed one day on this earh. They were all messangers from god to mankind to guide them to the right path. Non of them had a bad character as they were depicted in the old testament. David and Betshbae as an example, this is considered blasphemy according to Islamic religion.
It doesn't matter what you consider as blasphemous. It also doesn't matter what you believe. Fine, believe that Moses and Abraham existed. Believers who don't study history believe this. Non-believers and believers who do study history don't think that Moses and Abraham existed. Why? Because they study history and don't swim around in their little pond of the present, they don't swim around in received ideas. They swim outside their little pond and, let me repeat myself, study the past.@@Arius250
When you say "great prophets", the rest of us say fictional patriarchs of the Jewish people.@@Arius250
Yes i believe Hobbits also. Lord Of The Rings was Great book.@@Arius250
@@Arius250define blasphemy please. And by that measurement is Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, Muhammad's marriage to his adopted sons wife, Muhammad's permission of rape at awtas, also considered blasphemous?
this was a great episode. thanks for all the awesome content terron and roxanna, i have learned so much!
What was the article referenced at 2:23:40-ish, about Muhammad becoming more important with time? The author is named “Adam Gayson”….?
www.academia.edu/86862349/Ballaghan%C4%81_%CA%BFan_an_Nab%C4%AB_Early_Basran_and_Omani_Ib%C4%81%E1%B8%8D%C4%AB_understandings_of_sunna_and_siyar_%C4%81th%C4%81r_and_nasab
Thank you!! @@skepsislamica
The best lecture I ever heard on this topic.
Very informative, thank you all
This is extremely resourceful
around 34:15 is Dr Little referring to Taqqiya or something else? I can't hear him that well
This is fantastic. Two points on which I would have further queries for Dr Little that perhaps others have ideas on:
1) In these well known non-Muslim contemporary sources (eg Sebeos, the one from the Persian Empire) I have just realised that Muhammad is very much spoken of in "current" terms as being the leader of the invading armies of Syrian Palestine and Persia. But according to the traditional narrative he was dead at the time. How do we explain this? Just the time taken for the news to travel?
2) Little's focus on the Sunni/ Shia split and other politics that divided the Ummah really drove home for me, that elements of the traditional narrative are hard to write off. However, on the timing of the codification of the Quran, isn't this actually one area where even at the time all parties would be keen to push for the earliest possible date.
Thank you all so much for giving an ignorant non-specialist access to some really interesting ideas which can be hard to delve into without a guide.
This episode is beyond awesome, every minute of it.
Really good lecture!
I am a follower of the Inarah and theologically I am a Quranist.
I have pointed out some of dr Joshua`s critique to them. For example they lack experts in unitarian christianity on their team who could help them out with better explaining their hypothesis to the academic world. This would also push away the trinitarian missionaries who are abusing their work.
Another problem is that they do not adress properly the existence of the prophet in the Quran. For what seems obvious is that two persons are carrying the title Mo
1) Jesus the son of Mary carries the title Muhammad (the Praised one)
2) the prophet of the Quran carries the title Ahmad( the even Moore praised one) because he Will bring exegetical victory over those who persecute the unitarian believers.
The third problem is that their Akkilles aka dr Christoph Luxemberg operates from the shadows because of fear for his life and they really need to stress the lingvistic question if they are going to have A chance to enter academia.
The background of the Inâra group is Catholic.
The bibliography?
Superb work. Well done. I hope for more.
I think the most convincing argument in historicity of Mohammad is the fact than none of the following khalifs suggested another name for the founder of Islamic state, for example someone from their family, and this in spite of hostilities among them, bloody conflicts, assassinations etc. Of course the biographical details of Mohammad are very sketchy and Hadith literature is not very helpful in gaining knowledge about life of historical Mohammad.
Dr. Little said the researchers weren't afraid of being threatened, but what could happen if some of them concluded that Muhammad had never been to Mecca? That could destroy the economy of Saudi Arabia. By the way, as far as I know, Patricia Crone was threatened!
Uhh no. I don't think it would destroy the economy of Saudi Arabia. The average person doesn't care what scholars think. Virtually all critical scholars of early Christianity conclude that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem and yet there are still tons of Christian pilgrims who still go to Bethlehem.
I think the caliphate is mentioned in the Quran but the concept was distorted to fit the current political entity in power a khalifa is someone who resolved issues, concerning what? Everything
Just adding thanks for this presentation to Dr. Little if he sees this. 🙂
There is Pan-Christian agreement regarding the identity of the Gospel authors, but academics still doubt its true.
Tang dynasty Chinese diplomatic records a different faith origin to Islam than the SIN
Can you add Turkish subtitles?
@@Blackjackciatilla yes, I'll see what I can do
@@skepsislamica I expect soon;)
@@skepsislamica Hello, there are still no Turkish articles, when will you activate them?
@@Blackjackciatillahala altyazi eklememis ama muhammed asiri yuksek bir ihtimalle yasadi.
@@0x2fd ben biraz araştırdım zaten çok saçma konuymuş MHMD konusu yani artık din araştırmıyorum bu MHMD konusunu araştırdım en son öğrendim baya saçma
I realized Joshua Little is a superb scholar.
The summary and rebuttal of his own argument to me is that the simplest explanation is; there was a central figure that was known by Muhammad, which his followers thought was from the Hejaz. He and his generals consolidated Arab tribes and allies to revolt against the dying Sassanians and injured Byzantine, and provided them with structure and inspiration. After partial success and his death the Arabs lost their commander and in fighting ensued, so to keep the factions united in pursuit of more, narratives regarding his teachings were compiled by his second in command Umar who sent it out to large centers for them to learn. This is how we got the Quran. After Umar died other leaders started making narratives that showed they were Muhammad’s true followers. Because they were all looking for support the most popular stories started cumulating and people would build their story around it. Priests with prior religious power would emerge to confirm their stories and create uniformity with their beliefs, so narratives would start being attributed to those priests and pre-existing religious collectives would try justify their existing practices with the narratives. Because everyone thought Muhammad was from a small town those from this town would gain prominence. These stories would grow into Hadith and collectively become known as Islam. People start venerating Muhammad and comparing him to Jesus to compete with the devout Christians. As larger kingdoms formed the narratives became more centralized and uniform. Since the stories are now part of the collective memory they can’t stray too far from what is widely accepted.
I would argue this answers his counter while still being mythical, especially if Muhammad was a king who tried to make himself seem lowly. His assessment of the Mythicist is that they’re working their way backwards, where most that I listen to scrap everything, build from what know is solid to construct a story that makes sense to them. This will sometimes match with the standard Islamic narrative but isn’t building off of it like he is.
I'd like to ask Joshua what is this phenomenon of adopting "the new group's arguments" called? Is there a technical term for this behaviour please? Does anyone know?
I think groupthink
Bring Al-Jallad back!
Greetings, just wanted to let you know your twitter bio youtube link is broken, same as your youtube bio twitter link
enjoying this very much. well done
All your lies go forever in the wind
Is there anyway to his powerpoint?
I don't see why he says Muslims and 'religion of Islam' come from a later date when the Quran clearly refers to it in several instances. The religion near Allah is al-islam.
In another Codex of the Sahaba it says "the deen with Allah is hanafiya."
@@Stardust475 yet 'deen' and 'al Islam' are not in a single verse, there are several. I wonder if this codex you refer to replaces al-islam with hanifiyya in each instance
@roman_lopez
It was Abdullah ibn Masoud codex
"Inna deen inda Allahi Islam"
His codex omitted Islam in that verse.
Early Arabs didn't refer to themselves as Muslim but as believers. It was an ecumenical group of other faiths incl in " muminoon"
@@Stardust475 I'm aware of Fred donners theory and it seems plausible that early followers of Muhammad may have used both terms to refer to themselves, as does the Quran. There's epigraphical evidence of the use of Muslims, I Believe (I'll double check in a moment.)
Although almumineen is more official.
I'm skeptical of the level of ecuminalality that was present... It's clear that there were treaties and agreements. The Quran seems to draw a fairly broad line of differences between the believers and ahl al kitab.
@roman_lopez
There's coins with menoras and crosses, with Jesus' name in Syriac ( which looks like MHMD in Arabic but its actually Syriac) from Umayyad times. Then, under Yazid Zorastrian fire altars ( some amhave suggested he wasnt a believer)
There's so much more information incl Tang Dynasty diplomatic archives that dont line up with SIN.
Off course Our master Muhammad did exist صلى الله عليه وعلى اله الطيبين الطاهرين وسلم تسليما كثيرا
Could AI be used to create an Isnad Family Tree of Hadith?
Muhammad’s life has reached us via mass transmission with uninterrupted chains of narration coming from so many different sources and locations it’s impossible that conspiracy or fabrication could have “made him up”
uthman compiled the quran because he was afraid that it would get corrupted or forgotten just a few years after muhammed died. yet you think muslims could transmit saying of muhammed accurately before writing them down 200years later?
Narration from people who lived hundreds of years after his death and who had never met him. Use your brain.
@@DeeK-h9e your comment shows how ignorant you are
Malik ibn anas has one kf the earliest hadith collections and he was born 90 years after hijrah and his teachers were students of companions of the prophet
It’s amazing how you people make up yoir own religion and are so arrogant without knowing the most basic history
@@DeeK-h9e another collector and collection of hadith which we have manuscripts of is The earliest hadith collection that we have is Sahifah Hammam Ibn Munnabih dated to late 1st century hijri or early 2nd century hijri so approximately 50-80 years after Muhammad. He was a Tabiun which means he was the third generation after the Companions. He was also a direct student of Abu Hurairah so he's extremely early for a hadith collector. In summary, his hadith collection is even earlier than Imam Malik's Muwatta probably by 50-70 years earlier. Islamic Awareness (despite being an apologetic website has some good info with souces people can use as Van Putten has said) contains a page on this which explains this,
No matter how you look at it, YOU are wrong.
If you want to keep believing your nonsense you will need a new argument
Just arguments no solid arqueological proofs!!!
The burden of proof is on the party making the wildest arguments. Here it's not about whether Islam is true or Muhammad is actually a prophet, but whether there's a historical person behind the myth, and evidence says almost certainly yes. To hold a contrarian view that fails to account for the evidence presented is to be misguided at best or dishonest at worst. There's a reason why scholars agree on this even when they disagree on so many things.
I really enjoyed dr Little's presentation but I do miss the reasoning/structure behind determining those 21 problems, looks very arbitrary to me or did I miss something? If this is the case, it's really pity cuz it takes allot away from his work which is otherwise has quiet sensible arguments. Love the channel and the hosts - keep on doing what you do!
He gave a very detailed three hour lecture regarding the problems and how he arrived at them elsewhere
4 hours he has been explaining and you still didn’t get his arguments?????
Have you seen the full 3 hour version?
Amazing video ❤
Excellent Presentation and most accurate to the point lecture/Video i have ever seen. Also the point he made that no True scholar believes in Mythiscim is so true.
Mohammed as a title just refers to some king. At some point an Arab leader with his group wants their own book, thus came the book and so the character mohammed came. The book creation process mostly done by one or more person, and the book released in multiple versions and revisions spreading multiple years.
Tom Holland ??
.
Unlike Christian who accepted pagan practices to promote their religious even their so called scriptures don't talk about that.
Why many muhadith is Persian?
Muhammad was a title supposedly given to Jesus ?
Yes and Zaid who mentioned in Quran was the title of Jesus's son😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@sayedhasan707the Quran never calls Zayd Muhammad’s son nor does the Quran identify the prophet as Muhammad
so quran 48:29 doesn't exist? make something logical would you. none of what u said made sense. Also the ayah that talks about zayd in the beginning is talking about the prophet ﷺ directly @@progressiveoverload3915
@@progressiveoverload3915😭😭😭😭😭. I swear some Christian are fine, but some Christian’s like u (assuming ur Christian) just ruin ur own reputation🤣.
@@progressiveoverload3915 Qur'an 48:29
2:51:18 educated Shias don’t agree with the Quran. Some Shias believe some verses were moved to wrong chapters. Some Shias believe entire chapters are missing from the Quran. Other Shia qurans contained apocryphal chapters. Shia Hadiths claims that Ali had his own mushaf of the correct Quran. Other Hadiths claim revelation continued after Mohamed with Ali.
Yes, Shias don't agree with present Quran's arrangements but they agree altogether that it was Uthman who canonized the early Quran which is the point.
@@irfanmehmud63 h
Who the hell is burried in Medina?..Prof.Dr.Nasir Fazal Cambridge
I've listened to the first part of the video so far, professor's criticism of the ahadith is a joke to be honest. Nevertheless, I will watch the whole thing to see his conclusions.
I listened to the presentation by Dr. Little. Just a point of advice from a humble viewer - can the presenter please make his points more concisely? Dr. Little - you repeat the same idea numerous times, and it does not add to the saliency of your argument. In fact, repitition makes it perhaps seem like the arguments do not stand on their own. I am a layman; I do not have all night to listen to 3:30 hours. Overall, I do appreciate your scholarship and knowledge, and dedication to the topic.
Muhammad, a myth or not.
Pan-Islamic sources - hadith, ummayad, hashimite, arabic, syrian etc - may not be all that reliable .
However, Trans-sectarian (sunni, shia, ibadi etc) agreement points strongly to the existence of Muhammad.
The general narrative about his birth, parents, children etc are accepted in trans-sectarian groups.
Mythicism/ Historian
Even if you change some aspect of the narrative, such as, Muhmmad was born in Syria, but he is still the same person.
How many pieces of information need to be changed to alter the narrative?
lmao. this is completely against the Standard Islamic narrative. so you are saying 1.8 billion muslims who rever macca as masjid al haram is wrong & the original masjid al haram is in Syria. this is much more disturbing for a muslim rather than believing mohmmad a pure fictional character
Did mohamed existed is like asking does the sun exist
One needs to remember Muhammad or MHMD or MHMT was a title and not a name.
He debunked this claim in the very video that you are commenting.
@@dressin3767nowhere he debunked this. he only said while talking about mohmmad of islam we shouldn't use this logic.
@@aloksahu5660 he absolutly debunked that claim, by showing that arabic titles are always definite and that Muhammad is not
@@dressin3767 His arguments are vague. He said mohmmad mythishists claim that mohmmad was a title & noone used this name for individual. While no mohmmad mythishists ever said that mohmmad word never used for individuals. Instead they say that there are many mohmmads in the region durin 7th century
@@aloksahu5660 no this is not what mythicists clam. They claim that Muhammad was a christological title for jesus, which Joshua demonstrated to be false
gotta love how joshua spent the first hour and a half ranting about something that wasn’t that related to the subject matter
thank you joshua very cool
He's got his own little agenda going. Just don't pay attention to the first part of presentation. His arguments about unreliability of ahadith are not new and have been debunked many times.
@@MCXM111 u should watch br. farid’s stream if u haven’t already
I have seen the titles of the timeline for the moment. I remark :
1) that the silence of the sources about Mecca seems not addressed whereas the figure of Muhammad is identified to it in the Muslim narrative. No Mecca is no Muhammad.
2) The silence of the sources about Jews in the North Peninsula seems not addressed as well (the efforts of Hoyland about it are not convincing).
Both (Mecca/Jews) are key points of the Muslim narrative about Muhammad.
3) When the non Muslims sources speak of Muhammad, they draw from what say their Muslims contemporaries: they have no reasons to not believe them. Muslims themselves have been taught by their authorities that there was a 'prophet' called Muhammad: they have no rationale reasons to not believe them.
In what seems the earliest non Muslims sources, there are no attestation of someone who have encountered Muhammad whereas he is supposed to have died 20 years ago.
The non Muslims sources until the end of the 7th c. do not attest of:
Hijaz
Mecca
Kaba
Abu Bakr
Abu Sufyan
Aicha
Arabic texts regarding the Biblical Revelation being the Arab sacred texts.
Ali is attested (by non Muslims sources): he has nothing to see with Mecca of the Peninsula but to Al Hira (Iraq).
At last, about that the silence ≠ of non existence, silence is more likely to mean non existence than no silence means no existence.
"...No Mecca is no Muhammad...."
nope, the exclusiv feature for Mohammed is producing the Quran, regrdless of the Location.
7th century Mecca was a waterhole with no Agriculture to feed a Settlement, let alone a Trading Hub with plenty of Camels and Caravns traveling through.
So this is a Myth but doesn't mean that he didn't live somewhere else.
@@slippingsnakeIn the Muslim narrative Muhammad is identified with Mecca. The issue is that there is no Mecca before Islam. So there is no Muhammad.
@@user-yz1dl3eu8l
There is no Mecca before Islam?🥴🤣
All historians accept Mecca to be historical.
Your conspiracy theories of a shift from place has no source or evidence.
You are just making claims up.
People like you are funny. They demand all kind of ‘evidence’. But they make up all sorts of claims with no evidence.
Show me a historical source where a shift takes place.
@@user-yz1dl3eu8lstop it man. Stop lying.
The Jews are mentioned, what are you talking about?
Muhammad is only mentioned 4 times in the Quran and it always in a verse talking about Jesus. Everything we know about Muhammad comes hundreds of year later in the Hadith.
Has been debunked though. Please make more research about this because your take is very shallow.
The Quran has plenty of verses that are personalized for a "prophet" wich for sure is not Jesus, like in Sura 33 when the Quran explains how to get the wife from the adaptovie Son.
But this is also the only point where 1 of the companions (Zaid) is thematized, everyone else is abscent.
So if the Quran ws not taylor-made for Mohammed who wrote it?
@@slippingsnake Tailor-made, that's a good point. But the point you brought up particularly defies that in a way that may surprise you. The verses about Zaid and his wife Zaynab mention something that proves the Quran was not tailor-made for Prophet Muhammad as the verses show that the Prophet was kind of embarrassed by this because Arabs never did such a thing. (marrying a woman who was married to an adopted son). So the Quran mildly blames the Prophet for wanting to conceal the matter. Why would the Prophet include these verses if the Quran was made to glorify him.
Verses: quran.com/33?startingVerse=37
This is actually called "The criterion of embarrassment". just look it up.
Compare this with other literature from people who claimed to divine or prophetic or whatever. They always only glorify themselves.
The Quran on the other hand, reproches the prophet on a few occasions.
To give you more context about this, Allah wanted to end adoption and to prove to Arabs that an adopted son is not really your son. The wisdom behind this is to make fathers feel the responsibility towards their sons (among other things). There's still something called Kafala (sponsorship?) if you want to take care of a kid but he never becomes your son and doesn't take your lastname.
@@slippingsnakeWho taught you every time the Koran says prophet refers to Muhammad? your traditions?
Your tradition says that Abraham had 2 wives while the Koran never indicates that Abraham had 2 wives, the Koran mentions Abraham's wife who happened to be Isaac's mother but never indicates that Abraham had more than 1 wife.
@@DusTman761Hagar was his other wife
Didn’t John of Damascus call Muslims “Saracens” and Muhammad a “false prophet”?
The biggest earliest critique of Islam is John of Damascus or St. John of Damascus, also called Saint John Damascene, Latin Johannes Damascenus. He was born c. 675, Damascus and died December 4, 749, near Jerusalem (Eastern and Western feast day December 4).
He spent his early adult life a few decades after the prophet’s death. John of Damascus was born around 40 years after Muhammad’s death, providing him with a unique perspective on the early Islamic community. He lived during the rule of Abdul Malik bin Marwan and perhaps witnessed the construction of the Dome of the Rock.
In his book The Fountain of Wisdom, in the second part titled Concerning Heresy (Perì eréseon), the last chapter of this part (Chapter 101) deals with the Heresy of the Ishmaelites. He explicitly wrote about Muhammad and Islam as follows:
“There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason, they are called both Agarenes and Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from Sarras kenoi, or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel: ‘Sara hath sent me away destitute.’ These used to be idolaters and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom in their own language they called Khabár, which means great. And so down to the time of Heraclius, they were very great idolaters. From that time to the present, a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.”
orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx
On the Catholic Encyclopedia, you can find a short paragraph about John of Damascus concerning Islam and Muhammad:
“The second part, Concerning Heresy, is little more than a copy of a similar work by Epiphanius, brought up to date by John Damascene. The author indeed expressly disclaims originality except in the chapters devoted to Islamism, Iconoclasm, and Aposchitae. To the list of eighty heresies that constitute the Panarion of Epiphanius, he added twenty heresies that had sprung up since his time. In treating Islamism, he vigorously assails the immoral practices of Mohammed and the corrupt teachings inserted in the Koran to legalize the delinquencies of the prophet.”
Conclusion
In his book The Fountain of Wisdom, St. John of Damascus called Muslims “Saracens”, “Ishmaelites” and “Agarenes”, although the “Saracens” designation might have been used earlier. All these names were pejorative.
He lived during Abdul Malik bin Marwan’s rule and perhaps witnessed the construction of the Dome of the Rock, very likely seeing the inscriptions of Muhammad’s name on the Dome of the Rock ambulatory.
St. John of Damascus specifically called Muhammad by name six times:
1. “From that time (the reign of Heraclius) to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst.”
2. “As has been related, this Mohammed wrote many ridiculous books, to each one of which he set a title.”
3. “Mohammed had a friend named Zeid.”
4. “This man had a beautiful wife with whom Mohammed fell in love.”
5. “Once, when they were sitting together, Mohammed said: ‘Oh, by the way…’”
6. “Mohammed says that the Christ asked God for a table and that it was given Him.”
It is really funny to see Christian polemicist UA-camrs deceiving millions of Christians into believing in their theory that Mohammad didn’t exist. And this video lasts 3:43:47 hours to disprove that Mohammad didn’t exist … hahaha.
So folks, Mohammad did exist.
The conclusion of this presentation is that the Prophet Muhammad existed.
@@skepsislamica
Yes I have made corrections. Thank you
Islam Is Huge Fabrication
Your brain is a small fabrication
I don’t Muhummed existed, The Arab Christian Called Jesus Muhammad as a Title meaning praise worthy.
They never called Jesus Muhammad...
lmao this is one of the most stupid things I've ever read , no one literally no one called Jesus muhammed, they called him isa or yousha يوشعا but never Muhammed.
This was literally addressed and debunked in the lecture.
Jesus and Muhammed are nothing alike
Keep up the great work. The Muhammed that I was born hearing about. The greatest human ever. Definitely did not exist
How you came to this ?
@@abdulmoeed5527 by reading his biographies and hadith literature
Prophet Muhammad who delivered the Qur'an clearly existed, as evidenced by this entire video if you actually watched any of it. It's that much of the extra-revelatory legends that came after him are ahistorical inventions.
@@rashiqraquib1641I did watch it entirely so please do not assume anything about my viewing and I have also studied Islam for many many years academically. So what from my comment did you take objection to? Because it seems from your reply you definitely did not read my comment
@rashiqraquib1641 Thanks for comment But I think we know what's myth and what's not in books oh Ahadith.
I am French and I do not speak English, can I have a summary of the conclusion in a few lines please
My co-host speaks and teaches French
@@skepsislamica ah bah c'est cool je vis dans le 91 en ile de france , banlieue parisienne, Je suis tomber sur votre chaine par Hazard et je m'intéresse de plus en plus à l'islam de manière historique après avoir vu une vidéo d'un homme qui s'appelle "odon la fontaine" et qui remet en cause l'islam à travers l'histoire
Salut, c’est Roxanna ici, la femme dans la vidéo. Quelles sont vos questions sur la conclusion de Dr Little? Son argument est essentiellement que ceux qui disputent l’existence du Prophète n’ont aucune preuve historique objective. Et qu’il y a en effet une longue liste de preuves qui démontre son existence.
@@skepsislamica Bonsoir Roxanna ,merci pour la réponse donc pour le Dr Little le prophète a bien exister et c'est une bonne chose,
mais pour lui les hadiths retrace t'il la vie du prophète ??ou le fait qu'ils ont étaient compilés tardivement les rends peu crédible ?
Dr Little a écrit beaucoup sur le sujet des hadiths. Il propose pleins de raisons pour croire que la majorité ne remonte pas au Prophète et qu’ils sont des fabrications des générations ultérieures.
Name of Mohammad was a name of grade in the Middle East. Like Japanese 'Shogun' or 'Sultan'. There were dozens of Mohammads in the Middle East. Even Jesus called Mohammad by Arabs.
Source: trust me bro
That's factually incorrect.
@@MaryamMaqdisiit’s actually not incorrect. The word itself means exhalted or great one, it’s not necessarily a name given to a man. Nothing about Islam makes logical sense. The so called perfect word of God is still not agreed upon. The supposed prophet deemed as the perfect man committed disgusting acts and atrocities. There was nothing recorded or written about him until 200 years after his death. Make it make sense.
Was this supposed to be a scholarly argument or polemic? He is on the border of polemics unfortunately.
The final verdict after scrutinizing all sources is that Muhammad EXISTED.
It surely is a scholarly view.
Muhammad skepticism is even more fringe view than Jesus skepticism.
So first he doesn't have a dog in the game, but in minute 15 following it is clear that his purpose and aim is to prove that Mohammed existed. Come on, be honest!
I appreciate the effort you are making in proving his existence and this is very good for debate. But, do be honest!
By the way, your very first counter argument "pan islamic agreement" is not even an argument. The "argumentum ad populum" is a logical fallacy.
I immediately saw the "constitution of medina" as one of your main proofs for Muhammad's existence. However, we do not have the original document!
"No copy of the Constitution of Medina has ever been found. We only know of its existence from excerpts included in early Muslim sources, the earliest of which is "Al-Sīrah Al-Nabawiyyah" of Ibn Hisham (early 800s CE)."
So the earliest "source" for this document is the Sirah by Ibn Isham? That is around 200 years too late? You do not even mention this problem! Why did all millions of the muslims fail to ever mention this document for 200 years?
Originally, I wanted to binge watch this whole episode and looked at the table of contents. But this is not serious scholarship!
His having no dog in the fight is based on the fact that if Muhammad existed or didn't exist doesn't matter to him in the grand scheme of things. His presentation proving his existence doesn't change that at all.
And I believe the pan Islamic agreement is a good argument considering that you'd have to identify which Muslim group it was who created the person of Muhammad and then successfully sold it to their Muslim opponent's as the founder of Islam. Shia and Ibadi charge Sunnis with many deviations from Islam's original state. Surely creating a prophet who didn't exist would be one of them.
And concerning the Constitution of Media, not having the original document was not an obstacle for academics in establishing the fact that it's an archaic document from when Islamic tradition alleged.
@@skepsislamica Well, if it didn't matter to him, then he would have given a different presentation.
That Muslims agree that Mohammed existed is no evidence whatsoever, since they wouldn't be Muslims if they believed otherwise. Shia and Sunni's both are religiously devoted to Mohammed's existance.
Not having an original document and the first mention of the supposed 200 years after it's creation is a huge obstacle for establishing the existence of a document. It means that your belief has no foundation!
@@skepsislamica "was not an obstacle for academics" is an unscientific appeal to authority. The fallacy is called "argumentum ad verecundiam".
Is this even worth wasting time on?
Idk. Decide after you watch it.
It definitely is. It was extremely interesting. It's always good to know how we know things.
No, it isnt. The Islamic tradition produced objective sciences (Hadith Sciences) to investigate and discriminate the mostly oral reports that were circulating within first 2 hundred years. It laid down strict criteria for interrogating reports that were being attributed to the PRophet through explicit chains of narration (I heard from x, from y, from the Prophet). Conclusion was identifying majority as either fabricated or weak. Hence, we have a clear understanding of what the Prophet said or did not say.
As for Prophet himself, all these reports (from vastly different places) were in agreement that their reports went back to a person named Muhammad who claimed Prophecy and lived (for last ten years of his life) and passed away in MAdinah-a well-known place that continued to be visited by thousands of Muslims uninterrupted. His own companions ruled immediately after him and all unorthodox sects agreed on this.
Problem is missionaries and academics who work on the assumptions underpinning valid criticism of the interrupted transmission and constitution of the Bible and person of Jesus.
As for the Quran, its transmission and preservation is even more reliable than the Hadith.
Lmao I assume you don't know what a science is 🤣 there's not even an objective way of deciding who's trustworthy, let alone verifying isnads from dead people.. @@mohamed-fp3wl
@@mohamed-fp3wlthere is nothing objective about Islamic ‘sciences’. In fact there is nothing accurate about Islamic science either, some of the so called science in the Quran has been proven to be medically and scientifically incorrect. Islam and the Quran does not stand up to the objective and logical tests independent of the faith. Literally nothing about it makes sense.
It is not the perfect text, Muhammad if he even existed was not the perfect man ( a perfect man does not rape Jewish women, encourage sex slavery, and justify marrying a child) and that’s just the tip of the iceberg - evidenced by your own Hadiths.
Based on that the entire concept of Islam fails.