To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

Historicity of Muhammad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on
Muhammad circular symbol

While the existence of Muhammad is established by contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous historical records,[1][2][3] attempts to distinguish between the historical elements and the ahistorical elements of many of the reports of Muhammad have not been very successful. Hence the historicity of Muhammad, aside from his existence, is debated. The earliest Muslim source of information for the life of Muhammad, the Quran, gives very little personal information and its historicity is debated.[4][5] Next in importance is the sīra literature and hadith, which survive in the historical works of writers from the third, and fourth centuries of the Muslim era (c. 800−1000 AD).[6][7] There are also a relatively small number of contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous non-Muslim sources, which confirm the existence of Muhammad and are valuable both in themselves and for comparison with Muslim sources.[5]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    139 613
    75 137
    688 672
    316 775
    239 176
  • ✪ Nabeel Qureshi: Difficulties with the Historical Muhammad - Apologetics to Islam
  • ✪ Islam’s Origins: Myth and Material Evidence
  • ✪ Life of Muhammad and beginnings of Islam part 1 | World History | Khan Academy
  • ✪ How Islam Began, Fred Donner: UnCommon Core Lecture
  • ✪ Tom Holland 'De-Radicalising Muhammad'



Islamic sources

11th-century Persian Quran folio page in kufic script
11th-century Persian Quran folio page in kufic script

The main Islamic source on Muhammad's life are Muslim sources written in Arabic, which include the Quran and accounts of Muhammad's life written down by later Muslims, based on oral traditions. These sources are known as sīra and hadith.


According to traditional Islamic scholarship, all of the Quran was written down by Muhammad's companions while he was alive (during AD 610–632), but it was primarily an orally related document. The written compilation of the whole Quran in its definite form as we have it now was not completed until many years after the death of Muhammad.[8]

Modern scholars differ in their assessment of the Quran as a historical source about Muhammad's life.

According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, the "Qur'an responds constantly and often candidly to Muhammad's changing historical circumstances and contains a wealth of hidden data that are relevant to the task of the quest for the historical Muhammad."[4] In contrast, Solomon A. Nigosian writes that the Quran tells us very little about the life of Muhammad.[5] However, Michael Cook notes, that unlike the Bible's narratives of the life of Moses or Jesus,

while the Koran tells many stories after its fashion, that of Muhammad is not among them. There are references to events in his life, but they are only references, not narratives. In addition, the book is not given to mentioning names in the context of its own time. Muhammad himself is named four times, and a couple of his contemporaries once each ... and for this reason it is almost impossible to relate the scripture to his life without going outside it.[9]

As to the historicity of the Quran itself, F.E. Peters states, "Few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words... To sum this up: the Quran is convincingly the words of Muhammad, perhaps even dictated by him after their recitation".[10] Peters further argues that "The search for variants in the partial versions extant before the Caliph Uthman’s alleged recension in the 640s (what can be called the 'sources' behind our text) has not yielded any differences of great significance."[10]

Patricia Crone and Michael Cook challenge the traditional account of how the Quran was compiled writing that "there is no hard evidence for the existence of the Koran in any form before the last decade of the seventh century." They also question the accuracy of some of the Quran's historical accounts.[11] It was generally acknowledged that the work of Crone and Cook was a fresh approach in its reconstruction of early Islamic history, but their alternative account of early Islam had been almost universally rejected.[12] Van Ess dismissed it stating that "a refutation is perhaps unnecessary since the authors make no effort to prove it in detail...Where they are only giving a new interpretation of well-known facts, this is not decisive. But where the accepted facts are consciously put upside down, their approach is disastrous."[13] R. B. Serjeant stated: "Hagarism [the thesis of Crone and Cook] ... is not only bitterly anti-Islamic in tone, but anti-Arabian. Its superficial fancies are so ridiculous that at first one wonders if it is just a 'leg pull', pure 'spoof'."[14] In 2006 Fred Donner, a supporter of the revisionist school of Islamic studies wrote that "Yet now more than 30 years later we can see that the publication of Hagarism was a milestone in the study of Islamic studies."[15]

The Samarkand Kufic Quran, dated to the early 9th century. It is an alleged 7th century original of the edition of the third caliph Uthman. This Quran is located in the small Telyashayakh mosque in Tashkent.
The Samarkand Kufic Quran, dated to the early 9th century. It is an alleged 7th century original of the edition of the third caliph Uthman. This Quran is located in the small Telyashayakh mosque in Tashkent.

Gerd R. Puin's initial study of ancient Quran manuscripts found in Yemen led him to conclude that the Quran is a "cocktail of texts", some of which may have been existent a hundred years before Muhammad. He later stated that "these Yemeni Qur'anic fragments do not differ from those found in museums and libraries elsewhere, with the exception of details that do not touch the Qur'an itself, but are rather differences in the way words are spelled." Puin has stated that he believes the Quran was an evolving text rather than simply the Word of God as revealed in its entirety to Muhammad in the seventh century A.D[11][16][17] Karl-Heinz Ohlig comes to the conclusion that the person of Muhammed was not central to early Islam at all, and that at this very early stage Islam was in fact an Arabic Christian sect which had objections to the concept of the trinity, and that the later hadith and biographies are in large part legends, instrumental in severing Islam from its Christian roots and building a full-blown new religion.[18][page needed] John Wansbrough believes that the Qu’ran is a redaction in part of other sacred scriptures, in particular the Judaeo-Christian scriptures.[19][20] Herbert Berg writes that "Despite John Wansbrough's very cautious and careful inclusion of qualifications such as "conjectural," and "tentative and emphatically provisional", his work is condemned by some. Some of the negative reaction is undoubtedly due to its radicalness...Wansbrough's work has been embraced wholeheartedly by few and has been employed in a piecemeal fashion by many. Many praise his insights and methods, if not all of his conclusions."[21]

There is considerable academic debate over the real chronology of the chapters of the Quran.[22] Carole Hillenbrand holds that there are several remaining tasks for the Orientalist Quranic scholars: Few Quranic scholars have worked on the epigraphy of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem whose foundation inscription dates to 72/692 and the antique Quran recently discovered in the Yemen, the Sana'a manuscripts. The Carbon-14 tests applied to this Quran date its parchment to 645–690 AD with 95 percent accuracy. Their real age may be a good deal younger, since C-14 estimates the time of growth of an organism, and the process from that to the final writing on the parchment involves an unknown amount of time, and parchments were also re-used often.[22] Paleography has dated the San'a manuscripts to 690–750 AD.

The parchment of the Birmingham Quran manuscript received radiocarbon analysis in 2015, which revealed with a 95.4% accuracy that it was made from an animal alive sometime between 568 and 645 AD, roughly around the lifetime of Muhammad.[23] The text differs only slightly to modern versions of the Quran.[23] Only the parchment has been analysed, the date of the ink is unknown.[24]


The hadith collections include traditional, hagiographic accounts of the verbal and physical traditions of Muhammad.

Early Muslim scholars were concerned that some hadiths (and sīra reports) were fabricated, and thus they developed a science of hadith criticism (see Hadith studies) to distinguish between genuine sayings and those that were forged, recorded using different words, or were wrongly ascribed to Muhammad.

In general, the majority of western academics view the hadith collections with considerable caution. Bernard Lewis states that "The collection and recording of Hadith did not take place until several generations after the death of the Prophet. During that period the opportunities and motives for falsification were almost unlimited."[25]

The main feature of hadith is that of Isnad (chains of transmission), which are the basis of determining authenticity of the reports in traditional Islamic scholarship. According to Stephen Humphreys, while a number of "very capable" modern scholars defended the general authenticity of isnads, most modern scholars regard isnads with "deep suspicion".[26]

Jonathan A. C. Brown asserts the hadith tradition is a "common sense science" or a "common sense tradition" and is "one of the biggest accomplishments in human intellectual history ... in its breadth, in its depth, in its complexity and in its internal consistency."[27]

Prophetic biography (sīra)

In the sīra literature, the most important extant biography are the two recensions of Ibn Ishaq's (d. 768), now known as Sīrat Rasūl Allah ("Biography/Life of the Messenger/Apostle of Allah"), which survive in the works of his editors, most notably Ibn Hisham (d. 834) and Yunus b. Bukayr (d.814–815), although not in its original form.[4] According to Ibn Hisham, Ibn Ishaq wrote his biography some 120 to 130 years after Muhammad's death. Many, but not all, scholars accept the accuracy of these biographies, though their accuracy is unascertainable.[5] However author Tom Holland notes that Ibn Hisham credits angels with helping Muslims to victory at the Battle of Badr, and wonders why he should be considered a reliable historical source any more than Homer (who portrayed gods as influencing battles in his epic poem the Iliad).[28]

After Ibn Ishaq, there are a number of shorter accounts (some of which are earlier than Ibn Ishaq) recorded in different forms (see List of earliest writers of sīra). Other biographies of Muhammad include al-Waqidi's (d. 822) and then Ibn Sa'd's (d.844–45). Al-Waqidi is often criticized by early Muslim historians who state that the author is unreliable.[4] These biographies are hardly biographies in the modern sense. The writers did not wish to record the life of Muhammad, but rather to describe Muhammad's military expeditions and to preserve stories about Muhammad, his sayings and the reasons of revelations and interpretations of verses in the Quran.[4] In addition to sīra, the biographical dictionaries of Ali ibn al-Athir and Ibn Hajar provide much detail about the contemporaries of Muhammad but add little to our information about Muhammad himself.[29]

According to Wim Raven, it is often noted that a coherent image of Muhammad cannot be formed from the literature of sīra, whose authenticity and factual value have been questioned on a number of different grounds.[30] He lists the following arguments against the authenticity of sīra, followed here by counter arguments:

  1. Hardly any sīra work was compiled during the first century of Islam. Fred Donner points out that the earliest historical writings about the origins of Islam first emerged in 60-70 AH, well within the first century of Hijra (see also List of biographies of Muhammad). Furthermore, the sources now extant, dating from the second, third, and fourth centuries AH, are according to Donner mostly compilations of material derived from earlier sources.[6]
  2. The many discrepancies exhibited in different narrations found in sīra works. Yet, despite the lack of a single orthodoxy in Islam, there is still a marked agreement on the most general features of the traditional origins story.[31]
  3. Later sources claiming to know more about the time of Muhammad than earlier ones (to add embellishments and exaggeration common to an oral storytelling tradition).[32]
  4. Discrepancies compared to non-Muslim sources. But there are also similarities and agreements both in information specific to Muhammad,[33] and concerning Muslim tradition at large.[34]
  5. Some parts or genres of sīra, namely those dealing with miracles, are not fit as sources for scientific historiographical information about Muhammad, except for showing the beliefs and doctrines of his community.

Nevertheless, other content of sīra, like the Constitution of Medina, are generally considered to be authentic by both Muslim and non-Muslim historians.[30]

Non-Muslim sources

Muhammad in the Nuremberg Chronicle
Muhammad in the Nuremberg Chronicle

Early Islamic history is also reflected in sources written in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Hebrew by Jewish and Christian communities, all of which are dated after 633 CE.[5] These sources contain some essential differences with regard to Muslim sources, in particular regarding the chronology and Muhammad's attitude towards the Jews and Palestine.[5]

There is a reference recording the Arab conquest of Syria (known as Fragment on the Arab Conquests), that mentions Muhammed. This much faded note is preserved on folio 1 of BL Add. 14,461, a codex containing the Gospel according to Matthew and the Gospel according to Mark. This note appears to have been penned soon after the battle of Gabitha (636 CE) at which the Arabs inflicted crushing defeat of the Byzantines. Wright was first to draw the attention to the fragment and suggested that "it seems to be a nearly contemporary notice",[35] a view which was also endorsed by Nöldeke.[36] The purpose of jotting this note in the book of Gospels appears to be commemorative as the author appears to have realized how momentous the events of his time were. The words "we saw" are positive evidence that the author was a contemporary. The author also talks about olive oil, cattle, ruined villages, suggesting that he belonged to peasant stock, i.e., parish priest or a monk who could read and write. It is worthwhile cautioning that the condition of the text is fragmentary and many of the readings unclear or disputable. The lacunae are supplied in square brackets:

Fragment on Arab Conquest
Fragment on Arab Conquest

… and in January, they took the word for their lives (did) [the sons of] Emesa [i.e., ̣Hiṃs)], and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Mụhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives [were taken] from Galilee as far as Bēth [...] and those Arabs pitched camp beside [Damascus?] [...] and we saw everywhe[re...] and o[l]ive oil which they brought and them. And on the t[wenty six]th of May went S[ac[ella]rius]... cattle [...] [...] from the vicinity of Emesa and the Romans chased them [...] and on the tenth [of August] the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus [...] many [people] some 10,000. And at the turn [of the ye]ar the Romans came; and on the twentieth of August in the year n[ine hundred and forty-]seven there gathered in Gabitha [...] the Romans and great many people were ki[lled of] [the R]omans, [s]ome fifty thousand [...][37]

The 8th century BL Add. 14,643 was published by Wright who first brought to attention the mention of an early date of 947 AG (635–36 CE).[38] The contents of this manuscript has puzzled many scholars for their apparent lack of coherence as it contains an assembly of texts with diverse nature.[39] In relation to Arabs of Mohamed, there are two important dates mentioned in this manuscript.

AG 945, indiction VII: On Friday, 4 February, [i.e., 634 CE / Dhul Qa‘dah 12 AH] at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Mụhammad [Syr. tayyāyē d-Ṃhmt] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician YRDN (Syr. BRYRDN), whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region.

AG 947, indiction IX: The Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it; the Arabs climbed mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in [the monasteries of] Kedar and Benōthō. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest.[40]

It is the first date above which is of great importance as it provides the first explicit reference to Muhammad in a non-Muslim source. The account is usually identified with the battle of Dathin.[41] According to Hoyland, "its precise dating inspires confidence that it ultimately derives from first-hand knowledge".[42]

Another account of the early seventh century comes from Sebeos who was an Armenian bishop of the House of Bagratuni. From this chronicle, there are indications that he lived through many of the events he relates. He maintains that the account of Arab conquests derives from the fugitives who had been eyewitnesses thereof. He concludes with Mu‘awiya's ascendancy in the Arab civil war (656–661 CE), which suggests that he was writing soon after this date. Sebeos is the first non-Muslim author to present us with a theory for the rise of Islam that pays attention to what the Muslims themselves thought they were doing.[43] Concerning Muhammad, he says:

At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Mụhammad], a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. He said: 'With an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his seed after him for ever. And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Ismael. But now you are the sons of Abraham and God is accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only the God of Abraham, and go and seize the land which God gave to your father Abraham. No one will be able to resist you in battle, because God is with you.[44]

Sebeos was writing the chronicle at a time when memories of sudden eruption of the Arabs was fresh. He knows Muhammad's name and that he was a merchant by profession. He hints that his life was suddenly changed by a divinely inspired revelation.[45]

Views of modern historians

Attempts to distinguish between the historical elements and the unhistorical elements of many of the reports of Muhammad have not been very successful.[46] A major source of difficulty in the quest for the historical Muhammad is the modern lack of knowledge about pre-Islamic Arabia.[10] According to Harald Motzki, "On the one hand, it is not possible to write a historical biography of the Prophet without being accused of using the sources uncritically, while on the other hand, when using the sources critically, it is simply not possible to write such a biography."[5]

As early as 1930, the question for the existence of Muhammad was raised by Soviet orientalist Klimovich, yet his thesis found no resonance in Islamic Studies. The question for the historicity of Muhammad was put on the agenda, when in the 1970s the so-called Revisionist School of Islamic Studies raised fundamental doubts about the reliability of traditional Islamic sources and applied the historical-critical methods to the early Islamic period. After the first provocative theses, the revisionist approach differentiated and moderated and spread in Islamic Studies with various intensity. Today, only a minority of historians of early Islam doubt that Muhammad existed.[47][48][49][50][51]

In 1952 French Arabist Régis Blachère, author of a critical biography of Muhammad that took "fully into account the skeptical conclusions" of Ignác Goldziher and Henri Lammens, i.e that Islamic hadith had been corrupted and could not be considered reliable sources of information, wrote

... we no longer have any sources that would allow us to write a detailed history of Muhammad with a rigorous and continuous chronology. To resign oneself to a partial or total ignorance is necessary, above all for everything that concerns the period prior to Muhammad's divine call [ca.610 C.E.]. All a truly scientific biography can achieve is to lay out the successive problems engendered by this preapostolate period, sketch out the general background atmosphere in which Muhammad received his divine call, to give in broad brush strokes the development of is apostleship at Mecca, to try with a greater chance of success to pt in order the known facts, and finally to put back into the penumbra all that remains uncertain. To want to go further is to fall into hagiography or romanticization.[52]

Historian John Burton states "however far back in the Muslim tradition one now attempts to reach, one simply cannot recover a scrap of information of real use in constructing the human history of Muhammad, beyond the bare fact that he once existed ..."[53] Patricia Crone states, "there is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding," and notes Byzantine sources that mentioned an Arab prophet.[51]

Some historians believe Muhammad may be a mythical figure. In their 2003 book Crossroads to Islam, Yehuda D. Nevo and Judith Koren advanced a thesis, based on an extensive examination of archaeological evidence from the early Islamic period, that Muhammad may never have existed, with monotheistic Islam only coming into existence some time after he is supposed to have lived. This has been described as "plausible or at least arguable" and employing a "very rigorous historical methodology" by David Cook of Rice University, but has also been compared to Holocaust denial by historian Colin Wells, who suggests that the authors deal with some of the evidence illogically.[54]

In 2008, Sven Kalisch, a former Muslim convert and Germany's first professor of Islamic theology, expressed the view that the prophet Muhammad probably never existed.[55] In 2011, Hans Jansen, a Dutch scholar, expressed similar views.[56]

Other revisionists — such as Michael Cook and Patricia Crone) — disagree. Cook takes the view that evidence independent of Islamic tradition "precludes any doubts as to whether Muhammad was a real person" and clearly shows that he became the central figure of a new religion in the decades following his death. He reports, though, that this evidence conflicts with the Islamic view in some aspects, associating Muhammad with Israel rather than Inner Arabia, complicating the question of his sole authorship or transmission of the Quran, and suggesting that there were Jews as well as Arabs among his followers.[57] For Crone, a single Greek text written at around the time of Muhammad's death provides "irrefutable proof" that he was a historical figure. There is also, she says, "exceptionally good" evidence that Muhammad was an Arab political leader and prophet. She says we can be "reasonably sure" in attributing all or most of the Quran to him. She takes a view that Muhammad's traditional association with the Arabian Peninsula may be "doctrinally inspired", and is put in doubt by the Quran itself, which describes agricultural activity that could not have taken place there, as well as making a reference to the site of Sodom which appears to place Muhammad's community close to the Dead Sea.[58]

Volker Popp (2004/5) proposed that both Muḥammad and ‘Alī originated as titles given to Jesus Christ by Syriac Christians in the Sassanid Empire (i.e. muḥammad "blessed" being the equivalent of the benedictus (ευλογηµένος) of the New Testament). In a numismatic study, Popp identified coins dated to AH 16 inscribed with mḥmd but lacking the rasūl allāh that later became common. Popp adduced Arabo-Sassanid and Syrian coins inscribed with MHMT in Pahlavi script, and also partly with mḥmd in Arabic script, in some cases combined with Christian symbolism.[59] Heger (2008) argues that Muḥammad "the blessed one" being a title of Christ does not necessarily preclude the historicity of the prophet of Islam. It rather opens up a scale of possibilities summarised in three alternatives to the default assumption of the historicity of a Muhammad recognizably similar to the hadith accounts,

  1. the Islamic tradition on the life of Muhammad is entirely legendary,
  2. Muhammad is historical, but was active roughly a century later than suggested by Islamic tradition,
  3. there were two distinct people, both given the epithet Muhammad or "blessed", one active in the early 7th century, and author of the Meccan suras, and the other the Mamed of Johannes Damascenus, author of the Medinian suras.[60]

See also




  1. ^ W. Wright, Catalogue Of Syriac Manuscripts In The British Museum Acquired Since The Year 1838, 1872, Part III, Printed by order of the Trustees: London, No. DCCCCXIII, pp. 1040-1041
  2. ^ A. Palmer (with contributions from S. P. Brock and R. G. Hoyland), The Seventh Century In The West-Syrian Chronicles Including Two Seventh-Century Syriac Apocalyptic Texts, 1993, op. cit., pp. 5-6
  3. ^ R. G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey And Evaluation Of Christian, Jewish And Zoroastrian Writings On Early Islam, 1997, op. cit., pp. 118-119
  4. ^ a b c d e Encyclopaedia of Islam, Muhammad
  5. ^ a b c d e f g Nigosian 2004, p. 6.
  6. ^ a b Donner 1998, p. 125.
  7. ^ William Montgomery Watt, Muhammad in Mecca, 1953, Oxford University Press, p.xi
  8. ^ William Montgomery Watt in The Cambridge History of Islam, p.32
  9. ^ Cook, The Koran, 2000: p.136-37
  10. ^ a b c F. E. Peters (1991)
  11. ^ a b Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, and Gerd R. Puin as quoted in Toby Lester (January 1999). "What Is the Koran?". The Atlantic Monthly.
  12. ^ David Waines(1995), p. 273–274
  13. ^ van Ess, "The Making Of Islam", Times Literary Supplement, September 8, 1978, p. 998
  14. ^ R. B. Serjeant, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1978) p. 78
  15. ^ Middle East Studies Association Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 2 (December 2006), pp. 197–199
  16. ^ THE HISTORY OF THE QUR’ANIC TEXT FROM REVELATION TO COMPILATION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY WITH THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS by Muhammad Mustafa Al-A’zami, Leicester: UK, page 12; Al-A’zami quotes a letter that was published in the Yemeni newspaper ath-Thawra, 11 March 1999
  17. ^ Querying the Koran, by Abul Taher, The Guardian, 8 August 2000
  18. ^ Karl-Heinz Ohlig, Der frühe Islam, 2007, ISBN 3-89930-090-4
  19. ^ Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation (1977) and The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History (1978) by Wansbrough.
  20. ^ (Discusses Wansbrough)
  21. ^ Herbert Berg(2000), p.83
  22. ^ a b Carole Hillenbrand in The New Cambridge Medieval History, p.329
  23. ^ a b "Birmingham Qur'an manuscript dated among the oldest in the world". University of Birmingham. Retrieved 16 October 2017.
  24. ^ Hassan, Zuher (30 October 2015). "Birmingham Qur'an manuscript, is it as early as claimed?". The Muslim News. Retrieved 16 October 2017.
  25. ^ Lewis 1967, p. 37.
  26. ^ Humphreys, R. Stephen (1991). Islamic History: A framework for Inquiry (Revised ed.). Princeton University Press. p. 82. ISBN 0-691-00856-6.
  27. ^ ilmisfree (2012-03-04), Dr. Jonathan A.C. Brown - An Introduction to Hadith, retrieved 2016-12-11 (see from 0:01:13)
  28. ^ Holland, Tom (2012). "1. Known Unknowns". In the Shadow of the Sword: The Birth of Islam and the Rise of the Global ... Knopf Doubleday. Retrieved 25 September 2019.
  29. ^ William Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, Oxford University Press, p.xii
  30. ^ a b Raven, W. (1997). "SĪRA". Encyclopaedia of Islam. 9 (2nd ed.). Brill Academic Publishers. pp. 660–663. ISBN 90-04-10422-4.
  31. ^ Donner 1998, pp. 26–27.
  32. ^ Crone and Cook, Patricia and Michael (1980). Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 277. ISBN 0-521-29754-0.
  33. ^ Cook, Michael (1983-01-26). Muhammad. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 73–74. ISBN 0192876058.
  34. ^ Hoyland, Robert G (1998). Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam. Darwin. p. 591. ISBN 0878501258.
  35. ^ W. Wright, Catalogue Of Syriac Manuscripts In The British Museum Acquired Since The Year 1838, 1870, Part I, Printed by order of the Trustees: London, No. XCIV, pp. 65-66. This book was republished in 2002 by Gorgias Press.
  36. ^ Th. Nöldeke, "Zur Geschichte Der Araber Im 1, Jahrh. d.H. Aus Syrischen Quellen", Zeitschrift Der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 1876, Volume 29, p. 76.
  37. ^ A. Palmer (with contributions from S. P. Brock and R. G. Hoyland), The Seventh Century In The West-Syrian Chronicles Including Two Seventh-Century Syriac Apocalyptic Texts, 1993, Liverpool University Press: Liverpool (UK), pp. 2-3; Also see R. G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey And Evaluation Of Christian, Jewish And Zoroastrian Writings On Early Islam, 1997, op. cit., pp. 116-117
  38. ^ W. Wright, Catalogue Of Syriac Manuscripts In The British Museum Acquired Since The Year 1838, 1872, Part III, Printed by order of the Trustees: London, No. DCCCCXIII, pp. 1040–1041
  39. ^ A. Palmer (with contributions from S. P. Brock and R. G. Hoyland), The Seventh Century In The West-Syrian Chronicles Including Two Seventh-Century Syriac Apocalyptic Texts, 1993, op. cit., pp. 5–6; R. G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey And Evaluation Of Christian, Jewish And Zoroastrian Writings On Early Islam, 1997, op. cit., pp. 118–119
  40. ^ A. Palmer (with contributions from S. Brock and R. G. Hoyland), The Seventh Century In The West-Syrian Chronicles Including Two Seventh-Century Syriac Apocalyptic Texts, 1993, op. cit., pp. 18–19; Also see R. G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey And Evaluation Of Christian, Jewish And Zoroastrian Writings On Early Islam, 1997, op. cit., p. 119 and p. 120
  41. ^ A. Palmer (with contributions from S. P. Brock and R. G. Hoyland), The Seventh Century In The West-Syrian Chronicles Including Two Seventh-Century Syriac Apocalyptic Texts, 1993, op. cit., p. 19, note 119; Also see R. G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey And Evaluation Of Christian, Jewish And Zoroastrian Writings On Early Islam, 1997, op. cit., p. 120, note 14
  42. ^ R. G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey And Evaluation Of Christian, Jewish And Zoroastrian Writings On Early Islam, 1997, op. cit., p. 120
  43. ^ R. G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey And Evaluation Of Christian, Jewish And Zoroastrian Writings On Early Islam, 1997, op. cit., p. 128
  44. ^ R. W. Thomson (with contributions from J. Howard-Johnson & T. Greenwood), The Armenian History Attributed To Sebeos Part - I: Translation and Notes, 1999, Translated Texts For Historians - Volume 31, Liverpool University Press, pp. 95-96. Other translations can also be seen in P. Crone & M. Cook, Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World, 1977, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 6-7; R. G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey And Evaluation Of Christian, Jewish And Zoroastrian Writings On Early Islam, 1997, op. cit., p. 129; idem., "Sebeos, The Jews And The Rise Of Islam" in R. L. Nettler (Ed.), Medieval And Modern Perspectives On Muslim-Jewish Relations, 1995, Harwood Academic Publishers GmbH in cooperation with the Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, p. 89
  45. ^ R. W. Thomson (with contributions from J. Howard-Johnson & T. Greenwood), The Armenian History Attributed To Sebeos Part - II: Historical Commentary, 1999, Translated Texts For Historians - Volume 31, Liverpool University Press, p. 238
  46. ^ Wim Raven, Introduction on a translation of Islamic texts into Dutch by Ibn Ishaq, Het leven van Muhammad (The life of Muhammad), ISBN 90-5460-056-X.
  47. ^ Toby Lester: What Is the Koran? in: The Atlantic issue January 1999.
  48. ^ Alexander Stille: Scholars Are Quietly Offering New Theories of the Koran, New York Times 02 March 2002.
  49. ^ François de Blois, Islam in its Arabian Context, S. 615, in: The Qur'an in Context, ed. by Angelika Neuwirth etc., 2010.
  50. ^ Judith Herrin, Patricia Crone: memoir of a superb Islamic Scholar, openDemocracy 12 July 2015.
  51. ^ a b Patricia Crone: What do we actually know about Mohammed?, openDemocracy 10 June 2008
  52. ^ Blachere, R (1952). Le Probleme de Mahomet Essai de Biographie Critique du fondateur. Paris. pp. 17–18. found and translated in Ibn Warraq, ed. (2000). "1. Studies on Muhammad and the Rise of Islam". The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. Prometheus. p. 51.
  53. ^ Burton, J. Bulletin of the Society of Oriental and African Studies, v.53 (1990), p.328, cited in Ibn Warraq, ed. (2000). "2. Origins of Islam: A Critical Look at the Sources". The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. Prometheus. pp. 91.
  54. ^ Wells, Colin (February 2004). "Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2004.02.33". Bryn Mawr Classical Review. Retrieved 22 March 2011.
  55. ^ Andrew Higgins (16 November 2008). "Islamic Theologian Says Prophet Muhammad Likely Never Existed - WSJ". WSJ.
  56. ^ "The historicity of Muhammad, Aisha and who knows who else".
  57. ^ Cook, Michael (1996). Muhammad. Oxford University Press. pp. 73–76. ISBN 0192876058.
  58. ^ Crone, Patricia (10 June 2008). "What do we actually know about Mohammed?". Open Democracy.
  59. ^ Volker Popp, "Bildliche Darstellungen aus der Frühzeit des Islam (IV)" imprimatur 5+6/2004. Voker Popp, "Die frühe Islamgeschichte nach inschriftlichen und numismatischen Zeugnissen" in Karl-Heinz Ohlig (ed.), Die dunklen Anfänge. Neue Forschungen zur Entstehung und frühen Geschichte des Islam, Berlin 2005, 16–123 (here pp. 63ff).
  60. ^ Christoph Heger, 'yā muhammad ̣ – kein „o MOHAMMED“, und wer ist ‛alī?', in Markus Groß and Karl-Heinz Ohlig (eds.), Schlaglichter: Die beiden ersten islamischen Jahrhunderte, Berlin (Verlag Hans Schiler) 2008, pp. 278-292.


This page was last edited on 24 November 2019, at 22:06
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.