Two New Findings Prove Mohammed Never Existed - Dr. Jay Smith

The faster radical Islam uses the Democrat Party to spread Islamofascism and the takeover of American Cities and opening the doors of illegal immigration into America the faster muslims are leaving Islam all together as new evidence demonstrates forces them to conclude that Muhammad Never existed.

Notes: https://storage.sardius.media/E41A88258AfdE5b/archives/8AdD8062a7F9Dc803e3AA133BF1F/static/FDCaF6/eC6F3c5925CD.pptx

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 = 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: 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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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?

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 contends. Yet it shouldn’t be, considering how recent it supposedly was created, and all of it written on vellum (animal skins).