You have made Muhammad unhistorical

Submitted by Plato (India), Sep 15, 2011 at 13:22

Amin Riaz,

You wrote:

>>Which "Fact of History" - history is mostly based around unreliable evidence. Unless there is too large a body of evidence ... Plus each unique "HISTORICAL FACT" as you put it is on its own merit. Why did you ask this general question? You had a reason for it - But did not mention it.<<

This makes Muhammad himself unhistorical. Because all the evidence about Muhammad appears long after he was dead including the so-called sahi hadith. How reliable can hearsay passed down from a chain of narrators be? The fantastic stuff in the hadith is evidence that they are Chinese whispers only remotely connected with some real life character.

Regards

Plato

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".