If you are going all logical on me ....

Submitted by Amin Riaz (United Kingdom), Sep 15, 2011 at 20:51

How nice .... answer from PLATO!

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.

Unhistorical is the wrong word - but I know what you mean. It "could" mean he did not exist. Depends what you believe in really. And in which way you assess the evidence - but most "people" Muslims and non-Muslims scholars tend to believe he existed.

You can say the same about anyone. Long after we the information age are gone. History will still have the possibility of being wrong. Even if the evidence is stronger.

If you are going all logical on me .... put in the extra shift. I started on computation, logic and philosophy pretty early.

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".