format_quote Originally Posted by
anatolian
Can I ask if you have actually read my post and if you have also read the wikipedia page you linked me to?
The reason I ask is because I asked if there is any evidence of Muhammad existing during Muhammad's lifetime (outside Islamic sources). And you linked me to a page that says..
no Byzantine or Syriac sources provide any detail on "Muhammad's early career ... which predate the Muslim literature on the subject".
[45]
This page states the opposite of what I asked. I had actually already read this page and a few others before I asked this question. If I had already got the answer there then I wouldn't be asking here.
This page just confirms that any non-Muslim sources on Muhammad appear after Muhammad's lifetime when the Arabs actually made an impact outside their own area and carried with them a story/belief. Also the page you pointed me to states that Muhammad wasn't seen in those days as a Prophet or apostle but as an Arab King conquering territory. Not someone spreading a religion.
I find this confusing because from what I've read in Islamic sources. The neighbouring nations were well aware of Islam from the early days. Muslims sought asylum in neighbouring nations. Muhammad sent emissaries to neighbouring rulers and these rulers declared his prophecy after hearing about his piety and following. So I was expecting such information to be recorded or available but the only non Muslim information is post Muhammad's death and contradicts the Islamic sources.
Finally these sources claim Muhammad was still alive when Muslim sources had him already dead. So again they contradict the Islamic narrative on the subject.
Are you saying this wiki information on Muhammads life is what you prefer over the Islamic version that is taught? If so, then when do you think Muhammad started prosletysing. Was it after he conquered non-Arabs?