Is Muhammad's existence more probable than Jesus' existence?

>>1704395
Did muslims want to try harder to prove his existence? All I'm aware of proving the historic existence of Jesus is third party sources like Tacitus writing that he existed and was crucified by Pilate.

Does one third party source have the same weight as first party sources?

>>1704395
What written sources do we have for Muhammad? Don't we have a treaty that he signed in Medina with the Jewish and Christian communities?

Of the writings from Christ's time, probably 99.999% of them perished, since they didn't use parchment. For writings to survived, they had to be continuously copied every few years right up until the advent of parchment,then they had to be transferred to it. Islam started hundreds of years after the introduction of parchment as the main method of recording important things--prior to that, if you want a writing to be preserved without perpetual copying, you'd have to use stone or something.

Unless the writings were in Egypt, which preserves ancient writings remarkably well.

>>1704439
It didn't help when the christians destroyed the temples that housed much of those documents

What if they both existed? Wouldn't that be crazy?

They both existed, but Muhammad was ruler of most of Arabia (while Jesus was at most a footnote in his lifetime) so no shit he's better documented.

>>1704451
Christians never destroyed a temple being used as a library dude, at least there is no record of them doing that. Christians were not big into wrecking temples: it did happen, but Christians preferred just to use the temples for churches or other buildings.

>>1704472
>They both existed
There are a lot of evidences that they do and they don't

>>1704491
What case is there for saying Muhammad didn't exist? I'm only familiar with the one for Jesus

File: Muhammad_Bahrain_letter_facsimile.png (173KB, 706x422px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 706x422px

>>1704395
Yes considering Muhammad was a political leader. He's more probable than Jesus, who was merely a pleb.

Pic related: you know where ISIS gets their flag? Its off Muhammad's seal based off the letters he sent to heads of state around Arabia.

>>1704451
>Temple holding a library

Such temple doesn't exist and never existed.

>>1704395
If Muhammad didn't exist, who wrote the Qu'ran?

>>1704404
If a third party like tacitus who didn't give a shit about jesus said he existed i have more reason to believe him than when some christian first party wants to prove he existed. Tacitus had no reason to lie about the existence of Jesus

>>1704395
I'm currently drawfagging an OC of nu-christ chan being culturally enriched.
Once it's coloured (lel) I'll look forward to posting it and having her be accepted as the new progressive woman she's supposed to be.

>>1704945
Tacitus wouldn't be a first hand witness, he'd just be going off the accounts of Christians

If there were any non-Christian firsthand accounts, it's doubtful they're around anymore, because it's a thousand to one they were even copied once, let alone for hundreds of years until the advent of parchment.

>>1705386
I didn't even know we had drawfags

>>1704491
that's misleading to the point of being flat out wrong
no credible historian debates either person's existence because they are some of the best documented and established people of their respective times

File: Get out.jpg (38KB, 500x440px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x440px

>>1704945
>>1705391
Tacitus never made any comments about the existence of Jesus, idiots. Tacitus merely mentions there were Christians who worshiped a so-called 'Chrestos', and that is literally it.

>>1705386
fuck you. you made me anticipate something and then you don't even post it.

>>1704395

Thomas the Presbyter wrote:

> In the year 945, indiction 7, on Friday 7 February (634) at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad (tayyaye d-Mhmt) in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician Bryrdn, whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region.

This is taken as an eyewitness account of the Muslim conquests as led by Muhammad, if not Muhammad himself. Strangely, this contradicts with the traditional accounts of Muhammad's death in 632, so it's possible that one or the other was wrong about the date, or that both are correct but Thomas just didn't know about Muhammad's death. Either way, it's evidence that people of the time knew about him.

Funnily enough, I think this strengthens the case of Jesus's historicity. Muhammad united the tribes and his armies later led conquests of Rome and Persia, and there are still only a handful of contemporary sources for his life.