Unveiling the Historical Enigma: Did Muhammad Exist?

Dive into a provocative exploration of one of history’s most debated questions in this compelling lecture by Dr. Jay Smith, titled “Two New Findings That Mohammed Didn’t Exist.” Delivered with passion and backed by years of research, Dr. Smith challenges the foundational narratives of Islam by examining the historical evidence—or lack thereof—surrounding Muhammad, the Quran, and the city of Mecca. Drawing from his experiences at London’s Speaker’s Corner and academic insights from scholars like Dr. Patricia Crone, this talk unravels the Standard Islamic Narrative with startling revelations. Whether you’re a skeptic, a believer, or simply curious, this video will spark deep reflection and ignite lively discussion. Watch now to uncover the evidence and join the conversation that’s reshaping our understanding of history!

---

“DISMANTLING ISLAM HISTORICALLY”

Get the PowerPoint notes here:

PowerPoint notes-Two New Findings That Mohammed Didn’t Exist | Dr. Jay Smith.pptx

PowerPoint notes-Two New Findings That Mohammed Didn’t Exist | Dr. Jay Smith.pdf

---

Transcript of : “Two New Findings That Mohammed Didn’t Exist | Dr. Jay Smith”

“To get an introduction, I kind of give you I need to give you a little bit of background as to who and why I’m even talking about this tonight. And to do that, we need to go back to London 1992 when my wife and I were sent there to engage with the radical Muslims in London. London has a million Muslims in a city of 10 million. Onetenth of the population are Muslims and they are some of the best Muslims you can get. Why? Because they come from three countries, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. That’s my background. I was born in India. My parents, my father was born in India. My grandfather’s grave is in India. My family have been in India since 1913, over a hundred years. My sister still lives there is where I was born. I grew up. And I grew up in a school where most of the Muslims that came to that school, goodness sakes, they were my roommates. They were my classmates. And almost any big discussion we had was about the trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the authority of scriptures. I had it in the neck and I grew up with this and that’s what prepared me for what I’m doing today. Having grown up with those great Muslims. When I left India 1971, I left high school there. I wanted nothing to do with Islam. I was fed up with all this this this uh this huge amount of discussion and and really aggravation from these Muslims.

But what was fascinating is it was those Muslims that really prepared me for what I’m doing. It is those Muslims that really were the ones and I had I could not get over the fact that they absolutely believe that Muhammad was the prophet that the book Quran was his revelation that it was the eternal revelation completely preserved never being created and that Allah was God. Fascinating that they knew those three things and no one really could question those three things. So when I came to America and did my undergraduate and was going through my graduate course, finishing off my uh divinity, my wife and I went to a seminar, just a one-day seminar in Philadelphia on Islam and we were told three things. We were told that there were 800 million Muslims. This is 1981 when there were only 800 million Muslims. Now it’s almost two billion. But 800 million Muslims. Now, how do you compute a number like that? Goes in this year, goes out this year. You can’t really compute. It’s just too big. And then we were told that there were only 1,500 missionaries working amongst us 800 million. And that this 1,500 missionaries only made up 2% of all the missionaries.

Those two numbers slapped me in the face. And I turned to my wife and says, “What in the world are we doing wrong? Why are we sending only 2% of all our missionaries to the fastest growing religion on earth? the religion that is attacking us at our foundation. It’s the religion that’s attacking our Lord Jesus Christ and our scriptures like no other. And that’s why I decided to get back into Islam in 1981 because of two numbers 152%. That was my Pauline call folks and ever since that’s the last 40 what 44 years now I have been working in Islam 44 years of engaging with Muslims the most beautiful people on earth the most my favorite people because they absolutely believe in everything that they say unlike so many Christians and they’re willing to die for what they believe unfortunately they’re willing to take you with them nonetheless It’s not that they’re doing it because they love it. It’s because of that book, the Quran. This book right here. This is the one that does all the damage. But tonight, I’m not going to talk about this book. I did that a year and a half ago. We’re not going to talk so much about this book. I’m going to talk about the man behind this book. The man that received this book, the man that supposedly from 610 to 632, that 22-year period, they received these two halves. If you take the Quran in half, look at this is really damaged. Can you tell the Muslims have stolen from me five times and the police have always gotten it back and it is about ready to fall to pieces. But this is the book I’ve been using for year upon year. They’re on the ladder at Speaker’s Corner every Sunday for 25 years. I use this book. And when you look at this book, it’s you can’t even tell the printing on the outside, but it goes this direction. So it goes Arabic. So it goes from the right to left. So that would be Medina. This would be Mecca. Medina means that’s the part when Muhammad was living in Medina afterwards. And this is when he lived in Mecca from 610 to 622. This is what he received first. So this is the first part of the Quran, though it’s the second half that’s written. Isn’t that odd? Turn upside down. You get the right sequence. Nonetheless, let’s go back to that sequence. And this is the part that really not there’s not too much in this part that we would not that we would have problems with. Oh, there’s lots of stories here that make no sense. But it’s this half that has caused all the problems. This is where the violence is. This is where the misogyny is against women. Chapter 4. Chapter two. This is the problem that we’re all confronting. And I did that for 30, 40 years. I I confronted this part. And I found out that the best place to do that was a place called Speaker’s Corner. So I used to go down to Speaker’s Corner. If you ever go to London, go to Speaker’s Corner. It only exists on Sundays. And it’s the place you need to go to because that’s where you engage with Muslims face to face. It’s the greatest laboratory in the world because you can say anything you want. I kid you not. It’s the bastion of freedom of speech.

It’s been around for 200 years. It’s where they used to execute all the prisoners every Sunday. And people would come because there was no television or or radio back then. How did they get entertained? They would go and watch the executions on Sunday. And before the the prisoners were executed, they were given their last defense and they would get up on these little soap boxes, stand up on those soap boxes, and they would try to defend what they had done. Of course, it never worked. They still got executed, but the soap boxes remained. So when the executions were finished, the crowds were there, thousands of people, and people got up on those soap boxes and started preaching or they started teaching or they started yelling or they started discussing and debating. And so it became speaker’s corner. Now today, we don’t use soap boxes anymore. And that’s where that term get off your soap box. It comes from speaker’s corner. Now we use these little kitchen ladders that let you all have in your kitchen. These little A-frame ladders with two steps just so your head’s above the audience so that you can be heard. That’s why I feel very comfortable right now because I’m above you looking down on you. The problem is the higher I go, the farther I fall. And so Speaker’s Corner was very violent back in the 1990s.

They had not yet become the religion of peace. That only happened after 9/11. They were still quite violent. And when they ran out of ideas, they used their fists and it was not a pleasant place to be. But I would go down there every Sunday and always always I would try to engage with them and I we did what we call but by the seat of our pants because there was nothing there to help us. There was no book written on how to engage face to face with Muslims and how to debate them and how to discuss them. Everything was attacking attacking attacking. When I got down there they all had Bibles in their hands. Yes, Bibles, not Qurans. None of them had Qurans. They always had Bibles with little post-it notes all the way through. And all these post-it notes were about the historical anacronisms of our Bible, the the internal contradictions. Did you know that we have all kinds of scientific errors in the Bible? Have you heard about this? I hadn’t heard about this. I have two master’s degree, one in divinity and the other one in Islamics here at Fuller Seminary, and no one had taught me this. I hope Jack’s teaching you all this.

No, he’s teaching you how to answer those kind of attacks. See, they were confronting my Bible, all these confrontation. And I remember the first Sunday I was down there. I was overwhelmed. I had no idea that I was going to get this kind of confrontation. And I wanted to get out of there. And I went home and I was bruised and battered. Not physically. I my ego was bruised, everything. Cuz I thought I knew everything. And these guys ran circles around me. My wife saw how disgruntled I was, and so she kicked me out the door the next Sunday, made me go back down again. What a wife. If you met her, you’d see why. He says, “Get back on the horse again. If you’re going to fall off the horse, just get back up and learn. Take a notebook with you and just learn and hear what their questions are and then find answers.” Now, there was no internet back then in 1992 and there was no Google to ask your questions. You had to find out by going to the library or calling up somebody or trying to remember what you learned in seminary. I had nothing to help me. And I noticed that all the questions were coming one way, this way. They’re always attacking my Lord. Always two subjects. Jesus and the Bible.

Jesus in the Bible. Well, what two subjects do you want to talk about? But those two, right? What great subjects. And these were the Muslims that were asking me, see if you see an an atheist or a humanist or anybody else. I want to talk to you about those two subjects. Only Muslims want to talk about those two subjects. And they should be our favorite subjects. Now to defend against that, that’s called apologetics. Apologetics. Apologetics. That’s defense. And I had to learn my apologetics by the seat of my pants. It was difficult. I was hard. I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t know where to go. And then I went to and I did a course at the University of London by this man here, Dr. Gerald Hotting. He had a course there at School of Orange and African Studies on the origins of Islam. Well, I said, “Well, I thought I knew everything. This would be a fun course to do. Let’s see what he’s talking about.” And there was about 50 students in the class and the very first day he started saying do you know we can’t find any reference to this man named Muhammad in the seventh century. I said what? Not one word about this man named Muhammad in the seventh century.

He said the earliest we can find about his biography is not till a man named Ibisham. There it is right there. Ibn Isham. I just showed it to you. Ibn Isam right there. This is the first guy that ever wrote down his biography. And he died in 8:33. 8:33. Muhammad died in 632. Do you see a problem, folks? There it is right there. 8:33 when this guy finally writes it down. That’s a 200-year gap. What happened? What happened in the intervening 200 years? And he says, you know, we can’t find any mosque facing Mecca at all in the seventh century. I said, I never been taught this. Why hasn’t I learned that in seminary? Why didn’t I learn that at fuller? Why didn’t I learn that from the Muslims who had I was engaging with all these years?

And he said, “Take a look at the Dome of the Rock. Probably the most famous building that’s been built by a Muslim in the last 1400 years. The most beautiful building. It’s right there in Jerusalem. Notice it has no kibla. Direction of prayer.” That’s true. It has no kibla. It should be facing Mecca, right? Every mosque or every religious building should be facing Mecca. This has no kibla. I said, “Well, how come I’ve not heard this?” And as he was putting out these curious little tidbits, half the class were made up of Muslim students and they started getting up, going to the door, slamming the door, turning towards Dr. Hottie and saying not very pleasant things to never came back. Within two weeks, we lost all of our Muslims. Two weeks, 25 Muslims had left. If you’re a professor on a university and you lose half your class, what are you going to do for your career? You cannot lose your students. And so he started toning down, toning down, toning down and start stopped coming to conclusion and stopped asking these questions. Well, I love these questions. And I saw the reaction of the students. I said, “Wait a minute. Wait a minute. If the Dome of the Rock has no kibla, then what does that mean, Dr. Haunting?” And he wouldn’t answer. He didn’t want to answer because he didn’t want to lose any more students.

So I start taking this down to speaker’s corner and I start putting it up there and I got beat up. I mean physically beat up. They knocked me out and I got one time there were 60 Muslims around me kicking me. I went unconscious. I had no idea what happened. When the police finally pulled me out, they said there a black man came and laid on top of me and took the blows for me. I said, “Where is he?” He had disappeared. I call him Barry, my black angel. I have a black angel. Barry. He saved me my life twice now at Speaker’s Corner in the 25 years I’ve been there. But I suddenly realize this material is potent. This is heavy material. If this is the only reactions Muslim have is to beat you up or to walk out the door and slam the door and yell at you as you’re walking out, if that is the only reaction they have, we got to learn this material. We got to know this material. That was in then in 1995 some of these students came to me and they said we can’t answer this but there’s a man who can his name is Dr. Jamal Badawi and they said we want you to debate him there it is Dr. Badawi and myself.

He is the world’s leading authority on the Quran. He had done 400 uh 400 I’m sorry 300 videotapes. You know these old boxes, these little VHS’s for those who are at gray hair. You remember the VHS boxes that we had to use and he had done 300 of these videos just on the Quran. They said he’s coming back from Malaysia. He’s going to stop in London on his way back to Halifax in Canada. Would you be willing to debate him? Well, I hadn’t done a debate before. We don’t get trained up in how to do debates in seminary. Not in homalytics class. We’re trained just to say make sure that you take a subject only keep it to 20 minutes. Say three things about that subject. Make sure you support it in scripture and then always have a good conclusion at the end and then as you walk out the door people shake your hand say what a great sermon you’ve done. Nothing about debating, nothing about getting confronting or people supporting and people yelling at you and calling you all kinds of name giving you death threats that we weren’t taught in homalytics. So I said okay let me try it out and so I went up to see a woman who named who her name was Dr. Patricia Kurun. Dr. Patricia Kurun is the leading authority on Mecca. She is from Denmark. She reads and writes 15 archaic languages. How many of you can read and write 15 archaic languages? Show of hands. None.

She’s unique in the world. And these are languages that no one uses anymore. Nabotine Aramaic. Cyroamaic Aadian. Amazing woman. She’s a linguist. She studied there at the same school, School of Orient African Studies. Got her doctorate there and became head of department at Oxford University when I got to know her. And when I started my doctoral thesis, she was my supervisor and she was the one that actually wrote two books, one called Hagerism and the other called Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam. She shut down Mecca and all she did was look for source material from the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth up until the seventh and eth century. Only using evidence from those centuries, trying to find this city called Mecca. Could not find any reference to the city called Mecca at all. So I said, well, I’m going to use her. I went up to her and of course we were she knew me and we went into by this time she had a death threat from Oxford University for writing mech and trade in 1997 and so she transferred up to Cambridge University was headed department at that time and I sat in her office for one afternoon for about three hours as we put together this debate she said do this here’s a better way to say it here why don’t you use it I finally turned to her and I said Dr. Corona, why aren’t you doing this debate? This is your material. You have the languages. You’re the one that’s done the research. Me, what do I know? I’m just going to mimic you and copy you. And she turned to me and she started laugh. She said, “Jay, let me tell you something. I have a chair to protect.

I have an institution to represent. I could never do this debate. I don’t have the freedom to do this debate as an academic. But you, you have no chair to protect. And the only person you represent, his name is Jesus Christ. What an answer. Here’s an atheist telling me that we’re the only ones that can do this debate. We have a freedom they don’t have. As Christians, we have a freedom because of Jesus Christ that they do not have. So I said, “Okay, let’s go.” I did this debate. Took us two hours.

At the end of debate, I gave 10 historical challenges. All of them hurt her challenges. He did not have an answer for any of them. And he turns to me at the end and he says, “You know, Mr. Smith, all you’ve done is shown us everything you’ve brought is based on silence. There’s just nothing there. Granted, there’s nothing there. Everything you’ve done is based on silence. And the absence of evidence does not prove the evidence of absence.

And he hung me. The absence of evidence does not prove the evidence of absence. I had nowhere to go. He was right. I didn’t have any evidence. He didn’t have any evidence. So, we’re just silence. There was no reference to this man named Muhammad. We can’t find any reference to the city called Mecca. We can’t find any manuscript for any book called the Quran. None of this we can find in the seventh century. But that’s just silence. Where’s the evidence?

How do you prove evidence for something that never existed? Do you see the problem, folks? That was 1995. This is 2025. 30 years later and everything I’m going to introduce tonight is based on evidence. We finally have the evidence.

But here’s what’s fascinating. Everything’s turned on its head. Cuz if we have the evidence, then what do they have? Absolutely nothing.

Now suddenly everything the Muslims are going to present is based on silence. They have no evidence for their man Muhammad. Okay. Now no one has dared to debate me on this until this year and a man named Raben Ibrahim. But before I do that, let me just put go ahead something else I want to bring up because this was causing a huge wave and a lot of problems there at Speaker’s Corner. A lot of the Christians were getting quite upset and especially the Anglican church and I was not Anglican and I was an American there in Britain. Who what is this American doing causing all this problems there in Britain and so Colin Chapman you can see him over on the right. He was he was in charge responsible for all the Islamic work for the Archbishop of Canterbury. And so he came to me and he says, “Jay, you’ve got to stop what you’re doing. Do not do not do this.” He says, “I’m going we’re going to put together a debate and we’re going to be it’s going to be an internal debate. It’s between you and Dr. David Marshall who you see pictured there with the glasses. Dr. David Marshall has a doctorate from Oxford University on the Quran. So, he’s an academic himself. And we’re going to bring in scholars. All of them are Christians. So, be this is what we call an in-house debate. And it’s between you and Dr. Marshall. And it’s going to be on basically two subjects. Should we use historical criticism and should we use paleics in our engagement with Muslims? Now you know where I stood on both those issues. I said yes to both those issues. He said no to both those issues. We should not use historical criticism and we should not use pmics. PMIC. What do I mean by pmics? Anybody here not know what pmics is? Oh boy. Okay. All right. How do I define pmics?

Well, I told you what apologetics is, right? Just defending the faith. Defending means making sure that whenever anybody confronts Jesus or our Bible, we answer them. That’s called apologetics. It’s much like your football team. You have a football team here. I’m not going to ask you which one is the favorite because you’ll start fighting amongst each other. So, let’s just say whatever is your favorite football team. Don’t you have two teams within within every football team? One called defense and the other called offense. And don’t they have two different skills? The defense has to make sure that the others don’t score against them and score the touchdown. They’re t they’re big guys. They’re really muscular. And boy are they hard because they create walls to stop the others from scoring. Right. The offense, however, has a totally different object. They have to push against the others, but they have they can run and they can toss and they’re a lot more exciting and they are the ones that actually win the game, right? They are the ones that whose names you hear and they’re the ones who have the highest salary. And see, in Christianity, defense would be apologetics. Offense would be pymics.

It’s as simple as that. So, if you’re defending the faith, you better know everything you you can about the Bible and Jesus. Those are the two things you need to know. If you’re going on the offense, especially against Islam, you better know the Quran. You better know Muhammad. But how many of you have studied the Quran or studied Muhammad? Few hands. We don’t teach that here.

There is no school in the world that teaches Islamic apologetics or pimics except ours. Mappy, Master of Arts and Apologetics and PMIC to Islam. And guess at what institution that is being taught? Veraritoss International University.

That’s your university, folks. It’s a Calvary Chapel Seminary. Did you not know that? Veraritoss International University is your seminary in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The only place on earth where you can learn Islamic apologetics and pmics. And I direct it. And I have five of us. All of us have doctorates. Every one of us have had either 20 years or more experience engaging with Muslims both apologetically and pmically. Now do you know what apologetics and pmics is? Office is defense. Pymics is offense. It’s as simple as that. Two different sets of skills. And in many discussions you have to use both simultaneously.

And I had to do that every Sunday afternoon. I would have to use sometimes defense defense and then I go on the offense. They throw the questions. I’d answer them. Then I throw the same questions right back in their laps. and that we’re not teaching anybody until now. I’ve just come back from England. I have to be careful. I’m not going to say too much, but I there was something that happened about three weeks ago in England in London where we brought all the best plemes in the world together in one place. I brought them all over 15 of the top ples in the world against Islam and about 300 then showed up and they all had to be people we knew. It was an invitation only. I’m not going to tell you where it was because I don’t want the Muslims to find out where it was.

And we went for three days just learning how to use polymics, how to use internal pymics and cultural pymics and external polymics. I’ll explain that a little bit later. And for three days, 300 of us learned how to confront Islam head-on. And then Sunday, we went down to Speaker’s Corner and shut down the corner. It was so much fun. You’ll see the videos. It is amazing. And I had my ladder and I had another ladder next to me. and I had 50 different people get up on the ladder the first time for most of them and they used the best pymics they could come across and the Muslims had no idea how to shut us down. And then we went up to a restaurant afterwards and 150 of us had dinner together and I looked at all these guys and gals and they’re all in their 20s and 30s folks. They’re young. Every one of them is more eloquent than me, quicker than me, smarter than me.

Boy, we’re going to lift them off and unleash them on the Muslim world. You got to realize we are going to take Islam. That just happened three weeks ago. We’re going to do it again next year and the year after that. We’re raising up a whole new generation of young men and women who are quick and they are bright and they are fearless. There is no fear in any of them. Oh, I love that. It is so nice. So anyways back to the story we had this debate two hours and there was 50 academics who were there all Christians and after two hours I was arguing yes we should use pmics yes we use should use historical criticism he was saying no no no no after two hours we finished the debate and then they had a show of hands and they wanted to know how many were with Dr. David Marshall and how many went came with me? 25 went with him. 25 went with me. Who do you think went with him? The academics or the missionaries? Okay, I’m getting both. So, I’m You’re right. For those who were correct, you’re right. It was the academics who went with him and the missionaries went with me. I couldn’t understand that. I thought for heaven’s sakes, the academics would go with me because this is all academic material. It’s all historical. Where else do you learn that but in academia? But they all went with him. And I didn’t understand it. And Dr. until Dr. Peter Redell then explained to me on the way home. He was in my car with me and he said, “Dave, let me explain something to you. I’m an academic. In fact, he was my the professor for my doctorate. He was the one that help get helped me get my doctorate at Melbourne School of Theology. He’s Australian and he’s an academic there. And he said, “We academics, we understand what you’re doing. We understand why you’re doing it, but we can’t do this cuz in our institution there are many Muslims who are on staff with us. We can’t use polymics and certainly not historical criticism, not in our academic institutions. We’d use lose our our chairs. We would be thrown out. We’d lose our tenure. But you as a missionary, he was saying the same thing to me that Dr. Patricia Cron had said back in 1995. Isn’t that interesting? And I realized the penny dropped. This is something we have to do. This is something we must do. Those of us who are on the ground. So since then our material has really matured. We have gone much quicker, much faster. And of course in the last 20, 30 years. By 2023, I came here to this church and I presented the book, The Man in the Place. Just those three subjects right here in the same hall. And there are about 2,000 people here. They didn’t even know who I was because it was a Wednesday night and Jack Hibs couldn’t make it. So he asked if I could do it. I said, “Okay.” So it it was kind of a audience of just made of people who walked in to hear Jack Hibs and I was here instead and they just kind of looked at me like a deer in front of a headlight cuz they had no idea what I was talking about and I didn’t sure wasn’t sure that they would ever understand what I was talking about. So I just said just look at the screen. Follow the screen. For those of you here, remember that a lot of you who were here, you probably didn’t know who I was or what I was going to talk about. And when you left, you say, “What in the world did he just say?”

That as John is right, 2.6 million people have watched that all over the world. On my site, over half a million have watched that. So, it’s over three million people have watched that. It’s gone all over the world. And that’s why I then had to come back and unpack it for four hours to get slow it down. Now, since then, since 2023, no one’s really taken me on. They can’t because how can you take me on? In order to take me on, you have to have evidence from the seventh century. And as you can see tonight, there just is no evidence that supports that man, that book, or that place until April of this year. And then a man named Raymond Raymond Ibrahim, who’s a Christian, put up these two videos in April of this year. Raymond Ibrahim, how many of you know who Raymond Ibrahim is? Okay, one good man, fine Christian debater, and he’s the only one that’s dared to do this. And I thank God that he did this because he put up two videos, one on uh April 9th and the other one on April 11th, basically saying that, and he’s really is attacking me. He says, you know, I I think I don’t think Jay knows what she’s talking about. He said, “This idea that Muhammad didn’t exist is not only laughable, it is probably the worst PMIC at all to use. It’s the weakest pmic we could ever use.”

The weakest pmic you can use. Isn’t that interesting? So, what I’m going to do tonight is I’m going to shut him down. I’m going to take the 10 accusations and he gave 10 accusations. I you know if you’re watching Raymond Hebrewin thank you for doing this because finally I have an academic who’s actually taking me on on these subjects and you gave 10 good questions and these are the same questions you’re going to hit if you go out in the in the world and if you talk to Muslims and the number one first thing is is Muhammad is one of the most historically supported people in history. So you cannot say he didn’t exist because there’s so much historical support for him. Number two in fact Muhammad has more historical support for him than Jesus has. Woo! Oh, I love that. Number three, if Muhammad did not exist, how can you explain the Sunni Shiite divide, the Sunnis who are confronting the Shiites, the Shiites from Iran and Iraq? Look what’s going on in the world right now. Look at all the problems. It’s all between Sunnis and Shiites. How can you explain that if Muhammad didn’t exist? Number four, there are no incontrovertible proofs of Muhammad’s non-existence. Woo, that’s a real whammy.

I can see someone laughing already because you can see that’s actually it’s a contradicting term. Since the traditions, that’s the Islamic traditions about Muhammad are so embarrassing. Why would they write them? He’s such an embarrassment, Mr. Smith. Number six, Mecca. You can’t use Mecca against Muhammad. It’s not an argument. You can use a Mecca against Muhammad. Number seven, no one can prove or disprove historical facts. Oh boy, that’s a whammy. And it comes down to a matter of faith. Doesn’t matter what you find. Muslims will always believe it. Number nine, the claims against Muhammad’s existence are merely an academic and subjective exercise. That’s all it is. Just because you don’t like Muslims is what he said. Boy, I wonder where he got that from. And then number 10, the best pymic is not the historical pmic. The best mater PMIC is just to show how irrelevant Muhammad is. Confront his character. confront his morality. That’s the best pmic. That’s what we call the internal palemic. So tonight, what I’m going to do, let’s go through each one of these 10 to see if I or Raymond, actually I should call him Raymond from here on out because I have two good friends named Ibrahim. One is Iman Ibrahim and the other one is Raymond Ibrahim. I don’t know Raymond Ibrahim. I’ve never met him. I’m sure he’s a great guy, but I know I’m in Ibrahim and I’m in Ibrahim actually is head of of SCES on the Islamic branch there. He’s in charge of the ent Islamic word and he absolutely stands with me on this position. So rather than call him Ibrahim because people confuse which Ibrahim I’m talking. Let’s just call Raymond and Iman. Okay, we’ll stick with Raymond from here on out. So here we go.

This is what the Muslims claim. This is what the Islamic traditions claim. This is what the standard Islamic narratives say. Isn’t that great? Standard Islamic narrative. S I N. This is what sin tells us. Muslims sin’s traditional claims. They say this. For the past 1400 years, Muhammad was the last and greatest prophet. He modeled Islam as the paradigm for the world. He received the Quran as his final revelation for the world. Therefore, the Quran, his revelation was sent down only to him between 610 and 632. It is the greatest, the only perfectly preserved revelation and also the final revelation. It corrects the previously corrupted revelation. In other words, our revelation. And therefore, Mecca was the city Muhammad was born in and lived in for the first 52 years of his life. Thus, Islam is completely dependent on three things. Now, this you’ve seen before for those of you who are here before. These are the three things. One book called the Quran, one man named Muhammad, and one place called Mecca. Since these three areas are foundational to Islam, we should investigate them at the time they all existed. That means in the early 7th century and in the place they existed, that means the central western part of Arabia known as the hijaz where Mecca and Medina are located. So notice these three things are what holds up Islam. It’s like three legs of a stool. You have the Quran, you have Muhammad, and you have Mecca as the three legs. If you start to attack one of those legs and it finally collapses, the other two collapse as well. All three are needed. You can’t have one without the other. One without the other two. Are you following that? Yes.

With that in mind, let’s now look at Raymond’s 10 suppositions and assess them one by one. Supposition number one, Muhammad is one of the most historically supported people in history. How many people, just show of hands, believe that? Wow. Not one of you. I’m already got you converted. week you go on to supposition number two then no we need to stop we need to go with supposition one so you know how to answer this okay now to understand what he’s talking about we need to look at what they’re saying this is what he says this is what the Muslims will say they would believe that if you look at that map there that Muhammad Empire included that brown area so that that’s that area right there or over on this side right there I’m going have to do this two both sides okay that brown area where Mecca and Medina look where Mecca and Medina farther right in the central western part of that brown area. So when he died in 632 that’s as large as Islam was once he died then you have Abu Bakr Omar Utman and Ali the next four kaiffs what they call the rightly guided caiffs then come to power and they expand the borders out and so it includes all the orange area from Tripoli all the way to India and from uh Turkey all the way down to Yemen over on this side from Tripoli to India and from Turkey all the way down to the Hudma or what is day Yemen in Oman that’s a pretty big area so it is by far by 66 61. It is the second largest superpower of its day by that time. And then when the Umayides come to power in 661, starting with Muia, he then he and others after him up until 749. For the next roughly hundred years, they expanded out to the purple area. So it includes Spain all the way to India. And then from Yemen all the way to Turkey over here. There’s Spain and there’s India and there’s Turkey and there is Yemen. So all that area comes under their jurisdiction. That’s their story and there’s been no reason not to confront it or uh dissuade you from it because it’s a pretty good story. I mean that’s all we’ve been told, right? And you’ve always believed that there was a man named Muhammad and there were four kaiffs that followed after him, Abu Bakr, um um man, and Ali.

But I’m going to show you there’s a problem with that. Let’s look and see where we get Islam’s emergence. Let’s put it on a timeline so you can see what’s going on. So Muhammad according to what the Islamic narrative, the standard Islamic narrative sin tells us is that Muhammad was born in 570. He started receiving his revelations in a place called Mecca in 610. And then in 6:21 he suddenly is woken up in the middle of the night and told to get on the back of a winged horse called the Burak who flies him up from Mecca up to Jerusalem. He goes up to the seven heavens and meets Allah who tells him to preipay 50 times a day. He comes down to the fifth heaven, meets Moses. Ah that’s way too many. So he bounces back and forth between the fifth and the seventh heaven getting it down from 50 to 45 to 35 to 15 to 10 down to five prayers. Once he gets it to five prayers, Moses, okay, that’s enough. So he shuts back down to Jerusalem, gets on back to the wing horse and flies back to Mecca. That happens in 621. It’s known as the mirage. You’ve all heard this before. You this is nothing new. And then in 6:22, he then moves from Mecca up to Medina and takes over and become that’s where the cale starts in 622. He then comes back to Mecca and takes over Mecca. So now he controls both Mecca and Medina in 6:30. And he controls the holy places where the Cabba is. And then he dies in 632 poisoned by one of his wives. So that’s his life. That’s the timeline to show you what Muhammad’s life is like. And then Abu Bakr comes. He only lasts two years. He then dies peacefully. Uh that he is followed by Umar who only lasts 10 years. Uh he is killed. So when he is killed, Uman takes over. He only lasts 12 years. He is killed. But while he is in power, the Quran is put together. When he is killed, Ali takes over, the adopted son of Muhammad. And he only lasts 5 years before he is killed at the battle of Sifen by Buuya. So what am I putting that up there? What we’re saying according to what standard Islamic narrative tells us and what Raymond Ibrahim tells us that Islam was fully formed by 661, right? Mid7th century.

We’re talking about the seventh century still, 1400 years ago. Now, here’s the problem. How do we know everything I’ve just told you? And I’ve not told you much. I’ve just told you bare bones because we have to be careful of time. That’s what they tell us. Where did that story come from? That’s what you want to know. Well, the story comes from the Islamic traditions, the standard Islamic narrative. This is what they tell us. And when you go to the standard Islamic narrative, they tell us that Muhammad dies in 632. And the person that writes his biography down is this guy, Ibn Isak. Iban is suck. The only problem is look when he died. Whenever you see a D, that means his death date. I’m always I’m putting their death dates because they can’t write anything after they die. All right. So, I’m putting the last possible time they could have written something down. 765. Do you see a problem with that, folks? Did Iban Isak know Muhammad? Did he ever see Muhammad?

Did he hear Muhammad? So, how did he know his biography? Do you have anything written by Iban Isak? No. So, I held this up. Where does this come from?

That’s not Ibn Isak. His name is Ibnisham. This guy is the guy that wrote it down. This is the one that took what Ibn Isak said, didn’t like a lot of it, so he threw it out and only retained what he liked. And so that’s what we have today. So these two books, these two volumes come from a man named Ibam. Look when he died, 833. That’s even later. That’s 70 years later. And then another man named Alwaki who wrote down this the battles of Muhammad. So they are the ones that actually give us the story of Muhammad’s life, not Ibnisak. So bye-bye. We don’t need you. Goodbye. Now that’s the first genre. The second genre are known as the hadith, the sayings of Muhammad. And they’re written down by these guys here. Al Bukhari is the most important. He is the most prolific. He is the one that was given 600,000 of these stories. And he whittleled them down all the way down to 7,000 uh sorry 7,439. So he throws out 98% and only retains 2%. And he does that before he dies in 870. Then we have Sahib Muslim who dies in 875. It midi 884. Look at the dates they die. 887 899 for Dawud Nissa 915. 1 2 3 4 5 six of them. Did any of them know Muhammad? Did they ever hear him say anything yet? They write down what he said. They all lived 240 and later years after Muhammad. That’s not the only genre. We have two more genre. The taps and the that’s the commentaries that help you to understand the Quran. You can’t make sense of this. 25% of this even though Muslim scholars don’t understand. And if those of you who have read t…

d second century, the non-Muslim references to Muhammad, which objectively speaking are even more compelling since they were written much closer to their subject’s lifetime in the 9th and 10th century are dismissed as irrelevant by those who would make him a figment of our imagination. He therefore claims that since Muhammad is far more historically supported than Jesus Christ, by denying his historicity, we are not only being inconsistent but possibly dishonest.

Abdul, he called me dishonest. You don’t call me that. Of course, you’re standing right there. You can’t. So, is Raymon correct? Is the historical support for Muhammad greater than that for Jesus Christ?

Here’s my response. Both Raymond and I agree that there are many very early 7th century mostly non-Muslim and even Christian references to the word Muhammad. That’s why I had to go through that with you Kirk at the very beginning. Notice I didn’t say Muhammad the first only two years after he died. Whereas the first non-Christian references to Jesus do not appear until 60 years after he died. I’m willing to say that. But that’s not Muhammad. That’s Muhammad. Raymond gives only four examples. Actually, there’s 15 he could give. He only gave four. So I’m just going to deal with those four because of lack of time. He goes to the doctrine in Yakobi from 634 citing a dialogue in 7 uh in 634 where justice describes what his brother Abraham writes to him regarding a deceiving prophet who had appeared amidst the Sarasids and Abraham recalling a conversation with a Jewish scribe who called the prophet a deceiver who comes with the swords and chariot. Isn’t it getting confusing? Nonetheless, you have to read it so you understand what we’re talking about. That’s number one. Number two, he goes to the Thomas the Presbyterian 634 citing a battle between the Romans and the followers of Mahmud. Notice it’s with a T, not with a D. And number three, a Syriak fly leaf fragment uh fragment from 636 which mentions Muhammad by name. He says and this is what it says. Many villages were ravaged by the killing of Mahmud. Mahmud, not Muhammad. And the Coptic bishop John of Niku, he puts it at 641, but actually it’s written in 690s, refers to him as the detestable doctrine of the beast. that is Makm. Note, not one of these references uses the name Muhammad. They all use Muhammad or Makm. Let’s go through each one. The doctrine in Yakobia, a Greek Christian pmical tax uh track written in Carthage. Now, here’s my problems. It mentions the Sarashan prophet. It never mentions the name Mhmed or Muhammad anywhere. And it says that the Christ who was to come. Hold on a minute. Is Muhammad the Christ who is yet to come? No. That confronts chapter 33:40. And that he assumes that Muhammad is alive in 634. But according to their traditions, he died in 632. He had the keys of paradise which confronts the Islamic traditions. This prophet fits a Judeo-Christian monotheistic background. This Christ, this Christos in Greek, this Mashiach in Hebrew who was to come, not Muhammad. He has the keys to paradise. That comes from Matthew 16:1 19 referring to Peter’s paple paple authority in the Catholic Church. And this Mads or this Sarasan prophet who doesn’t have the name Muhammmed spoke Aramaic. I don’t recall Muhammad ever speaking Aramaic.

So coming and going, there is no reference to the name Muhammad in this track. No reference to the prophet being a Muslim or belonging to the religion of Islam, nor any reference to the city of Mecca, nor of his book, the Quran. He could be anybody. In fact, he sounds more like an Arab Christian brigant employing the status of a prophet to gain for himself more credibility and authority. There’s just nothing Islamic about this sarassid prophet. What about the Thomas of prespiter later revised in the 8th century and refers to a battle between the Romans and the Ta of Mahmmed. Notice Makm is the Palavi spelling which means he has to come from Iraq if he’s Palavi. That’s how they spelled it up there. And that he would have come from our present day Iraq which is 1200 miles to the north. He is a Thay. That’s the Mm of the Tay dominated by the Lakmud region. You can see on the map where the Lakmids are. They’re way up in Mesopotamia in Tajkasan in the 7th century. Note on the map where the red circle is is where the TA were located. Way too far to the north to be the Muhammad of the hij of central Arabia. He fights in Gaza. Yet none of Muhammad’s battles were in Gaza, nor anywhere near that far north. As before, he could be any Muhammmed or any praised one. Someone who is referred to as the praised one on honorific title for the leader of the Thai way up in northern Iraq. And then you have the Syriak fly leaf which refers to this battle in Yarmmuk in 636. Notice where Yarmmuk is. is in what is today southern Syria. The Arabs of the Mahmed who have a battle with the Gaba in Yarmmok. My problems is the battle is well documented. But note that it says the Arabs. So who were the seventh century Arabs? Look at the map up there and you will see where that that red rectangle is. They lived in today’s Jordan and Syria, not in the Hij. So way too far to the north to be the Muhammad of Islam. The Arabs defeated the Byzantines at that battle. But according to the standard Islamic narrative, Muhammad died in 632. What was he doing in 636 in a battle? Could this be yet another of 7th century northern Makm, thus someone who is simply referring as an honorific praised one? And then he goes to the Coptic bishop uh the Coptic bishop Niku and he writes this embrace the religion of the Muslims, the enemy of God, and they accepted the detestable doctrines of the beast that is Muhammad. Now, didn’t I just get done telling you about 10 minutes ago that there is no one called Muslims in the 7th century? But look at the date 690. What’s he calling people Muslims and calling Muhammad with the vowels in place? What does that tell you? There were no vows in the 7th century. The earliest manuscript of this is quoted in6002 from an Ethiopic translation from the Arabic which was from an earlier Greek translation, none of which exists today, suggesting once again that this is a later redaction back to the 7th century. So there was no reason why to use that because it’s way too late. This comes from the 17th century. It’s a fraud.

Now what about Christian’s historical record? Let’s use the crucifixion. Probably the most important event in the history of mankind. What does Islam do? What does this book do book do with the crucifixion? Well, in one verse, it shuts down the crucifixion. Has another man die in Jesus’s place. puts him on the cross instead of Jesus saying that there was no crucifixion. And in one verse, it just shuts down everything we know about Jesus Christ. That’s what the Quran does. Is that historical? No. Why do we go back to the evidence from the se the first and second century? Why don’t we go back to Thalus and Flega, these two Greek Samaritan historian and Roman writer who were debating this event in 52 AD. That’s 20 years after Christ’s death. And in the debate, they mentioned that when Christ died, the earth shook and the sun went dark. Don’t you think you’d rather trust them than the Quran that was written in the seventh and 8th century? I’d go to the first century, wouldn’t you? What about Lucy in the Greek satire that refers to the death of Jesus Christ? Or Mara Barerapen, who has a letter to the pagan in 73 AD. Or what about the Jewish historian Josephus who in between 83 and 90 AD not only talks about the death of Jesus, but he mentions also the brother of Jesus James death. And he mentions that the Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Woo, I love that. And then what are we going to do with Tacitus? A Roman historian who hated Christians, had nothing good to say about Christianity. Yet he talked about the death of Jesus. He t that happens during the time of Pontius Pilate under the rule of Tiberius. That’s why we know Israel in 33 AD because of Tacitus.

So I’ve given you Greek, Roman, and Jewish historians from the first and second century who all agree that it was Jesus who was on the cross. Yet even with just this example, we can see that Christianity has a be far better record than Islam historically because of the outside hostile historical evidence. Now what about the textual record we have? Remember I said earlier that we have the and the of Jesus and we have it in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and also the writings of Paul. You remember I said that? Let’s do a comparative. Now I’m going to step on all your toes. You’re not going to like what I’m going to do next cuz you’re not going to like the dates I did put there. I’m going to put the most liberal dates I can find. But I’m doing that for a purpose. Let’s see when they were written down and let’s see how earlier they are. So when you talk about Jesus, we talk about the that would be the histories of of the early church written by Luke in the book of Acts written between 52 and 62 AD. That’s within 20 to 30 years of Christ’s death. Paul’s letters to the different churches uh that’s the taps of Jesus. Uh that was written between 48 and 65 AD. within 15 to to 34 years you have the first sitta and the first hadith written by Mark in 70 AD 37 years of Christ’s death then you have the next two of Matthew and Luke written in 80 AD that’s 47 years after Christ’s death and finally you have the last sitta and the last hadith written by John in 90 AD that’s 57 years after Christ’s death within 60 years you have the entire New Testament within 60 years notice that all of these writers all of these New Testament writers lived in the same place Jesus lived lived and they either knew him personally or they got the material from others who saw what he did and heard what he said. So comparing Christianity versus Islam when was the earliest biography saying for the both faiths when we look at Christianity everything is comes together within 60 years of Christ death written by those who either saw or heard what he did and heard what he said or those who got it from the the eyewitnesses. Whereas when you look at Islam, everything we know about Muhammad, what he said and he did comes from 4 to 900 years later. Which would you guess is more authoritative? Are you listening to this, Abdul?

Are you starting to get the idea? You’ve got a problem here, don’t you? Yeah. No answer. Just put your thumb up. You’re starting to come around. As a comparative comparison, if we had to depend on sources for Jesus comparable to what the Muslims are dependent on for Muhammad, Jesus would not begin to appear until the third to fifth century. How would we defend him with statistics like these? How can Raymond suggest that Muhammad is more much more historically supported than Jesus? Supposition number three, if Muhammad did not exist, how do we understand the Sunni Shiite divide? This is what he says. If Muhammad didn’t exist, then no descendants existed either. So how can we understand the the Sunni Shiite divide? Why would there be a huge contention involving the blood descendants of a man who had never existed? Now to begin with the first we even hear about Ali as Muhammad’s choice is with Sahib Bukhari volume 5. While the other counterargument which goes against that exactly contradicts it is also found in Sahib Bukhari volume 5 book number 64 proving that his companions didn’t even know what side they were on. Remember the canonical version of Sahibu Bahari does not appear until the 14th to 15th century. So this is probably a much later story redacted back. But most importantly this is a political dispute between Persians and Arabs not theological. So it could have been created at any time by either the Abbasids or the Ottomans in the 14th and 15th century and then redacted back first to Alahadi and then to the person of Muhammad himself in order to give authority to whichever position Persian or Arab you needed for that time in for your place. This is not surprising as movements both political and religious often split and the Sunnis Shiite divide could easily have arisen for the same reason as the earlier Abbasid revolt which at its very roots was due to disquite over the earlier Umayad dynasty. And here is another response. I’m not going to read through this. You can read through it when your own time when you get the PowerPoint by Dr. Pat Andrews. He just shows you if you have that problem, what are you going to do with the the King Arthur and Camelot legend? Did Camelot really exist? Were there a round table? Was there a stone with a sword in it that little King Arthur had to pull out? Well, Disney made that one up and it still be made up even today. Legends are exactly that. They get concocted. They get recreated. They get embellished. They get deleted and created century after century depending on what your needs are. And that that’s exactly what we’re finding with the Sunni Shiite divide. What about his reference to there are no incontrovertible proofs of Muhammad’s non-existent. Boy, that’s a mouthful. My response, I don’t have to prove a thing here. The statement makes no sense to begin with. How can someone prove someone who did not exist? It is the person who claims that someone did exist who bears the burden of proof, not me.

Okay, I turn that right back. Although, you’re not supposed to agree with that. Don’t say yes. Say, “Oo, that’s something I hadn’t thought about.” Raymond admits in his video that he hasn’t even looked at our evidence. Why in the world is he confronting me if he’s not even looked at my videos? That shows you right away that the fact that he hasn’t even looked at our argument suggests that he is either naive or simply arrogant or is being typically Arabic with his oneupmanship style. I think it’s the latter. The theories we have, Raymond believes, are only out there, the reason I’m doing this, he says, is because those of us who prep perpetuate them use simply out of a dislike for Islam. Folks, he is correct. I do like dislike Islam, but I absolutely love Muslims. Do you see the distinction I’m making? Yes, I want nothing to do with Islam, but I love Muslims. They are my favorite people. Why in the world have I spent 45 years working with them if I didn’t love them? However, isn’t Abraham just as guilty of disliking Islam, which would invalidate his later arguments for Muhammad’s existence based on the tradition. Be careful, that argument goes both ways.

Are you seeing this, Abdul? Don’t throw that at me. I’ll throw it right back in your face. Supposition number five. Since the traditions of Muhammad are so embarrassing, why in the world even write them? I love this one. This is what David Wood took me on about two years ago. We had a debate on this very subject and he said, “Jay, how can you have this guy? He is so embarrassing. Look at all the things he did wrong. Look at all the weaknesses he had. He was deceitful. He killed his enemies. He married a seven-year-old girl and consummated when she was nine and he was 53. That’s just terrible. How can Look at this guy. He was demonp possessed. He tried to commit suicide. He was he goodness sakes he started wearing female clothes like he was a transvestite. How can you invent somebody like that? Jay, here’s the problem. The difficult is this. Raymond and David Wood, they are embarrassed by Muhammad because they are comparing him to Jesus.

Therefore, they’re looking at Muhammad through the grid of Christian Christian cultural views. They’re looking at Muhammad and they want him to be Jesus. But he will never be Jesus. No one can be compared to Jesus. Of course, for us, he’s absolutely embarrassing. But Muslims don’t do that. They don’t look at Muhammad through the big grid of Jesus at all. Therefore, they love his verility. They love his violence and his denigration of others. In fact, Muslims whenever I bring this up, they tell me this. Compared to Jesus, Muhammad is much greater. Jesus, he never married. He had no family. He never ruled. He never went to war. He never stood up against his oppressors. He never owned anything. He was a wimp. That’s what they tell me.

I want to follow Muhammad. He went to war. He had a wife. He had children. He controlled the whole country. He is his model that we use all over the Muslim world today. And he was a man. Ura Jesus was a woman. For a Muslim, they love Muhammad because of that. We hate him because he’s not like Jesus. Be careful, folks. The more you show these things to Muslims, the more I agree with you. Absolutely. Why don’t you come on home? He’s a much better man than Jesus. What kind of model is Jesus? Didn’t do anything that I want to do. What’s more, if you’re looking at his depression or his attempted suicide, his demon possession or his crossdressing, even his homosexual tendencies, which Abraham Raymond loves to talk about, David Wood, they love to go on this. These are typical crisis of every prophet. Every prophet goes through these crises, but they overcome every one of them. They didn’t rem he didn’t remain depressed. He didn’t continue to wear dresses. He didn’t commit suicide otherwise he wouldn’t have lived. Every prophet goes to them and then they conquer them. And by conquering them, they prove and they show to us what we can do. Proving that they were true prophets. The same happened to Muhammad, a true prophet because he surmounted these problems in their eyes. So be careful about using that argument, folks. Every time I use that argument, Muslims want to invite invite me to tea. Say, “Yes, thank you. Why don’t you come back to Muhammad? What a guy. Ura, he’s my man.” Supposition number six, Mecca is not an argument against Muhammad. Oh boy, I love this one. Though Raymond did not watch any of our videos on Mecca, his response suggests that we are simply arguing from silence and an absence of evidence does not prove the evidence of absence. He says that in his video, I could believe that he was actually quoting Dr. uh Dr. I forgot his name, J Madawi from the last century. At some point in the future, references for Mecca will exist. My response if there was no Mecca then it doesn’t matter what Muhammad or Muhammmed you find. If he does not come from Mecca but then he is not the Muhammad of Islam. So is it absolutely does matter that Mecca existed. In 1995 we had almost no evidence. Back there when I debated Dr. Madawi but today we have all the evidence. We have coins, we have inscriptions, we have buildings, we have manuscripts. So it is now the Muslims who are arguing from science. Whoops, I finished that one there. his example of Troy that he uses a non-secary since we have ample references for ancient history for the existence of Troy. We just did not know where it was situated until now. Conversely, we have no references from ancient history for even the existence of any place called Mecca in Arabia. Now, I’m going to go through this very quickly because you’ve seen this before. Remember the that stool that I showed you at the very beginning? If you shut down Mecca, you shut down the other two. The other two are absolutely are dependent on Mecca. What Muslims say about Mecca, they say that it’s the oldest city in history, it’s where Adam and Eve went to. You can’t get a city that’s older than Adam and Eve because in order to north to have a city, you have to have people. It’s where Abraham uh destroyed the idols in Surah chapter 21. It’s was the center of trade, north, south, east, and west. So somewhere somewhere sometimes someone should have heard about it. When you look at the Quran, you will see that it refers to the first sanctuary of mankind. But it doesn’t call it Mecca. Isn’t that interesting? It calls the mul haram. The mas harab would be the forbidden place of bowing. Now Muslim believe that is the cabba today. In chapter 6 and act chapter 42 it says it is the where Adam and Eve were there in chapter 7 is where Abraham lived in chapter 21 and where Muhammad was born uh until 622 and where the kibla was directed towards in chapter 2. Now all of the above imply he lived there from the very beginning. But here problem is there’s only one reference to the word Mecca in the entire Quran. Chapter 48:4 that’s it. If it’s such an important city, why is it only referred to it once? What’s more, when you look at the tradition, suddenly they proliferate with all kinds of references to Mecca? Because they’re written in the 14th and 15th century, much, much, much later. But notice that they talk about this place with streams and fields and trees and grass and fruit and clay and lom and grapes and grain and pomegranates and olive trees. Folks, that sounds like a very fertile place, doesn’t it? Take a look at Mecca. Does it look like it has that? Its soil is so depleted that it’s been depleted for thousands of years. You can’t get that kind of vegetation in a place like Mecca. In the Quran, Mecca is referred to as the place of the prophet. But in the 11th to 15th century traditions, the Mecca they portray suggests an author lived much much further north where there was lot of fertility. Here are my conclusions. We begin with Mecca because its foundation for both Muhammad and the Quran. So without it, they both fall because it does not matter which Muhammad or which Quran you find. If they are not from Mecca, they are not the Muhammad or the Quran of Islam.

Since Mecca is the earliest and most important city in the history of mankind, it has to be the center of the world and therefore certainly the best known. Therefore, references suggest that Mecca had lush vegetation such as fruit, trees, grass, grains, streams, which make no sense when you look at the pictures. Just take a look at the pictures. Historically, it’s never had any fertility. Ironically, though, it’s claimed to be the greatest city in the history. It is only referred to once signifying that the authors either did not consider it important or it came into existence much much later. Even the Arabic if you look at the Arabic and if you people you can read the Arabic here you notice the Arabic here has the alfsur and the marba and the definite article right that’s all through the Arabic that is not the Arabic they would have spoken in Mecca the Arabic they spoke in Meccabed is Arabic from Yemen from way down south there is no there is no alsur and there is no definite article in the seaic Arabic so even the Arabic in the Quran does not come from Mecca so where does this Arabic come from it comes from Napatian in Aramaic, which is from Jordan. That’s 800 miles to the north. Can you see a problem, folks? They’ve got the wrong Arabic. Geographically speaking, when you look at the Quran, just look at all the references. 65 references. 23 times it mentions that Muhammad goes up and visits these people way up here in way up here in 24 times visits the people in Tumb. He’s way down here in Mecca, right? Supposedly, how can he go way up to UD and back down in one day? Seven times he visits these people in Midian. Folks, that’s 600 miles to the north. How does he go up 600 miles and come back in one day? Unless you have helicopters or airplanes, which I don’t think they had in the seventh century.

Can you see? Obviously, whoever these whoever wrote the Quran was writing from way further north where these places existed. It also mentions that that these people there’s nowhere that they called them Muslims. They call them Ishelites or Hagarines or Mahajjaruns or Mahares or Sarasids. Those are the five words they give to themselves. All these people living that far north. And they say that there are 70 to 300 prophets who were buried in Mecca. And when they were buried there, they were buried in a kneeling position so they could keep praying. Which means if you go to Mecca today, you should be able to find them. And they are. They’re going they’re going to Mecca. And they’re building 62 skyscrapers all the way around the Cabba. When you build skyscrapers, you have to dig deep to get deep foundations. Ask any of the archaeologists. We did so a number of years ago. We asked the archaeologists what have they found. When they dig these foundations, they haven’t found a thing.

Not one of these bodies exist. And notice what they’re doing. They’re now cementing up all around the cabba. Why do you think they’re cementing it up? To shut down the evidence. Dr. Patricia Kurunda wanted to find out if there’s any reference to the city of Mecca in any of the ancient civilizations. She went to the Assyrians. She went to the Romans. She went to the Persians. Uh she went to the Himirites. She went to the Nubians. Uh she went to the Nabotans. She went to everybody that was surrounding all those round red circles, uh the red circles and the and the rectangles. Every one of those traditions and she read all of their documents. Could not find one reference to Mecca in any of their documents. So she said, ‘Well, what about the lesserknown town towns starting with Aiden down here and then you have Sana and then you have Naj and then you have Tif and then you have Yatre and then you have uh Kaibar and you have Tabuk and then you have Gaza in the north. Those are all the oasis along the western plateau and she found reference after reference to all of them all the way back to 300 BC. Reference after reference they were well known not one reference to Mecca which is supposed to be the greatest city in the history of mankind the oldest city in the history of mankind. the center of the world. Not one reference in any of those civilizations. The trade routes, she went and looked at the trade routes and she went and she could read their documents. She could read their languages. And from the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, all the way up until the 8th century, she could not find any reference to Mecca on any of the trade routes. Any of the documents yet neither of the land roots. She went to the land routes, the Red Sea trade routes. She found the Red Sea trade routes which was going up and down the Red Sea were all on the African side and not on the Arab side. And they all went up to these five cities along coastal cities along the African coast. Not one along the Arab coast. I’ll tell you why in just a minute. The first reference she could find in any documentation to the city of Mecca was not till 741 in the apocalypse of Suno Aribeca Bzantia written in 741. And that’s a 100 years after Muhammad died. But Tommy, the great geographer, wrote his book on Arabia in the second century. And he put all the different cities that belong to Arabia. And he wrote them all out there. And he put where the rivers were. And he put where the mountains were. Not once did he mention Mecca in the second century. And the reason why is very simple, folks. It has to do with one word. Anybody know what that word is?

Say it again. Water. It’s as simple as that. Look at any map of Arabia. Look at any geographical map. Look at any topographical map and look and see what you notice. Every one of those maps shows that Mecca is in the middle of a desert. Where there’s desert, there’s no water. No water, no food, no food, no people, no people, no towns, no towns, no cities, no cities, no history. No history, no civilization. Do you see a problem, folks? You need water. In order to have any civilization, you need water. So Muslims come back to me. Ah yeah, but what about the Zum Zum well? Oh, I love the Zum Zum well. The Zum well right there next to the Cabba 30t away. There it is. See a picture of the Zum well. It’s 30 ft across and 50 ft deep. And this is inexhaustible water that the Lord has given that Allah has given to the Muslim so that they can drink from this well. If you go to any Muslim bookshop here in central or Southern California, you will see Zum water there. Leaders and leaders and leaders of it. Four million people go to the Hajj. Two million go to the Hajj. Two million people are already there. Four million people in Mecca drink the Zum water. How can they that many people? How can almost two billion people drink water from the Zum well and it’s only 30 ft across and 50 ft deep. Muslims say it’s this is the miracle of Allah. Inexhaustible water. So I decided to do some research on this. I went back and looked and I just Googled it. You can Google it. And what happened in 1953? They capped the well and they put it underground. And then they had you had pipes going into the well and then pipes coming out of the well. Just follow the pipes, folks. Those pipes go up to a mountain about two or three miles away. And there is these enormous holding tanks, the world’s largest tanks for where all this water comes from that goes and fills the well and comes back out again. So where does the water come for those tanks? Just follow the pipes. And they go down, down, down, down to Jedha. And they go down to these desolation plants. 27 desolination plants which take the salt water, put it into fresh water, send it up to those tanks, put it down into the well, put some perfume into it and some sweetening and then they sell it to the whole world. And boy, the Saudi Arabian government is making all the profit in the world. But it has nothing to do with Allah. Who built those solation plants? Those solid desolation planks. Bectal Corporation, Kansas City, United States. Give ourselves a hand, folks.

Everything the Muslims are dependent on comes from us because of Mecca’s water. I won’t go into this, but I will go into this. What’s fascinating, Dan Gibson, a good friend of mine, decided to find where all the kiblas were facing. And he saw that none of the kibbles were facing Mecca. Not until 750. All the kiblas were facing Petra and Jerusalem, the antecedants to all the to the five major things that they do in Mecca. Take a look. When they circumulate seven times going counterclockwise around this cabba, which means cube, it’s the same word in Hebrew. That’s where the holy of holy was in Jerusalem. They’re just following what the Jews did seven times. Why do they go seven times counterclockwise? Because of Jericho. And then they go from the safan madwa running back and forth seven times looking for water. Why do they go from safa? It’s just two rocks just a 100 feet away from the cabba. They’re only 20 ft high. These are not mountains that Hagar is looking for water in. That’s nothing more than a faximile. So where’s the original Marwa and the original Safa? Marwa is Mount Moriah. Marwa is the Arabic for Mount Moriah. Safa is Mount Scopus on the other side of the Kidron Valley in Jerusalem. It all comes from Jerusalem. They’re just copying the Jews. Bring it home. Certainly, someone somewhere at some time should have known about this city. Yet, no one anywhere nor at any time has, proving that it never existed at the time of Muhammad, nor during early Islam. So, if Mecca did not exist, then what Muhammad is Raymond referring to? His Muhammad had to have been born and grew up there and spent the first 52 years there. He’s going to have a hard time. Are you listening to this Abdul? Help him out, would you? Supposition 7. No one can prove or disprove the historical data. Since nothing historical can be proven or disproven, those who love Muhammad will continue to believe his existence regardless of what we what we contend. Jesus Christ supposedly did not exist either for the last 200 years. Yet, billions of people still believe he did. No one will investigate the historical claims about Muhammad just as no Christians did against Jesus Christ existed. So it is not worthy of our time. He says my response suggesting that nothing historical can be proven or not is not academic. His earlier example of Troy suggests that historical claims can be proven as have been done and he was the one that gave that as an example. Raymond is correct. The common person on the street will not investigate Muhammad’s existence as is not healthy. They wouldn’t live very long. This is primary for the academics who are the future leaders of Islam. And who can sway many more Muslims against Islam than either you or me? Supposition eight. It all comes down to a matter of faith. Why would anyone listen to a white American Christian speak about the existence of their beloved prophet when they have faith that he existed? Muslims will either laugh or mock anyone trying to say that Muhammad did not exist because it comes across them as ludicrous and even arrogant. My response, true. Most of those who support this material are fellow middle-class educated westerners like myself. But it is beginning to take traction all over Africa, Asia, and even Americas. I’ve been in seven countries since January introducing this material mostly in Africa. They love this in Africa. They want this in Africa because this is the only material they can use because they cannot confront Muhammad in Africa. Not about all the proclivities. They will be killed. But they can confront this. I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you in just a minute. Claims against Muhammad’s existence are merely an academic or subjective exercise. You simply dislike Muhammad, he says. Therefore, your viewpoint is totally inconsequential and thus the weakest argument. No one will investigate the historical claims about Muhammad just as no Christians did against Jesus Christ existed. So, it is not worthy of our time. My response, the terms academic or subjective do not negate the evidence which we have and have nothing to do with the historical proof of Muhammad’s existence. What’s more, Raymond’s claims against Muhammad’s morality and relevancy are equally academic and subjective and therefore equally inconsequential. So, I’ll just throw it right back on his lap. And the number 10 the best pmic he says is to prove how irrelevant Muhammad is for today. It is a tried and proven methodology. Everyone uses it. You will get many more converts. My response I used it for 30 years folks. This is called the internal critique because everyone used it. That’s the only thing we had. Cindy was the only pamic that existed but I had hardly any success. I had I got very few comments using that method. just got a lot of anger and death threats because when you start talking about Muhammad’s violence and about his sexual proclivities, Muslims aren’t going to like you too much for mocking that. I felt dirty using these arguments. It causes more anger resulting in creating walls and censorship by Muslims and Westerners. People in Muslim dominated countries just cannot use those arguments. When I go to Africa, they say we can’t use what Raymond’s Ibraham’s doing. We can’t use what David Wood’s saying. You can use that in the west because you have the freedoms to do so. But we can’t use that. They much prefer this argument. Why? There are three forms of pimics. I’m going to end with this. When you go on the offense, you can either do the internal pymics. That’s what Raymond Ibraham is using. That’s his favorite. Looking at the Quran, unpacking the verses and just confronting them. Or looking at Muhammad, looking at what he said, what he did, and confronting what he said and did. That’s the internal pymics. Or you can use cultural pmics looking at what Islam is doing around the world looking how irrelevant they are. I prefer external pmics the the one he thinks is the least favorite is my favorite. Why? Because when you look at Muhammad and you look at Mecca and you look at the Quran, you have to house them in history. This form of pmics confronts the very foundations of Islam without confronting the people or their revelation or their prophet and lowers the anger I’m finding. Why is this critique so popular? First of all, notice everything’s up on the screen. You didn’t have to look at me once. Everything’s up there. It’s visual. We didn’t get into the coins or the rocks or the buildings or the maps. We didn’t get into that night. We didn’t have time to do that. We just looked at the timelines. Most of that, most you didn’t have to learn a word of Arabic. Now, we did have our Arabic experts down here and they helped us with MMA, but nothing I didn’t teach any Arabic to you tonight. Did you notice that you don’t have to learn Arabic?

It is foundational to everything Muslims believe. It features one book by one man in one place. Yet, without any of these three, Islam falls to pieces. Folks, we have the evidence. So, it’s the Muslims who now have to argue from science, not us. It is historically neutral and therefore not Islamophobic or hate speech. Thus, everyone can use it. But I would rather we use this as Christians. Why? For one very good, well, not two reasons. Because we are the only ones that have gone through this process with Jesus Christ. We are the only ones that had to prove that he existed. We are the only ones that had to prove who Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were. We are the only ones that have used historical criticism. And we’ve come out the other end. We have succeeded in proving Jesus historically, unlike what Raymond Abraham’s saying. We absolutely have proved his historicity. Therefore, we understand redacted criticism, source criticism, form criticism, textual criticism. Notice I was using all three tonight. We understand that better than anybody else because we’ve done it with our own Lord Jesus Christ. And we are the therefore the most public and able to do so. But why? Because we are the only ones that have a response to these questions we’re giving Muslims. We are the only ones that are looking at this book, finding it wanting, and bring him home to this book. We are the only ones that are looking back at the God behind this book, Allah, and bring him back to a much greater God, Yahweh. Yes, we are the only ones that can go to this book and look at Muhammad, shut him down, but provide the alternative, Jesus Christ. Yes, we need to bring them home. Amen. Now, I’m going to end with this. This morning, I had to speak at two other churches, both Calvary Chapel churches. And one of them I decided to do something I’d not been done before. I decided to have a discussion between Jesus and Muhammad. So I put Muhammad over here and I was Jesus. I turn out to be sacrilegious and I said Muhammad I want to talk to you about some things. First of all I’m a little upset with what you have done. First of all who and how can you claim to be a prophet? You’re not in the prophetic line. You didn’t do anything to prove you’re a prophet. All prophets either have to do a miracle or a prophecy. You didn’t do either. That which you wrote down here completely confronts what I’ve written down from all the other prophets. How can you completely confront everything that’s in my book and then of course you have no idea who I am. You don’t even know my name. I’m not Allah. Allah is not a name. It’s a title. It means the god. What’s my name? Why is you don’t even know my name? And look what you did to me. You took me off the cross and put another man in my place. How dare you do that? And I started getting indignant, really angry. And I said, by the way, Muhammad said, where are you? You’ve disappeared.

That’s right. You never existed. What a waste of time. Let’s pray. Our heavenly father, we want to thank you for not only who you are, but the fact you did exist. We want to thank you that you did come to earth 2,000 years ago and that you told us you were going to do so from the very beginning right there with Adam and Eve. And all the way through history, you have pointed to who you were and what you were going to do. We knew your name. We were expecting we knew that you were going to call be called the son of God. We knew that you were going to be called the Messiah. We knew that you were going to be called the son of man. And we knew that you had a name, Yahweh. What a name. And when you came, some of us saw you. Some of us believed you, many did not. But Lord, we believe you. We know you existed. We know you came to earth. And you had to come to earth because I’m damned if you didn’t. Thank God you did exist. And thank God Muhammad didn’t. Because what Muhammad has done to you, what Muhammad has done to your scriptures, what Muhammad done is to your story, what Muhammad has done to everything that we hold to be dear. I’m so glad he never existed. And I don’t want to waste time anymore on that man who never existed. Christ’s name we pray. Amen.”