#4: NOT ONE EYEWITNESS saw or heard Muhammad!

Since their birth Muslims are told about Muhammad's glorious life, including everything he said or did, as a model for them to follow. These stories about Muhammad always had a name attached to them, as they were the ones who wrote down what they "heard Muhammad say", or "what Muhammad did"; names which included men like Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, Al Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Al Tabari, and so on... These are 'household' names. Yet, we now know that not one of these men ever saw Muhammad, or even heard a word he said, so that everything they wrote are a woven tapestry of lies. Their books claim to be irrefutable sources; yet we now see that the basis of Islam are all based on tales spun by men who lived long after the events took place. They were not contemporaries of Muhammad. They were not eyewitnesses. These men didn’t even live in the same area, so how could they give an accurate and reliable account? Christianity’s sources hold up to this kind of historical criticism, so why doesn't Islam? As Jay points this out, watch Al Fadi as he realizes that everything he was taught as a boy was based on false origins of Islam’s sources. © Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 11/27/2022 (69,200) Music: "Joy at Work" by Musiclfiles, from filmmusic-io