Finally! Mel's new timeline of the Historical Muhammad!
Mel has finally been able to get a timeline of the earlier Muhammad in the 7th century, and it completely confronts the timeline of the later Muhammad from the 9th-10th centuries Islamic Traditional account.
Take a look at what Mel's found.
602: Iyas ibn Qabisa al Tayaye - Sources say that the ‘leader of the Tayaye was known as Muhammad’. Thus, the name Muhammad is his ‘nick-name’, a title given later. He’s made the Lakhmid co-governor of al Hira, in Iraq.
617: Muhammad is ousted from al-Hira by the Persian Azadbeh. So, it is at this time that he goes against the Persians.
622: Heraclius (the Byzantine emperor) defeats the Persians, which gives rise to an Arab identity. Muhammad also meets the Jews in Iraq at this time and brings the Jews and Arabs in alliance.
624: At the battle of Dhū-Qār Iyas ibn Qabisa (aka Muhammad) defeats Azadbeh, and gets his revenge. He then leaves Iraq and retreats to Petra, which supports Gibson’s thesis.
634: At the Battle of Gaza, Iyas ibn Qabisa fights in Gaza, which confronts the Traditional Muhammad, as it locates him much too far North (by 600 miles), and West.
636: Iyas Ibn Qabisa (aka Muhammad) dies in 636, which also confronts the Traditional account, which has him dying in 632.
When we look at the historical account of the earlier Muhammad, he has a completely different story, lives in a completely different locality, has a completely different language and ethnicity, and dies at a different time.
The earlier Muhammad's story is based on historical accounts from the time he lived, while the later Islamic Muhammad's story is based on accounts 200-300 years after he supposedly died. Which do you think is the more historical, and, therefore, the more correct?
© Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2020
(39,950) (Music: "small adventure", by Rafael Krux, from filmmusic-io - License CC BY)