One major historical problem for Islam is that Muslims cannot prove what Muhammad actually said or did from written eyewitness accounts.

Everything depends on **Hadith, Sira, Tafsir, and isnad chains** — oral reports passed down for generations before being compiled.

Muhammad died in **632 AD**. Yet the main Hadith, Sira, Tafsir, and historical materials Muslims rely on were compiled and organized mostly in the **9th–10th centuries** — roughly **200–300 years after his death.**

On **July 9, 2025**, Yasir Qadhi admitted that Western academia does not affirm Sunni Hadith science, saying the historical-critical method and isnad analysis are **“diametrically opposed”** ways of looking at early Islam. He also said that, as for definitely proving Hadith go back to Muhammad, he says that **as a believer, not as an academic**.

Then on **July 28, 2025**, Shabir Ally was asked about this issue. The response was basically that Muslims can trust the reports because the **Sahaba** — around **120,000 of them** — were trustworthy, had perfect memories, and transmitted things accurately. In other words, Muslims are asked to believe because these were supposedly “pure men” with reliable memories.

But that is the problem.

That is not written eyewitness evidence. That is trust in oral tradition passed down through chains of narration.

So the question remains:

**Where are the written eyewitness accounts proving what Muhammad said and did?**

If the answer is only “trust the isnads” or “trust the Sahaba,” then that is not historical proof. That is religious faith in later hearsay traditions.

And if Islam depends on Hadith to explain the Qur’an, prayer, law, Muhammad’s life, and Islamic practice, then this is a massive problem:

**Muslims cannot historically prove the Muhammad of faith. They can only appeal to later oral reports.**

Worlds top Muslim scholars: “We don’t have written eye-witness accounts for Prophet Mohammed”