Wikipedia article shows a letter that is claimed be sent from Muhammad to the Emperor of Byzantine Empire.

But it doesn't have any information about authenticity of the letter as in if it is actually the real letter sent to the Basileus by the Islamic Prophet.

Is it authentic? Is it accepted as authentic by historians?

After searching the internet for a while, I found this video (Original Letters of Prophet Muhammad) which shows a letter (at 2.19) that seems to be different from the letter shown in the Wikipedia page cited above. The video claims the letter shown in the video is authentic (at 2.35).

Which one is authentic? The one shown in the video or the one shown in the Wikipedia page? Are they both authentic (maybe Muhammad sent both letters)?

  • 1
    There appears to be some controversy concerning the authenticity of the letter. El-Chiekh goes into some detail in her book about it. Most of the information about this comes from Arabic and Islamic sources. – Notaras Dec 2 '16 at 4:17
  • 1
    Downvoters, may I know what's wrong with this post? Your feedback will help me improve it. – Sakib Arifin Dec 2 '16 at 4:39
  • 3
    This is kind of like "Wikipedia says Allies won WW2. But I see no information about the authenticity of this conclusion. Do historians accept it?". It would be a good question if you were to show your research as to why you don't believe Wikipedia article isn't authentic enough and why would you tend to believe otherwise – NSNoob Dec 2 '16 at 9:37
  • 2
    @NSNoob Research added. – Sakib Arifin Dec 2 '16 at 12:28
  • 3
    I really appreciate the work you've done to document the research on this question. Questions like this help me to learn history. – Mark C. Wallace Dec 2 '16 at 15:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.