Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Buddha has virtually no textual documents placed within 900 years of his death First: this isn't true. There are plenty of Ashokan inscriptions from ~150 years after the Buddha's death, and they speak of an already-existing Buddhist orthodoxy. Second: there's plenty of archeological evidence of both the Buddha and Muhammad; the lack of written documents has more to do with the cultures they were in at the time. You…
Ashokan carvings are not historical documents attributed to the historical person of Buddha. Which is what I'm referring too. And my textual criticism on Muhammad stands. We do not know which historical or religious texts attributed to Muhammad were destroyed by Uthman, but most scholars agree that it was substantial. The criticism is valid and true and anyone who has issues with this should provide a counter argumen…
Yeah, if you assert a document is not a document, sure, you can say whatever you'd like.