Buddha ?

[Ali-Mohammed]

As Salamu 'alaykum...

Have we got ahadith about buddha ?

PS : How we say buddha in arabic ?

Thanks

[Saintly_Jinn23]

Buddha= Imam...perhaps??

Buddha is an honorific title.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Saintly_Jinn23

[iSilurian]

Buddha= Imam...perhaps??

Buddha is an honorific title.

Theyre probably referring to Siddhārtha Gautama

[Ali-Mohammed]

Theyre probably referring to Siddhārtha Gautama

Yes !!

[Saintly_Jinn23]

Yes !!

Well, I don't think there is any explicit mention, but keep in mind that we are told God sent many prophets to many people before Muhammad (somewhere in the 100,000's from what I've been told) and this is not counting the saints before and after these prophets. I think Siddharta Guatama was one of them, and I believe there is a tradition attributed to Siddharta among the Buddhists that foretells the coming of Jesus and that he is not the first or last of the Buddhas.

[iSilurian]

Well, I don't think there is any explicit mention, but keep in mind that we are told God sent many prophets to many people before Muhammad (somewhere in the 100,000's from what I've been told) and this is not counting the saints before and after these prophets. I think Siddharta Guatama was one of them, and I believe there is a tradition attributed to Siddharta among the Buddhists that foretells the coming of Jesus and that he is not the first or last of the Buddhas.

The message of the Buddha was far from that of Muhammads. Is it ok for messengers before and/or after Muhammad to preach messages different and in some cases in opposition to Islam?

[xstatik2]

Gautam Buddha was his title. The only resemblance in the name is buddh (Surah Kaferoon) (idol) and "buddha". .

[Mustafa]

Bismillah

بوذا = Buddha

بوذي = Buddhist

Buddha taught blind trust to loving compassion (and eventual rules built around it).

Now we learn blind trust to 1 Allah 2 Ahlul Bait

Number one comes before number two

In Buddhism they have less Allah and more Ahlul Bait

When everything comes to everything and Christians or Buddhists don't know what to say: They say I submit my affairs to Buddha (and love)

When everything comes to everything to us, we say: We submit our affairs to Allah for he is perfect

Gautam Buddha was his title. The only resemblance in the name is buddh (Surah Kaferoon) (idol) and "buddha". .

Please enlighten me. A3-Budh?

Peace

[Saintly_Jinn23]

The message of the Buddha was far from that of Muhammads. Is it ok for messengers before and/or after Muhammad to preach messages different and in some cases in opposition to Islam?

Depends on which Islam you study. Sufi Muslims in China were sometimes suspected of harboring (illegal) Buddhists due to similar beliefs and mystical practices. And Buddhist-Islamic dialogues usually touches on the similarities between the two through the Sufi traditions. People have this notion that Buddhism is a wholly atheist tradition, when actually, Buddhism has often adopted the religious atmosphere of wherever it is situated, much like another religious tradition of the East: Taoism. There are many Buddhists who are atheists, polytheists, Christians, and I wouldn't be surprised if there is a significant minority among Buddhists who consider themselves Muslims (likely Sufis).

I can search up some articles I have read in a little bit on the subject.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Saintly_Jinn23

[Mustafa]

I can search up some articles I have read in a little bit on the subject.

I'd aprreciate it ^_^

[Aryan Warrior]

Well with The Buddha, it is known that he was a theist and risen in the Hindu religion with how Nepal was dominated by that religion. Much like any of our prophets, he was in search for the truth and understanding how things work. He went around spreading his message to the people.

Many people consider his religion as atheist, but really I believe his religion rather got corrupted much like most other religions. When one looks at Buddhism, the one strange thing is that there is no mention of his opinion about God. This makes me think that some intentionally took out the concept and just added in a few of their own words for him and also likely did it so they can keep their regularly religions while doing the practices. I believe this cause of how I have heard from a devout Buddhist that Buddha did indeed believe in God, so why would he tell the people about it if he did.

[iSilurian]

Depends on which Islam you study. Sufi Muslims in China were sometimes suspected of harboring (illegal) Buddhists due to similar beliefs and mystical practices. And Buddhist-Islamic dialogues usually touches on the similarities between the two through the Sufi traditions. People have this notion that Buddhism is a wholly atheist tradition, when actually, Buddhism has often adopted the religious atmosphere of wherever it is situated, much like another religious tradition of the East: Taoism. There are many Buddhists who are atheists, polytheists, Christians, and I wouldn't be surprised if there is a significant minority among Buddhists who consider themselves Muslims (likely Sufis).

I can search up some articles I have read in a little bit on the subject.

im sorry, that doesnt really...answer my question, maybe i should try to rephrase. I guess it is assumed that messengers that didnt preach Islam presented the messages to the people of their time. And so there is nothing seen as wrong with messengers that preach anti Islamic teachings.

Well with The Buddha, it is known that he was a theist and risen in the Hindu religion with how Nepal was dominated by that religion. Much like any of our prophets, he was in search for the truth and understanding how things work. He went around spreading his message to the people.

Many people consider his religion as atheist, but really I believe his religion rather got corrupted much like most other religions. When one looks at Buddhism, the one strange thing is that there is no mention of his opinion about God. This makes me think that some intentionally took out the concept and just added in a few of their own words for him and also likely did it so they can keep their regularly religions while doing the practices. I believe this cause of how I have heard from a devout Buddhist that Buddha did indeed believe in God, so why would he tell the people about it if he did.

If you read writtings from the Buddha himself, you will find that he does not believe in any theistic God.

Edited September 15, 2011 by iSilurian

[Aryan Warrior]

im sorry, that doesnt really...answer my question, maybe i should try to rephrase. I guess it is assumed that messengers that didnt preach Islam presented the messages to the people of their time. And so there is nothing seen as wrong with messengers that preach anti Islamic teachings.

If you read writtings from the Buddha himself, you will find that he does not believe in any theistic God.

I've read his writings, he simply states that one should figure out his own problems than turn to God. But he never professed disbelief; he never said "There is no God" and this is why I believe what he said has been corrupted.

Edit: Oh and I just realized you are an athiest/agonistic so its not as easy to convince you on this without turning it into a big debate :P

Edited September 15, 2011 by Aryan Warrior

[Saintly_Jinn23]

im sorry, that doesnt really...answer my question, maybe i should try to rephrase. I guess it is assumed that messengers that didnt preach Islam presented the messages to the people of their time. And so there is nothing seen as wrong with messengers that preach anti Islamic teachings.

Well, your question is basically a bit of objective. You talk, in the first place, as though the Buddha taught non-Islamic or even anti-Islamic concepts, when that may just reflect your personal viewpoint on the Buddha. As I said, Buddhism is a much more diverse tradition than people think with many Buddhist sects professing belief in no God, a god, or groups of gods. Sometimes to say all Buddhists believe such and such may be just as much of an error as assuming all Muslims believe such a such a tradition, even though some may assume that it is universally accepted doctrine among all sects.

In regards to your question, specifically, the best way I can explain it is this: If a messenger and authority sent by God can be proven to have been sent by God, that is, through examination of his (or her in regards to non-prophets) teachings, there is no contradiction, either everything is found in perfect harmony, or apparent contradiction can explained as not being contradictory at all, with the Holy Quran and the hadith that one accepts as authentic. And that saint or prophet or apostle was a person who lived before Muhammad (pbuh) then that religious authority and the religion he or she brought is considered but an extension of Islam and the founder of that religion is considered a Muslim. People have this notion, and I've seen this error in some Muslims too, that Islam did not exist until Muhammad and thus they refer to the period before Muhammad's ministry as "Pre-Islamic times," and to prophets mentioned in Islamic tradition being "prophets before Islam," when the truth is that there has never been a moment at anytime on this planet or even in this universe where Islam has not been present and all prophets and saints of Islam before Muhammad are considered just as much "Muslims." The first Muslim of our species was not Muhammad (as) but Adam (pbuh).

So, if one feels that the Buddha Siddhartha taught Islam before Muhammad, then the Buddha is by all means a Muslim (a self-professed submitter to the one God) and deserves the title. A messenger before Muhammad though would only teach people what had been revealed to them and would also teach the people what was necessary for the people to know and what they wished to know beyond that out of the knowledge revealed to them, but would not say anything that contradicted that knowledge. Also, some, depending on the political and social landscape, may choose to hide their monotheism or other beliefs except with a select few for the sake of protection without abandoning the ministry itself (taqiyya)

Here are some links to articles about Islamic and Buddhist similarities and dialogue. I must state beforehand that I do not necessarily ascribe to ALL the specific views presented by the individual speakers and/or writers in these links, but if one is looking to study the similarities in various Buddhist and Islamic beliefs, reading through them is a good way to start:

A study of similar eschatological themes in Buddhist and Shi'ite traditions:

http://www.imamreza....eza.php?id=4630

A brief comparison of Sufi tradition (of the particular writer's persuasion that is; not all 'Sufis' share his exact views) and Buddhism:

http://www.universel...FTOKEN=63962691

Transcript of an interview between two teachers in the field of Islam and Buddhism discussing the interfaith relations:

http://www.berzinarc...m_buddhism.html

(the above link also contains links to other articles on the subject of the relations between the two both politically and theologically)

I also recommend reading through this short lived thread from the ShiaChat archives in which a Japanese Buddhist posted a few times, discussing his particular school's view on the Buddha and the concept of God:

http://www.shiachat....faith-dialogue/

Edited September 15, 2011 by Saintly_Jinn23

[Amir-Husayn]

There is a good book by Reza Shah-Kazemi on the Islam and Buddhism: Common Ground Between Islam and Buddhism

[Abu Nur]

^ You can read it here free: http://www.islambuddhism.com/docs/CommonGround.pdf

[Haydar Husayn]

im sorry, that doesnt really...answer my question, maybe i should try to rephrase. I guess it is assumed that messengers that didnt preach Islam presented the messages to the people of their time. And so there is nothing seen as wrong with messengers that preach anti Islamic teachings.

If you read writtings from the Buddha himself, you will find that he does not believe in any theistic God.

What writings from the Buddha? He didn't write anything that we know of, and there isn't that much in terms of contemporary sources about his teachings. As such, there is no guarantee that his message has been properly preserved.

Personally, I don't think there is any way of knowing whether or not the Buddha was a prophet of God or not, given the lack of evidence from Islamic and Buddhist sources.

[iSilurian]

I've read his writings, he simply states that one should figure out his own problems than turn to God. But he never professed disbelief; he never said "There is no God" and this is why I believe what he said has been corrupted.

Edit: Oh and I just realized you are an athiest/agonistic so its not as easy to convince you on this without turning it into a big debate :P

ur not really refuting anything ive said, theres nothing to debate here, and no worries, i only debate the looneys

Well, your question is basically a bit of objective. You talk, in the first place, as though the Buddha taught non-Islamic or even anti-Islamic concepts, when that may just reflect your personal viewpoint on the Buddha. As I said, Buddhism is a much more diverse tradition than people think with many Buddhist sects professing belief in no God, a god, or groups of gods. Sometimes to say all Buddhists believe such and such may be just as much of an error as assuming all Muslims believe such a such a tradition, even though some may assume that it is universally accepted doctrine among all sects.

fair

In regards to your question, specifically, the best way I can explain it is this: If a messenger and authority sent by God can be proven to have been sent by God, that is, through examination of his (or her in regards to non-prophets) teachings, there is no contradiction, either everything is found in perfect harmony, or apparent contradiction can explained as not being contradictory at all, with the Holy Quran and the hadith that one accepts as authentic. And that saint or prophet or apostle was a person who lived before Muhammad (pbuh) then that religious authority and the religion he or she brought is considered but an extension of Islam and the founder of that religion is considered a Muslim. People have this notion, and I've seen this error in some Muslims too, that Islam did not exist until Muhammad and thus they refer to the period before Muhammad's ministry as "Pre-Islamic times," and to prophets mentioned in Islamic tradition being "prophets before Islam," when the truth is that there has never been a moment at anytime on this planet or even in this universe where Islam has not been present and all prophets and saints of Islam before Muhammad are considered just as much "Muslims." The first Muslim of our species was not Muhammad (as) but Adam (pbuh).

By this it could be argued that many people are muslims beyond those considered by the conservatives, if thats youre understanding of Islam, this is fine with me.

What writings from the Buddha? He didn't write anything that we know of, and there isn't that much in terms of contemporary sources about his teachings. As such, there is no guarantee that his message has been properly preserved.

There are writings that are ascribed to him. As well as preserved scriptures from schools that follow his practices and teachings which themselves predate Islam.

[Saintly_Jinn23]

By this it could be argued that many people are muslims beyond those considered by the conservatives, if thats youre understanding of Islam, this is fine with me.

Well, yes, I believe a lot of people are Muslims and don't even know it and that a lot of the world's major religions are, technically, sects of Islam due to their historical founders fitting the bill of what it means to be a Muslim. For example, Christianity was founded by Jesus Christ, who in our religion was a prophet of Islam, so technically, Christianity as Christ (pbuh) brought it was just a form of Islam, same thing with Judaism because all their prophets were said to have brought Islam. The trouble was that people fell into disputes over what the doctrine Christ brought was. The Quran says this pretty much happened with every prophet he sent. But the original Christians were, for all intents and purposes, Muslims, though they didn't necessarily use the exact Arabic word "Muslim," what exact words they did call themselves held the same exact meaning, regardless of the language or individual sectarian nature.

For example, I myself believe that Lao Tzu (as), the founder of Taoism, was indeed a Muslim. That he received divine inspiration and spread what he had learned through it. Being a Muslim is not really about just mindlessly imitating the physical actions of Muhammad (pbuh) though the conservatives you mention would like it to be because of their fear of not knowing something or not being unique and excelled above others for their particular lifestyle. Being a Muslim is about what exactly the name implies, being a submitter, follower, and most importantly of all, a lover, of God (as submission without love is not truly submission at all).

The trouble with the conservatives is they define Islam solely based on what imitates the Prophet Muhammad's physical actions and if the known Prophet's before him are known to have held a different tradition, they use the "abrogation excuse," so people don't act beyond what they are comfortable with. By doing this, I think they show that it is not the following of Muhammad they are concerned with, as I feel it is the Sunnah (tradition) of Muhammad's heart and that is more important than his exact physical actions, rather it is what they like to see and hear personally they are concerned with. I say if the previous prophets had behavior that was acceptable to God, then if one chooses to adopt such habits themselves, then they are not going against the Sunnah of Muhammad because such actions are still done with the same heart, a heart that beats with love and devotion for the one God, and that's really all that Muhammad ever asked for. He didn't ask us to start trimming our beards the way he did so we could achieve salvation. He asked us, and God asked, to devote ourselves with sincerity.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Saintly_Jinn23

[Something Given]

^If that is indeed the case, then why did they spend so much time teaching us the 'correct' Islamic way of doing pretty much everything?

There's nothing wrong with choosing to adopt the sunnah of a previous prophet. However, if that sunnah is in direct contradiction to the teachings of the final Prophet (pbuh), then you really cannot think of yourself as submitting to God. For submitting to Him implies obeying each and everything (no matter how petty it may seem to you) taught to us by His final messenger.

There's a reason that second statement of the shahada is with regards to Muhammad (pbuh) and not any other prophet. ;)

[Philip]

Salam Alekum.

I am not sure if Buddha is a name of Allah or a title of spiritual salvation. But either way there are many useful teachings in this eastern religion that complement Islam. Also the teachings point to the truth and being peaceful n in harmony n unity with the cosmos .. Kind of like a 'state' of alhamduliLah subhan Allah.

Buddhism is based on the ancient religion starting in India area called vedism. This is an old religion and I suspect that the prophet of the time is called Arjuna and their God is Krsna. Of course we all know that Krsna is represented by a blue "jinn-looking" man. Now many say:"oh their Krsna god is a jinn!!! But when we look at a much younger religion like Christianity, it becomes clear how easily people can start to 'worship' images and sculptures of humans .. I am sure that siddharta, who was a Vedic prince (4000 years after Arjuna .. Therefore by then the religion was surely corrupted). Also am sure Arjuna didn't build statues or worship any statues. Same goes for Siddharta. They were adept enlightened people who

1. Fought for rightful rulership (Arjuna)

2. Abandoned glitter n bling-bling of this dunya (Siddharta)

Subhan Allah

If we ask any Buddhist if they worship rocks n statues, they will probably answer negatively and say they worship what the statue represents (much like Christians) .. And hey .. I <3 teachings of Sayidna Eissa (as) ..

Probably the most orthodox (like Shia in islam) form of Buddhism is 'zen' / 'chan' / Chinese Buddhism. My friend went to india and told me that there is hardly any Buddhism left in India ..

Also please note that vedism turned into Hinduism most of the time, and buddhists usually travelled by foot and lived in nature with minimum needs desires etc.

Anyway, hope we can benefit from all knowledge Allah SWT sent us.

(salam)

[Saintly_Jinn23]

^If that is indeed the case, then why did they spend so much time teaching us the 'correct' Islamic way of doing pretty much everything?

Men like to see reflections of themselves and sometimes they prefer reflections of themselves over reflection of God.

There's nothing wrong with choosing to adopt the sunnah of a previous prophet. However, if that sunnah is in direct contradiction to the teachings of the final Prophet (pbuh), then you really cannot think of yourself as submitting to God. For submitting to Him implies obeying each and everything (no matter how petty it may seem to you) taught to us by His final messenger.

Why would anything the previous prophets do contradict Muhammad (pbuh), who was their confirmation? That's what I'm talking about, it doesn't make any sense to not follow the Sunnah of the previous prophets' actions just because they are different than Muhammad's because the Sunnah of the heart, and thus the heart of those actions, is all the same between them.

There's a reason that second statement of the shahada is with regards to Muhammad (pbuh) and not any other prophet. ;)

The reason we say "Muhammad" in the shahada more often than others is because Muhammad (as) was the confirmation of all the previous prophets, therefore to say shahada mentioning Muhammad (as) is the equivalent of saying all the shahada of every prophet in addition to Muhammad (as) at once. But this does not mean that to say the shahada with the name of another prophet has no more value anymore by itself. If I am among the ghulat Christians and I say: There is no god but Allah, and Jesus (pbuh) is his prophet, the same point is made if my intention is not to say that Muhammad did not come after him, but my heart speaks for that enough to where I need not really say the shahada of Muhammad with my mouth for God to know that I make the attestation of Muhammad's prophet hood too in addition to Jesus'.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Saintly_Jinn23

[Something Given]

Men like to see reflections of themselves and sometimes they prefer reflections of themselves over reflection of God.

:huh: I hope you don't mean that the Ahlulbayt's (as) teachings (or to use your word, their reflection) is contrary to that of God.

Why would anything the previous prophets do contradict Muhammad (pbuh), who was their confirmation? That's what I'm talking about, it doesn't make any sense to not follow the Sunnah of the previous prophets' actions just because they are different than Muhammad's because the Sunnah of the heart, and thus the heart of those actions is all the same between them.

While this is true, there have been changes made to the religion over time and this is something no one can deny. Abrogation, just like you said. So what are you going to do? If you say the differences don't matter because it's the 'heart' that counts, then why have differences at all? Did the Ahlulbayt (as) not realise that it's the intention and not the action that's important to God?

Another point: how do you know that what you think is the sunnah of previous prophets is something they actually practiced? Where do you get this sunnah, and can you authenticate it? And why do you prefer it over that of Muhammad (pbuh)?

The reason we say "Muhammad" in the shahada more often than others is because Muhammad (as) was the confirmation of all the previous prophets, therefore to say shahada mentioning Muhammad (as) is the equivalent of saying all the shahada of every prophet in addition to Muhammad (as) at once. But this does not mean that to say the shahada with the name of another prophet has no more value anymore by itself. If I am among the ghulat Christians and I say: There is no god but Allah, and Jesus (pbuh) is his prophet, the same point is made if my intention is not to say that Muhammad did not come after him, but my heart speaks for that enough to where I need not really say the shahada of Muhammad with my mouth for God to know that I make the attestation of Muhammad's prophet hood too in addition to Jesus'.

:lol: You said it ... 'if my intention is not to say that Muhammad did not come after him'. Why do you want to complicate life? Attesting to the prophethood of Muhammad is automatically attesting to all previous prophets, while for the other way round, you have to make sure to keep this 'intention' in mind.

However, my point in saying what I did is that the final prophet is our guide and obedience to him is obligatory. Like I said, don't complicate life. Why go looking for teachings of past prophets when you have his already?

Edited September 16, 2011 by Something Given

[Saintly_Jinn23]

:huh: I hope you don't mean that the Ahlulbayt's (as) teachings (or to use your word, their reflection) is contrary to that of God.

Of course not, I was referring to conservatives, both Shia and Sunni, whom I feel actually care more about conformity to things that make them comfortable personally, then what Ahlul Bayt are pleased with.

While this is true, there have been changes made to the religion over time and this is something no one can deny. Abrogation, just like you said. So what are you going to do? If you say the differences don't matter because it's the 'heart' that counts, then why have differences at all? Did the Ahlulbayt (as) not realise that it's the intention and not the action that's important to God?

Another point: how do you know that what you think is the sunnah of previous prophets is something they actually practiced? Where do you get this sunnah, and can you authenticate it? And why do you prefer it over that of Muhammad (pbuh)?

I'm not saying I would prefer it over Muhammad's. I'm saying I would be following the Sunnah of Muhammad (pbuh) all the same, just THROUGH adopting the habits of another prophet, which doesn't mean a complete abandonment of Muhammad's habits as not all physical habits and rituals of him are unique to him alone and some rituals that are I may wish to do alongside the individual rituals of the other prophet. Again, it is not a Sunnah of the body alone we are called to follow, though there are certain bodily actions we do, but these actions are manifestations of the heart not something independent from the soul. We do these actions of the body in accordance with the action of the heart and soul. If the body enters prayer without the heart going with it, then the body is not really praying at all is it? What we are called to is the Sunnah of the heart of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his Ahlul Bayt. This Sunnah is to harbor a deep love for God and allow one's actions to express that love and only that love, which of course is inevitable with such a heart.

Let me put it this way, my typing on this computer right now can't be called a habit of Muhammad (pbuh). Muhammad never used computers, he never typed on a keyboard. Am I going against his Sunnah by using the internet simply because Muhammad never used it? Of course not, so then it is not by bodily actions alone that the Sunnah is necessarily followed. If I am using the internet for purposes that are against the moral precepts, which are conditions and dispositions of the heart, that Muhammad and Ahlul Bayt conveyed to us, then it is haram and against Sunnah.

So then if the habits of previous prophets before Muhammad (as) do not contradict the moral precepts, that is the conditions of the heart, of Muhammad (as). Meaning Muhammad (as) would say these habits were deeds of righteousness on their part, then these habits are in accordance with Muhammad's heart and thus in accordance with his Sunnah as what determines whether I am following Sunnah is not necessarily the individual actions of my body, but the disposition of my heart. It is by my heart, and my heart alone, that I ever can expect to exhibit good behavior as physical behavior is but the physical manifestation of the soul's disposition. So whatever behavior is spawned from the heart of a true believer, that action is Sunnah. This does not mean that there are not common behaviors ALL believers exhibit, universal traits if you will, but this just means that in addition to this we have the option of many more and different a ritual to exhibit with our bodies that reflects our unique heart, our individual personality.

As for why to have the differences in the first place, I refer you to the passage in the Quran that explains why God made different tribes, colors and nations.

:lol: You said it ... 'if my intention is not to say that Muhammad did not come after him'. Why do you want to complicate life? Attesting to the prophethood of Muhammad is automatically attesting to all previous prophets, while for the other way round, you have to make sure to keep this 'intention' in mind.

However, my point in saying what I did is that the final prophet is our guide and obedience to him is obligatory. Like I said, don't complicate life. Why go looking for teachings of past prophets when you have his already?

I understand that, I am saying that one cannot say that it is impermissible or that it is not Sunnah to say the Shahada with another prophet's name. If I say that there is no god but God, and Jesus (pbuh) is his prophet, than I am speaking truth, which is Sunnah. I am also saying Muhammad is his prophet too all the same, as what cannot properly attest to Jesus' prophethood without believing that Jesus (as) foretold the coming of Muhammad (pbuh). What I say not with my tongue is said with my soul. So I am not in anyway given greater reward for saying the Shahada with Muhammad's name or any prophet's name for that matter, as to say one is to say them all, and if I don't say any of them with my mouth and vocal cords, my heart, my soul, says them all at once anyway. We say the Shahada aloud mainly for the unbelievers' sake, not our own, since every heartbeat of a believer's heart is the shahada of every prophet that ever was being spoken by the soul. If I were never to say the Shahada with my mouth aloud for everyone to hear, but was still in my heart a true believer, than that is enough of an attestation for God to know that I have embraced the truth. It is by the heart that I am judged.

Wasalam

[Haydar Husayn]

There are writings that are ascribed to him. As well as preserved scriptures from schools that follow his practices and teachings which themselves predate Islam.

Care to name those writings that are ascribed to him? Because as far as I know, academics no not believe any such writings exist. I'm not even aware of any writings that are claimed to be from him.

There are writings by later Buddhists, but they date from centuries after the death of Buddha. As I undersand it, the only way scholars have of reconstructing what they believe to be some of the original teachings of the Buddha is by comparing all the different writings by the different schools that developed after his death, and looking at the common teachings. However, even in that case, many scholars are sceptical about whether or not these teachings can really be attributed to Buddha.

I don't dispute that these later writings predate Islam, but I would be interested in knowing what you think is the earliest written source of Buddhist teachings.