Robert Spencer Asks: Did Muhammad Exist?

[Chris]

Robert Spencer Asks: Did Muhammad Exist?

Robert Spencer Asks: Did Muhammad Exist?
By Bruce Thornton

One of the jihadists' most potent psychological weapons is the double standard Muslims have imposed on the West. Temples and churches are destroyed and vandalized, Christians murdered and driven from the lands of Christianity's birth, anti-Semitic lunacy propagated by high-ranking Muslim clerics, and Christian territory like northern Cyprus ethnically cleansed and occupied by Muslims. Yet the West ignores these depredations all the while it agonizes over trivial "insults" to Islam and Mohammed, and decries the thought-crime of "Islamophobia" whenever even factual statements are made about Islamic history and theology. This groveling behavior confirms the traditional Islamic chauvinism that sees Muslims as the "best of nations" destined by Allah to rule the world through violent jihad.

Even in the rarefied world of academic scholarship, this fear of offense has protected Islam from the sort of critical scrutiny every other world religion has undergone for centuries. Some modern scholars who do exercise their intellectual freedom and investigate these issues, like Christoph Luxenberg or Ibn Warraq, must work incognito to avoid the wrath of the adherents of the "Religion of Peace." Now Robert Spencer, the fearless director of Jihad Watch and author of several books telling the truths about Islam obscured by a frightened academy and media, in his new book Did Muhammad Exist? challenges this conspiracy of fear and silence by surveying the scholarship and historical evidence for the life and deeds of Islam's founder.

As Spencer traces the story of Muhammed through ancient sources and archaeology, the evidence for the Prophet's life becomes more and more evanescent. The name Muhammad, for example, appears only 4 times in the Qur'an, as compared to the 136 mentions of Moses in the Qur'an. And those references to Muhammad say nothing specific about his life. The first biography of Muhammad, written by Ibn Ishaq 125 years after the Prophet's death, is the primary source of biographical detail, yet it "comes down to us only in the quite lengthy fragments reproduced by an even later chronicler, Ibn Hisham, who wrote in the first quarter of the ninth century, and by other historians who reproduced and thereby preserved additional sections."

Nor are ancient sources outside Islam any more forthcoming. An early document from around 635, by a Jewish writer converting to Christianity, merely mentions a generic "prophet" who comes "armed with a sword." But in this document the "prophet" is still alive 3 years after Muhammad's death. And this prophet was notable for proclaiming the imminent arrival of the Jewish messiah. "At the height of the Arabian conquests," Spencer writes, "the non Muslim sources are as silent as the Muslim ones are about the prophet and holy book that were supposed to have inspired those conquests." This uncertainty in the ancient sources is a consistent feature of Spencer's succinct survey of them. Indeed, these sources call into question the notion that Islam itself was recognized as a new, coherent religion. In 651, when Muawiya called on the Byzantine emperor Constantine to reject Christianity, he evoked the "God of our father Abraham," not Islam per se. One hundred years after the death of Muhammad, "the image of the prophet of Islam remained fuzzy."

Non-literary sources from the late 7th century are equally vague. Dedicatory inscriptions on dams and bridges make no mention of Islam, the Qur'an, or Mohammad. Coins bear the words "in the name of Allah," the generic word for God used by Christians and Jews, but say nothing about Muhammad as Allah's prophet or anything about Islam. Particularly noteworthy is the absence of Islam's foundational statement "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah." Later coins referring specifically to Muhammad depict him with a cross, contradicting the Qur'anic rejection of Christ's crucifixion and later prohibitions against displaying crucifixes. Given that other evidence suggests that the word "muhammad" is an honorific meaning "praised one," it is possible that these coins do not refer to the historical Muhammad at all.

Related to the issue of Muhammad's historical reality is the date of the Qur'an, supposedly dictated to the Prophet by the angel Gabriel. Yet Spencer's analysis of the inscriptions inside the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, with their mixture of Qur'anic and non-Qur'anic verses along with variants of canonical Qur'anic scripture, suggests rather that the Qur'an came into being later than 691 when the mosque was completed. Indeed, the inscriptions could be referring not to Muhammad but to a version of Jesus believed in by a heretical sect that denied his divinity. At any rate, the first historical inscription that offers evidence of Islamic theology dates to 696 when the caliph Abd al-Malik minted coins without a representation of the sovereign and with theshahada, the Islamic profession of faith, inscribed on them. At this same time we begin to see references by non-Muslims to Muslims. Before then, the conquerors were called Ishmaelites, Saracens, or Hagarians. This evidence, Spencer suggests, raises the provocative possibility that al-Malik "greatly expanded on the nascent Muhammad myth for his own political purposes." Likewise the Hadith, the collections of Muhammad's sayings and deeds that form "the basis for Islamic law and practice regarding both individual religious observance and the governance of the Islamic state." They also elucidate obscure Qur'anic verses, providing "the prism through which the vast majority of Muslims understand the Qur'an." Yet there is no evidence for the existence of these biographical details of the Hadith before their compilation. This suggests that those details were invented as political tools for use in the factional political conflicts of the Islamic world.

Spencer casts an equally keen critical eye over the early biographies of Mohammad to find the same problems with source authenticity and origins, and their conflicts with other Islamic traditions. These problems, along with the miraculous and folk elements of Ibn Ishaq's biography, suggest that the latter arose long after the collection of the Qur'an. As Spencer concludes, "If Ibn Ishaq is not a historically trustworthy source, what is left of the life of Muhammad?" The history of Islam and Mohammad recalls the statement of the reporter in John Ford's The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend," particularly when the legend was so useful for conquest and the consolidation of power during factional rivalries among Muslim rulers and sects.

So too with the integrity of the Qur'an, the supposedly unchanging and uncreated words of Allah dictated to Mohammad, the perfect copy of the eternal book transmitted in its purity without alteration or addition. Yet apart from fragments, modern Qur'ans are based on manuscripts that date no farther back then the medieval period. The first mention of the Qur'an appears in 710, decades after it allegedly inspired Muslim conquests from Persia to North Africa. Nor is it true that the book has not changed: "Even Islamic tradition shows this contention to be highly questionable, with indications that some of the Qur'an was lost and other parts were added to or otherwise changed." Such textual variants, revisions, lost passages, numerous influences from Jewish and Christian writings and doctrines, and the presence of words in the Syriac language (likely including the word "Qur'an" itself), along with the fact that about one-fifth of the book is simply incomprehensible––all call into question the idea of the Qur'an's purity unchanged since it was divinely dictated to Mohammad.

Spencer's careful, detailed, well-reasoned survey and analysis of the historical evidence offer strong evidence that Muhammad and Islam itself were post facto creations of Arab conquerors who needed a "political theology" delivered by a "warrior prophet" in order to unify the vast territories and diverse religious and ethnic groups now subjected to Muslim power, and to provide a potent basis for loyalty to their new overlords. As Spencer explains, "the empire came first and the theology came later."

"The full truth of whether a prophet named Muhammad lived in seventh-century Arabia," Spencer concludes, "and if he did, what sort of a man he was, may never be known. But it would be intellectually irresponsible not to ask the question or consider the implications of the provocative evidence that pioneering scholars have assembled." The great service Spencer provides goes beyond popularizing the critical study of one of the world's largest religions in order to advance our knowledge and establish historical reality. At a time when the threat of jihadist violence has silenced many people and intimidated them into voluntarily surrendering their right to free speech and the pursuit of truth, Spencer's brave book also demonstrates the importance of those quintessential and powerful Western ideals.

[mikhen7]

Robert Spencer Asks: Did Muhammad Exist?

Robert Spencer Asks: Did Muhammad Exist?
By Bruce Thornton

One of the jihadists' most potent psychological weapons is the double standard Muslims have imposed on the West. Temples and churches are destroyed and vandalized, Christians murdered and driven from the lands of Christianity's birth, anti-Semitic lunacy propagated by high-ranking Muslim clerics, and Christian territory like northern Cyprus ethnically cleansed and occupied by Muslims. Yet the West ignores these depredations all the while it agonizes over trivial "insults" to Islam and Mohammed, and decries the thought-crime of "Islamophobia" whenever even factual statements are made about Islamic history and theology. This groveling behavior confirms the traditional Islamic chauvinism that sees Muslims as the "best of nations" destined by Allah to rule the world through violent jihad.

Even in the rarefied world of academic scholarship, this fear of offense has protected Islam from the sort of critical scrutiny every other world religion has undergone for centuries. Some modern scholars who do exercise their intellectual freedom and investigate these issues, like Christoph Luxenberg or Ibn Warraq, must work incognito to avoid the wrath of the adherents of the "Religion of Peace." Now Robert Spencer, the fearless director of Jihad Watch and author of several books telling the truths about Islam obscured by a frightened academy and media, in his new book Did Muhammad Exist? challenges this conspiracy of fear and silence by surveying the scholarship and historical evidence for the life and deeds of Islam's founder.

As Spencer traces the story of Muhammed through ancient sources and archaeology, the evidence for the Prophet's life becomes more and more evanescent. The name Muhammad, for example, appears only 4 times in the Qur'an, as compared to the 136 mentions of Moses in the Qur'an. And those references to Muhammad say nothing specific about his life. The first biography of Muhammad, written by Ibn Ishaq 125 years after the Prophet's death, is the primary source of biographical detail, yet it "comes down to us only in the quite lengthy fragments reproduced by an even later chronicler, Ibn Hisham, who wrote in the first quarter of the ninth century, and by other historians who reproduced and thereby preserved additional sections."

Nor are ancient sources outside Islam any more forthcoming. An early document from around 635, by a Jewish writer converting to Christianity, merely mentions a generic "prophet" who comes "armed with a sword." But in this document the "prophet" is still alive 3 years after Muhammad's death. And this prophet was notable for proclaiming the imminent arrival of the Jewish messiah. "At the height of the Arabian conquests," Spencer writes, "the non Muslim sources are as silent as the Muslim ones are about the prophet and holy book that were supposed to have inspired those conquests." This uncertainty in the ancient sources is a consistent feature of Spencer's succinct survey of them. Indeed, these sources call into question the notion that Islam itself was recognized as a new, coherent religion. In 651, when Muawiya called on the Byzantine emperor Constantine to reject Christianity, he evoked the "God of our father Abraham," not Islam per se. One hundred years after the death of Muhammad, "the image of the prophet of Islam remained fuzzy."

Non-literary sources from the late 7th century are equally vague. Dedicatory inscriptions on dams and bridges make no mention of Islam, the Qur'an, or Mohammad. Coins bear the words "in the name of Allah," the generic word for God used by Christians and Jews, but say nothing about Muhammad as Allah's prophet or anything about Islam. Particularly noteworthy is the absence of Islam's foundational statement "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah." Later coins referring specifically to Muhammad depict him with a cross, contradicting the Qur'anic rejection of Christ's crucifixion and later prohibitions against displaying crucifixes. Given that other evidence suggests that the word "muhammad" is an honorific meaning "praised one," it is possible that these coins do not refer to the historical Muhammad at all.

Related to the issue of Muhammad's historical reality is the date of the Qur'an, supposedly dictated to the Prophet by the angel Gabriel. Yet Spencer's analysis of the inscriptions inside the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, with their mixture of Qur'anic and non-Qur'anic verses along with variants of canonical Qur'anic scripture, suggests rather that the Qur'an came into being later than 691 when the mosque was completed. Indeed, the inscriptions could be referring not to Muhammad but to a version of Jesus believed in by a heretical sect that denied his divinity. At any rate, the first historical inscription that offers evidence of Islamic theology dates to 696 when the caliph Abd al-Malik minted coins without a representation of the sovereign and with theshahada, the Islamic profession of faith, inscribed on them. At this same time we begin to see references by non-Muslims to Muslims. Before then, the conquerors were called Ishmaelites, Saracens, or Hagarians. This evidence, Spencer suggests, raises the provocative possibility that al-Malik "greatly expanded on the nascent Muhammad myth for his own political purposes." Likewise the Hadith, the collections of Muhammad's sayings and deeds that form "the basis for Islamic law and practice regarding both individual religious observance and the governance of the Islamic state." They also elucidate obscure Qur'anic verses, providing "the prism through which the vast majority of Muslims understand the Qur'an." Yet there is no evidence for the existence of these biographical details of the Hadith before their compilation. This suggests that those details were invented as political tools for use in the factional political conflicts of the Islamic world.

Spencer casts an equally keen critical eye over the early biographies of Mohammad to find the same problems with source authenticity and origins, and their conflicts with other Islamic traditions. These problems, along with the miraculous and folk elements of Ibn Ishaq's biography, suggest that the latter arose long after the collection of the Qur'an. As Spencer concludes, "If Ibn Ishaq is not a historically trustworthy source, what is left of the life of Muhammad?" The history of Islam and Mohammad recalls the statement of the reporter in John Ford's The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend," particularly when the legend was so useful for conquest and the consolidation of power during factional rivalries among Muslim rulers and sects.

So too with the integrity of the Qur'an, the supposedly unchanging and uncreated words of Allah dictated to Mohammad, the perfect copy of the eternal book transmitted in its purity without alteration or addition. Yet apart from fragments, modern Qur'ans are based on manuscripts that date no farther back then the medieval period. The first mention of the Qur'an appears in 710, decades after it allegedly inspired Muslim conquests from Persia to North Africa. Nor is it true that the book has not changed: "Even Islamic tradition shows this contention to be highly questionable, with indications that some of the Qur'an was lost and other parts were added to or otherwise changed." Such textual variants, revisions, lost passages, numerous influences from Jewish and Christian writings and doctrines, and the presence of words in the Syriac language (likely including the word "Qur'an" itself), along with the fact that about one-fifth of the book is simply incomprehensible––all call into question the idea of the Qur'an's purity unchanged since it was divinely dictated to Mohammad.

Spencer's careful, detailed, well-reasoned survey and analysis of the historical evidence offer strong evidence that Muhammad and Islam itself were post facto creations of Arab conquerors who needed a "political theology" delivered by a "warrior prophet" in order to unify the vast territories and diverse religious and ethnic groups now subjected to Muslim power, and to provide a potent basis for loyalty to their new overlords. As Spencer explains, "the empire came first and the theology came later."

"The full truth of whether a prophet named Muhammad lived in seventh-century Arabia," Spencer concludes, "and if he did, what sort of a man he was, may never be known. But it would be intellectually irresponsible not to ask the question or consider the implications of the provocative evidence that pioneering scholars have assembled." The great service Spencer provides goes beyond popularizing the critical study of one of the world's largest religions in order to advance our knowledge and establish historical reality. At a time when the threat of jihadist violence has silenced many people and intimidated them into voluntarily surrendering their right to free speech and the pursuit of truth, Spencer's brave book also demonstrates the importance of those quintessential and powerful Western ideals.

Does this guy Spencer have body guards?

[mattfivefour]

What an awesome thesis Mr. Spencer has developed based on history! And, based on history, what an awesome outcry and violent uproar there will be from the followers of Allah and his prophet.

[mlb]

Media Center - Calvary Chapel Chino Hills
If you go to this site and scroll down to Mohammed's Life it is worth seeing,or listening to, and here is a history of that man, maybe another theory but it tells also of how they are infiltrating our world in order to take over it

[Sean Osborne]

The following is according Dr. Labib Mikhail who is a highly regarded Christian authority on Muhammed, the Qur'an and Islam.

But first, I'll say this much about Spencer's imaginative thesis... if Muhammed did not exist, then someone spent an awful lot of time and effort to construct one of the most detailed frauds in the history of mankind upon which is based the greatest deception of humanity since the Serpent and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

"Thomas Carlyle, a Scottish historian who lived between 1795 and 1881, wrote concerning Muhammad:

Can it be possible that so many creatures have lived and died for something which must be regared as a tragic fraud?

Because of the great number of people who follow Muhammad and his religion, Islam, Carlye assumed that Muhammad was sincere and original. Carlyle forgot what the Lord Jesus Christ said:

Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it (Matthew 7:13, 14, NKJ)

We cannot judge any religion by the number of its adherents.

Alighieri Dante, the Italian poet who lived between the years 1265 and 1321 A.D., wrote THE DIVINE COMEDY. In it he describes Muhammad, with his body split from the head down to the waist, in the twenty-eight sphere of the inferno and shows him tearing apart his severed breast with his own hands, because he is the chief among the damned souls who have brought schism into religion.

To the medieval mind, Muhammad's claim to deliver a divine revelation, superseding Judaism and Christianity, can only be regarded as an implausible fraud. Yet, Anis Mansoor, a well known Egyptian journalist, wrote a book entitled THE DISTINGUISHED PERSONALITIES IN HISTORY ARE ONE HUNDRED, MUHAMMAD IS THE GREATEST OF THEM. How can there be such diverse and extreme opinions regarding one man such as there are about Muhammad?

Let us study this man Muhammad. Let us also study the Quran.

This book is a documented analysis of Muhammad's life: his roots, his marriages, his call, his migration, his battles, and his death. It is also a documented analysis of the Quran, which the Muslims spell "Qur'an."

What is the Quran? The Quran is the Muslims's Holy Book - they call it "The Glorious Qur'an" or "Al-Mushaf Al-Shareef." The Quran came almost 600 years after Christ. Many of its contents contradict the Bible and it records many of the Bible stories with great distortion. It commands the killing of Jews and Christians, permits polygamy (marring more than one woman at one time), permits the husband to beat his wife, and permits a Muslim man to marry a Christian or a Jewish woman, but forbids the Muslim woman to marry a Christian or a Jew. Many more things are mentioned in this book.

It would be helpful for the English speaking reader to buy an English translation of the Quran and read it carefully to see the great contradictions between it and the Bible, and at the same time to discover the discrepancies in the Quran itself.

This book compares the Quran and the Bible. It has been written after many years of research to inform the English speaking people concerning Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, and the Quran.

It is offered with much prayer."

[dave-o]

I've read this article several times before only instead of Mohamed, the Quran and Islam, it was Jesus, the New Testament and Christianity.

Personally I think the existing accepted 'facts' about the life and times of Mohamed are, for the most part, accurate.

Right now there is a conspiracy being carried out to undermine all the worlds religions and morph them into a mere spirituality that a person can define and practice any way they choose regardless of whatever label their personal belief system might bear. This conspiracy is not new and is not directed by human beings (Ephesians 6:12) so there is no way to track it and point a finger at any particular persons or organization. I fear that it is only going to get worse and that it is spreading rapidly.

[mikhen7]

I've read this article several times before only instead of Mohamed, the Quran and Islam, it was Jesus, the New Testament and Christianity.

Personally I think the existing accepted 'facts' about the life and times of Mohamed are, for the most part, accurate.

Right now there is a conspiracy being carried out to undermine all the worlds religions and morph them into a mere spirituality that a person can define and practice any way they choose regardless of whatever label their personal belief system might bear. This conspiracy is not new and is not directed by human beings (Ephesians 6:12) so there is no way to track it and point a finger at any particular persons or organization. I fear that it is only going to get worse and that it is spreading rapidly.

John 14:6 --> He is the only way. (Final Period) :)

[Sean Osborne]

Personally I think the existing accepted 'facts' about the life and times of Mohamed are, for the most part, accurate.

One of the key 'facts' about the life and times of Muhammed (570-634 AD) is that the angel Gabriel came down and nearly choked the poor, illiterate Mohammed to death three times prior to his willing submission to accept a dictation of the Qur'an. This is why the Arabic word "islam" literally means "submission."

The thing is, all so-called "facts" about Muhammed come from a single source - deceived Muslims. (Principle among them were two Arabs who did not know or experience Muhammed personally: Ibn-Ishaq (A.D. 768) and Al-Waqidi (A.D. 822). Deceived Muslims have been telling lies in this manner for nearly 1,400 years. The angel Gabriel dictated the Qur'an to Mohammed? That's a lie. That the spiritual entity was an angel is also a lie. Clearly it was a demonic being.

[dave-o]

When I said 'facts' I wasn't referring to the religious things Islam accepts on faith. Honestly, thanks, but I'm fully aware of who is behind the religion of Islam.

[Sean Osborne]

Actually, there is nothing taken by "faith" in Islam. Total submission to "allah" is a mandatory obligation. Apostasy from total submission is punishable by death.

[dave-o]

Actually, there is nothing taken by "faith" in Islam. Total submission to "allah" is a mandatory obligation. Apostasy from total submission is punishable by death.

That's not true! Adherents to Islam have to take it on faith that the Quran and its teachings are true. None were witnesses to Mohamed's visions, encounters or whatever.

Now if you meant that faith has no part in the tenets of salvation according to Islam well okay that's a fact. Allah couldn't care less if they have faith in him or not. A Muslim can submit perfectly and still end up in hell.

Again, when I said 'facts' I was talking about the life and times of Mohamed that have been generally accepted by non-Islamic historians.

[Meg]

One of the jihadists' most potent psychological weapons is the double standard Muslims have imposed on the West. Temples and churches are destroyed and vandalized, Christians murdered and driven from the lands of Christianity's birth, anti-Semitic lunacy propagated by high-ranking Muslim clerics, and Christian territory like northern Cyprus ethnically cleansed and occupied by Muslims. Yet the West ignores these depredations all the while it agonizes over trivial "insults" to Islam and Mohammed, and decries the thought-crime of "Islamophobia" whenever even factual statements are made about Islamic history and theology. This groveling behavior confirms the traditional Islamic chauvinism that sees Muslims as the "best of nations" destined by Allah to rule the world through violent jihad.

Even in the rarefied world of academic scholarship, this fear of offense has protected Islam from the sort of critical scrutiny every other world religion has undergone for centuries.

The use of double standards and spineless cowering in the face of politically correct liberal demands for some warped "justice" devoid of accountability is exactly how the homosexual agenda is pushed as well. They both hide their crimes, trot out their supposedly "good" examples and demand we believe they're harmless, then when they get what they want, the abuses begin to surface.

We stand for truth and accountability for good reasons, and it is well to stand no matter who doesn't like it!

Dear bold Robert Spencer has very likely laid his life on the line with this book he's dared write. May the Holy Lord uphold him!!