Posted on 09/12/2021 4:52:26 AM PDT by MtnClimber
“A thorough review of the historical records provides startling indications that much, if not all, of what we know about Muhammad is legend, not historical fact,” writes Robert Spencer in his new edition of Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins. Therein this bestselling author, scholar, and world-renowned “Islamophobe” details numerous factual, fatal objections to the received faith-based narrative of Islam’s founding by a prophet named Muhammad.
Spencer surveys the historical record of various of various societies like the Byzantine Empire that bore the brunt of Arab invasions in the Middle East and North Africa following Muhammad’s supposed death in 632. The surprising documentary result:
No one who interacted with those who conquered the Middle East in the middle of the seventh century ever seems to have gotten the impression that a prophet named Muhammad, whose followers burst from Arabia bearing a new holy book and a new creed, was behind the conquests.
Spencer notes that “this silence is extremely strange. Islam, in its canonical texts, is an unapologetically supremacist religion.” Tellingly, “coins minted in the 650s and possibly as late as the 670s” by early Islamic caliphs like the Damascus-based Umayyads make no “reference to Muhammad as Allah’s prophet or to any other distinctive element of Islam.” Some of these coins even feature crosses, but “it is hard to imagine that such a coin would have been minted at all had the dogmatic Islamic abhorrence of the cross been in place at the time.”
Muhammad’s normative biography raises grave doubts for Spencer, based as it is largely on the hadith, or canonical narratives about Muhammad’s words and actions. Spencer observes that Islamic orthodoxy holds that the hadith passed from Muhammad’s lifetime to the ninth century in an uncorrupted oral tradition before Islamic scholars verified and transcribed hadith.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Could the brutality and criminality justified in the koran be a way to justify the “barbaric” behavior?
ping
I highly recommend “The Sword and the Scimitar” as an excellent history of the great battles between Christianity and Islam. I noticed the same lack of reference to a “prophet of Allah” in the early days. It seemed strange.
“The Muhammad of Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham is not a peaceful teacher of the love of God and the brotherhood of man but rather a warlord who fought numerous battles and ordered the assassination of his enemies,” Spencer reviews. Muhammad is “more of a cutthroat than a holy man.”
Christianity was spread by The Word. Islam was spread by the sword from day one. What sort of people put any credence at all in a warlord?
Link to Biblio for sale of book.
The truth about Islam is it began as a heretical branch of Christianity that was anti-Trinitarian and iconoclastic. These were common beliefs among the barbarian tribes that surrounded the Roman Empire.
It was only a century later when the Arab armies had surprised themselves with their own success that they decided Mohamedism was its own religion.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3979278/posts
That said, Spencer says (I included the omitted last sentence from the excerpt),
Muhammad’s normative biography raises grave doubts for Spencer, based as it is largely on the hadith, or canonical narratives about Muhammad’s words and actions. Spencer observes that Islamic orthodoxy holds that the hadith passed from Muhammad’s lifetime to the ninth century in an uncorrupted oral tradition before Islamic scholars verified and transcribed hadith. “Seldom, if ever, has such a feat of memory been documented,” Spencer skeptically comments.One has to take some issue with that last sentence as Homer's Iliad and Odyssey began as oral traditions handed down for 400 years until Homer wrote them down. Much of what is contained in them has been found, including the famous wooden horse. So, it is entirely possible that the origin of Mohamed and his life (hadiths) may be true and did happen, just not when later scholars believe.
That the whole of what is called Islam today may be far older then the 7th century origin attributed to it. Spencer notes that much of the koran (as well as the other four : Talibari, Muslim, Isaq and Bukhari), only make sense if one reads it in the Syriac language, not Arabic. He gains this insight from how the actual characters are formed and the omission of the marks which distinguish one Arabic letter from another. If the original were written in the Syriac language, that would push the origin of Islam back to sometime after the 1st century.
What sort of people put any credence at all in a warlord?
—
Those that do not want to be put to the sword?
In all likelihood, Abdul ibn al-Zubayr, whose reign began in 683 (61 years after the alleged death of the alleged prophet), was the first ruler to use Muhammadanism as a tool for both social and political control of the Arab peoples. Neither is there any evidence of a widespread or large scale Muhammadan movement prior to his ascension.
Simple Rules of Engagement with Muslims -
If Infidels are present, Sunni with unite with Shi’a sects to enslave (physical, sex, monetary), convert, and annihilate all Infidels.
If no Infidels present, Sunni will turn against Shi’a until one or the other is enslaved or annihilated.
The rising population of Muslims over 1200 years shows the effectiveness of their tactics.
The war isn’t over, by a long shot ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.