Robert Spencer Asks: Did Muhammad Exist?

Posted By Bruce Thornton On April 23, 2012 @ 12:55 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 7 Comments

Editor’s note: Robert Spencer’s acclaimed new book, Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins, is now available. To order, click here.

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 Old Testament. 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 7^th 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.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/04/23/robert-spencer-asks-did-mohammad-exist/

Click here to print.

Herodotus is just one (Greek) source and his documentation while correct to some degree, is not complete. Therefore, his account has its limitations as well.

For example, he, along with other Greek historians, referred to Iran as Persis (referring only to one province of today’s Iran called Pars or Parsa in persian, hence Persia as we know it in English), to Takht_e Jamshid as Persepolis, and basically provided their own interpretations from a Greek (in another words a foreign point of view), about the Achaemenid Dynasty, not prior to that, as far as I know.

I’ve read Herodotus as well (not fully), but frankly I don’t think he was too familiar with history of Iran or should say Aryans before Cyrus - at least not intimately. Herodotus seems to be a fair bit confused about Aryan religions and in fact Zoroastrianism too. This is regardless of admiring Cyrus. I’ve read that Alexander the Macedonian was also a great admirer of Cyrus.

Also, Sumerians, Babylonians and Assyrians (the latter 2 were semitic tribes), mostly focus on Iraq (& Mesopotamia) and west of today’s of Iraq, not east. The Aryan land was to the east, and that’s where its history or prehistory began. From countries such as today’s Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan. The Aryans only settled in today’s Iran or the Iranian plateau later on. Tajikistan is particularly significant.

The name Iran (derivative of Airyan or Airyana) is very old & has always been known to most Iranians or Aryans. However, Ariyana refers to the Greater Iran, as it was at the time i.e. Land of Aryans.

The reason, I think, Aryan history or prehistory is not well recorded by “others” before Cyrus the Great, or the Median Empire, and before that the Proto-Elamite period, is because Cyrus through his conquests actually put the “Persian Empire” on the map, so to speak. His conquests west of Iran also brought “Aryan” and by extesion Median & Persian influences elsewhere, particularly post-Babylonian conquest, and when he freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity.

There is abundant linguistic evidence, including documents, archaeological (e.g. in Kermanshah & Hamadan in Iran), historical (especially for valorize traditional Iranian history), historical weather, and so on.. Shah-Nameh and the Avesta (incl. the Gathas) & other Zoroastrian scriptures are just a few main documents. Not sure why it isn’t mentioned in the Bible, but may be because the Avesta is much older than the Bible and deals *specifically* with the Aryan traditions & history.

I acknowledge that in parts that prehistory or history is mixed with some mythology. As previously mentioned, even Ferdowsi’s work stipulates that. Then again, one can argue that even Adam & Eve or Moses parting the red sea are closer to myth than strictly ‘history’.

The webpage in post #82 has numerous other links within the post, and I think explains matters quite well, together with relevant maps.

You’re quite right that King Solomon (aka Suleiman in the Quaran) has been mentioned a few times in the Quran. Then again the Quran and Islam were both very much influenced by Jewish and Hebrew traditions, and of course relatively speaking are newcomers. Eleutheria5 and I had a discussion about this in another thread recently. In Islamic tradition Solomon (or Suleiman) is very Islamicized. That’s how moslems accept him - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2850322/posts?page=57#57

Just for general information & record, and since I made several references to Ferdowsi's work in this thread, thought to throw in some original words from Ferdowsi & what he wrote about his own work: the Shah-Nameh (Book of Kings). -- may sound arrogant, but it is more a vision on his part.

Those unfamiliar with Ferdowsi's aims & circumstances, may note that he wrote the Shah-Nameh very much under duress. He labored for some 30 years just to complete the Shah-Nameh - finally, without any personal reward, recognition, or fame, while he was alive.

Prior to his work, Arabic was enforced on Iranians (Persians) for 2 centuries, as the official language in & of Iran. Any one caught speaking their native tongue "Persian" (or its various dialects), had his/her tongue, literally, severed by Arab-Moslem rulers.

Shah-Nameh was, eventually, accepted. The main purposes being to revive the Persian language & have it officially reinstated, were achieved.

Thereafter, his work set the scene for understanding the lost Persian (Aryan) history, legends, culture, and traditions of Iran & Aryans in the Greater Iran. The Tajiks adore him too.

I can comfortably say that most, even poorer Iranians & "Aryans" can still recite verses from the Shah-Nameh & actually understand it. -- The same can not be said about the Quran, or as many have in recent years been calling the Quran in Iran i.e. "Taazi-Nameh" meaning the "Arab-Book".

Below are his own original words written in the 10th century AD, taking a futuristic view of his work for future generations, as part of his legacy.

His words in Persian are more meaningful, and eloquent (in rhythmic poetic verse) than the (rough) English translation - somewhat "lost in translation", but there you have it. Those who can read Persian, may appreciate it more....

بناهاى آباد گردد خراب
ز باران و از تابش آفتاب
پى افكندم از نظم كاخي بلند
كه از باد و باران نيابد گزند
از آن پس نميرم كه من زنده‌ام
كه تخم سخن را پراكنده‌ام
هر آنكس كه دارد هش و راى و دين
پس از مرگ بر من كند آفرين

Translation:

“Buildings of the city suffer deterioration
From the raindrop and the ray of sunlight.”
“I founded a great palace of verse [The Shahnameh]
That is impervious to the wind and the rain”
“I shall not die, these seeds [of discourse] I’ve sown will save
My name and reputation from the grave,”
“And men of sense and wisdom will proclaim,
When I have gone, my praises and my fame.”

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.