Posted on 04/23/2012 4:47:09 AM PDT by SJackson
- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -
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 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.
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.
Copyright © 2009 FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved.
interesting, thanks...
"Accretion" is right.
But, have to point out that the so-called "Persian Empire" has a distinct history before Cyrus, and even the Median Empire. It just isn't well-known to even the Persians Iranians) themselves. This is before the neo-Assyrian Empire..
As you point out, Cyrus (Kourosh) the Great, was the grandson of of the Median Emperor (Cyrus' mother, if am not mistaken, was a Median herself), and Cyrus, actually married a Median Princess, himself. That union helped, later, with uniting the Medians (current kurds) with the Persians. Both being of Aryan roots, but different tribes, at the time.
However, in strictly Aryan terms/history (Iran in particular), that history (or pre-history) began with the Pishdadians Dynasty. Remember "Jamshid" and Norooz or as the Parsee Zoroastrian community in India call it "Navroz" Jamshidi?
While I am on this subject, it is fascinating to find out more about it.
Even Ferdowsi's Shah-Nameh (Book of Kings), which is a very significantly piece of literary & historical work (written circa 10th century AD), explicitly goes well beyond Cyrus the Great "Persian Empire" and talks about other Aryan Dynasties of Iran, namely, the Pishdadians and Kianians.
Well worth reading if interested in history: Pre Cyrus the Great Aryan Dynasties of Iran - Epic Cycles
interesting, thanks...
As far as I know, Khalifa allaha means "successor of Allah (or God's successor or "deputy"). Khalifa is just the arabic word for what we usually spell or pronounce as "Caliph" in English. It means "Successor". Or, possibly, "deputy", depending on context.
But, "Rasul" is also an arabic word, originating from "resalat" meaning to bear messages or be a medium.
Khalifa rasul allaha, presumably spelt per arabic pronunciation, does not mean "deputy of God's prophet". It literally would mean "Successor or deputy, messenger of Allah".
Unless I am corrected, or given a more accurate translation (meaning), by a native Arabic speaker, I believe what I just said is the most precise/accurate translation into English, but more importantly, the *meaning* of the mentioned words.
significantly piece = significant piece
You are quite correct that we tend to pay more attention to the Muslim conquests west rather than east. Perfectly logical, since the western conquests moved into areas with which we have a historical and civilizational connection. They were Christian and Western in character (at least sort of) up to the Muslim conquest. Persia and Central Asia were, and are, the Other.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Arabs raided into Syria and Iraq all down through history whenever the got the chance. Given the inherent disparity between the populations and military potential of the settled areas versus the deserts, large raids only took place when the settled areas were in great disarray. Which probably in all history were never greater than when the Byzantines and Persians had battered each other into exhaustion after centuries of intermittent war and 30 years of continuous war. Each contender had invaded and devastated the other’s heartland. The effects were probably right up there with those of the 30 Years War on Germany, or possibly even worse.
The problem is that the mindset needed for effective conquest is very different from that of raiders, who seldom set up governments that last very long. As Napoleon said, you can do anything with bayonets except sit on them. Conquest requires structure, and smash and grab bandits aren’t big on structure.
Interesting.
However, as far as I can tell, these stories are mythical in nature rather than historical.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t dismiss myth as inherently untruthful, but I prefer to see it backed up with some genuine historical evidence from archaeology, etc. King Arthur is probably based on a historical figure, but the Camelot of the stories never really existed.
Did some research and you are correct that by the time of the Muslim invasion the Christians of Spain were reasonably united, though in previous centuries there had been a lot of religious dissent.
However, the Visigoths were among the most anti-semitic of all the Christian nations of the time and persecuted the Jews with great enthusiasm. Hence, it is recorded that the Jews opened the gates of Toledo to the Muslims, accurately seeing them as likely to treat them with greater lenity than did the Christians.
In any case, it is obvious something was wrong with the Spanish of the time. They were conquered in just a few years by a small army at the end of a very long supply line.
800 years or so before the Romans needed a couple of centuries to conquer Iberia, and of course Napoleon learned just how hard it was to control the peninsula against the wishes of its people.
Very little of this resistance by the people occurred when the Moops (pop culture reference) invaded. Religious disaffection may not have been the reason, but obviously the people were not willing to fight and die against the invaders. This is probably because the Visigoths, something like 1% or 2% of the population, had retained all power and privilege in their own hands for several centuries. The people saw little reason to be concerned which group held this power. Which just goes to show that tyranny and oppression often sows the seeds of its own destruction.
Possible. However, the Japs tried it on with the Red Army in 1939 and got absolutely smashed.
The Japs were set up to fight the obsolete Chinese forces and were in no shape to deal with mechanized land warfare in open country. Banzai charges didn't work any better against Soviet tanks than against American marines.
That's what moslems & more than a few moslem scholars also say about Jerusalem - that King Solomon's Temple never existed, it is a myth.
At the very least, I have FULL belief in Ferdowsi's Shah-Nameh (Book of Kings).
As I've said before, he wrote his book, after 30 (laborious) yrs, in the 10th century AD in Iran. Even though he does segment his book in to 3 sections, one being the "mythical" one, I doubt it is *entirely* mythical; he spoke the truth. I will tell you why, later. It is late at night here at my end right now.
Mean time, tell me why you think it is "mythical", in your opinion ??
For now, I can only tell you that Ferdowsi did his research (be it surreptitiously) as was required, for his time, extremely well.
I am largely familiar with the legend of King Arthur & Camelot - however, I can comfortably say: No comparison with Camelot and King Arthur, At All, in this case. The history & circumstances, in & for England, were completely different.
The peoples of the steppe had a several thousand year history of conquest down into the settled areas of China, India, Persia and the Middle East by the time Genghis came along. Intermittently a great leader would arise on the steppe, unite the tribes and conquer down into one or more of the areas. Genghis was not an innovator, only the most successful of all the leaders to arise from the steppe.
The steppe peoples lived a similar lifestyle from Hungary to Korea. Tribes coalesced and splintered easily. There was nothing resembling "nations" in the sense we use the term. A long period of good rains would result in significant growth in the herds and population of the nomads. When drought inevitably returned, they fought each other for pasture or turned outward for conquest of the farmers.
The settled nations on the perimeter of the steppe defended themselves primarily by divide and conquer, bribing the tribes to fight each other rather than unite and attack the civilized areas.
The basic military fact was that before the introduction of effective firearms mounted archers properly used were invincible, at least on reasonably suitable terrain. Any force powerful enough to defeat them was too slow to catch them.
My point is that the Arabs had no such history of conquest. This is probably at least partially because the Arabian peninsula is not nearly as large or as suitable for supporting large tribes of nomads as the Eurasian steppe. Much of it is true desert, not steppe.
Napoleon was a complete failure, never mind Waterloo.
Just finished rereading Herodotus. Lots about the establishment of the Persian Empire by Cyrus. Admittedly, Herodotus was an enemy, but he very obviously admired Cyrus even if he considered the Persians enemies.
There is not a trace in Herodotus of a long history of Persian magnificence prior to Cyrus. The idea you get is of a hard-living primitive more or less tribal people moving in on more effete civilizations and taking them over.
AFAIK, Cyrus, Darius and the other Achaemenids made no claim of ancient lineage, which they certainly would have had there been any way for them to do so.
For instance, in the Behistun Inscription (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_translation_of_the_Behistun_Inscription), Darius the Great (probably a successful usurper) did everything he could to portray his rule as legitimate. But he only claimed 9 generations of kingship, which was probably a lie in itself. If he could have done so with any credibility at all, no doubt he would have claimed great antiquity for his kingdom.
The recorded Persian documents in the Bible also make no claim of great antiquity. The Persians do not appear in the Bible till after the Babylonian Conquest, making it very unlikely, IMO, that they had been major players previously.
I'm no expert, but the surviving Sumerian, Babylonian and Assyrian records generally portray the area of what is now Iran as primitive and tribal, not the home of powerful contending empires. At this point we're getting back something like 5000 years, leaving little time for the great Persian empires of the Shahnameh to exist.
This is not a historical Muslim contention. Muslim legend is historically loaded with stories about Solomon, for instance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Solomon
The Koran, I believe, originally referenced Jerusalem as The holy city precisely because it was where the Temple originally stood. Only after the Jews rejected him did Mohammed go with Mecca.
No doubt some Muslims of today claim there was no Temple as a way of dissing the Jews, but this is not the historical Muslim tradition. They claim not that David and Solomon did not exist, but rather that they were great Muslim prophets as well as kings.
Many scholars of today are skeptical of the Bible stories of the great empire of David and Solomon, but that is because remarkably little archeological evidence of its existence has been found. Which I must admit I find a little disturbing myself.
Napoleon eventually lost a war against overwhelming odds when the entire rest of Europe turned on him.
I fail to see how this qualifies him as a complete failure. Unless you consider RE Lee to be “a complete failure” because he was eventually defeated by overwhelming force.
Napoleon was perhaps the greatest general and strategist of all time. Probably would have set up an empire over all Europe if not for the existence of that pesky English Channel. And of course his apparent inability to get beyond French chauvinism which eventually encouraged the growth of nationalism in the subject peoples and the disintegration of his empire.
Good point, however I meant specifically the Achaemenids, not the overall Aryanic realm. it's interesting that Jamshid is the iranic version of the Indic Yama -- who is the Indic god of death who rides a buffalo and who bears much of the aspects of an Asura (and I think is named as such along with Varuna and Agni in the Rigveda)
The older extant Korans have a Hebrew inscription at the end, saying that “this is all nonsense”. We have a tradition that that was snuck in by Mo’s Jewish secretary. I believe he was a specific person, suffering from epilepsy and fed up with the idiotic beliefs of Arabs at that time, and enamored with Christian and Jewish stories and theology. He was also an egomaniacal mass murderer. Presently reading Twilight Over Delhi by a distinguished Muslim of letters, contemporary of Ghandi, and he is quite right that imperialistic interference with native cultures leaves irreversible harm in its wake. The same goes for the most imperialistic religion of all, Islam, destroying indigenous cultures for 1,400 years and counting.
Robert Spencer interview on Janet Mefford (Christian) radio show.
INCREDIBLE! States at end “Mo” never existed.
http://www.janetmefferdpremium.com/2012/04/25/janet-mefferd-radio-show-20120425-hr-3/
Agreed.
Good differentiation between the Achaemenids and the overall Aryanic realm. Re Jamshid, Kianians & Pishdadian, I was referring to the “Aryanic realm” (as does that link I gave), which is not necessarily & only the “Persian” or “Median” one.
Interesting about Indic god you mention. Didn’t know that.
Also, “Persepolis” is the Greek name, a you know, for Takht_e Jamshid. Unfortunately, even many Iranians refer to it as Persepolis, instead of its true name Takht_e Jamshid.
Sherman Logan: Meant to get back to you yesterday on that earlier post, but got too busy w/ other things. Am getting ready for work now, but will try later today.
Takht_e Jamshid means Seat or Throne of Jamshid.
So, even from Cyrus’ time it must have had direct connection or at least influence on ancient Persians and Medians.
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.
