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.
Obviously, if worship of Jesus as the Son of God was acceptable to “Moslems” then it would be an easy leap from defender to plunderer of the trade routes.
(1) The evidence for Jesus of Nazareth and the evidence for Muhammad of the Quraysh are two separate discussions. We have four canonical biographies of the former within less than a century of his recorded death. For the latter we have one accepted biography from almost 150 years after his recorded death.
(2) Various movements of conquering peoples have occurred in history without having a distinct religious motive or a clear originator. The Khamag Mongols had no religious agenda and had already begun their enormous empire building project before Genghis Khan was born. Likewise the French conquest of Europe had begun before Napoleon's name was known. The Roman Empire had no clear progenitor or religious basis and the Persian conquest of most of the known world was also spontaneous and non-ideological.
History shows that peoples conquer first because they can, and invent supporting ideologies and align behind leaders later on in order to consolidate and legitimize their gains.
I am not saying that Spencer's case is unassailable, only that your objections are not well-supported.
The Mongols, and all related people of the steppe, showed a continuous history of raids, invasion and conquest for thousands of years.
The Arabs had a history similarly thousands of years old. Lots of raids, but few or no successful conquests. Then a century with one of the greatest conquests in history, then a return to centuries of no conquest. For that matter, a history of being invaded.
My question is simply what can account for the discrepancy.
I think the simplest explanation is the birth of a new religion.
I agree the evidence for Jesus is not identical to that for Mohammed. I merely pointed out that similar objections to whether he really existed have been made. Which they have.
I plan to read the book. However, my initial impression is that of the old science saw, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
IOW, the lack of evidence does not prove he didn’t exist, only that the evidence he existed is minimal.
Scientists and historians have for centuries now been claiming that all sorts of mythical characters had no basis in fact. Quite often as additional evidence is found it shows the guy really existed and may have been exaggerated. But very seldom that there was no basis in a real person.
The Xia and Shang dynasties in China, for instance.
The Arabs of the 600s had a similar population explosion and it occurred when the Byzantine empire was weak.
Patricia Crone has pointed out that before the canonical text of the Koran was established, the Caliphs of the Muslim empire called themselves khalifa allaha "God's deputy" and the title did not change until a generation after the canonical text was disseminated into khalifa rasul allaha or "deputy of God's prophet."
In the case of Christianity, the doctrines and history were well-established traditions among believers long before Christianity had any political or military significance. In the case of Islam, the doctrines and history seem to have been elaborated long after the movement had become a powerful force in geopolitics.
Interesting point about the Northmen.
However, the Normans, after their period of rapid expansion, did not turn into a passive people.
In various ways and different degrees Russia, France, the British Empire and the United States are Norman in their origins and character.
The Swedes even had a later episode of being a Great Power for more than a century.
The Arabs have nothing like this. They flared up, died down and never came back to life.
Also the Normans were never anything vaguely resembling a unified state. Their raids and conquests were private ventures, as can be seen in its most extreme form in the conquest of S. Italy and Sicily.
The Arab Empire, OTOH, within about a century had spread as a more or less unified state from China to France.
It doesn’t matter if Mo existed or not.
The fact that over a billion moslems believe he did is the point.
Trying to disprove that Mo existed to moslems is akin to trying to put out fire with gasoline.
Besides, Mo’s (alleged) disciple “Umar” did exist. We know that from historical accounts of Iran’s invasion by bedo Arabs. “Umar” is/was said to be one of Mo’s immediate disciples, but when Umar & his army attacked Iran, Mo wasn’t in the picture (he had already died, several yrs earlier).
By all accounts, Mo or his disciples were bedo Arabs and were illiterate.
As for the Quran, it has been rewritten several times, since Mo & Umar’s time, over the centuries. It couldn’t have been originally written by Mohamad.
Plus the Quran is a mish mash of preceding ‘holy’ books. IMO, that’s why in parts it is disjointed, fragmented, and just doesn’t make sense.
The original Arabic version was written in Egyptian arabic, I read somewhere a while ago - this was written a couple of centuries, I think, after Mo’s death (anyhow it was definitely written *after* Mo’s death).
The Saudi only accept the version written in Saudi arabic as the “official” one. Then again, the Saudi Royal family are the “official” custodians of the “holy” cities of Mecca & Medina. And, Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Mo... well, allegedly.
But, I do believe Mohamad did exist & declared himself a “prophet”, once upon a time.
Have you heard about an ancient koran found in Germany which shows different passages from the officially accepted koran of today?
Yes! Was also thinking about that.
Two links:
Lost Archives:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120008793352784631.html
Indiana Jones meets the Da Vinci Code (published in 2008):
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA15Ak03.html
Just one example of how the Quran, generally Mo, Islam & Islamic traditions have been influenced by preceding religions, religious books & customs:
The “Lost Archive” in #68 says “Islamic tradition emphasizes oral transmission” in reciting the Quran, because Mo was illiterate & his followers had to memorize his words as revealed to him by Allah....
Well, the Avesta and the Gathas in Zoroastrian tradition are orally transmitted as well, particularly by Zoroastrian priests (mobeds). Of course Zoroastrian text and religion are by far older than Islam.
Post Arab-Islam invasion of Iran oral transmission & reciting the Avesta from memory became necessities, because the Moslem-Arabs burned as many Zoroastrian texts as they could find.
But, prior to that, it was also the tradition because the Gathas (17 hymns believed to be spoken by Zoroaster himself) are in rhythmic poetic verse form, in ancient Prakrit & Sanskrit (old Aryan languages). The root word for the Gatha is “gai”, which means speak, sing, recite or extol.
An interesting connection between the “rhythmic poetic verse form” of the Gathas and Persian (Iranian tradition) is when one looks at Iranian literature over the centuries, even post-Islam. Iranians are not good at prose, but excel in poetry, with numerous fairly famous poets right up to present day.
Most notably, Ferdowsi’s famous Shah-Nameh (Book of Kings) which is about reviving the Persian language and pre-Islamic history (written around 10th century AD), is mostly written in “rhythmic poetic verse”, rather than prose.
I think you're focusing on West of today's Saudi Arabia, rather than East.
In relation to Mohamad & his followers, take a look at the section entitled "Raids on Caravans - Caravans & Trade as a Source of Wealth” in this page
Completely agree w/ opportunistic nature of Islam, etc...
Imo, Mo did exist, but his "prophethood" was a myth. To be precise, in Arabic "Rasul" means "messenger", not "prophet". So, in Arabic, Mohamad is known as "Rasul Allah" (messenger of Allah).
The other incentive was about economics or the acquisition of wealth - link in #70.
I don’t think that’s correct. Omar Sharif was born a Maronite Catholic Michel Dmitri Shalhoub and then converted to Islam
Correct. it's like they got a momentary jolt and then returned to somnolence. Of course to add to what you said -- "Arab" truly means just the Nejd and Hejaz Bedouins. The Semitic tribes of Yemen, Syria including the Canaanites etc are/were not 'Arab' in that sense, neither were/are the Egyptians.
I don't believe the Soviets could have struck back. the Germans were just too strong. They swept straight into the European half of Russia with next to no issue. Only American arms and support kept Russia propped up.
If that had not been there and if (I know, many "ifs") the Japanese had hit Russia in the back in Syberi, the Nazis would have ridden rough-shod straight into Central Asia.
What would have happened then is the same with any over-stretched Empire, especially one that over-stretches so quickly -- it would have broken.
Good analogy. The Duchy of Lithuania came about when the Mongols had destroyed Kievan Rus and the Poles were not strong enough to take advantage.
It's like a civilizational virus -- destroying civilizations. Look at Yemen, Egypt, Persia -- centers of civilization once and now.... While India's cancerous part (pakistan) was removed, it still causes problems...
Not really. The majority of the Spanish population was Orthodox/Catholic while the Visigoth rulers were initially Arian. This wasn't a big gap at the time the moors came over.
Not completely. The Mongols were not united before Genghis Khan. There were various groups: naimans, Kara-khitan etc. Chinghiz Khan did unite them under the idea of the sky-Lord and battle against the decadent city-dwellers.
Likewise the French conquest of Europe had begun before Napoleon's name was known. -- the French conquest of Europe was quasi-religious in the Republican sense, they had a mission. Also, France at that time was 25% of the population of Europe, and heavily militarized due to the revolution. Even a highly militarized, but small state like Prussia could not stand up to this rag-tag army that used unconventional tactics.
incidently from 1800 to 1900 the population of France remained nearly stagnant while England's population nearly quadrupled and Germany's quadrupled. Some suggest this was due to the French learning different methods of birth-control in their travels east.
True, I've been lately reading up on Heracles who strangely enough shows the same basis in a real person of the 2nd millenia BC
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.
