Did Mohammed Exist?

[Milo]

New book out from Robert Spencer:

Are jihadists dying for a fiction? Everything you thought you knew about Islam is about to change.

Did Muhammad exist?

It is a question that few have thought—or dared—to ask. Virtually everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, takes for granted that the prophet of Islam lived and led in seventh-century Arabia.

But this widely accepted story begins to crumble on close examination, as Robert Spencer shows in his eye-opening new book.

In his blockbuster bestseller The Truth about Muhammad, Spencer revealed the shocking contents of the earliest Islamic biographical material about the prophet of Islam. Now, in Did Muhammad Exist?, he uncovers that material’s surprisingly shaky historical foundations. Spencer meticulously examines historical records, archaeological findings, and pioneering new scholarship to reconstruct what we can know about Muhammad, the Qur’an, and the early days of Islam. The evidence he presents challenges the most fundamental assumptions about Islam’s origins.

Did Muhammad Exist? reveals:

How the earliest biographical material about Muhammad dates from at least 125 years after his reported death

How six decades passed before the Arabian conquerors—or the people they conquered—even mentioned Muhammad, the Qur’an, or Islam

The startling evidence that the Qur’an was constructed from existing materials—including pre-Islamic Christian texts

How even Muslim scholars acknowledge that countless reports of Muhammad’s deeds were fabricated

Why a famous mosque inscription may refer not to Muhammad but, astonishingly, to Jesus

How the oldest records referring to a man named Muhammad bear little resemblance to the now-standard Islamic account of the life of the prophet

The many indications that Arabian leaders fashioned Islam for political reasons

Far from an anti-Islamic polemic, Did Muhammad Exist? is a sober but unflinching look at the origins of one of the world’s major religions. While Judaism and Christianity have been subjected to searching historical criticism for more than two centuries, Islam has never received the same treatment on any significant scale.

The real story of Muhammad and early Islam has long remained in the shadows. Robert Spencer brings it into the light at long last.

http://goo.gl/7qcJP

[Parodite]

Oh boy...

[Marcus]

Sounds analogous to DNA proving to the Mormons that Native Americans are not the ten lost tribes of Israel.

[Milo]

Sounds analogous to DNA proving to the Mormons that Native Americans are not the ten lost tribes of Israel.

Perhaps I should save some posters some time:

This book is written by a self proclaimed 'scholar', who will no doubt find an audience from the bigoted and ignorant people out there who hate Islam.

[Mr. Perfect]

Further, if you do read this book it's just one more thing you likely have in common with a Scandinavian mass murderer.

[Ibrahim]

New book out from Robert Spencer

Spencer is a joke, but at least Anders Breivik will have something to read in jail.


As I've said previously, this entire body of faux-scholarship is exactly the same as Creation Science, and the "professors" and "institutes" who publish material in that field for a specific audience. Nobody outside of this closed loop takes it seriously, and for good reason.

In his blockbuster bestseller The Truth about Muhammad, Spencer revealed the shocking contents of the earliest
Islamic biographical material about the prophet of Islam.

Yes, just like Dan Brown "revealed" the shocking truth about Christianity in his blockbuster bestseller TheDaVinci Code.

How the earliest biographical material about Muhammad dates from at least 125 years after his reported death

False, as brought up in a previous thread.

How six decades passed before the Arabian conquerors—or the people they conquered—even mentioned Muhammad, the Qur’an, or Islam

False, as the earliest Shia/Sunni split proves.

The startling evidence that the Qur’an was constructed from existing materials—including pre-Islamic Christian texts

There is no evidence to this effect, and in fact it is impossible to prove. Islam clearly states that it is a continuation/based on Christianity and Judiasm.

How even Muslim scholars acknowledge that countless reports of Muhammad’s deeds were fabricated

Legendary deeds accrue around every historical figure.

Why a famous mosque inscription may refer not to Muhammad but, astonishingly, to Jesus

What an inscription might refer to. Shocking!

How the oldest records referring to a man named Muhammad bear little resemblance to the now-standard Islamic account of the life of the prophet

Would have to know what Spencer is referring to to explain why this one is BS. I'm sure I'll get a chance when somebody posts it.

The many indications that Arabian leaders fashioned Islam for political reasons

This argument was exposed as baseless garbage over at SpengFor when he tried to defend it. No legitimate historian, including those with actual credentials in the field under discussion, accept this view.

It also defies common sense, with Arabs suddenly united into a potent imperial force by no individual or ideology. Just, you know, luck.

Far from an anti-Islamic polemic, Did Muhammad Exist? is a sober but unflinching look at the origins of one of the world’s major religions.

Riiight. It's just a sober, objective look. That's why racists and European mass-murderers flock to Spencer's work. Not too much enthusiasm for Bernard Lewis, though. Wonder why that is....

While Judaism and Christianity have been subjected to searching historical criticism for more than two centuries, Islam has never received the same treatment on any significant scale.

Laughably false. Competent historians have been combing through Islamic history for centuries, and religious polemicists have been attacking Islam for 1400 years. Not only does Spencer pretend to be a scholar, he pretends to be a trailblazer as well.

The real story of Muhammad and early Islam has long remained in the shadows. Robert Spencer brings it into the light at long last.

Yeah, all those accredited scholars producing peer-reviewed material for over a century missed all of these "shocking," "blockbuster" revelations, but Spencer picked up on them all. Here they are, come to light for the first time!

[Ibrahim]

Sounds analogous to DNA proving to the Mormons that Native Americans are not the ten lost tribes of Israel.

Perhaps I should save some posters some time:

This book is written by a self proclaimed 'scholar', who will no doubt find an audience from the bigoted and ignorant people out there who hate Islam.

This much is fact. If you based your racism on legitimate scholarship you wouldn't be open to this charge.

[Ibrahim]

Some Spencer background:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spe ... Background

Spencer received a B.A. in 1983 and an M.A. in 1986 in religious studies from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His masters thesis was on a Catholic history topic.[6] He has said he has been studying Islamic theology, law, and history on his own since 1980.[1][7]

...

Spencer named Paul Weyrich... as a mentor of his writings on Islam.

A B.A. specializing in Catholic history, and then some home study. And I was questioning this man's credentials to "discover shocking new information" about Islamic history?




His mentor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weyrich

Paul M. Weyrich (October 7, 1942 – December 18, 2008[1][2][3][4]) was an American conservative political activist and commentator, most notable as a figurehead of the New Right. He co-founded the Heritage Foundation,[5] a conservative think tank and the Free Congress Foundation, another conservative think tank.

Read on. I didn't see any part where Weyrich studied or knew anything about Islam.




I always suggest Lewis to people who know SFA about Islam. Let's look at his credentials by way of comparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis

Lewis graduated in 1936 from the School of Oriental Studies (now SOAS, School of Oriental and African Studies) at the University of London with a B.A. in history with special reference to the Near and Middle East; and earned his Ph.D. three years later, also from SOAS, specializing in the history of Islam.[8] Lewis also studied law, going part of the way toward becoming a solicitor, but returned to study Middle Eastern history. He undertook post-graduate studies at the University of Paris, where he studied with the orientalist Louis Massignon and earned the "Diplôme des Études Sémitiques" in 1937.[1] He returned to SOAS in 1938 as an assistant lecturer in Islamic History.

During the Second World War, Lewis served in the British Army in the Royal Armoured Corps and Intelligence Corps in 1940–41, before being seconded to the Foreign Office. After the war, he returned to SOAS, and in 1949, at the age of 33, he was appointed to the new chair in Near and Middle Eastern History.[9]

In 1974, aged 57, Lewis accepted a joint position at Princeton University and the Institute for Advanced Study, also located in Princeton, New Jersey. The terms of his appointment were such that Lewis taught only one semester per year, and being free from administrative responsibilities, he could devote more time to research than previously. Consequently, Lewis's arrival at Princeton marked the beginning of the most prolific period in his research career during which he published numerous books and articles based on the previously accumulated materials.[10] In addition, it was in the U.S. that Lewis became a public intellectual. Upon his retirement from Princeton in 1986, Lewis served at Cornell University until 1990.[1]

Lewis has been a naturalized citizen of the United States since 1982. He married Ruth Hélène Oppenhejm in 1947 with whom he had a daughter and a son before the marriage was dissolved in 1974.[1]

In 1966, Lewis was a founding member of the learned society, Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA), but in 2007, he broke away and founded Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA) to challenge MESA, which the New York Sun noted as "dominated by academics who have been critical of Israel and of America's role in the Middle East."[11] The organization was formed as an academic society dedicated to promoting the highest standards of research and teaching in Middle Eastern and African studies, and related fields,[12] with Lewis as Chairman of its academic council.

In 1990 the National Endowment for the Humanities selected Lewis for the Jefferson Lecture, the U.S. federal government's highest honor for achievement in the humanities. His lecture, entitled "Western Civilization: A View from the East,"[13] was revised and reprinted in The Atlantic Monthly under the title "The Roots of Muslim Rage."[14] His 2007 Irving Kristol Lecture, given to the American Enterprise Institute, was published as Europe and Islam.

But hey, I'm probably being a typical irrational lying Muslim here. People should make their own choice.

[Marcus]

New book out from Robert Spencer

Spencer is a joke . . .

And this opinion comes from someone who thinks C. S. Lewis is a joke. Poor Spencer never had a prayer.

[monster_gardener]

New book out from Robert Spencer:

Are jihadists dying for a fiction? Everything you thought you knew about Islam is about to change.

Did Muhammad exist?

It is a question that few have thought—or dared—to ask. Virtually everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, takes for granted that the prophet of Islam lived and led in seventh-century Arabia.

But this widely accepted story begins to crumble on close examination, as Robert Spencer shows in his eye-opening new book.

In his blockbuster bestseller The Truth about Muhammad, Spencer revealed the shocking contents of the earliest Islamic biographical material about the prophet of Islam. Now, in Did Muhammad Exist?, he uncovers that material’s surprisingly shaky historical foundations. Spencer meticulously examines historical records, archaeological findings, and pioneering new scholarship to reconstruct what we can know about Muhammad, the Qur’an, and the early days of Islam. The evidence he presents challenges the most fundamental assumptions about Islam’s origins.

Did Muhammad Exist? reveals:

How the earliest biographical material about Muhammad dates from at least 125 years after his reported death

How six decades passed before the Arabian conquerors—or the people they conquered—even mentioned Muhammad, the Qur’an, or Islam

The startling evidence that the Qur’an was constructed from existing materials—including pre-Islamic Christian texts

How even Muslim scholars acknowledge that countless reports of Muhammad’s deeds were fabricated

Why a famous mosque inscription may refer not to Muhammad but, astonishingly, to Jesus

How the oldest records referring to a man named Muhammad bear little resemblance to the now-standard Islamic account of the life of the prophet

The many indications that Arabian leaders fashioned Islam for political reasons

Far from an anti-Islamic polemic, Did Muhammad Exist? is a sober but unflinching look at the origins of one of the world’s major religions. While Judaism and Christianity have been subjected to searching historical criticism for more than two centuries, Islam has never received the same treatment on any significant scale.

The real story of Muhammad and early Islam has long remained in the shadows. Robert Spencer brings it into the light at long last.

http://goo.gl/7qcJP

Thank you Very Much for your post, Milo.

Did Muhammad exist?

Muslims need to look on the bright side of this.

If Muhammed did not exist, then he didn't commit all those atrocities he's accused of and Muslims don't have to defend him anymore

Things like Mohammed being a pervert who married a 9 year old girl ,having that poetess murdered etc. ... Other Evil Deeds....

[Apollonius]

I thought maybe this was a thread about this book:



The truth of Islam - Bryan Appleyard, Times (London), 25 March 2012
http://www.bryanappleyard.com/the-truth-of-islam/



Review of:

In the Shadow of the Sword by Tom Holland (Little, Brown, 2012)

Before a drop of his blood touched the ground, Mohamed Merah found himself in Paradise. Having killed three French soldiers and four Jews and, having been dispatched himself by a single shot to the head from a special forces rifle, he was a shahid, a martyr, one of the elect who had died for his faith.

Or so he would have been told by the men that claim to be his sponsors, Jund al-Khilafah, the Soldiers of the Caliphate, a group based on the Afghan-Pakistani border and linked to both Al-Qaeda and the Haqqani network, the most resilient anti-Nato force in Afghanistan.

Such groups have their political ends in this world, which they pursue by sustaining young men in a permanent rage. But these ends are underpinned by an absolute certainty about the next world, a place that can be entered only by the pure, those who have faith in the Koran as the words of God transmitted to his prophet, Muhammad, and in the exact details of the life and sayings of the prophet as laid down by Islamic tradition since the 9th century.

Non-Muslims may not share this certainty but they fear its power. In what is only the latest sign that the West’s liberal values have been compromised by the jihadists’ homicidal rage, a few days ago The New York Times refused to carry a full-page ad critical of Islam. What was shocking was that the paper had just carried a full-page anti-Catholic ad.

In London the National Theatre is staging a play about the deathly silence that often falls when talk turns to Islam. Can We Talk about This?, by Lloyd Newson, investigates the way Islamism collides with western free speech. In total contrast, the British Museum’s Hajj exhibition celebrates the beauty of the faith. That it has been made possible by Saudi money infuriated the columnist Nick Cohen, who claimed it was a whitewash of the violence and oppression that lie behind Saudi management of the great Muslim pilgrimage. Islam is everywhere accompanied by anxiety and controversy.

But what if it’s not true? None of it? An average western non-believer may think it is not true that “martyrs” go straight to heaven or that the Koran is the literal word of God, but will probably accept the narrative laid down by Islamic scholars. This is generally thought to be more historically secure than any of the stories told by the other great religions. Even Salman Rushdie, one of Islam’s hate figures, thinks so.

Holland’s book leaves almost no aspect of the traditional story of Islam intact“The degree of authority one can give to the evangelists about the life of Christ is relatively small,” he has written, “whereas for the life of Muhammad we know everything, more or less. We know where he lived, what his economic situation was, who he fell in love with. We know a great deal about the political circumstances and the socioeconomic circumstances of the time.”

Most western academics would now disagree with every word of this, and their scholarly scepticism is about to explode into the wider world with the publication of a book by the historian Tom Holland — In the Shadow of the Sword: The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World.

It's a little strange that the Times made this out to be so revolutionary.


If you really get examining the history of critiques of Islam, Muhammad, and the Koran, you'll find a long tradition, dating back to the Middle Ages, and culminating with authors like Voltaire, Humphrey Prideaux,Thomas Carlyle, William Muir, John Wahnsbrough, Michael Cook and Patricia Crone, Ibn Warraq, Yehuda D. Nevo and Judith Koren, Chrisoph Luxenberg, Karl Heinz-Ohlig, and others.

[Ibrahim]

New book out from Robert Spencer

Spencer is a joke . . .

And this opinion comes from someone who thinks C. S. Lewis is a joke. Poor Spencer never had a prayer.

In point of fact, C.S. Lewis was probably more qualified to write about Islamic history than Spencer.

[Ibrahim]

I thought maybe this was a thread about this book:


The truth of Islam - Bryan Appleyard, Times (London), 25 March 2012
http://www.bryanappleyard.com/the-truth-of-islam/

Appleyard also has no credentials that I am aware of, but writes on a number of subjects. I would like to see a copy of his book "Aliens: why they are here. (Simon and Schuster, 2005)." Sounds interesting.

In the Shadow of the Sword by Tom Holland (Little, Brown, 2012)

Holland has no credentials on the subject, and admits as much in the interview linked by whoever first brought up this book on the forum. This book was already discussed in another thread.

It's a little strange that the Times made this out to be so revolutionary. They seem to agree with Ibrahim, who is obviously also not well read in the history and criticism of Islam.

Still trying the same angle, Appo? I'm better read on the subject than anyone present, and these so-called scholars. Your baseless slanders are motivated purely by your racism.

[Apollonius]

I can't figure out why Muslims want Muhammad to have existed. It's very difficult to find any admirable traits in his character, as revealed by the Koran and the sira.

[Parodite]

At least we can all agree he does not exist (anymore) now. As do all the prophets, half-Gods. Gone with the wind. Memories...

It sounds like an opportunity though.

Revelation 21:5
English Standard Version (ESV)
"And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.”

Doesn't seem like this or that in the past is really all that important. Life in the present could actually considerably improve if you empty that bucket.

[Mr. Perfect]

Spencer is a joke, but at least Anders Breivik will have something to read in jail.

That's why racists and European mass-murderers flock to Spencer's work.

Hey!!! What did I tell you.

As I've said previously, this entire body of faux-scholarship is exactly the same as Creation Science, and the "professors" and "institutes" who publish material in that field for a specific audience. Nobody outside of this closed loop takes it seriously, and for good reason.

Sort of like the huge portion of humanity that doesn't take Islam seriously.

Yes, just like Dan Brown "revealed" the shocking truth about Christianity in his blockbuster bestseller TheDaVinci Code.

Well there were a few true things in there a lot of people hadn't heard of before.

This argument was exposed as baseless garbage over at SpengFor when he tried to defend it. No legitimate historian, including those with actual credentials in the field under discussion, accept this view.

Wonder the percentage of "credentialed" historians knew about the Dead Sea Scrolls before they were discovered. I wonder.

I suppose you reject the discovery of dark matter because the man who detected it was not an astronomer.

Riiight. It's just a sober, objective look.

As opposed to your sover objective views right?

Laughably false. Competent historians have been combing through Islamic history for centuries, and religious polemicists have been attacking Islam for 1400 years. Not only does Spencer pretend to be a scholar, he pretends to be a trailblazer as well.

Yeah, all those accredited scholars producing peer-reviewed material for over a century missed all of these "shocking," "blockbuster" revelations, but Spencer picked up on them all. Here they are, come to light for the first time!

I wonder how many of these "accredited" "scholars" are unbiased. I wonder...

[Mr. Perfect]

I wonder what Islamic terrorists read in jail. I wonder....

[Ibrahim]

I can't figure out why Muslims want Muhammad to have existed. It's very difficult to find any admirable traits in his character, as revealed by the Koran and the sira.

Muhammad improved every aspect of the society he was born into, despite great persecution. Even secular historians largely agree on this point, based on the received narrative.

You probably don't even know much about his life beyond what you've read in some of these marginal works, or seen on YouTube videos posted by European racist organizations. If you'd like I can recommend some books that will provide the basic narrative as agreed upon by modern scholars of Islamic history and theology.

Unless you are just some racist who wanted to spout off your subjective option as many times as possible, without modification or comment.

[Ibrahim]

At least we can all agree he does not exist (anymore) now. As do all the prophets, half-Gods. Gone with the wind. Memories...

Or living forever in Paradise, PBUH. Religions are tiresome in this way for secular atheists.

[Parodite]

At least we can all agree he does not exist (anymore) now. As do all the prophets, half-Gods. Gone with the wind. Memories...

Or living forever in Paradise, PBUH. Religions are tiresome in this way for secular atheists.

Not only secular atheists. Also for people with a different religious experience. Who just watch with a mixture of dismay and pity quarrels like these over long dead people, interpretations of texts of texts of texts...

[Mr. Perfect]

Why is taking issue with Islam racist?

[Ibrahim]

At least we can all agree he does not exist (anymore) now. As do all the prophets, half-Gods. Gone with the wind. Memories...

Or living forever in Paradise, PBUH. Religions are tiresome in this way for secular atheists.

Not only secular atheists. Also for people with a different religious experience. Who just watch with a mixture of dismay and pity quarrels like these over long dead people, interpretations of texts of texts of texts...

It can be time consuming, and sacrifices must be made. I've spent a great deal of my leisure time reading about religious history, and consequently I've never seen one episode of The Office. Us or UK versions.

[Mr. Perfect]

Ibs says he also like to pull the wings off flies in his spare time, which is I think sociopathic behavior. Would explain some things.

[Apollonius]

Muhammad improved every aspect of the society he was born into, despite great persecution. Even secular historians largely agree on this point, based on the received narrative.

Who is they? People who don't have a very sophisticated view of what life was really like in Arabia during the time of this so-called Muhammad? Or is it an even narrower base? Muslims, who want to justify the life of this legendary figure because he figures so prominently in their present day power struggles?


It is certainly untrue to say that the lives of people living outside of Arabia was improved. It improved for a few people. For most, Islam meant subjugation and life as a second class citizen. For millions it meant slavery. For millions more, it meant death.

[Ibrahim]

Muhammad improved every aspect of the society he was born into, despite great persecution. Even secular historians largely agree on this point, based on the received narrative.

Who is they?

To whom do you refer? I didn't use the term "they" in the quoted text. Historians? Muslims? Ancient Arabs?

People who don't have a very sophisticated view of what life was really like in Arabia during the time of this so-called Muhammad? Or is it an even narrower base? Muslims, who want to justify the life of this legendary figure because he figures so prominently in their present day power struggles?

These questions are not coherent and my quoted text is clear. Anybody with a working knowledge of the historical period can see that Muhammed's (or whatever new theory revisionists invent to replace an historical Muhammad) reform of Arab civilization was an improvement over what preceded it.

It is certainly untrue to say that the lives of people living outside of Arabia was improved. It improved for a few people. For most, Islam meant subjugation and life as a second class citizen. For millions it meant slavery. For millions more, it meant death.

You are demonstrating your historical ignorance. Slavery was the norm outside of the Arab world before and after the rise of Islam. Islam placed greater restrictions on slavery than existed before, though short of 19th century abolitionism. "Second class citizens" within the Islamic empires lived better than any minority group living in a non-Muslim state, and indeed better than any free man in many non-Muslim states. Subjugation? Ha. I'm sure the medieval French peasant breathed much freer than than the Jewish merchant in Cordoba.

In every category there is at least marginal improvement, even from the most objective and secular appraisal. You want to complain because 8th century Syria wasn't modern San Francisco? Well, I'm sure we all value the insight.