What do you think?
Rate this book
Muhammad: A Critical Biography
What can we really know about him?
We know a great deal about Muhammad—or so it seems. Islamic tradition contains an astonishing wealth of information about the founding figure of the Islamic faith, and most historians take for granted that this material is generally reliable.
In his latest book, historian and Islamic scholar Robert Spencer shows that there is no agreement in the earliest Islamic sources about the most fundamental details of this towering figure’s life. There are conflicting accounts of key details of his life, including the circumstances and contents of the first revelation he claimed to have received from Allah; the year of his birth; the length of his prophetic career; the name of the angel who supposedly appeared to him; and even his own name.
A Critical Biography takes a detailed look at the Islamic traditions regarding Muhammad and lays bare their contradictions, inconsistences, and incoherence. Spencer continues the groundbreaking research he began in The Truth About Muhammad and Did Muhammad Exist?, exposing the shocking reality of how shaky Islam’s foundations really are. He meticulously explains why competing traditions may have been invented and definitively demonstrates that, contrary to the complacency of establishment historians, the Muhammad of Islam is more legend than history, more fable than fact.
A Critical Biography does the work that mainstream academics—who are either bought by Saudi Arabia or Qatar, or too afraid to depart from the herd—should have done long ago. Not for the faint-hearted, this book will do nothing less than rock the Islamic world to its very core.
We know a great deal about Muhammad—or so it seems. Islamic tradition contains an astonishing wealth of information about the founding figure of the Islamic faith, and most historians take for granted that this material is generally reliable.
In his latest book, historian and Islamic scholar Robert Spencer shows that there is no agreement in the earliest Islamic sources about the most fundamental details of this towering figure’s life. There are conflicting accounts of key details of his life, including the circumstances and contents of the first revelation he claimed to have received from Allah; the year of his birth; the length of his prophetic career; the name of the angel who supposedly appeared to him; and even his own name.
A Critical Biography takes a detailed look at the Islamic traditions regarding Muhammad and lays bare their contradictions, inconsistences, and incoherence. Spencer continues the groundbreaking research he began in The Truth About Muhammad and Did Muhammad Exist?, exposing the shocking reality of how shaky Islam’s foundations really are. He meticulously explains why competing traditions may have been invented and definitively demonstrates that, contrary to the complacency of establishment historians, the Muhammad of Islam is more legend than history, more fable than fact.
A Critical Biography does the work that mainstream academics—who are either bought by Saudi Arabia or Qatar, or too afraid to depart from the herd—should have done long ago. Not for the faint-hearted, this book will do nothing less than rock the Islamic world to its very core.
354 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 10, 2024
29 people are currently reading
53 people want to read
About the author
Robert Spencer
116 books328 followersROBERT SPENCER is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of seventeen books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies). Coming in November 2017 is Confessions of an Islamophobe (Bombardier Books).
Spencer has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the FBI, the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and the U.S. intelligence community. He has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry. He is a consultant with the Center for Security Policy.
Spencer is a weekly columnist for PJ Media and FrontPage Magazine, and has written many hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism. His articles on Islam and other topics have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Examiner, the New York Post, the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News, Fox News Opinion, National Review, The Hill, the Detroit News, TownHall.com, Real Clear Religion, the Daily Caller, the New Criterion, the Journal of International Security Affairs, the UK’s Guardian, Canada’s National Post, Middle East Quarterly, WorldNet Daily, First Things, Insight in the News, Aleteia, and many other journals. For nearly ten years Spencer wrote the weekly Jihad Watch column at Human Events. He has also served as a contributing writer to the Investigative Project on Terrorism and as an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation.
Spencer has appeared on the BBC, ABC News, CNN, FoxNews’s Tucker Carlson Show, the O’Reilly Factor, Megyn Kelly’s The Kelly File, the Sean Hannity Show, Geraldo Rivera Reports, the Glenn Beck Show, Fox and Friends, America’s News HQ and many other Fox programs, PBS, MSNBC, CNBC, C-Span, CTV News, Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News, France24, Voice of Russia and Croatia National Television (HTV), as well as on numerous radio programs including The Sean Hannity Show, Bill O’Reilly’s Radio Factor, The Mark Levin Show, The Laura Ingraham Show, The Herman Cain Show, The Joe Piscopo Show, The Howie Carr Show, The Curt Schilling Show, Bill Bennett’s Morning in America, Michael Savage’s Savage Nation, The Alan Colmes Show, The G. Gordon Liddy Show, The Neal Boortz Show, The Michael Medved Show, The Michael Reagan Show, The Rusty Humphries Show, The Larry Elder Show, The Peter Boyles Show, Vatican Radio, and many others.
Robert Spencer has been a featured speaker across the country and around the world and authored 17 books. Spencer’s books have been translated into many languages, including Spanish, Italian, German, Finnish, Korean, Polish and Bahasa Indonesia. His Qur’an commentary at Jihad Watch, Blogging the Qur’an, has been translated into Czech, Danish, German, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese.
Spencer (MA, Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) has been studying Islamic theology, law, and history in depth since 1980. His work has aroused the ire of the foes of freedom and their dupes: in October 2011, Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups wrote to Homeland Security Advisor (and current CIA director) John Brennan, demanding that Spencer be removed as a trainer for the FBI and military groups, which he taught about the belief system of Islamic jihadists; Brennan immediately complied as counter-terror training materials were scrubbed of all mention of Islam and jihad. Spencer has been banned by the British government from entering the United Kingdom for pointing out accurately that Islam has doctrines of violence against unbelievers. He has been invited by name to convert to Islam by a senior member of al-Qaeda.
Spencer has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the FBI, the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and the U.S. intelligence community. He has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry. He is a consultant with the Center for Security Policy.
Spencer is a weekly columnist for PJ Media and FrontPage Magazine, and has written many hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism. His articles on Islam and other topics have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Examiner, the New York Post, the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News, Fox News Opinion, National Review, The Hill, the Detroit News, TownHall.com, Real Clear Religion, the Daily Caller, the New Criterion, the Journal of International Security Affairs, the UK’s Guardian, Canada’s National Post, Middle East Quarterly, WorldNet Daily, First Things, Insight in the News, Aleteia, and many other journals. For nearly ten years Spencer wrote the weekly Jihad Watch column at Human Events. He has also served as a contributing writer to the Investigative Project on Terrorism and as an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation.
Spencer has appeared on the BBC, ABC News, CNN, FoxNews’s Tucker Carlson Show, the O’Reilly Factor, Megyn Kelly’s The Kelly File, the Sean Hannity Show, Geraldo Rivera Reports, the Glenn Beck Show, Fox and Friends, America’s News HQ and many other Fox programs, PBS, MSNBC, CNBC, C-Span, CTV News, Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News, France24, Voice of Russia and Croatia National Television (HTV), as well as on numerous radio programs including The Sean Hannity Show, Bill O’Reilly’s Radio Factor, The Mark Levin Show, The Laura Ingraham Show, The Herman Cain Show, The Joe Piscopo Show, The Howie Carr Show, The Curt Schilling Show, Bill Bennett’s Morning in America, Michael Savage’s Savage Nation, The Alan Colmes Show, The G. Gordon Liddy Show, The Neal Boortz Show, The Michael Medved Show, The Michael Reagan Show, The Rusty Humphries Show, The Larry Elder Show, The Peter Boyles Show, Vatican Radio, and many others.
Robert Spencer has been a featured speaker across the country and around the world and authored 17 books. Spencer’s books have been translated into many languages, including Spanish, Italian, German, Finnish, Korean, Polish and Bahasa Indonesia. His Qur’an commentary at Jihad Watch, Blogging the Qur’an, has been translated into Czech, Danish, German, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese.
Spencer (MA, Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) has been studying Islamic theology, law, and history in depth since 1980. His work has aroused the ire of the foes of freedom and their dupes: in October 2011, Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups wrote to Homeland Security Advisor (and current CIA director) John Brennan, demanding that Spencer be removed as a trainer for the FBI and military groups, which he taught about the belief system of Islamic jihadists; Brennan immediately complied as counter-terror training materials were scrubbed of all mention of Islam and jihad. Spencer has been banned by the British government from entering the United Kingdom for pointing out accurately that Islam has doctrines of violence against unbelievers. He has been invited by name to convert to Islam by a senior member of al-Qaeda.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
January 13, 2026
The book presents a critical historical analysis of the life of Muhammad as portrayed by Islamic sources. Robert Spencer is exhaustive and methodical as he lays out the historical unreliability of the standard Islamic biographical materials vis-à-vis the prophet.
The “critical” part of the title works on two levels. It is both a critique of the historicity of the traditional standard Islamic narrative, and a moral critique of sorts, showing that whether Muhammad existed or did not exist is ultimately immaterial, since Muslims believe he did and act according to what the Islamic sources portray him to say and do, not to mention the body of laws and rulings molded after his model of behavior. The author therefore argues that even if one supposes the traditional narrative to be authentic, MUHAMMAD DOES NOT SERVE AS A MORAL MODEL TO BE EMULATED. (FYI: the legal minimum age for marriage in the Byzantine Empire at the time was often cited as 12 for girls and 14 for boys... Imagine that, even by the already low standards of the era, they somehow managed to go even lower.)
I found the first and second chapters to be the most prominent, as they pretty much sum up the state of Islamic materials (mainly biographies, sira, hadiths) in relation to the discipline of historical criticism. The author views the early Islamic sources (or what are claimed to be early Islamic sources) in light of historiography, concluding that they are not historically reliable records of the life and teachings of Muhammad. In fact, if anything, the historical Muhammad is likely to remain forever obscured behind the fog of history.
The rest of the chapters are dedicated to episodes from the life of Muhammad as portrayed by the Muslim sources. Variant and divergent as they are, Spencer lays out a single event from the perspective of different traditions, allowing us to see that instead of a harmonious drawing, we end up with something closer to a cubist painting, where traditions often contradict one another and at other times diverge in details (even if they agree on the general outline).
Muhammad, and by extension Islam, did not arrive fully formed onto the late antiquity scene. Early materials from contemporary observers and commentators (Greek, Syriac, Armenian, Coptic...etc) refer to a figure sometimes designated by variations of the consonantal sequence "M-H-M-D" and sometimes not named at all. Even when this designation appears, whether in documentary sources, chronicles, or epigraphical material, it is not conclusive that it functions as a personal name. The consonantal root M-H-M-D can just as plausibly be read as an honorific or descriptive title, since it carries the meaning “the praised one” or “praiseworthy.”
I need to take a moment here, since it is crucial to understand this subtlety. Semitic languages are written without vowels in their earliest attestations, and meaning depends on later vocalization. The root H-M-D is shared across Semitic traditions and appears in Hebrew as well, where it is associated with meanings such as “desired” or “beloved.” The term maḥmadīm in Song of Solomon 5:16, often translated as “altogether lovely,” derives from the same root.
Reading M-H-M-D as the proper name “Muhammad” requires the later insertion of specific vowels: 'u' (in Arabic, the ḍamma الظمة) and 'a' (in Arabic, the fatḥa الفتحة), producing the vocalized form Muḥammad. That rendering is grammatically valid, but it is not compelled by the consonantal text itself. The same sequence can equally function as a title or epithet meaning “the praised one.”
This distinction matters because the earliest sources do not clarify which reading is intended. Treating M-H-M-D automatically as a personal name presupposes precisely what the early evidence does not establish, namely that a fully defined prophetic figure named Muhammad was already fixed in the historical record at the time these sources were produced.
On another note, and I'll just quote from the book here because it's relavent:
"The passage from the Song of Songs, however, does lend itself to a messianic interpretation, with the beloved who is awaited being not just an earthly lover, but the savior figure. Jews and then Christians began to use the same word that is used in Song of Songs, mhmd, the desirable one or the praiseworthy one, as a term for God or Christ. We see this in an inscription dating from 518 AD in the Yemeni city of Najran, from which, according to ninth-century Islamic tradition, a Christian delegation later journeyed to meet with the prophet of Islam. The Jewish king Yusuf Asar Yathar, also known as Dhu Nuwas, defeated Christian forces from Abyssinia in battle and celebrated his victory with a rock inscription that concludes with this: “O Lord of the Jews! By the praiseworthy one.” In the inscription itself, this is rbhd b-mhmd. Rb is Lord, as in the Arabic rab and related to the word rabbi, master or teacher. Mhmd, the praiseworthy one, is an early appearance of what would become the name of a prophet, but here refers to God himself. Over a century later, this title would appear again, but whether or not it was the name of a particular person was by no means clear."
*as a reference : it's alleged that Muhammed was born in 570 AD.
All of this is important to keep in mind and it's why I generally advise against the blind consumption of popular history books on the early Islamic conquests ( like those of Robert G. Hoyland and Co.) mainly due to 3 things:
FIRST/ these works often use the name “Muhammad” as if it were unambiguously attested in contemporary sources, without noting that this reading depends on a later vocalization choice. As shown above, the consonantal form M-H-M-D can equally function as a title or epithet rather than a personal name, and the early texts themselves do not resolve this ambiguity.
SECOND/ they routinely describe the conqueror's faith and their beliefs as “Islam” and refer to them as “Muslims” even though neither term appears in the contemporary sources. Those sources instead identify the victors as Tayyaye, Saracens, Hagarenes, Ishmaelites, or simply Arabs. The retrospective use of later religious labels obscures what the sources actually say.
THIRD/ they rely heavily on the standard Islamic tradition, presenting a fully developed Islam as the motivating force behind the conquests and treating the figures and events of that tradition as historically authentic. As the book discusses at length,( and I shall return to this In a moment) this approach is baseless. The standard Islamic narrative (regardless if it's Shiite or sunni) is historically unreliable and cannot be assumed as a neutral account of seventh-century realities.
Returning to the contemporary commentaries, what stands out is that the non-Islamic written sources either present a portrait that is entirely foreign to the later mainstream Islamic narrative or, even when they resemble it in minimal ways, diverge sharply from orthodox Islam. In the Doctrina Jacobi, for example, the figure is described as preaching the coming of the Messiah and claiming possession of the keys to heaven. Other sources portray him as favorable toward Jews and even as initiating the conquest of Roman Palestine in order to restore Jewish dominion over the land. In these accounts, he appears less as the founder of a distinct Islamic religion and more as a herald of an Abrahamic, messianic, Judaism-adjacent form of monotheism.
Early Islamic inscriptions and coinage from the Umayyad period, particularly from the mid to late seventh century, reinforce the impression that the figure of Muhammad was introduced gradually. His name appears only sporadically at first, without clarity as to whether MHMD functions as a personal name or a title. Several coin types combine the name mhmd with Christian symbols such as the cross, and in some cases with the figure of a man alongside the cross. This corresponds with Maronite chronicles reporting that some Arabs refused to use early Umayyad coinage unless it bore a cross. The same chronicles describe Muʿāwiya, the first Umayyad ruler, as praying at Christian holy sites in Jerusalem and ruling from Damascus rather than from any clearly defined religious capital associated with Muhammad.
Over time, proto-Islamic identifiers begin to emerge, including early, non-standardized formulations resembling a profession of faith. These are followed by the appearance of highly selective Qurʾanic passages, especially those with a pronounced anti-Trinitarian emphasis, such as the inscriptions associated with the dome of the rock. Notably, neither “Islam” nor “Muslims” appear in the earliest sources( Instead, as I said before the conquerors are described as Saracens, Hagarenes, Ishmaelites, Tayaye, nomads, or simply Arabs).The terms “Islam” and “Muslims” only begin to enter the written record toward the end of the seventh century.
By the close of that century, a more recognizable figure of Muhammad begins to emerge, though still without biographical detail. Even then, what is presented is minimal and can be reduced to a single formula: Muhammad is the messenger and prophet of God. There is no information about his life, ministry, or actions. Apart from highly selective inscriptions such as those at the dome of the rock, which do not reflect the full range of Qurʾanic themes, the Qurʾan itself is not mentioned at all, neither as a book nor through cited passages. Nor is there any reference to the sayings or deeds of Muhammad.
Taken together, these materials suggest that for several decades after the conquests, Islam lacked a clearly attested scripture, a well-defined prophet beyond a bare title, and a developed theology, aside from a general monotheism combined with anti-Trinitarian elements.
As for the Islamic sources themselves (the hadiths,sira),The reasons for the unreliability of these traditions can be summarized as follows:
1/Lateness of Sources: The earliest Hadith compilations emerged over a century (indeed 2 centuries) after the Prophet Muhammad’s death, increasing the risk of distortions and fabrications over time.
2/Contradictions: Numerous Hadiths contradict each other on fundamental facts.
3/Sectarian and Political Biases: Many Hadiths appear to serve specific political, sectarian, or tribal agendas, suggesting they were crafted to support particular viewpoints.
4/ Anachronisms: Some Hadiths reference events, terms, or institutions that did not exist during the Prophet’s time, indicating later fabrication.
5/Supernatural Elements: Reports of supernatural occurrences attributed to the Prophet, which are not corroborated by the Quran, raise questions about their authenticity.
6/Reports of Fabrication: the Islamic sources themselves admits to the fabrication of Hadiths for various reasons.
7/ Rapid Proliferation of Hadiths: The sudden increase in the number of Hadiths over time suggests mass fabrication rather than genuine transmission.
8/Absence in Early Sources: Many Hadiths are missing from the earliest Islamic texts, implying they were introduced later.
9/Contradictions with Earlier Sources: Some Hadiths conflict with earlier literary and archaeological evidence, challenging their authenticity.
* And finally, What clearer evidence for the unreliability of the hadiths can you ask for than the fact that the two major divisions of Islam (sunni and shia) both have access to Hadith collections that support their positions to a tee?
The claim made in the traditional Islamic narrative is that the oral traditions (hadiths) were preserved with a remarkable degree of accuracy over two centuries before they were committed to writing in the Hadith compilations. Anyone who has ever played a game of Chinese Whispers will immediately be aware of how significant the problems with this can be.
On a side note: this reminds me of that Sopranos interior decorator scene (if you don't know it, check it out on YouTube just look for "Sopranos interior decorator"):
"
[Chris and Paulie just botched a hit on a Russian gangster, and are lost in the woods. They call Tony, and get a bad reception.]
Anthony ‘Tony’ Soprano Sr.: Listen to me, this guy was a Russian green beret. He was in the ministry of the interior or something. He single-handedly killed 16 Chechen rebels. Be fucking careful.
Paulie : All right.
[hangs up]
Christopher : What did he say?
Paulie : He said the guy killed 16 Czechoslovakians, and he was an interior decorator.
Christopher : Interior decorator? His apartment looked like shit. "
Of course, there's much more to this that can't be touched in this review due to the constraints of brevity, so I'd invite y'all to read the book for more informations.
In conclusion, I will end with a testimony that is both brief and unusually expressive of the imperial motivations at play in claims of divine authority. Neither I nor Robert Spencer could formulate the point more succinctly or directly. The line comes from a poem attributed to Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiya, the second Umayyad caliph, and reads as follows (bellow, Hāshim refers to Banū Hāshim, the clan of Muhammad within Quraysh, and thus to Muhammad’s family line):
"لعبت هاشم بالملك فلا خبر جاء ولا وحي نزل"
Translation:
“Hāshim toyed with kingship.so that No news came (that is, no message from God) and no revelation descended (that is, no Qurʾanic revelation) .”
I found this book to be highly informative, and professionally composed (seeing that I speak Arabic, I cross-checked the sources whenever I could, and the translations of the hadiths and relevant Quranic passages were faithfully rendered by the author. If anything {and this is something the author points out, which I can confirm} the Islamic websites such as sunnah.com are at times unreliable and don't faithfully translate the traditions from Arabic to English).
Books I recommend along with this one:
*Stephen J. Shoemaker's 'Creating the Qur'an' and 'The Death of a Prophet' they're accessible but scholarly.
*Peter Townsend's 'The Mecca Mystery: Probing the Black Hole at the Heart of Muslim History' this one is a highly accessible introduction.
*Robert Spencer's other works:
'The Truth About Muhammad' which is a biography of Muhammad according to the traditional Islamic narrative (no historical criticism involved).
And also 'Did Muhammad Exist?' this one is a work of historical criticism.
It's best to read these two along with the critical biography, as they complement each other.
Rating: 3.5/5
The “critical” part of the title works on two levels. It is both a critique of the historicity of the traditional standard Islamic narrative, and a moral critique of sorts, showing that whether Muhammad existed or did not exist is ultimately immaterial, since Muslims believe he did and act according to what the Islamic sources portray him to say and do, not to mention the body of laws and rulings molded after his model of behavior. The author therefore argues that even if one supposes the traditional narrative to be authentic, MUHAMMAD DOES NOT SERVE AS A MORAL MODEL TO BE EMULATED. (FYI: the legal minimum age for marriage in the Byzantine Empire at the time was often cited as 12 for girls and 14 for boys... Imagine that, even by the already low standards of the era, they somehow managed to go even lower.)
I found the first and second chapters to be the most prominent, as they pretty much sum up the state of Islamic materials (mainly biographies, sira, hadiths) in relation to the discipline of historical criticism. The author views the early Islamic sources (or what are claimed to be early Islamic sources) in light of historiography, concluding that they are not historically reliable records of the life and teachings of Muhammad. In fact, if anything, the historical Muhammad is likely to remain forever obscured behind the fog of history.
The rest of the chapters are dedicated to episodes from the life of Muhammad as portrayed by the Muslim sources. Variant and divergent as they are, Spencer lays out a single event from the perspective of different traditions, allowing us to see that instead of a harmonious drawing, we end up with something closer to a cubist painting, where traditions often contradict one another and at other times diverge in details (even if they agree on the general outline).
Muhammad, and by extension Islam, did not arrive fully formed onto the late antiquity scene. Early materials from contemporary observers and commentators (Greek, Syriac, Armenian, Coptic...etc) refer to a figure sometimes designated by variations of the consonantal sequence "M-H-M-D" and sometimes not named at all. Even when this designation appears, whether in documentary sources, chronicles, or epigraphical material, it is not conclusive that it functions as a personal name. The consonantal root M-H-M-D can just as plausibly be read as an honorific or descriptive title, since it carries the meaning “the praised one” or “praiseworthy.”
I need to take a moment here, since it is crucial to understand this subtlety. Semitic languages are written without vowels in their earliest attestations, and meaning depends on later vocalization. The root H-M-D is shared across Semitic traditions and appears in Hebrew as well, where it is associated with meanings such as “desired” or “beloved.” The term maḥmadīm in Song of Solomon 5:16, often translated as “altogether lovely,” derives from the same root.
Reading M-H-M-D as the proper name “Muhammad” requires the later insertion of specific vowels: 'u' (in Arabic, the ḍamma الظمة) and 'a' (in Arabic, the fatḥa الفتحة), producing the vocalized form Muḥammad. That rendering is grammatically valid, but it is not compelled by the consonantal text itself. The same sequence can equally function as a title or epithet meaning “the praised one.”
This distinction matters because the earliest sources do not clarify which reading is intended. Treating M-H-M-D automatically as a personal name presupposes precisely what the early evidence does not establish, namely that a fully defined prophetic figure named Muhammad was already fixed in the historical record at the time these sources were produced.
On another note, and I'll just quote from the book here because it's relavent:
"The passage from the Song of Songs, however, does lend itself to a messianic interpretation, with the beloved who is awaited being not just an earthly lover, but the savior figure. Jews and then Christians began to use the same word that is used in Song of Songs, mhmd, the desirable one or the praiseworthy one, as a term for God or Christ. We see this in an inscription dating from 518 AD in the Yemeni city of Najran, from which, according to ninth-century Islamic tradition, a Christian delegation later journeyed to meet with the prophet of Islam. The Jewish king Yusuf Asar Yathar, also known as Dhu Nuwas, defeated Christian forces from Abyssinia in battle and celebrated his victory with a rock inscription that concludes with this: “O Lord of the Jews! By the praiseworthy one.” In the inscription itself, this is rbhd b-mhmd. Rb is Lord, as in the Arabic rab and related to the word rabbi, master or teacher. Mhmd, the praiseworthy one, is an early appearance of what would become the name of a prophet, but here refers to God himself. Over a century later, this title would appear again, but whether or not it was the name of a particular person was by no means clear."
*as a reference : it's alleged that Muhammed was born in 570 AD.
All of this is important to keep in mind and it's why I generally advise against the blind consumption of popular history books on the early Islamic conquests ( like those of Robert G. Hoyland and Co.) mainly due to 3 things:
FIRST/ these works often use the name “Muhammad” as if it were unambiguously attested in contemporary sources, without noting that this reading depends on a later vocalization choice. As shown above, the consonantal form M-H-M-D can equally function as a title or epithet rather than a personal name, and the early texts themselves do not resolve this ambiguity.
SECOND/ they routinely describe the conqueror's faith and their beliefs as “Islam” and refer to them as “Muslims” even though neither term appears in the contemporary sources. Those sources instead identify the victors as Tayyaye, Saracens, Hagarenes, Ishmaelites, or simply Arabs. The retrospective use of later religious labels obscures what the sources actually say.
THIRD/ they rely heavily on the standard Islamic tradition, presenting a fully developed Islam as the motivating force behind the conquests and treating the figures and events of that tradition as historically authentic. As the book discusses at length,( and I shall return to this In a moment) this approach is baseless. The standard Islamic narrative (regardless if it's Shiite or sunni) is historically unreliable and cannot be assumed as a neutral account of seventh-century realities.
Returning to the contemporary commentaries, what stands out is that the non-Islamic written sources either present a portrait that is entirely foreign to the later mainstream Islamic narrative or, even when they resemble it in minimal ways, diverge sharply from orthodox Islam. In the Doctrina Jacobi, for example, the figure is described as preaching the coming of the Messiah and claiming possession of the keys to heaven. Other sources portray him as favorable toward Jews and even as initiating the conquest of Roman Palestine in order to restore Jewish dominion over the land. In these accounts, he appears less as the founder of a distinct Islamic religion and more as a herald of an Abrahamic, messianic, Judaism-adjacent form of monotheism.
Early Islamic inscriptions and coinage from the Umayyad period, particularly from the mid to late seventh century, reinforce the impression that the figure of Muhammad was introduced gradually. His name appears only sporadically at first, without clarity as to whether MHMD functions as a personal name or a title. Several coin types combine the name mhmd with Christian symbols such as the cross, and in some cases with the figure of a man alongside the cross. This corresponds with Maronite chronicles reporting that some Arabs refused to use early Umayyad coinage unless it bore a cross. The same chronicles describe Muʿāwiya, the first Umayyad ruler, as praying at Christian holy sites in Jerusalem and ruling from Damascus rather than from any clearly defined religious capital associated with Muhammad.
Over time, proto-Islamic identifiers begin to emerge, including early, non-standardized formulations resembling a profession of faith. These are followed by the appearance of highly selective Qurʾanic passages, especially those with a pronounced anti-Trinitarian emphasis, such as the inscriptions associated with the dome of the rock. Notably, neither “Islam” nor “Muslims” appear in the earliest sources( Instead, as I said before the conquerors are described as Saracens, Hagarenes, Ishmaelites, Tayaye, nomads, or simply Arabs).The terms “Islam” and “Muslims” only begin to enter the written record toward the end of the seventh century.
By the close of that century, a more recognizable figure of Muhammad begins to emerge, though still without biographical detail. Even then, what is presented is minimal and can be reduced to a single formula: Muhammad is the messenger and prophet of God. There is no information about his life, ministry, or actions. Apart from highly selective inscriptions such as those at the dome of the rock, which do not reflect the full range of Qurʾanic themes, the Qurʾan itself is not mentioned at all, neither as a book nor through cited passages. Nor is there any reference to the sayings or deeds of Muhammad.
Taken together, these materials suggest that for several decades after the conquests, Islam lacked a clearly attested scripture, a well-defined prophet beyond a bare title, and a developed theology, aside from a general monotheism combined with anti-Trinitarian elements.
As for the Islamic sources themselves (the hadiths,sira),The reasons for the unreliability of these traditions can be summarized as follows:
1/Lateness of Sources: The earliest Hadith compilations emerged over a century (indeed 2 centuries) after the Prophet Muhammad’s death, increasing the risk of distortions and fabrications over time.
2/Contradictions: Numerous Hadiths contradict each other on fundamental facts.
3/Sectarian and Political Biases: Many Hadiths appear to serve specific political, sectarian, or tribal agendas, suggesting they were crafted to support particular viewpoints.
4/ Anachronisms: Some Hadiths reference events, terms, or institutions that did not exist during the Prophet’s time, indicating later fabrication.
5/Supernatural Elements: Reports of supernatural occurrences attributed to the Prophet, which are not corroborated by the Quran, raise questions about their authenticity.
6/Reports of Fabrication: the Islamic sources themselves admits to the fabrication of Hadiths for various reasons.
7/ Rapid Proliferation of Hadiths: The sudden increase in the number of Hadiths over time suggests mass fabrication rather than genuine transmission.
8/Absence in Early Sources: Many Hadiths are missing from the earliest Islamic texts, implying they were introduced later.
9/Contradictions with Earlier Sources: Some Hadiths conflict with earlier literary and archaeological evidence, challenging their authenticity.
* And finally, What clearer evidence for the unreliability of the hadiths can you ask for than the fact that the two major divisions of Islam (sunni and shia) both have access to Hadith collections that support their positions to a tee?
The claim made in the traditional Islamic narrative is that the oral traditions (hadiths) were preserved with a remarkable degree of accuracy over two centuries before they were committed to writing in the Hadith compilations. Anyone who has ever played a game of Chinese Whispers will immediately be aware of how significant the problems with this can be.
On a side note: this reminds me of that Sopranos interior decorator scene (if you don't know it, check it out on YouTube just look for "Sopranos interior decorator"):
"
[Chris and Paulie just botched a hit on a Russian gangster, and are lost in the woods. They call Tony, and get a bad reception.]
Anthony ‘Tony’ Soprano Sr.: Listen to me, this guy was a Russian green beret. He was in the ministry of the interior or something. He single-handedly killed 16 Chechen rebels. Be fucking careful.
Paulie : All right.
[hangs up]
Christopher : What did he say?
Paulie : He said the guy killed 16 Czechoslovakians, and he was an interior decorator.
Christopher : Interior decorator? His apartment looked like shit. "
Of course, there's much more to this that can't be touched in this review due to the constraints of brevity, so I'd invite y'all to read the book for more informations.
In conclusion, I will end with a testimony that is both brief and unusually expressive of the imperial motivations at play in claims of divine authority. Neither I nor Robert Spencer could formulate the point more succinctly or directly. The line comes from a poem attributed to Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiya, the second Umayyad caliph, and reads as follows (bellow, Hāshim refers to Banū Hāshim, the clan of Muhammad within Quraysh, and thus to Muhammad’s family line):
"لعبت هاشم بالملك فلا خبر جاء ولا وحي نزل"
Translation:
“Hāshim toyed with kingship.so that No news came (that is, no message from God) and no revelation descended (that is, no Qurʾanic revelation) .”
I found this book to be highly informative, and professionally composed (seeing that I speak Arabic, I cross-checked the sources whenever I could, and the translations of the hadiths and relevant Quranic passages were faithfully rendered by the author. If anything {and this is something the author points out, which I can confirm} the Islamic websites such as sunnah.com are at times unreliable and don't faithfully translate the traditions from Arabic to English).
Books I recommend along with this one:
*Stephen J. Shoemaker's 'Creating the Qur'an' and 'The Death of a Prophet' they're accessible but scholarly.
*Peter Townsend's 'The Mecca Mystery: Probing the Black Hole at the Heart of Muslim History' this one is a highly accessible introduction.
*Robert Spencer's other works:
'The Truth About Muhammad' which is a biography of Muhammad according to the traditional Islamic narrative (no historical criticism involved).
And also 'Did Muhammad Exist?' this one is a work of historical criticism.
It's best to read these two along with the critical biography, as they complement each other.
Rating: 3.5/5
December 23, 2025
This book left me with mixed feelings. Robert Spencer, a well-known proponent of the “Counter-Jihad” and his polemics against Islam, has presented an interesting and in some ways necessary, but also lacking presentation of Muhammad’s life and character based on the traditional Islamic sources. Whether this book is meant to be a polemic critique of Muhammad, or a scholarly-critical assessment of his life and its sources, is unclear as it ends up being both and neither. Spencer narrates the traditional biography of Muhammad, making sure he highlights the most violent, immoral, and extreme examples of Muhammad’s conduct; the plundering and massacres of Jewish tribes, allowance of sex slavery, execution and mutilation of critics, child marriage, and offensive wars and conquests. It is clear he wants to communicate with using these sources, that Muhammad’s legacy is nothing but “bloodshed and misery”, as he says in the conclusion.
On the other hand, the message of the book is that these sources; the Hadiths and the biographies of Ibn Hisham and Al-Waqidi are very late, 200-300 years after the life of Muhammad, historically unreliable, contradictory and ultimately mythological. He claims Muhammad essentially did not exist, and is a constructed figure, most of his alleged conduct having been the result of legitimation tactics and political and gradual developments, and disagreements in the early Muslim community. This aspect of the book was much more interesting, and fulfills a definite need. Unfortunately, Spencer mostly asserts these things and does not go into much more detail as to how and why these stories were concocted. He provides interesting theories, like Muhammad being based on the Roman Emperor Heraclitus, or a fictional Prophet based on a combination of several Arabian warlords. I would have liked to read a really thorough historical-critical study of Islam’s true origins, which this almost is, but not out of genuine curiosity, but to discredit Islamic beliefs for Spencer’s own political opinions. Spencer, being a Christian apologist and famous anti-Islam activist with a clear personal agenda, is not an impartial scholar. His goal is to critique Islam by proving the barbarity of its founder.
However, in part this is not his fault. The strongest and most resonating argument in this book is Spencer’s point that historians and scholars of religion alike, are deeply hesitant to give Muhammad the same critical treatment as has been given to Gautama the Buddha, Moses, or Jesus. He makes the point that many scholars essentially engage in Islamic apologetics, which I objectively find to be true and has annoyed me. Though I find it a little distasteful from Spencer to essentially equate people like Karen Armstrong and Sufi scholar Omid Safi with ISIS and the Taliban, I still find it a valiant and important effort to critically assess Muhammad and the Islamic sources, like has been done to other religions. It is clear in any case, that the Islamic sources are not as reliable and historical as has been alleged, and scholars need to engage much more honestly with the person of Muhammad as presented in these sources. While I’m not convinced of Muhammad’s ahistoricity, and Spencer is sometimes too driven by his personal distaste for Islam, I would recommend this book, especially to religion scholars. Hopefully an effort such as this, can help in removing the hesitancy to evaluate and critique Islam and its founder with the same scrutiny afforded to other religions. Perhaps in the future we can then have less ‘Populist’ and agenda-driven studies on the subject.
On the other hand, the message of the book is that these sources; the Hadiths and the biographies of Ibn Hisham and Al-Waqidi are very late, 200-300 years after the life of Muhammad, historically unreliable, contradictory and ultimately mythological. He claims Muhammad essentially did not exist, and is a constructed figure, most of his alleged conduct having been the result of legitimation tactics and political and gradual developments, and disagreements in the early Muslim community. This aspect of the book was much more interesting, and fulfills a definite need. Unfortunately, Spencer mostly asserts these things and does not go into much more detail as to how and why these stories were concocted. He provides interesting theories, like Muhammad being based on the Roman Emperor Heraclitus, or a fictional Prophet based on a combination of several Arabian warlords. I would have liked to read a really thorough historical-critical study of Islam’s true origins, which this almost is, but not out of genuine curiosity, but to discredit Islamic beliefs for Spencer’s own political opinions. Spencer, being a Christian apologist and famous anti-Islam activist with a clear personal agenda, is not an impartial scholar. His goal is to critique Islam by proving the barbarity of its founder.
However, in part this is not his fault. The strongest and most resonating argument in this book is Spencer’s point that historians and scholars of religion alike, are deeply hesitant to give Muhammad the same critical treatment as has been given to Gautama the Buddha, Moses, or Jesus. He makes the point that many scholars essentially engage in Islamic apologetics, which I objectively find to be true and has annoyed me. Though I find it a little distasteful from Spencer to essentially equate people like Karen Armstrong and Sufi scholar Omid Safi with ISIS and the Taliban, I still find it a valiant and important effort to critically assess Muhammad and the Islamic sources, like has been done to other religions. It is clear in any case, that the Islamic sources are not as reliable and historical as has been alleged, and scholars need to engage much more honestly with the person of Muhammad as presented in these sources. While I’m not convinced of Muhammad’s ahistoricity, and Spencer is sometimes too driven by his personal distaste for Islam, I would recommend this book, especially to religion scholars. Hopefully an effort such as this, can help in removing the hesitancy to evaluate and critique Islam and its founder with the same scrutiny afforded to other religions. Perhaps in the future we can then have less ‘Populist’ and agenda-driven studies on the subject.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 10, 2025
Riveting. Unsettling. An unflinching look into the life of the man who founded Islam. An absolute must read for anyone interested in comparative religion.
May 24, 2025
I look at this as a companion book to the author's recently published critical Quran. Just imagine it as a critical Sīrah, written by someone who hadn't long ago bought into the conceits and prejudices of Islamic orthodoxy regarding their ostensible "prophet." Although I disagree with Spencer's conclusion that Muhammad was not a genuine historical figure-or was simply a composite of several different Arab warriors/rulers that existed after the 6th century-he has done the scholarly world a great service by exposing the shoddy historiography related to the religion of Islam and its purported founder.
One of his keenest insights-which I hadn't contemplated until reading this critical account of the life of Muhammad-was that many of the most repugnant aspects of the Quran and ahadith did not portray actual historical events, but were rather a reflection of disparate trends and warring ideologies within the religion itself. Although this would go a long way towards mitigating the opprobrium Islam has earned from its critics, it does nothing to validate its truth claims or justify any solid belief in Islamic precepts.
I'm not sure how many intellectually curious Muslims will read this book, but I heartily advise any non-Muslims to share Robert Spencer's findings and conclusions with their Muslim counterparts.
One of his keenest insights-which I hadn't contemplated until reading this critical account of the life of Muhammad-was that many of the most repugnant aspects of the Quran and ahadith did not portray actual historical events, but were rather a reflection of disparate trends and warring ideologies within the religion itself. Although this would go a long way towards mitigating the opprobrium Islam has earned from its critics, it does nothing to validate its truth claims or justify any solid belief in Islamic precepts.
I'm not sure how many intellectually curious Muslims will read this book, but I heartily advise any non-Muslims to share Robert Spencer's findings and conclusions with their Muslim counterparts.
Read
October 8, 2025Truly interesting. The majority of this book is a walk-through of the biographical information we have on Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, heavily quoting the sirah literature and comparing versions of different traditions (in this case, typically short passages of stories recorded about events in his life).
What the book also does is show that the historical reliability of all of these materials is nearly non-existent, certainly by the standards we use for confidence about other historical figures, such as internal markers of consistency and especially the age of the documents we have. This is rarely indicated in any discussions about Islam and its origins. Spencer points out, too, that the Islamic method for determining authentic chains of transmission is equally historically unreliable, making the sahih texts just as likely to be fabricated as anything else we have.
These critiques have sweeping implications for how the world understands Islam and the personality of Muhammad.
But the largest impact for me was simply taking in so much information directly from Muslim sources about who they say their prophet was. And the picture is bleak, contradictory, and morally depraved. True, not by the standards within the religion, but what good is that? Whoever he was, he isn't worth following now.
What the book also does is show that the historical reliability of all of these materials is nearly non-existent, certainly by the standards we use for confidence about other historical figures, such as internal markers of consistency and especially the age of the documents we have. This is rarely indicated in any discussions about Islam and its origins. Spencer points out, too, that the Islamic method for determining authentic chains of transmission is equally historically unreliable, making the sahih texts just as likely to be fabricated as anything else we have.
These critiques have sweeping implications for how the world understands Islam and the personality of Muhammad.
But the largest impact for me was simply taking in so much information directly from Muslim sources about who they say their prophet was. And the picture is bleak, contradictory, and morally depraved. True, not by the standards within the religion, but what good is that? Whoever he was, he isn't worth following now.
May 8, 2025
If you're familiar with Spencer's work, there isn't much new here. However, I will say that this version of his viewpoint is the most accessible and readable. If you've never read anything form him, this is the best place to start. He is truly doing god's work
November 17, 2024
A must read!
The book does an excellent job detailing this history of Muhammad and the works of his biography. This is a book for those wanting to be informed about Muhammad's true character and history.
The book does an excellent job detailing this history of Muhammad and the works of his biography. This is a book for those wanting to be informed about Muhammad's true character and history.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews