What do you think?
Rate this book
Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins—Revised and Expanded Edition
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.
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.
384 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 9, 2012
137 people are currently reading
684 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 - 30 of 61 reviews
May 16, 2012
The 'quest for the historical Jesus' is hardly thought of today as being particularly controversial. For well over a century books and articles have poured out sifting the evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. On the other hand Muhammad is generally assumed to be an historical figure - yet in fact the evidence for the Muhammad of the orthodox Muslim account is incredibly thin. In the 7th century Arabs conquered much of the Middle East. According to Muslims (and others who have been remarkably uncritical in accepting the Muslim account), they did so enthused by Islam, Muhammad and the Koran. The problem is that there was no mention in contemporary accounts of "Muhammad" or "Koran" or even "Muslims" - the first mentions come over five decades after the supposed death of Muhammad. Why?
Robert Spencer draws on the accounts of other historians and experts in this book, rather than presenting any new research. It is a brave book - few writers have openly tackled these questions because of the very real threat of extreme violence from Muslims against those they regard as criticising their faith. However, he is a fine, engaging writer and the book is gripping. After reading this book I believe there is a need for Muslims to ask themselves some serious questions; hopefully it could lead to the blossoming of some sort of reform movement in Islam which would recognise that traditional Islam is well past its sell-by date. This is a process which has happened in other religions and which is long overdue in Islam.
Robert Spencer draws on the accounts of other historians and experts in this book, rather than presenting any new research. It is a brave book - few writers have openly tackled these questions because of the very real threat of extreme violence from Muslims against those they regard as criticising their faith. However, he is a fine, engaging writer and the book is gripping. After reading this book I believe there is a need for Muslims to ask themselves some serious questions; hopefully it could lead to the blossoming of some sort of reform movement in Islam which would recognise that traditional Islam is well past its sell-by date. This is a process which has happened in other religions and which is long overdue in Islam.
July 9, 2012
A critical look into the story of Muhammad
The author continues his investigation into the origins of Islam with his latest work that shines a light into the murky accepted version of Muhammad and his creation of Islam. It is the sequel his book, THE TRUTH ABOUT MUHAMMAD.
Islam, unlike all other major religions, has never been subjected to critical analysis. Perhaps the reason is that any criticism of Islam’s prophet, or of Islam itself, is considered blasphemy. Critics, scholars, and even Muslims who have questioned the word of Allah or his Prophet, as set down in accepted hadiths and the Koran, have been severely punished or killed -- a practice that is still alive and well in the 21st Century.
The Koran is not a complete copy of the book residing with Allah in paradise, a fact acknowledged by Islamic scholars by not understood by Muslims or non-Muslims. Some of the facts presented by Spencer include: there was no written Arabic language when Muhammad lived, so how could the Koran be written in Arabic; two caliphs take credit for assembling the Koran at two different dates; and coinage dating to the early caliphs displayed a cross. These are but a few of Spencer’s revelations. Others include the fact that many of the hadiths are counterfeit, forgeries.
A key element of Spencer’s inquiry is diacritical marks, dots above or below Arabic letters that define their meaning. A table is provided on page 163. The earliest Arabic texts of the Quran only contain a few diacritical dots, meaning that the text can have many meanings, which may help explain why some verses of the Koran make no sense. Diacritical marks were add many decades after the original Arabic texts were written -- remembering that there was no written Arabic language during the accepted lifetime of Muhammad (570-632 CE), which has to mean that Muhammad’s recitations were written in a different language and later translated into early Arabic.
So, did Muhammad exist? There is no definitive answer. No mention of Muhammad and Islam exist in the records of conquered nations for the first hundred or so years of the great Arabic conquests; only one reference to an Arabic prophet with a sword, and no mention of Islam. In fact, people that we refer to as Muslims were known as Saracens, Hagarians, Taiyaye, and Ishmaelites. Many of the hadiths were manufactured by various Islamic dynasties to justify a position, and Islam appears to have been created in order to give the Arabic conquests religious justification.
Spencer leaves the reader with many tantalizing facts and speculations. Muhammad means “the Praised One.” Arabic inscriptions found in the Dome of the Rock refer to the Praised One that may in fact refer to Jesus. Islam may have evolved from a spinoff Christian faith.
This book is a must read for all seeking to understand Islam, including Muslims. Spencer raises legitimate questions that must be considered by all seeking the truth -- questions that beg more investigation.
The author continues his investigation into the origins of Islam with his latest work that shines a light into the murky accepted version of Muhammad and his creation of Islam. It is the sequel his book, THE TRUTH ABOUT MUHAMMAD.
Islam, unlike all other major religions, has never been subjected to critical analysis. Perhaps the reason is that any criticism of Islam’s prophet, or of Islam itself, is considered blasphemy. Critics, scholars, and even Muslims who have questioned the word of Allah or his Prophet, as set down in accepted hadiths and the Koran, have been severely punished or killed -- a practice that is still alive and well in the 21st Century.
The Koran is not a complete copy of the book residing with Allah in paradise, a fact acknowledged by Islamic scholars by not understood by Muslims or non-Muslims. Some of the facts presented by Spencer include: there was no written Arabic language when Muhammad lived, so how could the Koran be written in Arabic; two caliphs take credit for assembling the Koran at two different dates; and coinage dating to the early caliphs displayed a cross. These are but a few of Spencer’s revelations. Others include the fact that many of the hadiths are counterfeit, forgeries.
A key element of Spencer’s inquiry is diacritical marks, dots above or below Arabic letters that define their meaning. A table is provided on page 163. The earliest Arabic texts of the Quran only contain a few diacritical dots, meaning that the text can have many meanings, which may help explain why some verses of the Koran make no sense. Diacritical marks were add many decades after the original Arabic texts were written -- remembering that there was no written Arabic language during the accepted lifetime of Muhammad (570-632 CE), which has to mean that Muhammad’s recitations were written in a different language and later translated into early Arabic.
So, did Muhammad exist? There is no definitive answer. No mention of Muhammad and Islam exist in the records of conquered nations for the first hundred or so years of the great Arabic conquests; only one reference to an Arabic prophet with a sword, and no mention of Islam. In fact, people that we refer to as Muslims were known as Saracens, Hagarians, Taiyaye, and Ishmaelites. Many of the hadiths were manufactured by various Islamic dynasties to justify a position, and Islam appears to have been created in order to give the Arabic conquests religious justification.
Spencer leaves the reader with many tantalizing facts and speculations. Muhammad means “the Praised One.” Arabic inscriptions found in the Dome of the Rock refer to the Praised One that may in fact refer to Jesus. Islam may have evolved from a spinoff Christian faith.
This book is a must read for all seeking to understand Islam, including Muslims. Spencer raises legitimate questions that must be considered by all seeking the truth -- questions that beg more investigation.
November 25, 2015
This book presents evidence that just don't support its conclusions. Just for example, the fact that Byzantine documents did not use the term "Muslim" means less than nothing. Well into the 20th century, the most common term in English was Mohammedan. Does that mean Muslims didn't exist until 1950?
If you're looking for something on the historical Muhammad, go somewhere else.
If you're looking for something on the historical Muhammad, go somewhere else.
May 20, 2013
Robert Spencer's 2012 book "Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins," citing peer-reviewed scholarship, makes a very strong case that everything previously believed about Islam, both by devout Muslims and secular historians, was invented to serve imperial, military, political ends. Islam was invented, Spencer argues, to provide a unifying ideology for the Arab conquest that began in the seventh century and that defeated Persia, besieged Byzantium, stretched to India, and made it all the way to Spain by 711.
Islam is different from Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism but like Christianity in this important aspect: it relies on an historically real founder. Christianity needs Jesus to exist. Without Jesus' life, teaching, miracles, death and resurrection, Christianity could not exist. Just so Islam. Islam is very much the vision of one man, Muhammad, presumed to have really lived; in that sense, it is entirely fitting to refer to Islam as Muhammadanism and Muslims as Muhammadans. Muslims believed that Muhammad was visited by the Archangel Gabriel, who dictated the Koran to him. Muhammad then began sharing this new revelation with followers, and eventually Muhammad instituted jihad, war to establish Islam as the only faith on earth. Secular historians have long accepted this narrative, if not putting faith in its supernatural aspect.
Other sacred texts, such as the Jewish Torah, the Hindu Vedas, and the Buddhist Sutras are the products of centuries, and vast communities. The Koran is the product of the alleged encounter of one man – Muhammad – with an archangel, Gabriel. Without an historical Muhammad and a reliable record of this encounter, Islam has no foundations whatsoever.
Spencer points out that there are no contemporary or near contemporary mentions of Muhammad. When Arab armies attacked and pillaged in the seventh century, those they attacked often did not mention Muhammad, Muslims, the Koran, or Islam. An early document, the Doctrina Jacobi of the mid seventh century, refers to an "Antichrist," an Arab "armed with a sword," who is alive after Muhammad was supposed to have died.
Sophronius, in 637, gives a devastating account of these Arab raids: "Barbarian raids abound…there has been so much destruction and plunder…incessant outpourings of human blood…the birds of the sky devouring human bodies…churches pulled down…the cross mocked…Christ blasphemed." Spencer points out that centuries later, Muslim historians whitewashed these events, depicting the Arab conquest of the Holy Land as respectful and restrained.
There are early mentions of Muhammad, but he is not the Muhammad of later Islam. He announces himself as preparing the way for Jesus; he declares that the Jews have the right to the Holy Land. Violence, though, was a feature of this new faith, whatever it was. "They inflict the pain of death upon anyone who seems to contradict his tradition," wrote a contemporary of the Arab Conquests.
Arab conquerors, too, writes Spencer, did not mention Islam or Muhammad at first, and when they began to mention them, they did so in a way that differs from the understanding of Islam today. For example, Arab conquerors struck coins with the word "Muhammad" combined with a Christian cross. Christian crosses are anathema in today's Islam. As late as the eighth century, Arab rulers are announcing themselves as worshipping "The Lord of Moses and Aaron" – not Muhammad (61).
Inscriptions on the seventh century Dome of the Rock seem to indicate that the Koran was not codified by that time, and one interpretation argues that these inscriptions show that early Arab invaders weren't quite sure whom they worshipped; possibly Jesus. Clarity of the Islamic messages as totally different from Christianity may have come about because of "pressure from rebel factions" and Caliph Abd al-Malik's need to unify troops (58). "It is possible that Abd al-Malik expropriated and expanded on the nascent Muhammad myth for his own political purposes" (59). Certainly lines emerge that support political power, e.g. "'obedience to the Caliph in his every demand was compulsory for the population'" (60).
Islam itself, and Muslims themselves, repeatedly acknowledge fabricated material about Muhammad. Muslims attempting to establish their idea of who Muhammad was and what Islam should be protest against what they allege to be fabricated material, and develop ways to lend an air of credibility to their material. "My facts are better than so-and-so's facts because I got my facts from a more reliable source than so-and-so." There is no support for these assertions. There are no extra-Islamic mentions of Muhammad to rely on, and no contemporary documents. Believers are simply to leave their inquiring minds at the door, and accept the biographical details about Muhammad that are supported by the biggest guns.
Accepted biographical details about Muhammad are self-contradictory. Muhammad famously did not perform any miracles, except when he did perform miracles; he forbids, then praises, innovation; Muhammad forbids, then encourages the killing of women and children (77). There are many such contradictions; Spencer points out that these contradictions can easily be understood in light of the political needs of the person producing the biological detail. If a given, contemporary political problem required Muhammad to do or say x, y, or z, he could be made to do so (66).
This cynical view is not limited to non-Muslims. "'Emirs forced people to write hadiths,'" an early Islamic scholar protested (71). One leader demanded a hadith that forbade pilgrimage to Mecca, considered a pillar of Islam today (72). Islam insists that these biographical details were passed down since the lifetime of Muhammad, but there is no early record of them (68-69). Bukhari, author of a respected collection of hadiths, traversed the Muslim world collecting hadiths – and he rejected 293,000 of them as fabricated! Bukhari was a Persian, born in Uzbekistan, two hundred years after Muhammad died. Bukhari was not an Arab. There is no good reason to accept his work as factual.
Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad's first biographer, did not write until over a hundred years after the death of Muhammad, and his work no longer exists. It is known only by later references to it, made two hundred years after Muhammad died. This work's author admitted that he presents only a bowdlerized version. At least one Muslim historian regarded Ibn Ishaq as unreliable (88). Another alleges that Jews are to blame for Ibn Ishaq's problems (90). Ibn Ishaq assigns dates to every event in Muhammad's life. None of those dates occur during time periods that existed before a renovation of the calendar. This seems to indicate the dates were fabricated by an author unaware of that calendric innovation (98).
When assessing ancient texts, scholars seek support for the texts in still extant archaeological sites. Archaeology seems to contradict Muhammad's received biography. It contradicts what is known about Mecca (104-5).
When assessing texts, scholars consider the "criterion of embarrassment." Does the text contain material that might embarrass? If so, it is more likely to be true. Those who argue for the authenticity of Muhammad material cite his marriage, when he was fifty plus, to a six year old girl, and his demanding that his son relinquish his wife and allow Muhammad to marry his own daughter-in-law. Spencer claims that these details might jibe with seventh century Arab warlord needs and values.
The Koran is a notoriously incoherent book. It is unlike other world scriptures, whose narratives and values are usually readily apparent to non-members even on a first read through. One estimate states that 20 % of the Koran simply makes no sense (149). Islam's "theological flux" is explained with a Koranic verse that says that Allah gives better verses to abrogate inferior ones (128; 131). The Koran is said to be all but divine, but passing influences dictate its contents (128-9). Muslim traditions state that some Koranic verses disappeared (135-137). Scholarship backs this up; analysis shows that the Koran is the result of several authors working over the course of many years (138-9).
Finally, Spencer argues that the Koran was based largely on pre-existent Jewish and mainstream and heretical Christian material from the Bible and folklore (148-9). Much of this material was obviously misunderstood, for example, the Koran describing Jesus as Moses' nephew. Again, Islamic tradition supports this view, announcing that Muhammad's critics called him merely someone who heard and regurgitated Jewish and Christian tradition, "fairy tales of the ancients he has written down" (146-7).
Many words in the Koran make no sense in Arabic or any known language. It is possible that these words are the results of errors. If one understands the Koran in the context of the Syriac language and the Christian heresy of Arianism, it begins to make sense – but it is a much less "Islamic" text. It is not the unique revelation of God to a prophet, but simply a misunderstood and misused text. Translated correctly, the Koran may contain celebrations of the Last Supper, of Christmas, and a Christian confession of faith.
Did Muhammad exist? Spencer says that he possibly did, but scholarship shows that he is not the prophet of a coherent and new revelation, but, rather, that his name was used to unify and rally an imperialist, expansionist Arab conquest. That conquest's scripture was a garbled version of a Jewish and Christian substratum that evolved in response to military needs.
Islam is different from Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism but like Christianity in this important aspect: it relies on an historically real founder. Christianity needs Jesus to exist. Without Jesus' life, teaching, miracles, death and resurrection, Christianity could not exist. Just so Islam. Islam is very much the vision of one man, Muhammad, presumed to have really lived; in that sense, it is entirely fitting to refer to Islam as Muhammadanism and Muslims as Muhammadans. Muslims believed that Muhammad was visited by the Archangel Gabriel, who dictated the Koran to him. Muhammad then began sharing this new revelation with followers, and eventually Muhammad instituted jihad, war to establish Islam as the only faith on earth. Secular historians have long accepted this narrative, if not putting faith in its supernatural aspect.
Other sacred texts, such as the Jewish Torah, the Hindu Vedas, and the Buddhist Sutras are the products of centuries, and vast communities. The Koran is the product of the alleged encounter of one man – Muhammad – with an archangel, Gabriel. Without an historical Muhammad and a reliable record of this encounter, Islam has no foundations whatsoever.
Spencer points out that there are no contemporary or near contemporary mentions of Muhammad. When Arab armies attacked and pillaged in the seventh century, those they attacked often did not mention Muhammad, Muslims, the Koran, or Islam. An early document, the Doctrina Jacobi of the mid seventh century, refers to an "Antichrist," an Arab "armed with a sword," who is alive after Muhammad was supposed to have died.
Sophronius, in 637, gives a devastating account of these Arab raids: "Barbarian raids abound…there has been so much destruction and plunder…incessant outpourings of human blood…the birds of the sky devouring human bodies…churches pulled down…the cross mocked…Christ blasphemed." Spencer points out that centuries later, Muslim historians whitewashed these events, depicting the Arab conquest of the Holy Land as respectful and restrained.
There are early mentions of Muhammad, but he is not the Muhammad of later Islam. He announces himself as preparing the way for Jesus; he declares that the Jews have the right to the Holy Land. Violence, though, was a feature of this new faith, whatever it was. "They inflict the pain of death upon anyone who seems to contradict his tradition," wrote a contemporary of the Arab Conquests.
Arab conquerors, too, writes Spencer, did not mention Islam or Muhammad at first, and when they began to mention them, they did so in a way that differs from the understanding of Islam today. For example, Arab conquerors struck coins with the word "Muhammad" combined with a Christian cross. Christian crosses are anathema in today's Islam. As late as the eighth century, Arab rulers are announcing themselves as worshipping "The Lord of Moses and Aaron" – not Muhammad (61).
Inscriptions on the seventh century Dome of the Rock seem to indicate that the Koran was not codified by that time, and one interpretation argues that these inscriptions show that early Arab invaders weren't quite sure whom they worshipped; possibly Jesus. Clarity of the Islamic messages as totally different from Christianity may have come about because of "pressure from rebel factions" and Caliph Abd al-Malik's need to unify troops (58). "It is possible that Abd al-Malik expropriated and expanded on the nascent Muhammad myth for his own political purposes" (59). Certainly lines emerge that support political power, e.g. "'obedience to the Caliph in his every demand was compulsory for the population'" (60).
Islam itself, and Muslims themselves, repeatedly acknowledge fabricated material about Muhammad. Muslims attempting to establish their idea of who Muhammad was and what Islam should be protest against what they allege to be fabricated material, and develop ways to lend an air of credibility to their material. "My facts are better than so-and-so's facts because I got my facts from a more reliable source than so-and-so." There is no support for these assertions. There are no extra-Islamic mentions of Muhammad to rely on, and no contemporary documents. Believers are simply to leave their inquiring minds at the door, and accept the biographical details about Muhammad that are supported by the biggest guns.
Accepted biographical details about Muhammad are self-contradictory. Muhammad famously did not perform any miracles, except when he did perform miracles; he forbids, then praises, innovation; Muhammad forbids, then encourages the killing of women and children (77). There are many such contradictions; Spencer points out that these contradictions can easily be understood in light of the political needs of the person producing the biological detail. If a given, contemporary political problem required Muhammad to do or say x, y, or z, he could be made to do so (66).
This cynical view is not limited to non-Muslims. "'Emirs forced people to write hadiths,'" an early Islamic scholar protested (71). One leader demanded a hadith that forbade pilgrimage to Mecca, considered a pillar of Islam today (72). Islam insists that these biographical details were passed down since the lifetime of Muhammad, but there is no early record of them (68-69). Bukhari, author of a respected collection of hadiths, traversed the Muslim world collecting hadiths – and he rejected 293,000 of them as fabricated! Bukhari was a Persian, born in Uzbekistan, two hundred years after Muhammad died. Bukhari was not an Arab. There is no good reason to accept his work as factual.
Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad's first biographer, did not write until over a hundred years after the death of Muhammad, and his work no longer exists. It is known only by later references to it, made two hundred years after Muhammad died. This work's author admitted that he presents only a bowdlerized version. At least one Muslim historian regarded Ibn Ishaq as unreliable (88). Another alleges that Jews are to blame for Ibn Ishaq's problems (90). Ibn Ishaq assigns dates to every event in Muhammad's life. None of those dates occur during time periods that existed before a renovation of the calendar. This seems to indicate the dates were fabricated by an author unaware of that calendric innovation (98).
When assessing ancient texts, scholars seek support for the texts in still extant archaeological sites. Archaeology seems to contradict Muhammad's received biography. It contradicts what is known about Mecca (104-5).
When assessing texts, scholars consider the "criterion of embarrassment." Does the text contain material that might embarrass? If so, it is more likely to be true. Those who argue for the authenticity of Muhammad material cite his marriage, when he was fifty plus, to a six year old girl, and his demanding that his son relinquish his wife and allow Muhammad to marry his own daughter-in-law. Spencer claims that these details might jibe with seventh century Arab warlord needs and values.
The Koran is a notoriously incoherent book. It is unlike other world scriptures, whose narratives and values are usually readily apparent to non-members even on a first read through. One estimate states that 20 % of the Koran simply makes no sense (149). Islam's "theological flux" is explained with a Koranic verse that says that Allah gives better verses to abrogate inferior ones (128; 131). The Koran is said to be all but divine, but passing influences dictate its contents (128-9). Muslim traditions state that some Koranic verses disappeared (135-137). Scholarship backs this up; analysis shows that the Koran is the result of several authors working over the course of many years (138-9).
Finally, Spencer argues that the Koran was based largely on pre-existent Jewish and mainstream and heretical Christian material from the Bible and folklore (148-9). Much of this material was obviously misunderstood, for example, the Koran describing Jesus as Moses' nephew. Again, Islamic tradition supports this view, announcing that Muhammad's critics called him merely someone who heard and regurgitated Jewish and Christian tradition, "fairy tales of the ancients he has written down" (146-7).
Many words in the Koran make no sense in Arabic or any known language. It is possible that these words are the results of errors. If one understands the Koran in the context of the Syriac language and the Christian heresy of Arianism, it begins to make sense – but it is a much less "Islamic" text. It is not the unique revelation of God to a prophet, but simply a misunderstood and misused text. Translated correctly, the Koran may contain celebrations of the Last Supper, of Christmas, and a Christian confession of faith.
Did Muhammad exist? Spencer says that he possibly did, but scholarship shows that he is not the prophet of a coherent and new revelation, but, rather, that his name was used to unify and rally an imperialist, expansionist Arab conquest. That conquest's scripture was a garbled version of a Jewish and Christian substratum that evolved in response to military needs.
February 7, 2013
An impeccable research, which cannot be challenged, the author shows that all Arabic sources of the life of Muhammed are late legends, tendentious, and are unsupported by historical documents or facts. The archeological and epigraphic evidence sustain the fact the Muhammed is only what the word means "THE PRAISED ONE", which qualifies to Jesus and no other. This is how people in the Middle East spoke of Jesus. This book brings manuscripts, letters, coins, and much more evidence to obliterate everything the muslim community believes. The Quran was canonized in 1923 by the muslim brotherhood, the arabic language came to existence in the year 1000, and the liturgy of the Quran was copied from the Syrio-Arameic christian liturgy of the churches in Syria and Egypt. A must read book for a civilized person.
August 26, 2014
This is a scholarly work and it is highly recommended
This is another great book by scholar Robert Spencer who is a fearless leader in pointing out the evil effects of Islamic terrorism and Islamic culture across the globe. I have been following his timely articles on his website JihadWatch.org and also read instant messages on his Twitter account; it is an honor to know that we have a fearless scholar amongst us who dares to say that Islamic terrorists are savages and substantiate his statements with facts. We need to read works such as this at times when various Islamic terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and ISIS are waging war against order and civilization. The Islamic culture is truly barbaric and the savage acts of ISIS in Iraq and Syria are becoming yesterday’s news and much of the Islamic world not only tolerates such evil acts but also help promote it. Recently a well know Islamic cleric by the name of Hussein bin Mahmoud invoked Qur’an 47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks…” and suggested that ISIS beheadings are sanctioned by Islam.
This book explores the life of Muhammad and his prophetic career. The historical records discussed in this book casts doubt on his existence. A careful investigation shows that the Qur’an is not Muhammad’s revelations, but actually borrowed from the Jewish and Christian scriptures. His order is nothing but a terrorist fraternity filled with intolerance to other faiths. The concept of forgiveness reflected throughout the gospels and New Testament is a sharp contract to the preaching of Muhammad. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book and recommend this to anyone interested in the long term influence of global jihad.
This is another great book by scholar Robert Spencer who is a fearless leader in pointing out the evil effects of Islamic terrorism and Islamic culture across the globe. I have been following his timely articles on his website JihadWatch.org and also read instant messages on his Twitter account; it is an honor to know that we have a fearless scholar amongst us who dares to say that Islamic terrorists are savages and substantiate his statements with facts. We need to read works such as this at times when various Islamic terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and ISIS are waging war against order and civilization. The Islamic culture is truly barbaric and the savage acts of ISIS in Iraq and Syria are becoming yesterday’s news and much of the Islamic world not only tolerates such evil acts but also help promote it. Recently a well know Islamic cleric by the name of Hussein bin Mahmoud invoked Qur’an 47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks…” and suggested that ISIS beheadings are sanctioned by Islam.
This book explores the life of Muhammad and his prophetic career. The historical records discussed in this book casts doubt on his existence. A careful investigation shows that the Qur’an is not Muhammad’s revelations, but actually borrowed from the Jewish and Christian scriptures. His order is nothing but a terrorist fraternity filled with intolerance to other faiths. The concept of forgiveness reflected throughout the gospels and New Testament is a sharp contract to the preaching of Muhammad. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book and recommend this to anyone interested in the long term influence of global jihad.
September 6, 2013
I like a book where I learn a lot, especially when I don't expect to. One thing I should say coming into this, is that I did know a little bit about Islam and it's followers. For example I know that Moslems will not let anyone critically study the Quran. Well you can but you risk being killed, especially if you're Muslim. Also, the Muslims don't like archeology. Remember the Taliban blowing up the famous Buddha's? That's what Muslims do. The Saudis do it all the time. Also, I've always had questions just from my reading of the Quran, and information about Muhammad. For example Mecca is supposed to have been a famous trading center, but I've never been able to see how it could be. It's in the center of the Arabian desert. Who would go there to trade and why, but that's always just been my own thoughts.
Second I know that Robert Spencer is supposed to be an Islamaphobe. However, in reading a lot of his writings I agree with what he says. He just quotes the Quran and the Hadith's. That's all you've got to do. Any religion that believes that camel piss is good for you because it was said so by a 7th century bandit is a crazy religion, or the people who follow that are crazy.
Now for the book. One thing that I've never heard before is that the quotes on a famous mosque in Jerusalem are not the way it is in the Quran. These are some of the earliest existing quotes from the Quran and they're not the way they exist in the perfect book. Also, Muslims do not like the perfect book to be subjected to anything closely resembling the way the Bible is studied. In fact he gives examples of how when old Quran's are found it's not a great find like it is when old Bible manuscripts are found, but the Muslim's like to get rid of them by destroying them.
OK these are just a few of the evidences that Mr. Spencer brings forward. This is also the book where I first heard about the information that led me to read Mohammad and Charlemagne, and Holy Warriors.
Second I know that Robert Spencer is supposed to be an Islamaphobe. However, in reading a lot of his writings I agree with what he says. He just quotes the Quran and the Hadith's. That's all you've got to do. Any religion that believes that camel piss is good for you because it was said so by a 7th century bandit is a crazy religion, or the people who follow that are crazy.
Now for the book. One thing that I've never heard before is that the quotes on a famous mosque in Jerusalem are not the way it is in the Quran. These are some of the earliest existing quotes from the Quran and they're not the way they exist in the perfect book. Also, Muslims do not like the perfect book to be subjected to anything closely resembling the way the Bible is studied. In fact he gives examples of how when old Quran's are found it's not a great find like it is when old Bible manuscripts are found, but the Muslim's like to get rid of them by destroying them.
OK these are just a few of the evidences that Mr. Spencer brings forward. This is also the book where I first heard about the information that led me to read Mohammad and Charlemagne, and Holy Warriors.
September 19, 2012
A must read for every Muslim and non- Muslim. Well written, engaging and informative. It puts to question many things many people take for granted on Islam, Quran and it's beginnings.
November 10, 2014
The empire came first and the theology came later... this is what the book is all about.
June 27, 2014
a lot of information, and he certainly makes his argument that the idea that the origins of Islam are well attested historically is not tenable, but I'm not sure there is enough to confidently go beyond that and to be fair, the author acknowledges as much.
June 2, 2024
امروزه روش معیار شرقشناسان از این قرار است: هنگام بررسی مواد و مصالحی که در اکتشافات باستانشناختی از تاریخ گذشتهی اسلام به دست آمدهاند، خود این مواد و مصالح را در نظر نمیگیرند، بلکه فقط به کارایی آنها برای تایید اسطورههای اسلامی فکر میکنند. از این رو، وقتی در طرح سکههای متقدم عربی علامت صلیب مشاهده میشود، شرقشناسان آن را نشان رواداری مسلمانان میشمرند. علامت صلیب بر روی سنگنوشتهی یونانی معاویه در فلسطین را کار یک حکاک مسیحی تلقی میکنند. تصویر آتشدان ایرانی بر پشت سکههای معاویه را خطای دستگاه ضرب سکه میدانند. شرقشناسان هرچه را که درون سنت مقبول اسلامی نگنجد مردود میشمارند
April 17, 2015
Interesting insight in the early history of islam
After reading this book you are at least convinced that the existence of Mahomet is doubtful and the Quran is just a mixture of Christian and Jewish texts with many internal contradictions.
After reading this book you are at least convinced that the existence of Mahomet is doubtful and the Quran is just a mixture of Christian and Jewish texts with many internal contradictions.
February 6, 2014
The book in my point of view deserves to be translated to the language of Islam, Arabic.
December 15, 2015
Arian Christians fled to Syria and Arabia with their holy books (now called 'Christian apocryphal books') after the 325 Council of Nicaea established the Orthodox Christian teachings on Christ's 2 natures and his membership in the Trinity. When stripped of its diacritical marks, the Arabic of the Qu'uran reveals that its substratum is a Syriac Arian Christian lectionary praising Jesus the Messiah--not divine but human. Early Arab monotheists welcomed Jews and Arian Christians as partners, but when the latter did not convert to their views, the Arab tribes taking over the Middle East and North Africa demonized them and murdered them. The Arab tribes needed a hero and holy book. Muhammad became the legendary hero, and the Syriac Arian Christian lectionary with diacritical marks added became the Arab text, clear as mud, that developed into the Qu'uran. The author should have 24-hour-security protection.
July 17, 2014
I only read the first 1/3 of the book, so don't pay too much attention to my rating or this review. The book isn't bad, and evidently the early history of Islam (including even the Qur'an) is less clear than I thought. However, my concern is that the author doesn't really "prove" that Mohammed did not exist, just show that the early history of Islam is much more complex than we thought and throw out a series of puzzles. It's left to the reader (or other scholars) to come up with a better story, with the default story being "no such person." It will require research into the history of Islam, a lot of research, to really evaluate this book, which basically I don't have time for right now.
December 11, 2014
This book is extremely insightful. Again Robert Spencer has outdone himself! With a bit of luck this book will help to open up Islam.
Access to Islamic inquiry is so difficult due to death threats. Maybe if enough people begin studying Islam as indeed Judaism & Christianity have been studied, the jihadists will lose their iron grip on the religion.
Access to Islamic inquiry is so difficult due to death threats. Maybe if enough people begin studying Islam as indeed Judaism & Christianity have been studied, the jihadists will lose their iron grip on the religion.
June 19, 2016
The chapter on the origins of the Qur'an is the strongest and most interesting. A Syriac origin must be an idea taken more seriously than heretofore. One is tempted to write to the Saudi religious authorities a simple letter stating, the Arian Syriac speakers want their book back.
January 2, 2013
It only get's 4 stars because Spencer actually brings together the well known information regarding the historicity and origins of Islam and the Quran. However due to his obvious bias against Islam which does come up near the end of the book, he does not get the full 5 stars.
January 6, 2015
Intrigued by the idea that there hasn't been the same critical examination of the evidence that there has been for Christianity over the past 200 years.
July 9, 2017
Meh. Reads more like conjectures against conspiracy theories than a compelling bunch of arguments. Good to sow some doubts in a zealot's mind though.
February 10, 2015
After having done much of my own research about the origins and doctrines of Islam, Robert Spencer's Did Muhammad Exist? provided an enlightening new perspective on this topic for me. The book is highly readable and thoroughly engaging as it provides solid historical reference as well as citations from the Koran and other Islamic writings to back up Spencer's findings.
This book provides a scholarly exposé without being a dry reading experience. In fact I found this to be an entertaining book that reads rather quickly. If you're looking for some fascinating background of the origins and doctrine of Islam this book is an excellent place to start. It's a must for anyone not of the Islamic faith who might be confused about what Islam represents and its history. Many Muslims will undoubtedly reject and refute this book with ferocity, but those who are open-minded and able to reason may find this book to be a doorway to rethinking this system of belief that is among the greatest controversies of the modern era.
If you are unfamiliar with Islam and the man whom those of this faith accept as their prophet, Did Muhammad Exist? is a good place to start. Spencer is an expert in the field of Islamic studies and presents the topic in a manner that has clarity. This is a book that will make you think and will hopefully open your eyes.
This book provides a scholarly exposé without being a dry reading experience. In fact I found this to be an entertaining book that reads rather quickly. If you're looking for some fascinating background of the origins and doctrine of Islam this book is an excellent place to start. It's a must for anyone not of the Islamic faith who might be confused about what Islam represents and its history. Many Muslims will undoubtedly reject and refute this book with ferocity, but those who are open-minded and able to reason may find this book to be a doorway to rethinking this system of belief that is among the greatest controversies of the modern era.
If you are unfamiliar with Islam and the man whom those of this faith accept as their prophet, Did Muhammad Exist? is a good place to start. Spencer is an expert in the field of Islamic studies and presents the topic in a manner that has clarity. This is a book that will make you think and will hopefully open your eyes.
July 23, 2012
This is a fascinating look at the history of Islam and the veracity of the Qur'an. I was amazed at the depth of discovery that Mr. Spencer uncovered in his studies. While reading, I couldn't help but wonder how widespread knowledge of this truth would impact our world. Obviously, there are significant objections to the conclusions of Mr. Spencer's book by orthodox Islamic interpretation of the Qur'an. But I wonder if this book were allowed to be read by 'average' people of the Muslim faith, how would they respond?
Of particular interest to me was the uncovering of early Christian (although heretical) influence on streams of thought within the Qur'an. It was very eye-opening to see the deep roots of Islam as perhaps being from certain heretical teachings that Jesus Christ is not truly and wholly God. Having a strong biblical foundation, I feel that this revelation perhaps shows just how nefarious the lies of the Enemy of the Gospel can be.
I recommend this book for those who are wanting to dig a lot deeper into the story behind the story of Islam. Be ready to be challenged and enlightened.
November 28, 2015
Spencer gives a thorough critical investigation of the canonical account of the origins of Islam and concludes that the paucity of contemporary evidence is evidence that the canonical account is unreliable at best, fabricated at worst.
The difficulty is is disentangling Spencer's evidence from his well documented anti Islam position. So this book can only be a starting point for any critical thinker who would need to critique and evaluate the evidence presented here.
One real negative about the book is the repetition. It seems US writers are adopting the same presentation style of US documentary makers and assume their audience has a memory deficit and need the key points reiterated continually.
The difficulty is is disentangling Spencer's evidence from his well documented anti Islam position. So this book can only be a starting point for any critical thinker who would need to critique and evaluate the evidence presented here.
One real negative about the book is the repetition. It seems US writers are adopting the same presentation style of US documentary makers and assume their audience has a memory deficit and need the key points reiterated continually.
August 17, 2018
Super interesting.
January 17, 2021
During recent years, there have been several books questioning the authenticity of Jesus Christ, assessing the evidence we have for the claims of the Bible. I found this book to be interesting because it does the same things regarding some of the historical claims of Islam. I have read several books about the religion of Islam written from varying perspectives, and I assumed that there was a very strong evidentiary record about the existence of Muhammad. When I first saw this book available on Kindle, I was surprised and perplexed by why anyone would think it worth writing. However, because I was curious, I started reading and started to understand that there is less direct evidence about the person known as Muhammad then I assumed. One of the things I came to especially appreciate about this book is its use of references where I could go and confirm some of the things claimed in the book. I like books where the author is willing to share their sources so I can make up my own mind about the validity of certain points. That is true no matter what subject I’m studying.
March 24, 2025
To me, the most astonishing thing is not the titular question raised in this book -- but the fact that the exploration of that question should have been allowed to be published. Religious communities generally do not like too close of an examination of their founding, especially by outsiders. In the Nineteenth Century, when scholars began critically examining the core documents of Judaism and Christianity, using critical processes that had originally been used to examine the Homeric epics, there were grumbles of impiety, even blasphemy. How dare one question the divine origin and traditional authorship of the holy books! But it rarely went beyond firmly-worded statements, such as a papal encyclical.
But raising the question of the historicity of Muhammad raises the specter of the wrath of his followers, often expressed in violence. So it's unsurprising that the author of this book, in his Acknowledgements section, includes a blanket acknowledgement to the vast number of informants who prefer to go unnamed -- no doubt out of fear of reprisal, particularly for those who live in majority-Muslim nations, especially those such as Pakistan where blasphemy has secular legal consequences, or where accusations of blasphemy often result in extrajudicial actions.
In a sense, all of Earth's various religions are the product of a community in a particular point in history -- but some are more dependent upon historicity for their legitimacy. Shinto gives its believers an account of the founding of Japan that is at variance with archeological evidence of human settlement of the Home Islands, but archeology is not seen as a threat to the traditional faith of Japan. There are similar questions about the historicity of such major religious figures as Ramachandra, Siddhartha, Zarathustra, and even Abraham and Moses, yet Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism go on, at least partly because these figures are viewed as belonging to what anthropologists would call the "non-retrievable past," as opposed to the historical past.
By contrast, both Christianity and Islam rest heavily on the principle that their founders, Jesus Christ and Muhammad, were historical personages in the same way as Peter the Great or George Washington were. Not just symbolic figures, but living, breathing people who actually performed the various acts of their religions that were as critical to the founding of those faiths as the establishment of St. Petersburg or the winning of the War of Independence are to Russia and the US.
The author of the foreword to this book uses the example of Richard Nixon in discussing the question of historicity and how we go about determining it, but I picked Peter the Great and George Washington because they lie well out of the range of living memory. There are plenty of us who still remember Nixon, but we know the founder of the Russian Empire as a modern nation-state and the first President of the US only through the historical record. And in the case of both of those men, there are ample records, by their own hand, by those of their followers, and by people in other countries that were affected by their actions.
At first glance, it would appear that the life of Muhammad is well documented, with the abundance of hadiths (accounts of the actions of the Prophet), as well as a biography and the Quran itself. Yet when one looks at that body of evidence against the evidence of archeology and contemporaneous documents from elsewhere in the area, it becomes oddly thin. Even several decades after the traditional date of Muhammad's death, Byzantine records refer to the "Ishmaelits" or "Hagarites" or "Saracens" being led by a living prophet bearing a sword, but there is no reference to Islam or the Quran. Archeological evidence shows coins and other artifacts that combine typically Islamic imagery such as the crescent moon with the cross, which Islam regards as anathema (one of the major Islamic end-times prophecies holds that Isa (Jesus) will return to break all the crosses).
Almost all the critical texts of Islam were assembled in their modern forms a century or more after the historical dates of Muhammad's revelations, and the authenticity of hadiths are determined not by how they fit with each other and the Quran, but by chains of transmission going back to the various companions of the Prophet -- a reminder that Arab society at that time was almost entirely an oral culture.
There are also some very interesting textual issues within the Quran itself. In multiple places, arguments don't quite follow, with verses arranged in a very different way than one would expect for a logical development of an idea. The Quran states multiple times that it is in clear Arabic -- yet even native speakers struggle with the peculiarities of the language within, including inexplicable nonce words that appear nowhere else. Interpretations of them often give the feeling of scholars grasping at straws, afraid to say its incomprehensible lest they be viewed as blasphemous.
And then there are the fascinating peculiarities that are evident only to scholars well versed in the entire family of languages to which Arabic belongs, including dead languages such as Syriac and Aramaic, and the evolution of the scripts in which those languages were written. Like modern Arabic and Hebrew, these scripts are not true alphabets, but abjads, scripts in which only the consonants need to be written -- and as these scripts developed, the forms of many consonantal letters became so similar as to be almost indistinguishable. Combined with the system of triconsonantal roots and inflection via vowel change that is found throughout this family of languages, this means that changing the assumptions about what vowels were intended by the writer can result in a very different text -- and raising the question of whether we might be looking at a text that has been repurposed both by re-reading in Arabic rather than Syriac, and by some judicious editing.
Which raises the question of how this situation might have come about. Did it have its roots in the doctrinal struggles of Christianity as it moved from an underground, persecuted religion to the official religion of the later Roman Empire? In particular, are we looking at what began as documents of a marginalized non-trinitarian Christian community that was anathemized in the aftermath of the Council of Nicea, in which Arius was defrocked and expelled for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity? Might "Muhammad" originally have been a title of Jesus, "the Praised One," alongside Christ, "the Anointed One"?
It's a fascinating thesis, and certainly one that has the potential to anger a great number of people who've shown willingness to use violence to silence those who offend them. However, it's also important to remember that absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence -- and in historical inquiry we also need to be aware of the problem of presentism, of projecting our present situation back into the past. In the Information Age, we are fairly drowning in data on just about anything, to the point that the greatest problem is often separating signal from noise. Warning signs are missed because they were misinterpreted, or siloed in another agency, or simply drowned out by false alarms.
By contrast, in the ancient and early medieval worlds, written documentation was rare and easily lost. When every document had to be hand-copied, even important texts often existed in only a small number of copies. There are an astonishing number of ancient books that we know only by reference or brief quotations in surviving documents, including a vast number of prequels, sequels and interquels to the Homeric poems, and several historical books referred to in the Bible. So it's possible that the paucity of contemporary documentation for Muhammad is simply the result of its failure to survive, combined with the fact that the culture that would've provided primary sources was still mostly an oral culture.
However, it's good that someone should be able to raise these questions, rather than that they should be silenced by fear of reprisal.
But raising the question of the historicity of Muhammad raises the specter of the wrath of his followers, often expressed in violence. So it's unsurprising that the author of this book, in his Acknowledgements section, includes a blanket acknowledgement to the vast number of informants who prefer to go unnamed -- no doubt out of fear of reprisal, particularly for those who live in majority-Muslim nations, especially those such as Pakistan where blasphemy has secular legal consequences, or where accusations of blasphemy often result in extrajudicial actions.
In a sense, all of Earth's various religions are the product of a community in a particular point in history -- but some are more dependent upon historicity for their legitimacy. Shinto gives its believers an account of the founding of Japan that is at variance with archeological evidence of human settlement of the Home Islands, but archeology is not seen as a threat to the traditional faith of Japan. There are similar questions about the historicity of such major religious figures as Ramachandra, Siddhartha, Zarathustra, and even Abraham and Moses, yet Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism go on, at least partly because these figures are viewed as belonging to what anthropologists would call the "non-retrievable past," as opposed to the historical past.
By contrast, both Christianity and Islam rest heavily on the principle that their founders, Jesus Christ and Muhammad, were historical personages in the same way as Peter the Great or George Washington were. Not just symbolic figures, but living, breathing people who actually performed the various acts of their religions that were as critical to the founding of those faiths as the establishment of St. Petersburg or the winning of the War of Independence are to Russia and the US.
The author of the foreword to this book uses the example of Richard Nixon in discussing the question of historicity and how we go about determining it, but I picked Peter the Great and George Washington because they lie well out of the range of living memory. There are plenty of us who still remember Nixon, but we know the founder of the Russian Empire as a modern nation-state and the first President of the US only through the historical record. And in the case of both of those men, there are ample records, by their own hand, by those of their followers, and by people in other countries that were affected by their actions.
At first glance, it would appear that the life of Muhammad is well documented, with the abundance of hadiths (accounts of the actions of the Prophet), as well as a biography and the Quran itself. Yet when one looks at that body of evidence against the evidence of archeology and contemporaneous documents from elsewhere in the area, it becomes oddly thin. Even several decades after the traditional date of Muhammad's death, Byzantine records refer to the "Ishmaelits" or "Hagarites" or "Saracens" being led by a living prophet bearing a sword, but there is no reference to Islam or the Quran. Archeological evidence shows coins and other artifacts that combine typically Islamic imagery such as the crescent moon with the cross, which Islam regards as anathema (one of the major Islamic end-times prophecies holds that Isa (Jesus) will return to break all the crosses).
Almost all the critical texts of Islam were assembled in their modern forms a century or more after the historical dates of Muhammad's revelations, and the authenticity of hadiths are determined not by how they fit with each other and the Quran, but by chains of transmission going back to the various companions of the Prophet -- a reminder that Arab society at that time was almost entirely an oral culture.
There are also some very interesting textual issues within the Quran itself. In multiple places, arguments don't quite follow, with verses arranged in a very different way than one would expect for a logical development of an idea. The Quran states multiple times that it is in clear Arabic -- yet even native speakers struggle with the peculiarities of the language within, including inexplicable nonce words that appear nowhere else. Interpretations of them often give the feeling of scholars grasping at straws, afraid to say its incomprehensible lest they be viewed as blasphemous.
And then there are the fascinating peculiarities that are evident only to scholars well versed in the entire family of languages to which Arabic belongs, including dead languages such as Syriac and Aramaic, and the evolution of the scripts in which those languages were written. Like modern Arabic and Hebrew, these scripts are not true alphabets, but abjads, scripts in which only the consonants need to be written -- and as these scripts developed, the forms of many consonantal letters became so similar as to be almost indistinguishable. Combined with the system of triconsonantal roots and inflection via vowel change that is found throughout this family of languages, this means that changing the assumptions about what vowels were intended by the writer can result in a very different text -- and raising the question of whether we might be looking at a text that has been repurposed both by re-reading in Arabic rather than Syriac, and by some judicious editing.
Which raises the question of how this situation might have come about. Did it have its roots in the doctrinal struggles of Christianity as it moved from an underground, persecuted religion to the official religion of the later Roman Empire? In particular, are we looking at what began as documents of a marginalized non-trinitarian Christian community that was anathemized in the aftermath of the Council of Nicea, in which Arius was defrocked and expelled for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity? Might "Muhammad" originally have been a title of Jesus, "the Praised One," alongside Christ, "the Anointed One"?
It's a fascinating thesis, and certainly one that has the potential to anger a great number of people who've shown willingness to use violence to silence those who offend them. However, it's also important to remember that absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence -- and in historical inquiry we also need to be aware of the problem of presentism, of projecting our present situation back into the past. In the Information Age, we are fairly drowning in data on just about anything, to the point that the greatest problem is often separating signal from noise. Warning signs are missed because they were misinterpreted, or siloed in another agency, or simply drowned out by false alarms.
By contrast, in the ancient and early medieval worlds, written documentation was rare and easily lost. When every document had to be hand-copied, even important texts often existed in only a small number of copies. There are an astonishing number of ancient books that we know only by reference or brief quotations in surviving documents, including a vast number of prequels, sequels and interquels to the Homeric poems, and several historical books referred to in the Bible. So it's possible that the paucity of contemporary documentation for Muhammad is simply the result of its failure to survive, combined with the fact that the culture that would've provided primary sources was still mostly an oral culture.
However, it's good that someone should be able to raise these questions, rather than that they should be silenced by fear of reprisal.
April 6, 2022
This is a rare book. I agree with, most of, the conclusions yet I still think this is a badly written book. The writer fights the straw man of the Quran being historically perfectly accurate. That is impossible as long the continuation of islam is dependent on fallible humans.
There is no early references to Muhamed, I guess that's true and probably means that the person(if any) has been superseded by the legend. Something that happens to every person that becomes in some way legendary.
In the end the conclusion is that Islam and it's adherents changed when their world changed. Rather a predictable conclusion.
I get the feeling this book wasn't written to prove anything on Muhamed or Islam but to cause a nice juicy controversy. That will sell books and allow the author to wallow in the self-pity of a victim of the far left and Islam apologists.
The subject is an interesting one and I think the author makes a strong case for us not having enough evidence about a historic Muhamed but it is let down by sloppy reasoning and too much animosity to the modern lefties in his field. He may have real beef with them but they should be irrelevant when writing abouts more than a thousand years in the past.
There is no early references to Muhamed, I guess that's true and probably means that the person(if any) has been superseded by the legend. Something that happens to every person that becomes in some way legendary.
In the end the conclusion is that Islam and it's adherents changed when their world changed. Rather a predictable conclusion.
I get the feeling this book wasn't written to prove anything on Muhamed or Islam but to cause a nice juicy controversy. That will sell books and allow the author to wallow in the self-pity of a victim of the far left and Islam apologists.
The subject is an interesting one and I think the author makes a strong case for us not having enough evidence about a historic Muhamed but it is let down by sloppy reasoning and too much animosity to the modern lefties in his field. He may have real beef with them but they should be irrelevant when writing abouts more than a thousand years in the past.
November 29, 2015
Spencer is not known for being fair to Islam, generally finding real but extreme elements of Islam nd painting it as representative of the core of the religion while not doing that with the other two Abrahamic religions. That said, he does not do much of that in this book. Here he talks about inconsistencies in the Hadith and Islamic tradition, the clarifying reading of Syriac and Aramiac Christian texts on obscure portions of the Koran, and the lack of contemporary reference to Mohammad until the end of the first Caliphate. While not without bias and largely based on the work of others, people familiar with higher criticism and the arguments about a historical Jesus while find comparison after comparison to scholarly studies around Mohammad. Interesting introduction to the critical study of the Koran and early Islamic origins.
August 6, 2017
The quest for an historical Muhammad
I'm surprised that I've taken Muhammad's existence for granted for so long. The evidence presented here by Robert Spencer was sufficient for me to call into question what many others have, and still do, take for granted. Let me be perfectly clear that absence of evidence doesn't necessarily equate to evidence of absence, but the silence of the historical record, especially contemporary to Muhammad's supposed existence, is pretty damming. That, and some other archaeological curiosities that fly in the face of Islam's "official" story. Although the author's biases are fairly evident, especially in the final chapter, I felt most of the book to be neutral in its presentation of history, even of different viewpoints. I can't vouch for Spencer's other work, but this book is solid, in my opinion.
I'm surprised that I've taken Muhammad's existence for granted for so long. The evidence presented here by Robert Spencer was sufficient for me to call into question what many others have, and still do, take for granted. Let me be perfectly clear that absence of evidence doesn't necessarily equate to evidence of absence, but the silence of the historical record, especially contemporary to Muhammad's supposed existence, is pretty damming. That, and some other archaeological curiosities that fly in the face of Islam's "official" story. Although the author's biases are fairly evident, especially in the final chapter, I felt most of the book to be neutral in its presentation of history, even of different viewpoints. I can't vouch for Spencer's other work, but this book is solid, in my opinion.
October 12, 2013
I thought this book would more aggressively argue for the non existence of muhammad but it didnt. The book provides a lot of scholarship and keeps a scholarly tone however. Most of the book is spent undermining the credibility of muslim scholarship.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 61 reviews