Did Muhammad exist? Muslim prof isn't so sure, outrage brewing

Sven.jpg
Kalisch: an increasingly rare breed, an honest university academic

The picture of the life of Muhammad that one gets from Islamic sources is based on some very, very weak reeds from a historical standpoint. (I hope to be writing about this problem and its implications in much greater detail in the future.) But the historical criticism of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures that academics have engaged in for centuries has never been undertaken in an Islamic context, for reasons that should be obvious. The Qur’an is a book never to be doubted, never to be questioned: when one Islamic scholar, Suliman Bashear, taught his students at An-Najah National University in Nablus that the Qur’an and Islam were the products of historical development rather than being delivered in perfect form to Muhammad, his students threw him out of the window of his classroom. Christoph Luxenberg, who has done groundbreaking work in this area, publishes under a pseudonym.

Of course, in this the stakes are very high for Muslims. There is no Liberal Islam or Reform Islam that distills moral precepts out of material that is not considered to be historically true and thus has no literal application. Maybe it could be created, at least by a faction, if it became widely known and accepted that the authoritative story of Muhammad and the Qur'an rests on such weak historical foundations, but we are very, very far from that today.

And that is what makes Muhammad Sven Kalisch all the more remarkable. Saying this could get him fired. It could get him killed. It could, and probably already has, interfered with his personal outlook on life. But this is the result of his researches, and he is sticking to it. Whether he is right or wrong, and there is a great deal to support his view, he is at very least uncompromisingly honest.

How refreshing it is to see an honest man, and that even rarer bird, an honest academic, and that rarity of rarities, an honest professor of Islamic studies.

"Professor Hired for Outreach to Muslims Delivers a Jolt," by Andrew Higgins for the Wall Street Journal, November 15 (thanks to all who sent this in):

MÜNSTER, Germany -- Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a Muslim convert and Germany's first professor of Islamic theology, fasts during the Muslim holy month, doesn't like to shake hands with Muslim women and has spent years studying Islamic scripture. Islam, he says, guides his life.

So it came as something of a surprise when Prof. Kalisch announced the fruit of his theological research. His conclusion: The Prophet Muhammad probably never existed.

Muslims, not surprisingly, are outraged. Even Danish cartoonists who triggered global protests a couple of years ago didn't portray the Prophet as fictional. German police, worried about a violent backlash, told the professor to move his religious-studies center to more-secure premises.

"We had no idea he would have ideas like this," says Thomas Bauer, a fellow academic at Münster University who sat on a committee that appointed Prof. Kalisch. "I'm a more orthodox Muslim than he is, and I'm not a Muslim."

That's nothing, Professor Bauer. There are so many non-Muslim professors like you, they can't even be counted.

When Prof. Kalisch took up his theology chair four years ago, he was seen as proof that modern Western scholarship and Islamic ways can mingle -- and counter the influence of radical preachers in Germany. He was put in charge of a new program at Münster, one of Germany's oldest and most respected universities, to train teachers in state schools to teach Muslim pupils about their faith.

Muslim leaders cheered and joined an advisory board at his Center for Religious Studies. Politicians hailed the appointment as a sign of Germany's readiness to absorb some three million Muslims into mainstream society. But, says Andreas Pinkwart, a minister responsible for higher education in this north German region, "the results are disappointing."

No, they're not. Honesty is not and cannot rightly be disappointing. The truth may be disappointing. The facts may be disappointing. But that is something that everyone will have to deal with in his own way.

Prof. Kalisch, who insists he's still a Muslim, says he knew he would get in trouble but wanted to subject Islam to the same scrutiny as Christianity and Judaism. German scholars of the 19th century, he notes, were among the first to raise questions about the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Many scholars of Islam question the accuracy of ancient sources on Muhammad's life. The earliest biography, of which no copies survive, dated from roughly a century after the generally accepted year of his death, 632, and is known only by references to it in much later texts. But only a few scholars have doubted Muhammad's existence. Most say his life is better documented than that of Jesus.

That is a widespread view, but it is simply not true. The Gospels date from the first Christian century; there are hardly any scholars remaining who date them later than that. But the first biography of Muhammad, that of Ibn Ishaq, dates from 150 years after Muhammad's death, and even that book is lost and survives only in large fragments reproduced in even later writings.

"Of course Muhammad existed," says Tilman Nagel, a scholar in Göttingen and author of a new book, "Muhammad: Life and Legend." The Prophet differed from the flawless figure of Islamic tradition, Prof. Nagel says, but "it is quite astonishing to say that thousands and thousands of pages about him were all forged" and there was no such person.

All the same, Prof. Nagel has signed a petition in support of Prof. Kalisch, who has faced blistering criticism from Muslim groups and some secular German academics. "We are in Europe," Prof. Nagel says. "Education is about thinking, not just learning by heart."...

Right. Exactly.

| 65 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

65 Comments

"Muhammad Sven Kalisch... doesn't like to shake hands with Muslim women"

Two words, hand sanitizer.

Given the many details we know of Muhammed's life that portray him in a less-than-flattering light, I find it difficult to believe he did not exist. Would a mythical religious figure have been portrayed as having sex with a little girl while in his 50s? Raping women? Ordering many murders of innocent people? Boasting that he was made "victorious with terror"?

Whether or not you believe they were real or fictional, divine or merely human, Jesus and Siddhartha (the Buddha) are not said to have done similarly repugnant things. Wouldn't early Muslims have created a more admirable figure if they wanted others to follow a fictional "holy" man?

How can you take a tome seriously whose first line is:

"This book is not to be doubted."

Even before you know what it will claim, it forbids any thinking.

Zeno, or any Greek philosopher, would have just laughed.

Islam: no thought allowed.

Absurdity apotheosized.

Two words, hand sanitizer.

Posted by: stickman

sorry, no, it contains alcohol; maybe gloves would do the trick

He should just stick to piss christ. He'd have a following of sexy female liberals all over him. Muslims would be waiting in the wings though, in case he said anything bad about their warlord, if he existed that is.

"piss christ" i meant the infamous exhibit in london, sorry i realized after publishing that post it could come across as disrespectful. sorry..

Prof. Kalisch, who insists he's still a Muslim, says he knew he would get in trouble but wanted to subject Islam to the same scrutiny as Christianity and Judaism. German scholars of the 19th century, he notes, were among the first to raise questions about the historical accuracy of the Bible.
......................

Yes. While some of the scholars who question Jewish and Christian writings are indeed out to "debunk the Bible", many are not, but are researchers who consider themselves devout Jews or Christians--or at least in no way hostile to these creeds. Any faith that has been practiced for centuries is bound to have a few holes and inconsistencies in the record.

Some scholars feel that Biblical figures such as Moses and Jesus may be entirely fictional, may be based on a historical figure whose history was them embroidered by later followers, or may be a conflation of several historical figures. Many, of course, also believe that any inconsistencies are minor matters, that in no significant way cast doubt on the existence and most important elements of these figures.

Even the Catholic Church has acknowledged that some saints--even some of its most beloved, such as St. Christopher--may not have existed.

Sometimes, in fact, these studies work the other way. The city of Jerico, for instance, was long thought by most historians to be fictional. Well, the historical Jerico has been found by archeologists. Evidence of both earthquake damage and probable siege have been uncovered. These studies actually tend to lend credence to the Biblical story.

Most Jews and Christians who have reached high-school age are at least generally aware of these studies. Some take them as a good reason to give greater study to scripture, and some largely ignore these sceptics' studies. For instance, I have a good friend who still carries her mother's St. Christopher's medal with her on long trips.

In any case, whatever their views on these studies, devout Jews and Christians are not threatening the lives of those who question the scriptures. It should be the same with Islam.

"Given the many details we know of Muhammed's life that portray him in a less-than-flattering light, I find it difficult to believe he did not exist. Would a mythical religious figure have been portrayed...."

Posted by: kaffirchick

Many of the pagan gods and goddesses of antiquity were pretty unsavory characters, too. And look at the Aztec gods, who had to be fed a steady diet of human hearts.

Why doesn't anyone seem to firmly say the truth is somewhere between real or fictional. Namely, that there was a real, historical person named Mohammad who was an influencial leader but whose life details have been irrevocably lost and replaced with numerous myths and distortions.

On this topic, Patricia Crone has written an article, available free online, called What do we actually know about Mohammed?

...Saudi Arabia needs to be pressured to open up for archaeological investigations.

"Wouldn't early Muslims have created a more admirable figure if they wanted others to follow a fictional "holy" man?"

Not if they find such repellant ugly things appealing and inspiring.

Many of the pagan gods and goddesses of antiquity were pretty unsavory characters, too. And look at the Aztec gods, who had to be fed a steady diet of human hearts. - Ebonystone

Good point. What "looks good" to a society depends on the society's own values.

Islam needs to be put back into history, to be seen in its historical setting, and the Qur'an seen as a text whose variant readings should not be hidden from view but studied, and both the Qur'an and the figure of Muhammad subject to exactly the kind of scholarly study as were Judaism and Christianity, in what is now called the Higher Criticism (beginning with Julius Wellhausen et al.). Until that happens, until Islam is "put back into history," the possibilities of any intelligent reform, either of the Faith, or of those inculcated with a Faith that makes it impossible for them to truly co-exist with any non-Muslims on the basis of agreed-upon equality and real, not feigned, trust, do not exist, no matter how many rabbis meet with how many smiling imams for "A Weekend of Twinning," or how many Christian ministers and priests participate in their own, equally treacly way, in Interfaith Healing Racketeering, of which there has been quite enough, with the results we all see.


Who invented Islam???

I have a tendency to think Mohammad did exist, but probably in a combination of kaffirchick and Max opinions.

If Mohammad did not exist, someone else invented Islam...who? Ali? Abu Bakr? Umar? Uthman? He put the first authorized (by him) Quran together.

Abdullah M tries hard to re-invent Islam...Or maybe Islam is a recent invention of Ahmadinijad.

And the rest of the cast of early characters...All fake? Are they also imaginary?

If so who was the 'real' first Caliph? Did he invent Islam?

If Mohammad did not exist, who invented Islam?

Allah said in his book that Mohammadans should obey the Prophet. Why would he say that if there was no Prophet?

"the first biography of Muhammad, that of Ibn Ishaq, dates from 150 years after Muhammad's death, and even that book is lost and survives only in large fragments reproduced in even later writings"

As someone who's studied Christian theology and history, my first question is "Why would the biography of Ibn Ishaq have been lost at this period in history?" One would think that there would be numerous copies of such an important work, given the importance of Mohammad as an exemplar of the Islamic faith.

This said, if Islam really was true, Muslims would not fear subjecting it to the fire of liberal criticism. Christianity is doing fine, perhaps even better once this criticism has been laid to rest. I think Christianity is true, and so bring on more critics. The more the better.

I'm inclined to believe in Muhammad as a historical figure....just as I am Jesus, minus the miracles that defy the laws of physics.

It certainly doesn't hurt our cause if the "Prophet" did indeed exist. The theological record, as defined by the Ahdith and the Sirat Rasul, gives enormous ammunition to the anti-Jihad, in terms of its exposition of Muhammad's pronounced moral failings.

Having said that, scholarly inquiry on whether or not Muhammad existed is certainly legit, and Kalisch should be able to pursue his theories unmolested.

"Good point. What "looks good" to a society depends on the society's own values."

Good thing we have better values then them, eh?

than*

Interesting position. Having read the Sirat (Ibn Ishaq & Al-Tabari), I disagree. I believe Muhammad *did* commit those evil acts, which in context look completely plausible. I consider the Sirat sufficient proof that Muhammad was an actual person. A wicked one, though.

The problem for Muslims is that using the Sirat as proof of his existence makes his obviously criminal character all to obvious.

But then, the Sirats fits the Quran perfectly :)

I'm inclined to believe in Muhammad as a historical figure....just as I am Jesus, minus the miracles that defy the laws of physics.
Posted by: Cornelius

Ed Zackery!!!

Pretty much exactly where I'm coming from. I believe in Jesus. I think he walked this earth and was someone so important that his words have spanned centuries to inspire people. Much like Buddah. I believe that he gave himself and died on the cross for everyone else. I draw the line at the impossible.

As a literary reference, I offer Dr. Suess's Horton Hears a Who.

I think that Geisel was probably on acid, but what a great book! To me it says that we are so arrogant as a species that we think, with our collective consciousness (is that Jung, Moemories Dreams & Reflections?), that if any being is superior to our lot then that being is a god.

Come on now, there are sins. Humility is a virtue.

Corny, good comment!

I draw the line at the impossible.

I probably should, too, but have see too many weird things myself to be able to do that...

Yea well hes dead anyway the religion of peace will behead him more interesting is the other professers open mindness lol if he where pissing on christianity the guy would have said well it helps christianity to question it but on islam i cant believe what hes saying ya gotta love this stuff.

I tend to believe that Mohammad lived and did all that was ascribed to him. I remember when first learning about Islam that I was amazed that the texts had not been scrubbed or sanitized of this creatures more disgusting acts by his followers. No committee could perfect the murderous soul prison that became Islam. It is the dark genius of one cynical megalomaniac named Mohammad. Making evil seem righteous work is very potent. Throw in keeping 80% of all the goods on a given infidel corpse you kill on behalf of God, add in all the humiliating rape and perversion also as a religious act, you have a winner and an engine for parasitizing the planet in the name of God.

spcbat:

I love to see your comments. I would enjoy reading your opinions even more if you would parse them. Use the period and the space bar, dude. I value your opinon, I wish I could read it more easily.

Beer
Rick

Bl@kbird makes a good point: If you wan to make up a fictious person to justify your religion, noone - absolutely noone - would come up with a person as evil as Muhammad.

Many of the pagan gods and goddesses of antiquity were pretty unsavory characters, too. And look at the Aztec gods, who had to be fed a steady diet of human hearts. - Ebonystone

Yes, but none of 'them' had Allah to back them up.

All those gods were demanding, but none as demanding as Allah...

Joseph Smith modeled Muhammad. And set up his cult in the same form. L. Ron Hubbard did it. I have a friend who is caught up with the Abraham-Hicks movement. It can be tough disabusing people of strange notions.

From the caption under the drawing of Kalisch:

“Kalisch: an increasingly rare breed, an honest university academic”

I beg to differ.

Anyone who continues to call himself a Muslim and practices Islamic rituals, after coming to the conclusion that: “The Prophet Muhammad probably never existed” is honest only in the sense that those who are mentally unbalanced are honest.

Kalisch is not playing with a full deck, but he’s added a crazy joker into the mix. It will be entertaining to see how it plays out with his fellow Islamists.

"How refreshing it is to see an honest man, and that even rarer bird, an honest academic, and that rarity of rarities, an honest professor of Islamic studies."--Robert

In my experience, honest academics aren't rare. Let's not impugn all of academia based on the conduct of some professors in some departments.
---------

Ahem,

I'm not sure I'd agree with your statements. Kalisch may be honest and sane...and wrong and incoherent.
----------

"Wouldn't early Muslims have created a more admirable figure if they wanted others to follow a fictional "holy" man?"--an argument above.

I doubt this for the same reason Denver and others have doubted it. There are plenty of ruthless and evil leaders in history who were admired by followers who shared the worldview and values of the leaders (e.g., Hitler).

One the one hand, nobody would invent somebody as evil and indefensible as Muhammad. He did some stupid stuff, like tell his followers not to cross-pollinate their trees, and they nearly starved because of it. I think that many of the "facts" abbout Muhammad had to be true. Why would they have made him supposedy rape his own 6-year-old niece? Why would they have simultaneously claimed that he had the sexual strength of 30 men and left it nearly irrefutable that he was impotent the last 20 years of his life? Why would we he have delivered that sermon about sex slaves not sleeping around at the funeral of Mary the Copt's son? Why would Aisha have said that that baby looked nothing like him and that she never saw Mo naked? Why did he lose those intellectual debates with the Arabs? Why didn't Rayhana marry him?

On the other hand, some stuff in Islamic history has to be made up. Like Mecca. It was nothing. It was not a major trading hub or cosmopolitan anything. Look at a map. Why would anyone brave all that desert when there were port cities all around? Why is there nothing - nothing - in Indian or Greek seafaring records about having delivered good to or from Mecca?

http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1122&Itemid=0

Of course the Saudis don't want an excavation. That would prove that Islam is fraudulent. It's such a house of cards. They did do some excavation around Mecca and guess what they found: not a single baby buried alive. So much for Mo's claim to have ended female infanticide. It didn't happen. Why would it? You could sell a 3-year-old as a sex slave for a pretty penny. I have to think that the ARabs intentionally destroyed a lot of historical evidence, not just because it was jahiliya, not because they just weren't a literat epeople and didn't write things down, but because they were covering up some lies. But I do think that Mo was real. Especially after having read Ali Sina's book. There is some physical evidnce of a guy with agromegaly having lived around Arabia in the early 7th century, and it fits with everyone's descritions of him.

The Bible, on the other hand, only continues to be proven more and more true. They keep uncovering more records of Jesus' crucifixion. They found the Dead Sea Scrolls. It used to be believed that the Hittites were a literary device. Now you can get a degree in Hittitology at U Penn (maybe it was Penn State; I can't remember).

It doesn't matter. The Quran closes the loop this Professor presents:

"O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith." (Quran. 5:101-102)

Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith.

Now, doesn't that make sense?

It's a battle between the logical heritage of the Greeks vs. bullying superstition of the Middle East.

I think Robert fell for this one. This is a simple publicity stunt, aimed at raising an unknown two-bit professor's profile. He's simply looking for headlines.

I've recently been translating Zakariya Boutros' studies on factors that influenced Muhammad at: staringattheview.blogspot.com. Although not denying Muhammad's existence, Zakariya shows with convincing evidence how his claim to prophethood and his desire to establish a political kingdom fit in with many geopolitical factors of the region at the time. Much more was involved than a message from Gabriel in the cave of Hira.

You don't seem to be on the ball with this one:

Kalisch, who reverted to Islam when he was 15, became a scholar, but got himself in trouble recently when he started to question the existence of Muhammad. The Muslims in Germany insited on indoctrination and proselytizing, - like they do everywhere,- which means they are against free enquiry and against spreading doubt, Kalisch refused to play along, so now he is in deep doodoo.

I wouldn't give him life-insurance coverage, but lets see how it peters out...

So in spite of him being a Muslim, he is now seen as an apostate, or rather a traitor.

The German dhimmi uni-administrators have already pulled the plug on him, they don't want any upheavals, which means Kalisch is replaced by a Muhammedan cleric who indoctrinates his students rather than teach how to ask questions.

That's what this whole case is about.

"How refreshing it is to see an honest man, and that even rarer bird, an honest academic..." --Robert

It's always good to find an honest man, and we know you are targeting the social sciences with such statements, Robert. Still, it's good to remember that the social sciences are only a small part of universities.

Robert:
But is it profoundly telling that it's a German convert to Islam that's raising the question? Think about it, it's a German convert still preserves the Western methodology of rational inquiry while practicing his new religion.

His behaviour seems to corroborate Hugh's observsation that Islam is very vigourous in the first few centuries because of the Christian and Jewish converts of the first generation by the second and 3rd, the intellectual vigour completely fades.
It's interesting to note that Amin Maalouf in his book on the Crusades as seen by the Arabs (I refer to the French edition) points out in his conclusion that by the 900s, Islam had started to stagnate and was losing vigour. I wonder just how damaging was the Copt revolt in the 800s to Islam?
I also wonder what would've happened to world history if the Turks had stayed in Asia and not converted to Islam?

xavier

even if muhammad existed and was the prophet that received the Qur'an from an agent of god, even if this was verifiable fact, it matters not, for islam is so inherently ugly, pathetic and not worthy of human aspirations.

Many of the pagan gods and goddesses of antiquity were pretty unsavory characters, too. And look at the Aztec gods, who had to be fed a steady diet of human hearts. - Ebonystone
Good point. What "looks good" to a society depends on the society's own values.

Posted by: MarisolJW at November 16, 2008 10:44 PM
--------------------------------------------------

Hey guys look what Sam Butler said:

Morality is the custom of one's country and the current feeling of one's peers. Cannibalism is moral in a cannibal country.

En français: La moralité de nos actes dépend de la coutume de notre pays et de l'opinion courante de nos pairs. Le cannibalisme est moral chez une tribu d'anthropophages.

I love that one

A German convert to Islam who doubts that Mohammed existed? What's next? A Muslim apostate who converts to Christianity and then doubts Jesus existed? Sometimes it's hard not to conclude that life is absurd, especially as truth keeps proving stranger than fiction most times out of ten.

The point of mohummad not existing is not that great in that it is the so called words written about his life and his teachings that harm humankind. Contrast that with those who say Jesus did not exist, his words and teachings are still good for humankind. Jesus's teachings are worthwile compared to the death cult of Muhammad's teachings.

ERNIE: "I think Robert fell for this one. This is a simple publicity stunt, aimed at raising an unknown two-bit professor's profile. He's simply looking for headlines."

...And risking his life in the process.

He gave up beer and brautwurst for this!? Happy Jonestown Anniversary...

"Prof. Kalisch, who insists he's still a Muslim, says he knew he would get in trouble but wanted to subject Islam to the same scrutiny as Christianity and Judaism. German scholars of the 19th century, he notes, were among the first to raise questions about the historical accuracy of the Bible."

The tradition of open inquiry trumps primitive superstitions. Hmm. This simply shows how weak Islam really is. All other religions have survived such academic scrutiny. But it seems that, from the start, Islam discourages questions.

If Mohammed never existed then why are Wahhabis busily destroying all ancient sites in Mecca that are believed to have been related to Mohammed?
Opening up Saudi Arabia to scientific inquiry will do little good once the evidence is gone.

It would be easier to believe Mohammed never existed if his "ministry" had been anywhere near as short as that of Jesus. Instead he died an old man.

Mohammed's daughter married Ali, so there have been fourteen centuries of quarrels over who had the right to inherit the legacy of someone who never existed? If Moe didn't exist then neither did Fatima or Ali or Bakr.

What cannot be believed are the many stories made up after the fact.

- The newborn Mohammed, raising his eyes to heaven, exclaimed: God is great! There is no god but God and I am his prophet.
- His grandfather gave a feast on the seventh day (circumcision story?) at which he presented Mohammed as "the dawning glory of our race".
- At the age of three he was playing with a brother in the field and was visited by two angels. One of them, Gabriel, opened Mohammed's breast and pulled out his heart and cleansed it of all impurity. The stain of original sin was replaced with knowledge and light and the heart was put back and the opening closed. Thereafter, a light began to emanate from Mohammed, similar to what was seen in past prophets.

Does anyone know the over/under on this guy lasting a month?

The key card in Islams 'house of cards', is Mohammad. Kick that card out and the whole structure falls. A big lie supporting a lot of little lies. As the host lie dies, so do the lying parasites that have attached themselves to it.


An excerpt talking about who really was Mohammads father: Mohammad in the womb for four years?

STARING AT THE VIEW
PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE IN RIYADH

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2008

AHMAD: How have the Muslim scholars dealt with the issue of Hamza being four years older than Muhammad?

ABUNA: Many of them have claimed that a pregnancy of four years is no problem. "Al-Sirah Al-Halabiyah” says that Malik and Dahak Ibn al-Muzaim both remained in the wombs of their mothers for two years. The “Muhadarat” of Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti states that another person was in his mother’s womb for three years. The Imam of Cordoba, Ibn al-Arabiya, wrote that if a fetus could remain in his mother’s womb for five years, it could also remain for ten years or more. We discussed in a previous program the event in the Islamic history books when a child emerged from his mother’s womb after ten years knowing how to speak. Can any Muslim in the 21st century believe that a child could remain in the womb of his mother for four years? Can they bring one example from medical history? I would like to address this question specifically to the medical college of Al Azhar University. Can you find one example in history? I urge you to do your research, and come tell us.

And I have another question. If Muhammad was the first of God’s creation, why could God not cause him to have a normal birth, or a birth accompanied by miracles such as the birth of Jesus? Was his being born after remaining in the womb of his mother four years a miracle from God? I want people to think and ask themselves if the Muhammad whom they follow was the son of Abdallah. This is the question I ask the scholars of religion and the Ulema and the Shaykhs.

Mohammad in the womb for four years? Must be some kind of exotic mushrooms.

In George Orwell's novel '1984' the main character, Winston Smith, privately and fearfully begins to doubt the existence of Emmanuel Goldstein, the hated enemy of the people and arch-plotter against Big Brother.

Smith reasons that no-one has seen Goldstein, no-one knows where he is, those who might remember him are not around to mention their recollections.

Professor Kalisch is displaying enormous courage, both intellectual and physical, to publicly doubt Muhammed's historical existence.

Personally, I have no doubt that Muhammed really lived, really gave us the Qur'an and Islam and that he did lead the earthly military battles, dictate the treaties, etc., attributed to him by his earliest followers.

A recent British TV programme on the Qur'an showed one of the earliest mosques in existence, in the Yemen, and a Western scholar (not a Muslim as far as I could ascertain) claimed that the government had asked him to look at and translate a collection of very early Islamic material stored there from approximately one hundred years after Muhammed's time.

I do not remember the name of this scholar but he showed some script on parchment fragments which he said was the earliest known type of written Arabic, not nearly as developed as it rapidly became as the Qur'an began circulating.

He claimed that the scrolls at the mosque were the earliest known copies of Qur'anic verses and that the script was so primitive that a variety of meanings could be given to most verses. For instance the injunction to women to cover their heads could equally have meant only that their midriffs should be covered.

This, of course, meant that by the time the text became standardised it could easily have been based on multiple mis-understandings. I felt this scholar was going as near to the edge as he dared, especially as it was filmed in the mosque. Kalisch has already gone over the edge and I am sad that he will undoubtedly pay a high price for his intellectual escape from the straight-jacket he was rash enough to put on.

Converting to Islam isn't a game like Monopoly - there's no card that says 'Get out of jail free'.

From post above: claimed that the government had asked him to look at and translate a collection of very early Islamic material stored there from approximately one hundred years after Muhammed's time.

Apparently, old worn out Qurans were not burned or buried, they were placed in an opening in a wall, and eventually sealed in. The roof was leaking and repairmen discovered a mound of these old Qurans. Unfortunately, they had been rained on for years and were one huge pile of stuck together rotting pages. To restore these to readable, the pages have to be carefully removed and restored, then they can be read. The older Qurans in that pile may very well say different things than the current one.
This may be a long drawn out process...Don't look for any revelations soon...

DenverRodeo wrote:

"Wouldn't early Muslims have created a more admirable figure if they wanted others to follow a fictional "holy" man?"

Not if they find such repellant ugly things appealing and inspiring.
.................

Denver, I agree--and think this is significant.

People often note that if you take the Qur'an and hadith at face value, that Muhammed was a pirate, kidnapper, slave-owner, pedophile, rapist, torturer, and mass-murderer, who advocated lying and treachery.

I always think, in these cases--You say that like it's a bad thing.

If someone believes that Muhammed is "the Perfect Man" and a "Model of Conduct"--then all of these horrors are *good things*--and things to be emulated.

I have in fact had conversations with Muslims where they first vehemently deny some of this ugliness, then backtrack and affirm it if they are allowed to put it into a more "acceptable" context.

An example of this is the spokesman from "Why Islam" I spoke with, who at first denied that Aisha was nine when her marriage with Muhammed was consummated (he claimed this was disputed, and she was probably 16)--but when I ventured that Islam had a "different view of women's rights" than the West, he eagerly glommed onto this, admitted that Aisha was indeed nine, but that in Islam child marriage is a *good thing* for women.

I know that many readers here have had similar experiences.

The story of Muhammed--whether or not it has a historic basis is in a way immaterial--exhibits a very different value system from the modern, enlightened, democratic West. It is the creed of primitive desert raiders.

This would be no more than an interesting--if savage--point of history, if it wasn't for the fact that so many people embrace this appalling creed today, and wish to impose it on the rest of the world.

"the first biography of Muhammad, that of Ibn Ishaq, dates from 150 years after Muhammad's death, and even that book is lost and survives only in large fragments reproduced in even later writings"

As someone who's studied Christian theology and history, my first question is "Why would the biography of Ibn Ishaq have been lost at this period in history?" One would think that there would be numerous copies of such an important work, given the importance of Mohammad as an exemplar of the Islamic faith.
- James Martel


Ibn Ishaq studied Mohammad as a life long quest. What he found made Mohammad look much worse than the more accepted works. Prophet of Doom (available online) quotes Ishaq.

Well, the famous historian Al-Tabari quotes Ibn Ishaq extensively, including the 'Satanic Verses' incident, which is not just embarrasing, but actually pivotal to Islam. Without that, Muhammad would never have started Allah.

Ibn Ishaq is not available in mere 'fragments'. The work retained by Ibn Hisham and Al-Tabari present a rather complete and coherent work - which depicts Muhammad as an absolute criminal, creating the Quran as a collection of 'divine' excuses for his barbarian life.

Oops. An important sentence in my comment above should read:

"Without that, Muhammad would never have started worshipping Allah."

Before the Satanic Verses, he worshipped other Gods. It is clearly described in the Sirat.

Sure, it's embarrasing. But then, what in his life isn't?

Maybe I'm thinking of Tabari. He is not accepted by muslims since he also made Mohammad look much worse.

Tabari was completely accepted by Muslims in his own time. A highly respected historian, working for the Vizir in Baghdad, a solid member of the Islamic establishment in his time.

He's solid. Use him :]

Not sure he is accepted by hardline muslims now though.

There's plenty of lurkers here who could answer that issue.

Borg, it hardly matters if he's 'accepted' or not by those who'd be embarrassed by the contents. He was 112 % accepted by the Islamic elite of his own time, which is what matter. The view of Muhammad that he portrayed so, ehm, vividly, was the accepted in that time, or he wouldn't be allowed to pen it that way.

I suspect that Christian influence made that original view so embarrasing that later the Islamic 'scholars' had to come up with something that would at least appear holy to those who knew of Jesus.

What a mockery of true religion...

We have to be careful because this German convert to Islam, may be trying to legitamise Islam in Europe, ie gull Europeans into thinking that Islam is just like any other religion, and can be subjected to critical review.

I hold this view despite that this Prof is now taking security measures for his safety, as Taqqiya can take many insiduous forms.

This German prof also insists that he is a true Muslim, despite believing that Mohammed is a myth. This is absurd. It is akin to a devout Christian believing that Jesus is a myth.

It is nearly impossible to write exactly in the MoMs what an individual has said half-hour after the event. I am sure billions fo folks with experience could agree to that.

If I imagine there were thousands of meetings or events, lets say, took place in the presence of someone called Mohd. Then, it can be concluded that it would be absurd to imagine or expect to write MoMs over hundreds of years after the event.

It is so plainly obvious, that Quaran is a bad cut and paste job of various other scripts written by a bunch of old fashion politicians/philosophers.

A German convert to Islam who doubts that Mohammed existed? What's next? A Muslim apostate who converts to Christianity and then doubts Jesus existed? Sometimes it's hard not to conclude that life is absurd, especially as truth keeps proving stranger than fiction most times out of ten.

Posted by: Wellington at November 17, 2008 7:02 AM

I fully agree with this. Here is a professor who claims to be Muslim, so the first thing he has to do is recite the Shehada, and central to that is the belief that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah. He then comes out with his assertion that Mo never existed.

So here is a Muslim who believes that someone who he believes never existed was a messenger from Allah to himself? Bizarre!

Robert

Whenever you do research this question, can you also find out whether Mohammed indeed was descendant from Ismail?

Infidel Pride,
Mo was no descendant from Ismail, because Mo was born a "pagan". That also means there is no verifiable line of descent from Abraham to Mo. It was either totally lost or never existed, because his tribe was polytheist. Mo merely heard about monotheism through the grapevine. Islam is no more an Abrahamic religion than Voodoo or New Age systems that incorporate Christian beliefs.

I'm sorry, but I think Kalisch is a charlatan all around. If I believed that Jesus was a figment of the Apostles' imagination, I would cease calling myself a Christian at that moment. Something tells me he's pulling the wool over the eyes of both Muslims and Kufr.

Also, German critical "scholarchip" isn't 1/4 what it's cranked up to be. A lot of it had to backtrack considerably from some of its bolder findings (Petrine Thesis, Pauline Antithesis, Lukan Synthesis, for example)over the years. An unsaid tale about "Christian" involvement in the SHoah is that nobody could ever come up with an "Aryan Jesus" unless he had a very anti-fundamentalist approach to Scripture.

No, I think Kalisch is an academic showman like a lot of others. And, I suspect that he keeps up the pretense of being Muslim simply to irk the Muslims. Perhaps something like Irshad Manji in Canada.

By the way, I believe Muhammad really did exist, but that the blatant mistakes in the Qu'ran and his own behavior prove that he was no prophet of the God worshipped by Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jonah, and Jesus the Messiah.







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
Crucified Again by Raymond Ibrahim
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
David LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter