Robert Spencer and David Wood debate: Did Muhammad exist?

For article "Allah Does Not Exist" go to www.islamreform.net

The world has witnessed the change of the North African world where the voiceless have shouted as loud as they can that it changed the face of their country today. People have suffered from economic growth, jobs and life in itself. In the Arab spring that is carrying on in some parts of the Arab world it has brought a spark to not only the Arab world but also for the rest of world today, but has it brought enough freedom even to choose to what to believe?

Read more: http://www.maghrebchristians.com/2012/05/30/tunisia-and-the-hope-to-come/#ixzz1wMu87BGV

Youssef

Spencer your such a dimwit, we've got books full of hadiths dating back to the time of the prophet, written by prophet Muhammad's relatives. WE have complete (unbroken) chains of narrations which you dismiss outright. The Mosque which I have visited in Medina was built by the prophet's own hands, how could deny the undeniable???

stop acting like a historian, when your actually nothing more than an Islamophobic tramp!

Why is this D person allowed to keep posting here? Last comment I saw from this person was telling Robert to F-off.

Great debate Robert and David. In my mind, Robert won the debate, but David made a strong case.

The conclusion you come to depends on how you weigh the evidence. Many early and independent sources should outweigh possibly embarrassing late narrations. These early sources exist and they contradict the standard islamic narrative. In particular, the coins minted by the Arabs in the 7th century as well as inscriptions, for example the stone of Gadara. So judging from our earliest sources, the muhammad of the Sira and hadith did not exist.

The discussion focussed on embarrassing stories contained in the Hadith. We know from the muslim sources that innumerable hadith were fabricated. The method used by Bukhari and Muslim for distinguishing true and false hadith, the chain of narration, is inadequate. The mere fact that later muslims found some of these narrations embarrassing does not mean that the original narrators of these stories found them embarrassing. We don't know when and by whom these narrations were originally produced. Therefore, we cannot assess whether the narrations were embarrassing at the time of their production. Consequently, we do not have a sound basis for applying this principle to the hadith literature. This is what I would want to say to David.

Very interesting debate. It's special that these two can come together for this and sure it with us all. The knowledge between these two is beyond globle understanding. It's fantastic what history can account for. David and Robert are not alone. Numerous non-Muslims (kaffirs) have learned a lot that Islam has never considered.

It's sad that Muslims fear debates like this. But we can all read for ourselves or simply watch and listen to debates like this for information concerning Islam.

Indeed to those whom defend Islam, feel free to join in the next debate instead of mouthing off with negitive feedback.

A h/t to both David and Robert.

Imagine a debate with no name calling, acid being thrown in someones face, no calling out for killings, and no shouting.

It really is sad that Muslims have no clue how to debate. All they can do is go on the defensive.

I'd like to see these debates weekly between Non-Muslims and Muslims. Lets lay everything on the table, for the world to think about.

Well, I'm sorry to break it to you, Robert, but David obviously won the debate!

Even before I watched the video, I kept thinking of all the embarrassing details we know of the life of Muhammad, wondering why would someone fabricate such tales about the prophet of his own religion?

And as I expected, David did use this basic argument, which Robert simply could not refute in a convincing way.

Keep up the good work!
It's a pleasure to follow your writings and lectures!

"Designed by a committee"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee

This is the clearest explanation for why Islam is often embarrassing to Muslims and inconsistent in its morality.

I copied comments from a place where someone liveblogged the debate:
http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2012/05/28/memorial-day-open-5-with-an-interesting-story/#comment-1025128

"Correction to Spencer: MahmeT with emphatic T is mentioned in Pseudo-Sebeos. Mahmet is also noted in Thomas the Presbyter before him and John of Edessa after.

"Also correction to Spencer: no pre-Marwanid (

I gather that this blogger ("Zimriel") got the info from “Islam as others saw it” [R. Hoyland].

Anyone know anything about that?

Part of the comments I copied were inadvertently deleted. Zimriel also wrote:

"Also correction to Spencer: no pre-Marwanid (

Did Mohammad exist? Not exist?

Ultimately, does it matter? Those of us who aren't muslim probably won't care one way or another.

Those who are muslim will still go on venerating a child raping murderer who did exist, or the fantasy of a child raping murderer if he didn't.

Teri Adams:

The clown who liveblogged the debate thinks that he has material from Hoyland's book that refutes my central thesis. He has not bothered to check my book itself, in which I discuss Hoyland's use and misuse of this data, and evaluate the material from Sebeos, Thomas the Presbyter, John of Edessa, and others.

Of course, this same "Zimriel" was certain I was a fascist even after he himself was kicked out of Charles Johnson's LGF smear factory where that libel originated, so he is a particularly credulous and not very bright individual. His treatment of my new book, criticizing it for not discussing material that I do actually discuss in it, is of a piece with this.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Very though-provoking, intelligent, reasonable, and refreshingly civil. I think that both are true. Mohammad was a historical (wicked) person whose legend grew and maybe people wrote down and embellished whatever snippet of the legend they heard and they were all combined into the official version. This official version was used and molded to justify the conquests, to rally the warriors, to rationalize the violence, and to solidify and institutionalize the Islamic kingdom.

It's a wonder to me that the Muslims don't embrace 'occidental', as it was called, testimony. The truest proof we have that General Ulysses Grant existed is all the Confederate accounts of what a bastard he was.

Oh wait. I think I know why.

It was also a wonder to me that the Christians let the Muslims keep referring to the development of the embryo, which the Koran is wildly wrong about. Any farmer anywhere on the planet a thousand years before Muhammad knew more about the development of embryo than what he recited in the Koran.

Ever heard of a 'duck egg'? Ducks lay them. One can observe with the naked eye that the bones come after the flesh. Ducks 1, Koran 0. Ducks win.

Question for either Mr. Spencer or Mr. Wood:

Assuming that historical documents make no mention of Mohammed or the Koran for about 150 years (I don't remember the details in your debate) after the death of Mohammed, and assuming that the documents of the first Arab conquering armies make no mention either, why is the following not a plausible explanation?

It could be that Mohammed did exist, and stories were told about him and his sayings, that these stories were very inspiring to warriors, but each story teller cautioned each listener to keep the story as a private inspiration but not to write it down so that it would be publicly available. (They may have thought that such a writing would desecrate the story, and somehow make it less divine. Remember that Islam prohibits images of Mohammed.) The Arab military commanders may have gone on their murderous rampages inspired by the stories, but may have purposely ordered people to not write anything down, and may have told very few of their foot soldiers and scribes about their source of inspiration. After 150 years or so, people may have forgotten the command to not write things down, and may have started to compile the stories and sayings.

There are some parallels to this explanation in other cultures. In Christianity, it was a great sin for most of Christian history to make the Bible available in the language of the common man. If I recall correctly, the first translator of the Bible into English was severely punished if not killed.

Most scholars believe that the four Gospels in the New Testament were written approximately 40 to 90 years after the crucifixion of Jesus.

Regarding the Buddha, stories about his life and teachings were first written down approximately 500 years after his death. Nevertheless, virtually all historians agree that a person whose life contained many of the events that are associated with the Buddha actually did exist.

(By the way, I do not mean to imply that Mohammed was in any way similar to Jesus or the Buddha. A stupid, dishonest, and politically correct salesman such as Deepak Chopra (and many others like him) can't seem to tell the difference between great spiritual geniuses and a mass murderer and serial rapist, but I certainly can.)

I do not claim to be a scholar of Islamic history like Mr. Spencer or Mr. Wood, but I do often think of ideas, arguments, and possibilities that others omit.

I'd be interested in seeing Robert explain the Sunni/Shia split without reference to a historical Muhammad. The Shia side supported actual members of Muhammad's family inheriting leadership of the Islamic world. The Sunnis favored the leadership going elsewhere, but they do not dispute that the Shia leaders were members of Muhammad's family. Seems to me that if there were no Muhammad, the Sunnis would be eager to deny Shia claims that their leaders were related to him.

Great debate, I wish it was longer, and it attracted some of the others in the higharcy of the muslim world.
Unfortunatly they have the sence not to get into a discussion they simply cannot win.

A question I have, is that when the differences of the Qu'an's were being discussed, why wer'nt the Sana-Qur'an's brought up.

I also want to thank you, Mr Spencer, for the fine work you are doing.

There is a possibility to proof the existence or non-existence of Muhammad. The government of Saudi Arabia has to give permission to archeologists to excavate in te Marketplace of Yathrib/Medina in order to unearth the remains of the members of the Banu Qurayza tribe. If there are no remains then the Ibn Ishaq account is fiction; otherwise Muhammad did exist because presiding over the mass murder of between 600 and 900 Jewish man.

I think Mr.Wood is missing the point that Robert keeps making, and that is that Robert is not denying that a person seen as muhammad did exist as a human for the stories to be given a person to link them to.
Robert seems to be saying that the "Dog that didn't bark"
was the blank spots in non-islamic timelines because even today we can search the News archives in the USA and canada to see stories of the japanese Tsunamis to back the events and prove that 1000's of real people lived and died on that day. Every nation and culture reports about the Moon and Sun , every culture records rain and wind as factual.
So why the gap and purged History for islam and muhammad until it is retrospectively created and inserted in the past where not one non-islamic record details the same timeline for a prophet that was so well know and did so much damage to society.

Robert's point for Mr.Wood to ruminate on is that it makes no sense that massive Volumes of books can detail almost every minute of muhammads life for msulim to read them, but, outside of those books there is scant evidence of the same stories where a prophet came and did everything that msulims now say he did.
Besides, I'm still waiting for muslims to show me just 1 prophecy by muhammad because that's why they are called Prophets and bring good news about god love and how to change your ways to be blessed.
Prophets DON'T spew hatred for homosexuals and jews , or become a pedophile and use females to mastrabate between mass-slaughters . The onus is on muslims to prove islam=peace, it's not my job to debunk it but for they to display allah peace by their action.

Know islam - NO peace
NO islam - Know peace

Great debate ...

Both David and Robert made excellent arguments for, or against, the existence of muhammad; but like David, I am more inclined to think that he did in fact exist.

Here comes "D" again and in the narcissistic pervert tradition shifts the topic and makes it all about him.

As this gentleman's religion puts discussing anything with infidels to verbal manipulation and taking space and time from the other, I strongly urge everyone to ignore his posts as they do not present communication, but manipulation.
The one thing a narcissistic pervert cannot tolerate is silence and being ignored.
he has been given too much attention under a post that calls more attention to Robert, to the life he chose to live, and to Pamela. They are being threatened. They need proof from us, encouragement, that they are doing the right thing.
Again, I urge everyone to ignore the posts of that attention seeker D...umbass, and concentrate on our discussions. We do not need to be dhimmied in our own writing space.

Has anyone else had trouble watching this video? Sometimes it doesn't turn up at all—I just get a blank, white space where the video should be. And when I have been able to access the video, either here or at the ABN site, it cuts out after about twenty minutes, at the same spot each time.

Admittedly, I have some out of date plug-ins due to an old OS, but I've never had this problem before.

I'm so disappointed—what I was able to view was civilized and erudite, and I'd like to be able to see it all...

I would like to address the last question asked by the woman. She asked about the "original name" of muhammad. It stuck in my mind and I have found the origin. According to Ohlig in "Die Historisierung eines christologischen Prädikats" the original name of mohammed is mentioned in Kitab al-tabarakat al-kabir of Ibn Saad. According to Ibn Saad Mohammed's grandfather originally named him Qutham. Then an angel appeared to mohammed mother Amina. Thereafter, his grandfather changed his name to mohammed.

There's another interesting story to be found in Ibn Saad's history. Accordingly, Mohammed had several "names". Among them were Mohammed (the praised one), Achmed (the praised one), Khatim (the seal (of the prophets?)), Hashir (the awakener (from the dead?)), Akib (the last prophet) and Machiy (redeemer (of sins)). All of these titles also fit to the person of Jesus. So the muslim records do record that muhammad was originally a title of a person and not a name. The honored person gradually shifted from Jesus to Qutham.

This explains another peculiarity in Islam. Why is a stone venerated in the Kaaba and why is it placed into the corner of the building? Well, the corner stone originally stands for Jesus. Ephesians 2:20 "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" Also Psalm 118:22, Mathew

The Kaaba was originally constructed as a church. It had an apsis and the direction of prayer in the Kaaba was Jerusalem.

Thank you KilianKlaiber and LemonLime.

KilianKlaiber, your comment is of the highest caliber.

(Expropriation seems to be one of the earliest patterns of Islam!)

Well, fifth time was the charm! I was finally able to view the entire debate.

Wonderful stuff. David Wood certainly brought up a lot of questions I had, especially arguing from "embarrassing" passages in Muhammed's life—while carefully noting that things that might be embarrassing—or damning—for us such as the "Prophet's touchiness, brutality, and rape of a 9-year-old child are considered perfectly acceptable, even praiseworthy, in Islam.

Eventually, on some issues, both Spencer and Wood had to resort to speculation—although in both cases it was very educated speculation.

I did believe that Robert Spencer ultimately made the stronger case—that it is improbable that these stories were carefully handed down and drilled into Muslims, yet never publicly voiced for two centuries.

But I was impressed that both debaters freely conceded points to each other, and generally conducted themselves in an entirely civilized manner—unlike so many pious Muslims, who have a nasty tendency to retreat into invective and threats when challenged.

In the final analysis, it comes down to "reasonable people can disagree"—and watching two such reasonable people debate was a pure pleasure. Thanks for making the video available.

I need to get and read the book.

But the 'hole in history' around the time when the Muslim armies emerge, is interesting.

Interesting from a psychological point of view.

And one does wonder what possibly decisive early historic records might have been entirely destroyed when, for example, Constantinople was sacked in 1453.

The Syriac Christian church in South India...one wonders what stories they may have preserved, for although founded before the rise of Islam, they may have taken in refugees from the conquests. Has anyone gone looking *there*? And what of the Ethiopian Church? What records do *they* have, that may not even have been unearthed or translated? Has *all* the Coptic material been examined?...though again, much of it has been destroyed by the ceaseless Mohammedan church-burnings and monastery-plunderings down through the centuries.

There is, too, something we should think carefully about.

Think about the way that Muslim da'wa artists present Islam today. Think of what some have called 'Chrislam'. Think of the whole 'abrahamic faith' scam. The 'we love Jesus too' schtick. And think about the way in which *our* media and *our* scholars are writing about the activities of Muslims today; writing about what they do, without *ever* connecting it to the teachings and texts of Islam, and very often without even referring to the perpetrators of assorted local Jihads, as *Muslims* first and foremost.

Remember that in the legendary 'pact of Omar' the dhimmis are not allowed to teach their children the Qur'an.

It appears perfectly possible that many if not most people were forced - or in some cases, tricked/ persuaded - into becoming Muslims *without* knowing or being told very much at all about the core cult practices and aims. And then they were trapped.

There's an idea nibbling at the edges of my mind; that deception and concealment and infiltration and subversion and doubletalk and a certain kind of syncretism, *as well as* sudden explosions or eruptions of ultra-violence, have been Islam's *main* modus operandi and defining feature from the very beginning. What if that gap: the confusion, the silences (yet at the same time the utter ruination testified by the archaeological evidence - the 'Recent Fill', the silt layer from the sudden collapse of hillside terraces in places like eretz Israel - ruination that is *the* signature of Islam all throughout history and as we know it today), the fact that none of the earliest victims of Islam seem to know what is going on and why the Arabs or 'saracens' or whoever are doing what they are doing, is the result of *deliberate* deception?

The histories that we do have and the archaeological information that we have, need to be read and reread very carefully indeed, with these things in mind.