The new revised and expanded edition of Did Muhammad Exist? contains:
- 25% new material.
- Answers to objections raised to the first edition.
- Information that makes it clear that Islam could not have originated the way it is described as doing so in the standard, canonical Islamic accounts.
- The reasons why it is more likely that the Muhammad of Islamic tradition is more myth and legend than historical figure.
- Newly revealed facts showing that the current Qur’anic text is not the original, and has been changed multiple times.
- Why the traditional Islamic stories of Muhammad’s life could not have taken place where they are described as happening;
- How the Arabs of the time in which Muhammad is supposed to have lived and its immediate aftermath did not believe in Islam as we understand it today;
- Evidence that the Qur’an was not collected and distributed in the year 653, as Islamic tradition claims, and parts of it existed as separate books over fifty years after that;
- Indications that the seventh-century Arab conquerors did not think of themselves as Muslims, and never called themselves Muslims;
- Startling signs that although Muslims everywhere in the world today pray facing Mecca, this practice was unknown in the earliest mosques to be built;
- The false premises of modern historians: how the man whom modern-day historians say received reports from “his aunt Aisha” about Muhammad’s life: why he is not a reliable source for anything Muhammad said or did, or even for his existence itself;
- “There is no god but Allah, and Qutham is his prophet”: the extraordinary Islamic traditions that record that Muhammad was originally known by another name;
- The strange and telling inconsistencies in the Islamic traditions about Muhammad’s first revelation;
- How the Arabic of the Qur’an is not the Arabic of southern Arabia, where Islam is supposed to have originated;
- Which angel appeared to Muhammad to give him the Qur’an? The Islamic traditions naming one other than Gabriel;
- Much, much more.
Preorder here.
mortimer says
Muslims who read this new material about the historicity of Mohammed (or ‘lack’ of historicity) will be challenged to rethink their misplaced faith in this Death Cult.
Iit now appears that ‘mohammed’ is not a name, but an honorific EPITHET meant to be the equivalent of the Roman ‘augustus’ or ‘sebastos’ applied to the Roman Caesars.
‘Augustus’ signifies approved by the gods. ‘Muhammad’ signifies that the gods find his behavior ‘praiseworthy’.
A number of candidates for the ‘real’ Mohammed include Caliph Abd al Malik, the Perso-Arabian ‘Ilyas ibn Qabisa, Arabian prophet Musaylima and Khalid ibn Walid. Their biographies may ALL have been ‘mined’ to create a specious fiction about an Arabian warlord and prophet who led the Arabs to conquer the Roman and Persian empires.
More likely, the Arabs did not conquer Rome and Persia, because they had been conquered by waves of the Plague. The Arabs moved into their cities and simply took over, there being no troops left to resist them.
gravenimage says
Mortimer, there is no doubt that the Byzantines (Rum) had been weakened by centuries of Muslim invasion, general strife, and plague. But the Muslim hordes really did violenty invade the capitol Constantinople and conquer it in 1453. This was not non-violent.
And the Persians had been weakened by their wars with the Byzantines and the Plague of Sheroe in 627 AD.
That being said, though, Muslims did engage in a series of invasions from 633 AD to the 650s into the Sassanid Empire. There were a series of battles, and they were not peaceful.
Infidel says
Now if only MbS can pull off changes that delete complete surahs (8 & 9) as well as plenty of surahs from 2 to 1xx. After all, if it’s already been altered quite a few times, what’s one more?
Granted, that will only affect the qurans in KSA
gravenimage says
Infidel, has MbS ever actually claimed that he intends to alter the Qur’an? From quotes I have seen from him he has affirmed that Saudi Arabian law is based on the Qur’an.
tim gallagher says
I don’t believe that Muhammad existed. I think he was made up later for political reasons. The way Muhammad is portrayed, as an evil murderous maggot by the standards of any civilised human beings, shows what barbaric and evil creatures made him up. They must have thought Muhammad’s evil behaviour was quite OK, including his pedophilia and his slaughtering of people. Unfortunately, I suspect that not many Muslims will ever admit that islam is all bullshit, as is Muhammad. I hope I am wrong. I would love to see Muslims leave the disgusting ideology in droves. What a far better world that would create. 1400 years of Islam is more than enough. You are doing a great job, Robert Spencer, and I’m sure that you have caused some Muslims to leave islam behind and have also woken up many non-Muslims to the vile nature of islam. It is extremely important work you are doing, that’s for sure.
Demsci says
Great book! I am enthousiastic!vI long since read the first edition. Now I will buy this one.
To be sure; this is a message from a messenger who for many Muslims and leftists will be vilified and targeted. Same goes for “messengers” Jay Smith, Hatun Tash and their associates. The logical fallacy of attacking the messenger instead of judging the message independently.
But sooner or later, as with scientific discoveries (and in a way this book IS about historical discoveries), the message will become mainstream. Just as Christianity was severely criticized and subsequently losing many followers so now Islam will suffer.
Demsci says
I broached the subject of Quran-critique to a few people already. The results were disappointing but educational. A Christian reacted very dull, saying he does n’t care what other people believe. This person does fear too much Islamic immigration but shows no interest whatsoever in an alternative course, with the realization that Islamic immigration with the bigger families is now inevitable, and that we should be going for the goal that Muslims become ABCD (Atheists, Buddhists, Christians or “divers”)
An atheist leftist reacted with the usual rhetoric; you know; most Muslims are moderate, the Bible also contains “offensive speech” etc. Not realizing that pointing to the Bible’s shortcomings is precisely a favorite tactic of Islam apologists too, but that that does not count for an atheist.
And said he….. look at what Hungary did the other day! Outrageous moral equivalence! And this started me thinking. I am also against this Hungarian law. I feel that we must be tolerant as such and also to get or keep the lgbt people at our side.
But leftists now attack Hungary for helping LGBT people. The LGBT people also attack Hungary, both to their hearts content. But many of both leftists and even LGBT”s often try to “shield” Muslims. And to the point that they shield Islam itself too.
But the “elephant in the room” it seems to me is that Islam itself and Iran and many other Islamic nations and leaders, organisations AND persons are much more and more severe against LGBT than Hungary will ever be!!!
I see this situation as a big conundrum and dilemma for hypocritical leftists AND LGBT’s.
gravenimage says
Thanks for that grim account, Demsci.
Moleman says
It seems to the that the staunched defenders of the current Islamic invasion simply aren”t able to understand that they will be the first to be thrown head-down off highrises. That will be, in a way, an ironic
twist of judgement day.
Lavéritétriomphera says
As far I am concern Matter not Mohamed or Jesus did exist, the results are there to see. Islam is the product of a Mediterranean twisted thought.
gravenimage says
Mediterranean?
Lavéritétriomphera says
Hi gravenimage,
Everybody agree with the fact that Hinduism and Buddhism are religions originated from India.
I believe Muhammad was probably a Nabatean citizen from Petra in Jordan, but after is death “Islam” was recovered by Mediterraneans like Byzantine dissidents and opportunists of all kinds.
As far I am concern it’s the message that matters, not the messager and it’s obvious that Islam and Christianity are products of the Mediterranean world.
Amitiés
gravenimage says
Lavéritétriomphera, The Qur’an is full of references to Arabia, not Petra. Then, do you have any evidence that most early Muslims were actually Byzantine Christians, and why they would prefer to characterize themselves as Arab tribesmen?
Lavéritétriomphera says
Bonjour gravenimage,
Islam is a Mediterranean political ideology.
“The Qur’an is full of references to Arabia, not Petra.”
No, it doesn’t not, the Islamic scriptures are full of references to the Mediterranean world: religions, sciences and even the way of life (I heard).
If I remember correctly, at a certain moment of history, Petra was part of the Roman Empire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtIyeREGCYI.
Amitiés
Lavéritétriomphera says
@gravenimage,
Désolé pour l’erreur d’anglais, j’ai voulu dire “No it doesn’t”.
À Bientôt
Otis says
Islam is the mother of all scams in the world.This is one reason why Muslims prohibit people drawing or showing any art of Muhammad.Because he wasn’t a real person.Those who believe he lived should show us where he was burried.Parthologists should collect his remains and do a forensic audit of his DNA and match it with his descendants if there’s any.If it’s true that he lived,I think his relatives are all over Arabian Peninsula to prove naysayers wrong.
gravenimage says
The claim is that he is buried at the Green Dome Mosque in Medina. I don’t believe that any indepedent archaeologists have ever been allowed to investigate, though.