Here is a review by Daniel Pipes of the first edition of Did Muhammad Exist?. The new revised and expanded version contains a large amount of new material, including startling evidence that:
- The traditional Islamic stories of Muhammad’s life could not have taken place where they are described as happening;
- 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;
- 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;
- The seventh-century Arab conquerors did not think of themselves as Muslims, and never called themselves Muslims;
- Although Muslims everywhere in the world today pray facing Mecca, this practice was unknown in the earliest mosques to be built;
- Much, much more.
Preorder the new revised and expanded version of Did Muhammad Exist? here.
“Uncovering Early Islam,” by Daniel Pipes, National Review, May 16, 2012:
The year 1880 saw the publication of a book that ranks as the single most important study of Islam ever. Written in German by a young Jewish Hungarian scholar, Ignaz Goldziher, and bearing the nondescript title Muslim Studies (Muhammedanische Studien), it argued that the hadith, the vast body of sayings and actions attributed to the Islamic prophet Mohammed, lacked historical validity. Rather than provide reliable details about Mohammed’s life, the hadith, Goldziher established, emerged from debates two or three centuries later about the nature of Islam.
(This is like today’s Americans debating the Constitution’s much-disputed Second Amendment, concerning the right to bear arms, by claiming newly discovered oral transmissions going back to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Obviously, their quotations would inform us not what was said 225 years ago but about current views.)
Since Goldziher’s day, scholars have been actively pursuing his approach, deepening and developing it into a full-scale account of early Islamic history, one that disputes nearly every detail of Mohammed’s life as conventionally understood — born in A.D. 570, first revelation in 610, flight to Medina in 622, death in 632. But this revisionist history has remained a virtual secret among specialists. For example, Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, authors of the synoptic Hagarism (Cambridge University Press, 1977), deliberately wrote obliquely, thereby hiding their message.
Now, however, two scholars have separately ended this secrecy: Tom Holland with In the Shadow of the Sword, and Robert Spencer with Did Muhammad Exist? As their titles suggest, Spencer is the bolder author, and so is my focus here.
In a well-written, sober, and clear account, he begins by demonstrating the inconsistencies and mysteries in the conventional account concerning Mohammed’s life, the Koran, and early Islam. For example, whereas the Koran insists that Mohammed did not perform miracles, the hadith ascribes him thaumaturgic powers — multiplying food, healing the injured, drawing water from the ground and sky, and even sending lightning from his pickax. Which is it? Hadith claim Mecca was a great trading city but, strangely, the historical record reveals it as no such thing.
The Christian quality of early Islam is no less strange, specifically “traces of a Christian text underlying the [Koran].” Properly understood, these traces elucidate otherwise incomprehensible passages. Conventionally read, verse 19:24 has Mary nonsensically hearing, as she gives birth to Jesus, “Do not be sad, your Lord has placed a rivulet beneath you.” Revisionists transform this into the sensible (and piously Christian) “Do not be sad, your Lord has made your delivery legitimate.” Puzzling verses about the “Night of Power” commemorating Mohammed’s first revelation make sense when understood as describing Christmas. Chapter 96 of the Koran, astonishingly, invites readers to a Eucharist.
Building on this Christian base, revisionists postulate a radically new account of early Islam. Noting that coins and inscriptions from the seventh century mention neither Mohammed, the Koran, nor Islam, they conclude that the new religion did not appear until about 70 years after Mohammed’s supposed death. Spencer finds that “the first decades of the Arab conquest show the conquerors holding not to Islam as we know it but to a vague creed [Hagarism, focused on Abraham and Ishmael] with ties to some form of Christianity and Judaism.” In very brief: “The Muhammad of Islamic tradition did not exist, or if he did, he was substantially different from how that tradition portrays him” — namely, as an anti-Trinitarian Christian rebel leader in Arabia.
The revisionist account is no idle academic exercise but, as when Judaism and Christianity encountered the Higher Criticism 150 years ago, a deep, unsettling challenge to faith. It will likely leave Islam a less literal and doctrinaire religion with particularly beneficial implications in the case of doctrines of supremacism and misogyny. Applause, then, for plans to translate Did Muhammad Exist? into major Muslim languages and to make it available gratis on the Internet. May the revolution begin.
Myron J. Poltroonian says
I have a “Modest Proposal” vis à vis rhe “Age of Consent: “If she’s good enough for Mohammad, she’s good enough for everyone”. “Let the wailing, howling and gnashing of teeth begin.”
gravenimage says
Pious Muslims only deny the “Prophet’s” pedophilia when they are trying to fool the Infidels about what Islam actually teaches. They are fine with chld marriage in Muslim countries.
gravenimage says
‘Did Muhammad Exist?’: ‘Well-written, sober, clear, demonstrating inconsistencies in the conventional account’
………….
Good stuff from Dr. Daniel Pipes.
Wellington says
As great a con job Islam has been if Mohammed actually did exist as conventionally narrated, Islam would be an almost infinitely larger con job if Mo never really existed. I’m still trying to deal with, “digest” if you will, the latter scenario which is truly astounding if true.
Uma Maheswar Nakka says
Good article and useful
Regards
Uma
Otis says
Koran alone is enough to prove that Islam is a scam.Those fantasies and made up tales in it will make any intelligent person rais eyebrows.I personally believe that Muhammad never existed and any research that can unearth the truth I support.Thanks Mr. Robert and may you live long.This book should be translated to many languages in the entire world so as to expose this EMPIRE OF FALSE RELIGION.
HugoHackenbush says
In reading this review regarding the origins of Islam and its alleged “prophet” Mr. M. I am reminded of a book that I recently finished called “Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity”
by James S. Valliant and C. W. Fahy. The parallels are remarkable including: 1. The actual canonical writings appearing decades after the death of the central figure; 2.the political climate(Judean wars against Rome) and 3. The utility of religiously based propaganda to serve the aims of the state(quelling messianic Jews in revolt against Rome by presenting a sacred figure calling for peace and “giving unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”.
Disagree that Mr. Spencer’s book should be used to counter Islamic expansionism as it is likely to trigger a dogged rejection of any evidence in order to defend against any attack on the validity of the beliefs. No serious practitioner of Islam or any Western apologists will want to hear any attack on origins or the reality of the existence of Muhammad any more than true believers in Christianity will accept the premise and evidence shown in “Creating Christ” (including documentation by Suetonius and Tacitus that Vespasian and Titus performed miracles in the Serapeum in Alexandria during the Jewish wars and presented themselves as the true Jewish Messiahs (military leaders who would bring ultimate peace) Best to stick with Islamic source material and let it speak for itself, particularly Ibn Ishaq in which it is repeatedly stated that many were forced to “accept Islam to save their lives and property”.
I look forward to reading Mr. Spencer’s book which I have preordered on the KIndle once I’m finished with the one on Pius V (who brought together the forces that won the battle of Lepanto) and stopped Islamic expansion as expressed via the Ottomans..
Wellington says
So, what took the Roman Emperors so long in “inventing Christianity?” It wasn’t until Constantine the Great (306-337 AD) that a Roman Emperor became an official protector of Christianity. Before that time Christianity was persecuted off an on. Why didn’t the sage Emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180 AD) move the “process along” far earlier than Constantine?
As for New Testament books being written at least 25 years after Jesus’ death (starting with Paul’s epistles) and the four Gospels being composed as we have them now dating from around 70 AD onwards (Mark was the first of the four to be composed as many know), these timelines indeed create many difficulties but if one reads a work like Michael Grant’s “Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels” you will come across a sophisticated view of just how reliable the Gospels are many times. BTW, Grant, like myself, was a skeptic. I like to say I am a devout agnostic.
Finally, respecting the Judean revolts against Rome, the last of them was over by 135 AD with the ending of Bar Kochba’s Revolt. Thereafter, Jews posed no problems for the Romans because of the Diaspora and so the “Jewish factor” in Roman geopolitics war a non-factor henceforth and so why another 200 years or so before Constantine accepted Christianity per the thinking that “Judean wars” against Rome was a reason for Roman Emperors to “push” Christianity from Hadrian’s time (117-138 AD) onwards? This really makes no sense.
Wellington says
“…was a non-factor….” and not “….war a non-factor….”
HugoHackenbush says
Mr. Wellington,
You have raised multiple legitimate issues. To answer them fully I would have to reproduce at least 50% of the book by Valliant and Fahy so I suggest that you would find reading the book most interesting. I put no credence in any supernatural beliefs but to ignore the material is to deny the reality of the impact it has had and continues to have.
True believers actively resist any information that challenges their beliefs and the more facts that can be arrayed to attack the belief the greater will be the resistance. It is for this reason that I conclude that Mr. Spencer’s work will be of no use in persuading any true believer in Islam or any virtue-signalling apologist for Islam of anything. I’ve most recently seen this effect in regards to climate issues when I explained to a couple that the first stage of the Saturn V was powered by liquid oxygen and kerosene and only the 2nd and 3rd stages by hydrogen. One person leaned in and was fascinated with the new information, the other was upset and withdrew at the mere mention of any benefit from a fossil fuel (despite the fact that we all drove gasoline-powered cars to the restaurant.
Grant’s work seems quite interesting. Thanks for the recommendation
gravenimage says
HugoHackenbush wrote:
In reading this review regarding the origins of Islam and its alleged “prophet” Mr. M. I am reminded of a book that I recently finished called “Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity” by James S. Valliant and C. W. Fahy. The parallels are remarkable including: 1. The actual canonical writings appearing decades after the death of the central figure; 2.the political climate(Judean wars against Rome) and 3. The utility of religiously based propaganda to serve the aims of the state(quelling messianic Jews in revolt against Rome by presenting a sacred figure calling for peace and “giving unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”.
………………………….
Actually, no Roman emperor embraced Christianity until 312 AD–about two centuries after the Judean wars with Rome were history. Moreover, previous emperors *persecuted* Christians. They certainly did so during the entire period of the Judean wars. Why would they do so if they themselves had invented Christianity?
In fact, Christianity ultimately had fairly little affect on most Jews and their relation to the Roman Empire–so why would these emperors have been so intent on supposedly spreading the faith, long after its usefulness to quelling Jewish revolt would have an issue, and long after if had proven ineffective in any case?
More:
Disagree that Mr. Spencer’s book should be used to counter Islamic expansionism as it is likely to trigger a dogged rejection of any evidence in order to defend against any attack on the validity of the beliefs. No serious practitioner of Islam or any Western apologists will want to hear any attack on origins or the reality of the existence of Muhammad any more than true believers in Christianity will accept the premise and evidence shown in “Creating Christ” (including documentation by Suetonius and Tacitus that Vespasian and Titus performed miracles in the Serapeum in Alexandria during the Jewish wars and presented themselves as the true Jewish Messiahs (military leaders who would bring ultimate peace) Best to stick with Islamic source material and let it speak for itself, particularly Ibn Ishaq in which it is repeatedly stated that many were forced to “accept Islam to save their lives and property”.
………………………….
No Infidels should be under Shari’ah strictures to avoid research into Muhammed or any aspect of Islam. In fact, that Islam forbids such queries is reason in and of itself to ask such questions, *however* Muslims might react.
Christianity has no such strictures against asking questions–including questioning the historicity of Christ–and Christians do not react violently to such research. In fact, there are many Christians who themselves engage in such research.
And Spencer cites both Islamic source material and that from non-Muslims. In fact, he is an expert on the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira. But the idea that we should have to take the claims of these materials as “gospel”–pun intended–is not something most Infidels accept, nor should they.
Then, the claims about Roman emperors Vespasian and Titus are very odd. Vespasian apparently did believe that Eastern prophecy about future rulers of the world applied to him. But this figure was in no way Christ-like. Then, there was a long tradition of Roman Emperors performing ‘miracles’–they were in fact considered Gods–this has nothing to do with their being Christ.
Then, if the purpose of Vespasian performing miracles was to convince Jews that he was Christ–an odd strategy, in any case–why would he had done this in Alexandria, a place with a Jewish population but hardly the center of Jewish life? Might it not have made more sense to do this in Jerusalem? In fact, he was in Alexandria as part of the Roman civil war–this had nothing to do with Jewish unrest. Then, he claimed he could perform miracles after visiting the Temple of Serapis–*not* a church or synagogue. This had more to do with his positioning himself to take the reins of emperorship than any attempt to influence Jewish politics.
Then, neither Vespasian or Titus ever claimed to be the Jewish messiah–and if they had, it would have been very odd, since most Jews considered the Roman Empire the main enemy of the Jews–*not* their savior. And by this time most Jews had rejected the idea that Christ was the Jewish messiah, in any case, so “creating Christ” and claiming to be the Jewish messiah would hardly have been synonymous at this juncture.
This silliness was first put forward by Joseph Atwill in “Caesar’s Messiah”. This has been debunked by serious historians.
HugoHackenbush says
See this link to a review of “Creating Christ” by Andrew Bernstein. It summarizes the arguments nicely: https://theobjectivestandard.com/2021/04/creating-christ-how-roman-emperors-invented-christianity-by-james-valliant-and-warren-fahy/
gravenimage says
Hugo, I noticed that you are either unable to address a single point I brought up, or else do not consider it worthwhile to present a rational argument. Very odd.
Nothing at that link addresses any of my points, either.
Myron J. Poltroonian says
I’ve noticed everyone asks “Who” God is, but never “What” is God?
gravenimage says
Actually, both questions are quite common, Myron.