A superb review by Bruce Bawer of the new revised and expanded version of Did Muhammad Exist?, which you can order here. “An Evaporating Edifice,” by Bruce Bawer, FrontPage, July 26, 2021:
Unlike other religions, declared the nineteenth-century French scholar Ernest Renan, Islam “was born in the full light of history.” Renan’s point, of course, was that whereas, for example, Jesus was unknown during his lifetime to the great world beyond Galilee and Judea, and the story of his life was set down, in various versions, only decades after his crucifixion, Muhammed was in his own lifetime a public figure of unparalleled eminence – the prophet of a new religion, the commander of an army that conquered much of the Arabian peninsula in the name of that religion, and the founder of an Islamic empire that, over the century or so after his death, would spread his religion from the western end of the Mediterranean to what is now India, and eventually threaten on more than one occasion to engulf the whole of Europe.
But Renan was wrong. Over the past century, while archeologists, textual scholars, and others have examined the life of Jesus from every conceivable angle – and established beyond any reasonable doubt that the man whose ministry is recounted in the gospels really existed – the relatively few experts on Islam who’ve ventured to scrutinize with open minds the established narrative about Muhammed have discovered major problems with almost every aspect of it, so that questions have arisen, over time, as to whether this historical figure of the first consequence – a man whose rich and adventurous life story had long been recounted in colorful detail (and whom Time magazine, in 1992, named the most influential person in human history) – had ever actually existed at all.
It’s a breathtaking thought, and at first glance it seems outlandish, audacious, impossible. For the overwhelming majority of Muslims, even to entertain the notion that Muhammed might be a fictional character is verboten. Most scholars of Islam don’t want to go near it either, for fear or their lives, or (at the very least) their careers. But the few who’ve dared to do so have emerged with some extremely sensational findings. In 2012, Robert Spencer summed up what had been discovered so far in his remarkable book Did Muhammed Exist? An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins. Since the scholarly work in this area has continued without pause – and has produced even more extraordinary evidence that the historical account of Muhammed needs, at the very least, to be radically revised – Spencer has now issued a revised and expanded, and even more devastating, version of his book.
And what a book it is! So you don’t care about Islam? Well, as always, the first answer to that has to be: Islam cares about you. And the second answer is that you don’t have to be interested in Islam to find this book absolutely compelling. If you enjoy mysteries, this book tells the supremely thrilling story of a diverse band of canny sleuths – archeologists, linguists, historians, theological experts – who’ve spent much of their careers trying to solve what may be the biggest mystery ever. To make your way through this book, chapter by chapter, is to feel that you’re seeing the cover being pulled back, layer by layer, on one of the most massive deceptions in the annals of humankind….
There is more. Read the rest here.
revereridesagain says
I don’t suppose it would be worth asking why this: “… Jesus* was unknown during his lifetime to the great world beyond Galilee and Judea, and the story of his life was set down, in various versions, only decades after his crucifixion… ” is the case?
I applaud this excellent scholarly exposure of the mythological nature of Islam. But I also hear the echoes of the cries of protest whenever the same requirements of history are applied to the other “great religions” of “The Book”.
But then only eeeeeevil atheists ask about that, and their questions are not worthy of answer. Pity it can no longer be squelched on threat of the stake…
* a.k.a. “God Made Man”
Robert Spencer says
In reality, there has been historical exploration of Christianity for centuries. It’s only when it comes to Islam that suddenly the scholars grow “respectful,” that is, afraid.
gravenimage says
revereridesagain, as Robert Spencer notes there have been historical studies of Christianity–and Judaism, and Buddhism, and every other major faith save Islam–for centuries now.
Moreover, your claim that only Atheists ask such questions is mistaken. Studies have been done by those who are not religious, those who are members of other faiths, and those who are devout members of the faith being studied, as well.
Then, your claim that Christians and other non-Muslims want to burn people at the stake who ask questions about their faith does not hold water. Can you point to such people? Citations, please.
Then, Bruce Bawer *himself* has written on Christianity, sometimes critically, so your using a review by him to imply devout Christians being unable to handle criticism without becoming violent is especially odd.
Wellington says
Fine rebuttal, gravenimage.
gravenimage says
Thank you, Wellington.
mortimer says
Indeed, GI has written well. Truly, Christian university scholars who have challenged the historicity of Christianity have often been front and center in the news … Bultmann, Schweitzer, Honest-to-God Robinson. I would suggest that ‘revere’ has not paid attention to those challenges … but Muslim apologists regularly quote from them to ‘prove’ that Christianity is false and thus Islam is true. Here’s an article which goes into many of the Western critics of Christianity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Christianity
Only Islam continues to pursue and execute heretics in the 21st century.
gravenimage says
Agree, Mortimer–and thanks for those references.
gravenimage says
An Evaporating Edifice: The stunning truth about Islam’s origins
……………….
Fine review by Gay anti-JIhadist Bruce Bawer.
Infidel says
One thing that struck me today, in another context, is that if Mohammed massacred Jews at Khaybar and other places, like Medina, why don’t Jewish sources describe it? Were the Jews in Jerusalem totally oblivious about what was going on in Medina, assuming that it really was a Jewish city during the period in question? And speaking of that, was it? Or was that also one of the inventions of the Abbasids?
gravenimage says
Good questions, Infidel.
Michael Copeland says
“one of the most massive deceptions in the annals of humankind”…….
Mohammed authorised his followers to use deception in the cause of promoting Islam.
The same privilege, of course, extended to him.
Mohammed’s life’s work was the promotion of Islam.
How would he fare in a court of law?
Remember the case of alleged rape in New York by a visiting high profile banker?
It was dropped because the witness had been found to have lied about some other matter.
Her testimony was not considered credible.
mortimer says
“An Evaporating Edifice” … a mirage that is mistaken by Muslims to be reality.
Kepha says
I respect Robert Spencer for raising an important question, even if I disagree with his conclusions, but Bruce Bawer will praise anything that pans an enemy or critic of his beloved homosexual lifestyle. Bawer’s criticism of Islam is welcome, and this split in the ranks of the Left coalition allows Uncle Kepha to engage in a good bit of Schadenfreude, but as an advocate of SSM (which is to marriage what a three-dollar bill printed in China is to US currency), Bawer is also part of the cancer destroying Western civilization from within.
@revereridesagain: Believe it or not, I appreciate your raising the parallel issue of how much resonance Jesus had in his own time on earth–even if I confess that time is marching inexorably to his second advent to judge the quick and the dead. However, the lesson to be drawn is not that traditional religions are clever swindles, but we should be cautious about how much the great and mighty actually govern in their time, even when they attempt to govern even the squeals of pigs in a barnyard. Another is like it, in that there may actually be less value in the sycophancy and self-importance of “winners’ history” than in the letters of obscure men. A further caution about the “quest for the historical Jesus” may be had from Albert Schweitzer, who observed that the questing authors peered down the well shaft of centuries to see their own reflections at the bottom.
But, as for the works of the “in” people, Suetonius’ life of Claudius notes that emperor’s expulsion of the Jews from Rome due to rioting “ad impulsare Chrestus”–quite likely over the claims of Christ as preached among 1st century Rome’s Jews. This is an interesting cross-reference to what we have in the Book of Acts. In their correspondence about what to do about the Bythinian Christians in the early 2d century, Pliny and Trajan note that Christ was crucified in the times of Pontius Pilate, as does Tacitus–joining briefly with the Christian creed that Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate. This is all the more significant in that it suggests the records of Pontius Pilate’s procuratorship over Judaea were available to those Roman grandees at the time.
I am not surprised that nobody mentions or notices Muhammad until after they’ve been conquered by his followers. The Arabs were peripheral to both the Persian and East Roman Empires; at best occasional bearers of tribute rather than subjects whose doings might be recorded by a procurator or satrap. The churchmen who give us the earliest Syriac, Coptic, Greek, and Armenian records of the Saracens are giving a first draft, and haven’t had the time to assess what their latest conquerors. It may also have been the case that those Muslim conquerors might have been loathe to let unclean Ahl-al-Kitab subjects get access to their sacred book.
@gravenimage and Wellington: Great points.
With all due respect for Mr. Spencer’s work, I remain convinced that Muhammad was historical, but no prophet of God. The Qur’an may well have been composed or reworked well after Muhammad’s death. I simply do not know on that score.
Michael Copeland says
“…those Muslim conquerors might have been loathe to let unclean Ahl-al-Kitab subjects get access to their sacred book.”
Most likely, considering that later it was forbidden to allow any kafir to have the Koran (according to Raymond Ibrahim). Only recently has this veto been eroded.
gravenimage says
Kepha–with all respect–there are both gay and straight married couples who engage in S&M (I presume this is what you meant). Not my cup of tea, but I don’t believe that this intrincsically prevents a couple from having a loving marriage.
Kepha says
@gravenimage: I appreciate your points. But, as you’ve probably figured, I’m a horrible Puritan. Not only do I believe in the traditional interpretations of the Seventh Commandment, but also the traditional interpretations of the Sixth. By the same token, if I lived in a place where flat roofs are the norm, I’d put up a parapet, just in case I and mine slept on the roof on a hot night; or some homeless person snuck up to sleep on it without my knowledge (I wouldn’t want anyone to roll off). Doing something that would hurt my wife or myself is something that would not only harm us, but it would displease God as well. I referred to Bawer’s advocacy of same-sex marriage and the normalization of the Sin of Sodom.
gravenimage says
Kepha, sorry I misunderstood your use of “SSM”. Not sure how SSM–or S&M, for that matter–violate the Sixth and Seventh Commandments, so long as they are exclusive relationships.
Still, I do take your points.
faraway says
gi, your fertile imagination is getting carried away LOL. Kepha is referring to same-sex marriage.
gravenimage says
faraway, you are correct–I misunderstood what “SSM” meant. How embarrassing. Thanks.
That being said, I believe that there can be loving same sex relationships as well–but that traditionalists do not consider these to be marriages.
Robert Spencer says
Have you actually read the book?
gravenimage says
Mr. Spencer, I believe that Kepha has said that he has read the 2012 edition.
tim gallagher says
It would be wonderful to see islam, the whole evil religious ideology, evaporate and just disappear. I doubt whether many Muslims will ever hear any of this evidence that islam is all bullshit. I don’t believe that Muhammad existed and I believe that this disgustingly evil version of god, called allah, is complete rubbish, fabricated by a bunch of evil men. If you were a Muslim and you did realise that this ideology that you are a member of is all lies and nonsense, you would have to try to find a safe way to leave. Of course, unlike any other religion, Islam says that anyone who tries to leave it should be killed. Maybe the authorities in islam know that their religion is all lies and rubbish and they know they are living in a glass house, so they have to threaten to kill anyone who wakes up and tries to leave the vile ideology..
Michael Copeland says
One of the world’s most respected Sunni scholars, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, admitted in 2012 that if Muslims had “gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn’t exist today”.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/apostasy.aspx
tim gallagher says
That is an extraordinary and, I would say, embarrassing quote, Michael. A religion that can only survive by threatening members who want to leave with death. I often think that Islam is so sick and so evil that it quite often almost defies belief.
gravenimage says
Yes–a grotesque thing to admit–that if people were not threatened with death for leaving Islam that large numbers would do so. Seems accurate, though.
Of course, few pious Muslims would actually be embarrassed by this.