Robert Spencer’s Did Muhammad Exist? was first published in 2011. The present book is thus a second edition, comprehensively revised and with more up-to-date references. Spencer’s work has been diligently researched, and all the possible evidence for the existence of Muhammad is thoroughly examined and, finally, found wanting. It is often argued that logically it is impossible to prove that someone does not exist. I do not entirely agree. Can we seriously maintain that it is impossible to prove that Santa Claus did not, and does not, exist? Surely we can show how the myth or the legend of Santa Claus first arose. We can trace the beginning of the myth and show how and why it grew, and why it has persisted through the years. As we shall see, Spencer shows why and how the legend of Muhammad developed. I learnt much new information and arguments from Spencer’s splendid book.
This edition boasts an impressive number of prefaces by eminent Islamologists. The first preface was written by J.J.G. Jansen (that is Hans Jansen), who was a considerable scholar, who taught at various universities (in Groningen, Leiden and Amsterdam) and was director of the Dutch Research Institute in Cairo, becoming associate professor at the University of Leiden. Between 2003-2008, he was Houtsma Professor of Modern Islamic Thought at the University of Utrecht. Thus Jansen was no fringe or extremist scholar, and his endorsement of Spencer’s work carries scholarly weight. He himself wrote a skeptical, revisionist account of the life of Muhammad, pointing out, among other things, that although there were leap months at the time of Muhammad which had to be intercalated frequently into the moon calendar and which only later became abandoned (allegedly by Muhammad), not one of the many most precisely dated events depicted by Ibn Ishaq, the earliest biographer of Muhammad, is in a leap month. By the time Ibn Ishaq began his biography of the Prophet, the leap months were totally forgotten.
Jansen also points out that there is no convincing archaeological evidence to confirm the traditional account, and that the Arabic alphabet that we know today did not exist in “early seventh century, so it is improbable that Muhammad’s secretaries, if brought back to life, would be able to recognize a modern edition of the Qur’an as part of the holy text that was dictated to them in fragments during Muhammad’s lifetime—that is, if such dictation occurred, which may be doubtful as well.”
Volker Popp is an independent scholar who spent many years examining coins of the seventh century. Popp writes in his preface, “Vast collections of Islamic coins were amassed and stored in museums, together with other testimonies of the Islamic past. Hundreds of lead bullae from the postal service of the early Arab masters were found near Haifa during Ottoman railway construction. To this day they are rotting away in the basement of the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul. One specimen was published by Ibrahim Artuk. Since I have pointed to the Biblical and Christian content of the design, alpha and omega in the field, the piece has been declared a forgery by a leading German specialist in Islamic coins. The curator in question never held the bulla in his hand or inspected it at the museum. A reference to the Christian content was reason enough to condemn the bulla as forgery.”
This is a recurring pattern: all the material culture found at archaeological sites is interpreted through the prism of the traditional account of the rise of Islam. Anything that does not fit that account is discarded as a forgery.
Finally, there is the preface to the new edition by Jay Smith, who has a Master’s Degree in Islamic Studies from the Fuller Theological Seminary. Jay Smith points out the lateness of all the accounts concerning the life of Muhammad: “a narrative which was not written down by anyone living close to him (such as an eyewitness), nor even from someone living in his century, but from compilers of his biography (Ibn Hisham just prior to 833 AD), and writers of his sayings (Al Bukhari just prior to 870 AD), which are 200-300 years too late. What’s more, everything they employed to write their biographies and sayings were obtained from oral tradition, a vehicle open to embellishment, accretions and deletions.”
gravenimage says
Ibn Warraq on ‘Did Muhammad Exist?’: ‘I learnt much new information and arguments from Spencer’s splendid book’
……………
Great endorsement!
Mike Ramirez says
Ibn Warraq describes himself as an Atheist and Secular Humanist. Surely, if he denies the existence of God then it’s no wonder that he would question the existence of a religious figure whom 1.6 Billion people believe is their prophet and who revised teachings from Judaism and Christianity to establish Islam. Perhaps Mr. Spencer could have chosen another expert to endorse his book that questions the existence of Muhammad.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Warraq#Writing_and_works
Ecosse1314 says
Mike.Do things become true when more people believe in it?
Mike Ramirez says
That’s a very valid and reasonable question, Ecosse1314. Obviously, the answer is no: things do not become true no matter how many people believe in something or the
existence of a perceived imaginary figure. Because the focus in this case is a theological one, we are well aware of real persons who have started religious beliefs that deceive multitudes of people into accepting them as a “prophet.” When they don’t preach the Truth they are known as false prophets. The world is full of people following such false prophets who have established dangerous religious death cults. There are now many leaders of Interfaith denominations including the Pope who actually believe that Islam teaches the same deity as the God of Judeo-Christian belief. Whether Muhammad existed or not is no longer the point here. The world’s acceptance of Islam being a protected religion with all its strict control and rule by Sharia law makes it incumbent to disprove the belief that “Allah” is the same as Yahweh. What do you believe?
Ecosse1314 says
Thanks Mike. BTW did you watch that link I sent you the “rightly guided caliphs”?
Yes what you say is true I do not expect this book to change the mind of a single moslem
As a study of the available history of the time though the book is priceless.
Dorick says
What a silly comment. I am also an atheist, and I consider it extremely unlikely that Muhammad did not exist. The fact that a person rejects belief in God does not make it likely that would doubt the existence of particular human religious figures, for Pete’s sake. Jeez.
Mike Ramirez says
You make a very good point, Dorick, from your perspective of being an Atheist. That makes sense and upon further review I can agree with what you wrote. With that in mind, it turns out that Mr. Spencer, whom believes in God, does not believe that Muhammad existed while on the other hand you don’t believe in God but yet you believe that the religious figure of Muhammad did exist; just like 1.6 Billion Muslims believe in his existence. Therein is the 1400 year-old dilemma for all of Western Civilization including all Atheists. The real effort should be for Western governments to identify the Islamic ideology as an existential Enemy Threat Doctrine, no matter how it got started, instead of granting it the status of a “protected religion.” Carlos the Jackal is quoted as saying, “Only a Coalition of Marxists and Islamists can Destroy America.” They are well on their way to doing so.
Michael Copeland says
The “religious figure whom 1.6 Billion people believe is their prophet”has a significance.
He is the same religious figure whom 1.6 billion people are INSTRUCTED is their prophet, with the death penalty for disagreeing.
Wellington says
Mike Ramirez: I don’t see how denying the existence of God means or equates to one being less able to judge or determine if a particular religious figure existed. It’s apples versus oranges here. It’s a matter of dealing with a possible higher power versus someone “merely” human.
I mean do you really want to argue the point that a theist is better able to determine the historicity of some human being who claimed some kind of divine sanction, who was a religious preacher of some sort, even a founder of a religion, than an atheist can? The examination of the historical record, including of religious figures, should function independently of whether one is a believer or non-believer, which is EXACTLY Michael Grant’s point in his highly interesting “Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels.”
As Grant himself wrote on p.198 of this work of his, “One can write as a believer, or as an unbeliever, or as I have attempted to do, as a student of history, seeking, as far as one’s background and conditions permit, to employ methods that make belief or unbelief irrelevant.” I’m with Grant here (and by implication with Ibn Warraq). Your turn if you care.
Mike Ramirez says
Thanks. Please see my 9:23 pm response to Dorick (above.) You both make a good point which made me reconsider my initial comment about Atheists. – Mike
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Thank you, Ibn Warraq, for this information. You write, “[A]lthough there were leap months at the time of Muhammad which had to be intercalated frequently into the moon calendar and which only later became abandoned (allegedly by Muhammad), not one of the many most precisely dated events depicted by Ibn Ishaq, the earliest biographer of Muhammad, is in a leap month. By the time Ibn Ishaq began his biography of the Prophet, the leap months were totally forgotten.”
Under the calendar used in Muhammad’s alleged lifetime, denoting by p the proportion of the days in a solar year (365.24) that occur during leap months, then 1-p is the proportion that did not, so the probability that all n random events reported by Ibn Ishaq that are precisely dated (e.g., by a solar eclipse) are in non-leap months will be (1-p)^n, a value which (if I understand your argument), is too small to be plausible. What are these values of p and n?
Infidel says
Mark
If p is a probability number, it has to be a value b/w 0 and 1, and has to be a fraction of something. If the number of days in a solar year – 365.24 – is the denominator, what is the numerator? I failed to get that from your description above
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Hi Infidel. The numerator is the number L of days in a solar year (365.24 days on average) that occur during a leap month, so p = L/365.24 is the probability that a random day during the year will fall on a leap day. So if there are L=25 leap days during the year and n=42 precisely datable events in Muhammad’s life, then the probability that all these events will fall on a non-leap day is (1-p)^n = (1 – 25/365.24)^42 = (.93155)^42 = .05; that is, there is only one chance in 20 that all the precisely datable events in Muhammad’s life fell on a non-leap day.
Ray Jarman says
When has Santa Claus been considered an actual living person? When it is written, “Can we seriously maintain that it is impossible to prove that Santa Claus did not, and does not, exist? Surely we can show how the myth or the legend of Santa Claus first arose,” no one thinks that a man in a red suit being flung around in the sky except for small children. The stories are based on an actual person but it evolved into a beautiful story for children to learn to be faithful and thankful in their early years. To equate St. Nicholas with Muhammad is an insult to all that is decent.
Rev. G says
Actually, it makes a convincing possibility regarding the existence of a profit named Muhammad. Yes I spelled that right, lol.
Perhaps a muhammad lived, but the accounts of him have been so very bastardized over time that they bear no actual semblance to the one who did exist.
mortimer says
Thanks to Ibn Warraq for a superb book review. One note, however: Jay Smith does have an M.Div. and also a PhD in Islamic studies. Dr. Jay Smith (PhD) began his doctoratal studies at School of Oriental and African Studies and the London School of Theology, studying notably under the late Patricia Crone, but needed to do other work for a time. He completed his doctorate at the Melbourne School of Theology in March of 2017.