Order the new revised and expanded version of Did Muhammad Exist?here.
Comments
Kephasays
I agree that Muhammad was no prophet, and the discussion of the problems of finding near-contemporary sources on his life is intriguing. Further, I appreciate the exposure of the textual problems in the Qur’an. As a Christian, I hold no candle for Islam. I respect Robert Spencer’s scholarship, and defer to his knowledge of Arabic.
I have read the 2012 edition, and see that much of the evidence presented in that edition remains relevant.
However, while _Did Muhammad Exist_ raises an important and timely question, I remain convinced that a successful Arabian warlord named Muhammad ibn Abdallah actually lived and was active in the late 6th and early 7th centuries A.D.
Someone arising in a milieu off the beaten track of the major powers and centers of learning of the time (Arabia, in relationship to the East Roman Empire, Fertile Crescent, and Persia) will not register on the consciousness of his era until his movement gets too big to ignore.
We should be cautious about dismissing the 7th century sources existing in 9th century copies. We accept Aristotle’s _Politics_ on a far weaker textual base: the earliest manuscript is a 12th century Latin manuscript which appears to have been translated from Arabic (which means there was probably a Syriac recension en route between the Greek and the Latin). There are late Byzantine-era Greek manuscripts of the work on which our modern editions are based. But Aristotle “makes sense” in a 4th century B.C. context. Similar issues plague the textual history of virtually every ancient book–with, perhaps, the New Testament books being about the best-attested in number and dating of manuscripts.
Similarly, the 9th century copies of the 7th century Islamic sources could well be accurate.
While I am by no means a Syriac scholar, I know enough about how languages work (including something of Hebrew and Aramaic) to see Thomas the Presbyter’s mention of Tayyaye d’Mhmt as credible witness to some “Muhammad”. It could well be that others who thought “the prophet with a sword” was a living contemporary may well report the false first impression held by the newly conquered.
On the other hand, the argument noting that Petra, or somewhere near it, was the original Qibla and the absence of any substantiation of Makka as a pre-Islamic trading and pilgrimage hub seems far stronger.
That the Sana’a Qur’an is a palimpsest over an earlier edition that is both similar to and different from the overwriting suggests a major project of deciphering the underlying text. But, concerning that the earliest Qur’an is somewhere between 578-645 A.D., you do have an overlap with Muhammad’s life; and the range of dates is about par for the accuracy of Carbon dating.
Use of pre-existing sources is, from the perspective of a Christian author, a very weak argument against the Qur’an as a holy book. Such an argument would hold water only with those who suppose that ny sacred book has to be totally original. Instead, the arguments which RObert Spencer has presented elsewhere (along with others) about the garbled character and utter misunderstanding of Christian tradition evident in the QUr’an and Hadith are a stronger argument.
Certainly, Muhammad, or early Muslims, or both, sought to present their system as carrying on the teachings of earlier traditions. That seems a core claim of Islam, and one would expect some kind of intertextuality in its scripture. Hence, there is a picking-and-choosing among Midrashic commentary rather than the Old Testament itself (young Abram in Nimrod’s furnace, for instance), the New Testament (the Qur’ani account of John the Baptist’s birth seems to partly echo Luke; the account of Jesus slaying the antichrist has at least a tenuous connection with Paul’s Apocalyptic message in II Thessalonians 2; and non-canonical or heretical Christian sources (Jesus speaking from the cradle is lifted from the Protevangelium of James; his non-Crucifixion may reflect some kind of Docetic teaching). Yet it is also clear that either Muhammad or the early compilers of the Qur’an had little sense of the implication of identifying Jesus as the Messiah; and they certainly misrepresented the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
Consider how the New Testament, as a parallel and earlier case, makes much use of the Old Testament. There are also echoes of Midrashic methods of exegesis in Jesus and Paul. The use of the Old Testament, though, should be expected, especially since Christians have never de-canonized it, nor excused themselves from reading it on the grounds that it is hopelessly corrupted. Further, Christians accept that when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn. 1:14), he came into a historical and cultural context (part of what it is to be human). For Christians (at least those of us in the Reformed, or “Calvinist” tradition), the continuity between Old and New Testaments is proof of divine work, not evidence against it.
This being said, the textual and tradition connections between the Qur’an and its precursors should be studied. Could it ultimately end in a supposition that the compilers of the Qur’an and earliest Islamic tradition have given us a reworked synthesis of the originally antithetical (and separated in time) movements of Docetism and Arianism? Could this tell us something of Arabian spiritual and theological culture in the pre-Islamic age? Just questions which a student is posing to his teachers.
mortimersays
Kepha, you insist that Mohammed existed without reading this new book! How do you know that without reading ‘DID MOHAMMED EXIST?’
There is large and growing body of information about foundational Islam that has emerged after 2012. More facts are appearing every week as more and more scholars contribute to the growing corpus of historical material about foundational Islam. Early references to ‘mhmt’ appear to be references to an honorific epithet similar to ‘augustus’ or ‘sebastos’, rather than to an actual individual whose first name was ‘mhmt’. There may have been a number of men given the epithet ‘mhmt’, as there were many Caesars and family members ennobled by the epithet ‘augustus’ or ‘augusta’.
Kephasays
I read the 2012 edition; and, from what is said in this discussion, the argument as not changed much. While I disbelieve in Muhammad’s supposed prophetic calling, I accept that his movement may well have changed the record and coined legends. But I also do not believe that the evidence that Mr. Spencer (whom I continue to greatly respect) adds up to a proof of Muhammad’s non-historicity. COunt my dissent as a respectful disagreement.
gravenimagesays
Kepha, I agree that some of the references to Muhammed seem so bizarre–even for the time–and so specific that I personally believe it likely that these stories may have been based on a real person–or perhaps more than one person. Most likely a warlord (or several).
But I very much welcome these scholarly queries. And these investigations certainly give the lie to the Islamic claim that the “Prophet” Muhammed was a well-known figure who corresponded with the leaders of the Persian and Byzantine empires. This is important to know.
And simply undertaking this investigation in the first place–whatever its conclusions–is important because this is something that Islam prohibits. The more “sunshine” that can be cast on Islam in all its aspects the better.
Kephasays
Did I anywhere imply that Mr. Spencer’s line of inquiry was somehow illegitimate, or that the evidence presented is unreliable? I merely offered a respectful dissent holding that while the evidence contradicts the orthodox Islamic account, it does not prove the non-existence of a successful Arab warlord named Muhammad.
As you well know, I do not accept that Muhammad was a prophet, and as a Christian, I find all the Islamic apologetics aimed at my fellow Christians overwhelmingly unconvincing. I think I have some understanding of the Qur’an’s references to prior Jewish and Christian writing (although points where it echoes native Arabian lore is an area where I’d be weak) as well. It’s just that I believe that Muhammad was a real person who was a successful Arab warlord of the late 6th and early 7th centuries A.D., had a somewhat garbled grasp of Jewish and Christian teaching, and was no prophet of God.
gravenimagesays
I think we largely agree, Kepha. And note that Spencer’s bood does not say “Muhhamad Didn’t Exist”–it just questions the evidence. That there is no evidence dating from the period that is not from an Islamic source is interesting–especially given the Muslim claim that he corresponded with other leaders of his time.
gregbeethamsays
I think it has been established beyond doubt that Islam is a fabrication and Muhammad was/is a borrowed character or an amalgamation of possibly more than one tribal leader’s biographies at a later time and place to throw most off the scent of deception. The purpose of it was to unite the tribes, and more than that, keep them united, so it had to have teeth, something that most of the other religions did really have much of; Islam proved adequate to the task.
The places that were invaded and who recorded something about the event didn’t mention anything about Muslims or Islam, that came later after they had got the Koran into some kind of shape, but it continued to evolve after the fact.
Have a look at this excellent Al Fadi exchange with Adam Seeker where they discuss Koran issues, some texts were erased and written over which illustrates the hypocrisy of the preservation of the Koran.
Also as a former Muslim Adam describes the infant brainwashing that is perpetrated on the very young which explains the fanaticism and denial of contradictory evidence, even incontrovertible evidence can be brushed aside or ignored.
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thealfadi/videos/1127856724376383
Infidelsays
All this does make me curious about who initiated this scam called ‘islam’ in the first place? Was it the Abbasids? The Umayyads? Who exactly defeated the Byzantines and Sassanids and overran Syria, Persia, Egypt, Sind, North Africa and Andalusia, since those territories were conquered before the 9th century?
Kepha’s post presents an excellent insight into the possible existence of Muhammad, aka Qutham. This, from the theological standpoint where the Holy Bible warns about False Prophets that would deceive many and others who would deny that Jesus is the Son of God. The account of a spiritual being appearing to Muhammad in a dark cave and revealing teachings that would eventually result in writings within the Qur’an and Ahadith are also evident of how false prophets have arisen to lie, deceive and preach a religion that is influenced by the spirit of anti-christ. As for who is responsible for Islam or any other false teaching that denies the Truth about Jesus being the Son of God, Lamb of God whose Atoning Blood was shed for the sins of mankind, Resurrected Savior for those who accept Him by faith, and the Jewish Messiah who will return to establish God’s Millennial Kingdom on earth: well, the Holy Bible also reveals who is responsible. This reveals that Muhammad, aka Qutham, was not a related prophet of the Judeo-Christian faith and that Islam does not believe in the same God. Unfortunately, there are Interfaith denominations that believe Muslims worship the same God, as noted in the following article: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2003-06-26-0306260340-story.html
Ecosse1314says
+1
Kephasays
Thank you, Mike. But, as I’ve replied to others here, I still believe that Mr. Spencer has pursued a legitimate line of inquiry, even if I respectfully dissent from his findings. Yes, I believe that Muhammad (and Joseph Smith, Jr., Katherine Kuhlmann, Keneth Hagen, and a few others.) are covered by Jesus’ warnings about false prophets!
Thanks, Kepha. By the way, when you have some time to set aside, i would like to invite you to take a look at my research posted on the Internet at http://www.Starman3000.com
It’s a short, easy-to-read treatise that compares Islam to the Judeo-Christian faith. It has been viewed in countries throughout the world including Muslim nations. Besides the U.S., the two nations where it is mostly accessed is the Russian Federation and China. My email address is included if you ever wish to correspond with questions or comments. This invitation is also extended to anyone else who may be interested.
Thanks and God bless.
The weakest part of the book is the Lulling & Luxenberg ‘Quran is in the wrong language’ work. DME 2 would have been more effective if this had been cut out. The South Arabian script has the vowelling but Yemen (Himyar) was not an Arabic speaking area. So ANA (Ancient North Arabic) was the lingua franca of the territory north of this. The strongest part is the material about Arabia-although see my ‘DME-A counterblast against the revisionists’ available on Kindle.
Note: If the acronym DME is phonetically pronounced, it would sound like the word “dhimmi.” Yikes! Lol
Kephasays
I would appreciate some who are learned in the area to weigh in on when Arabic (or its Ancient North Arabic predecessor) started to become a written language. I have a stumble-about-the-Tanakh smattering of biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, and know something about how Syriac, a later form of Aramaic, works, but that’s as far as my Semitic scholarship goes.
gravenimagesays
I am no expert, Kepha, but I believe that written Arabic first appeared in the Greek-Syriac-Arabic form early in the 6th century, a few decades before Muhammed was supposed to have been born.
Rajasays
According to some posts in Quora, they sneaked into India as well but were destroyed.
Islam and other fascist ideologies’ existence is a living proof that the devil is working overtime to destroy our freedoms and the God-given choice to choose the good from the ugly.
Rajasays
That was a reply to Infidel.
Infidelsays
I get your point, but my question was that if there was no Mohammed, what exactly were the events that led the Arabs to become a fighting force that overran the Byzantine and Sassanid empires and quickly gain an empire that stretched from Cordoba to Brahmanabad. Did Abu Baqr, Umar I and Uthman really exist? How about Abd el Malik? At what point did the Arabs decide to invent a religion?
Remember that the Hadiths and Siras were all later compositions some 200 years after the facts. So did anyone named Ali actually exist, who was overthrown as caliph and later assassinated at Najaf? Or Imam Hussein’s story of being killed in battle at Karbala? What really were the events that happened before the establishment of the Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad?
Discover more from
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Kepha says
I agree that Muhammad was no prophet, and the discussion of the problems of finding near-contemporary sources on his life is intriguing. Further, I appreciate the exposure of the textual problems in the Qur’an. As a Christian, I hold no candle for Islam. I respect Robert Spencer’s scholarship, and defer to his knowledge of Arabic.
I have read the 2012 edition, and see that much of the evidence presented in that edition remains relevant.
However, while _Did Muhammad Exist_ raises an important and timely question, I remain convinced that a successful Arabian warlord named Muhammad ibn Abdallah actually lived and was active in the late 6th and early 7th centuries A.D.
Someone arising in a milieu off the beaten track of the major powers and centers of learning of the time (Arabia, in relationship to the East Roman Empire, Fertile Crescent, and Persia) will not register on the consciousness of his era until his movement gets too big to ignore.
We should be cautious about dismissing the 7th century sources existing in 9th century copies. We accept Aristotle’s _Politics_ on a far weaker textual base: the earliest manuscript is a 12th century Latin manuscript which appears to have been translated from Arabic (which means there was probably a Syriac recension en route between the Greek and the Latin). There are late Byzantine-era Greek manuscripts of the work on which our modern editions are based. But Aristotle “makes sense” in a 4th century B.C. context. Similar issues plague the textual history of virtually every ancient book–with, perhaps, the New Testament books being about the best-attested in number and dating of manuscripts.
Similarly, the 9th century copies of the 7th century Islamic sources could well be accurate.
While I am by no means a Syriac scholar, I know enough about how languages work (including something of Hebrew and Aramaic) to see Thomas the Presbyter’s mention of Tayyaye d’Mhmt as credible witness to some “Muhammad”. It could well be that others who thought “the prophet with a sword” was a living contemporary may well report the false first impression held by the newly conquered.
On the other hand, the argument noting that Petra, or somewhere near it, was the original Qibla and the absence of any substantiation of Makka as a pre-Islamic trading and pilgrimage hub seems far stronger.
That the Sana’a Qur’an is a palimpsest over an earlier edition that is both similar to and different from the overwriting suggests a major project of deciphering the underlying text. But, concerning that the earliest Qur’an is somewhere between 578-645 A.D., you do have an overlap with Muhammad’s life; and the range of dates is about par for the accuracy of Carbon dating.
Use of pre-existing sources is, from the perspective of a Christian author, a very weak argument against the Qur’an as a holy book. Such an argument would hold water only with those who suppose that ny sacred book has to be totally original. Instead, the arguments which RObert Spencer has presented elsewhere (along with others) about the garbled character and utter misunderstanding of Christian tradition evident in the QUr’an and Hadith are a stronger argument.
Certainly, Muhammad, or early Muslims, or both, sought to present their system as carrying on the teachings of earlier traditions. That seems a core claim of Islam, and one would expect some kind of intertextuality in its scripture. Hence, there is a picking-and-choosing among Midrashic commentary rather than the Old Testament itself (young Abram in Nimrod’s furnace, for instance), the New Testament (the Qur’ani account of John the Baptist’s birth seems to partly echo Luke; the account of Jesus slaying the antichrist has at least a tenuous connection with Paul’s Apocalyptic message in II Thessalonians 2; and non-canonical or heretical Christian sources (Jesus speaking from the cradle is lifted from the Protevangelium of James; his non-Crucifixion may reflect some kind of Docetic teaching). Yet it is also clear that either Muhammad or the early compilers of the Qur’an had little sense of the implication of identifying Jesus as the Messiah; and they certainly misrepresented the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
Consider how the New Testament, as a parallel and earlier case, makes much use of the Old Testament. There are also echoes of Midrashic methods of exegesis in Jesus and Paul. The use of the Old Testament, though, should be expected, especially since Christians have never de-canonized it, nor excused themselves from reading it on the grounds that it is hopelessly corrupted. Further, Christians accept that when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn. 1:14), he came into a historical and cultural context (part of what it is to be human). For Christians (at least those of us in the Reformed, or “Calvinist” tradition), the continuity between Old and New Testaments is proof of divine work, not evidence against it.
This being said, the textual and tradition connections between the Qur’an and its precursors should be studied. Could it ultimately end in a supposition that the compilers of the Qur’an and earliest Islamic tradition have given us a reworked synthesis of the originally antithetical (and separated in time) movements of Docetism and Arianism? Could this tell us something of Arabian spiritual and theological culture in the pre-Islamic age? Just questions which a student is posing to his teachers.
mortimer says
Kepha, you insist that Mohammed existed without reading this new book! How do you know that without reading ‘DID MOHAMMED EXIST?’
There is large and growing body of information about foundational Islam that has emerged after 2012. More facts are appearing every week as more and more scholars contribute to the growing corpus of historical material about foundational Islam. Early references to ‘mhmt’ appear to be references to an honorific epithet similar to ‘augustus’ or ‘sebastos’, rather than to an actual individual whose first name was ‘mhmt’. There may have been a number of men given the epithet ‘mhmt’, as there were many Caesars and family members ennobled by the epithet ‘augustus’ or ‘augusta’.
Kepha says
I read the 2012 edition; and, from what is said in this discussion, the argument as not changed much. While I disbelieve in Muhammad’s supposed prophetic calling, I accept that his movement may well have changed the record and coined legends. But I also do not believe that the evidence that Mr. Spencer (whom I continue to greatly respect) adds up to a proof of Muhammad’s non-historicity. COunt my dissent as a respectful disagreement.
gravenimage says
Kepha, I agree that some of the references to Muhammed seem so bizarre–even for the time–and so specific that I personally believe it likely that these stories may have been based on a real person–or perhaps more than one person. Most likely a warlord (or several).
But I very much welcome these scholarly queries. And these investigations certainly give the lie to the Islamic claim that the “Prophet” Muhammed was a well-known figure who corresponded with the leaders of the Persian and Byzantine empires. This is important to know.
And simply undertaking this investigation in the first place–whatever its conclusions–is important because this is something that Islam prohibits. The more “sunshine” that can be cast on Islam in all its aspects the better.
Kepha says
Did I anywhere imply that Mr. Spencer’s line of inquiry was somehow illegitimate, or that the evidence presented is unreliable? I merely offered a respectful dissent holding that while the evidence contradicts the orthodox Islamic account, it does not prove the non-existence of a successful Arab warlord named Muhammad.
As you well know, I do not accept that Muhammad was a prophet, and as a Christian, I find all the Islamic apologetics aimed at my fellow Christians overwhelmingly unconvincing. I think I have some understanding of the Qur’an’s references to prior Jewish and Christian writing (although points where it echoes native Arabian lore is an area where I’d be weak) as well. It’s just that I believe that Muhammad was a real person who was a successful Arab warlord of the late 6th and early 7th centuries A.D., had a somewhat garbled grasp of Jewish and Christian teaching, and was no prophet of God.
gravenimage says
I think we largely agree, Kepha. And note that Spencer’s bood does not say “Muhhamad Didn’t Exist”–it just questions the evidence. That there is no evidence dating from the period that is not from an Islamic source is interesting–especially given the Muslim claim that he corresponded with other leaders of his time.
gregbeetham says
I think it has been established beyond doubt that Islam is a fabrication and Muhammad was/is a borrowed character or an amalgamation of possibly more than one tribal leader’s biographies at a later time and place to throw most off the scent of deception. The purpose of it was to unite the tribes, and more than that, keep them united, so it had to have teeth, something that most of the other religions did really have much of; Islam proved adequate to the task.
The places that were invaded and who recorded something about the event didn’t mention anything about Muslims or Islam, that came later after they had got the Koran into some kind of shape, but it continued to evolve after the fact.
Have a look at this excellent Al Fadi exchange with Adam Seeker where they discuss Koran issues, some texts were erased and written over which illustrates the hypocrisy of the preservation of the Koran.
Also as a former Muslim Adam describes the infant brainwashing that is perpetrated on the very young which explains the fanaticism and denial of contradictory evidence, even incontrovertible evidence can be brushed aside or ignored.
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thealfadi/videos/1127856724376383
Infidel says
All this does make me curious about who initiated this scam called ‘islam’ in the first place? Was it the Abbasids? The Umayyads? Who exactly defeated the Byzantines and Sassanids and overran Syria, Persia, Egypt, Sind, North Africa and Andalusia, since those territories were conquered before the 9th century?
Mike Ramirez says
Kepha’s post presents an excellent insight into the possible existence of Muhammad, aka Qutham. This, from the theological standpoint where the Holy Bible warns about False Prophets that would deceive many and others who would deny that Jesus is the Son of God. The account of a spiritual being appearing to Muhammad in a dark cave and revealing teachings that would eventually result in writings within the Qur’an and Ahadith are also evident of how false prophets have arisen to lie, deceive and preach a religion that is influenced by the spirit of anti-christ. As for who is responsible for Islam or any other false teaching that denies the Truth about Jesus being the Son of God, Lamb of God whose Atoning Blood was shed for the sins of mankind, Resurrected Savior for those who accept Him by faith, and the Jewish Messiah who will return to establish God’s Millennial Kingdom on earth: well, the Holy Bible also reveals who is responsible. This reveals that Muhammad, aka Qutham, was not a related prophet of the Judeo-Christian faith and that Islam does not believe in the same God. Unfortunately, there are Interfaith denominations that believe Muslims worship the same God, as noted in the following article:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2003-06-26-0306260340-story.html
Ecosse1314 says
+1
Kepha says
Thank you, Mike. But, as I’ve replied to others here, I still believe that Mr. Spencer has pursued a legitimate line of inquiry, even if I respectfully dissent from his findings. Yes, I believe that Muhammad (and Joseph Smith, Jr., Katherine Kuhlmann, Keneth Hagen, and a few others.) are covered by Jesus’ warnings about false prophets!
Mike Ramirez says
Thanks, Kepha. By the way, when you have some time to set aside, i would like to invite you to take a look at my research posted on the Internet at
http://www.Starman3000.com
It’s a short, easy-to-read treatise that compares Islam to the Judeo-Christian faith. It has been viewed in countries throughout the world including Muslim nations. Besides the U.S., the two nations where it is mostly accessed is the Russian Federation and China. My email address is included if you ever wish to correspond with questions or comments. This invitation is also extended to anyone else who may be interested.
Thanks and God bless.
Francis says
The weakest part of the book is the Lulling & Luxenberg ‘Quran is in the wrong language’ work. DME 2 would have been more effective if this had been cut out. The South Arabian script has the vowelling but Yemen (Himyar) was not an Arabic speaking area. So ANA (Ancient North Arabic) was the lingua franca of the territory north of this. The strongest part is the material about Arabia-although see my ‘DME-A counterblast against the revisionists’ available on Kindle.
Mike Ramirez says
Note: If the acronym DME is phonetically pronounced, it would sound like the word “dhimmi.” Yikes! Lol
Kepha says
I would appreciate some who are learned in the area to weigh in on when Arabic (or its Ancient North Arabic predecessor) started to become a written language. I have a stumble-about-the-Tanakh smattering of biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, and know something about how Syriac, a later form of Aramaic, works, but that’s as far as my Semitic scholarship goes.
gravenimage says
I am no expert, Kepha, but I believe that written Arabic first appeared in the Greek-Syriac-Arabic form early in the 6th century, a few decades before Muhammed was supposed to have been born.
Raja says
According to some posts in Quora, they sneaked into India as well but were destroyed.
Islam and other fascist ideologies’ existence is a living proof that the devil is working overtime to destroy our freedoms and the God-given choice to choose the good from the ugly.
Raja says
That was a reply to Infidel.
Infidel says
I get your point, but my question was that if there was no Mohammed, what exactly were the events that led the Arabs to become a fighting force that overran the Byzantine and Sassanid empires and quickly gain an empire that stretched from Cordoba to Brahmanabad. Did Abu Baqr, Umar I and Uthman really exist? How about Abd el Malik? At what point did the Arabs decide to invent a religion?
Remember that the Hadiths and Siras were all later compositions some 200 years after the facts. So did anyone named Ali actually exist, who was overthrown as caliph and later assassinated at Najaf? Or Imam Hussein’s story of being killed in battle at Karbala? What really were the events that happened before the establishment of the Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad?