Filmed yesterday. Get the book Did Muhammad Exist?here.
Comments
Raleigh Eppsays
He got interrogated by the CBSA at the Toronto International Airport several years ago in Toronto, Ontario, Canada!
Sharmisthasays
Nicely explained
gravenimagesays
Sharmistha, are you new here? Welcome to Jihad Watch!
gravenimagesays
Video: Jay Smith interviews Robert Spencer on “Did Muhammad Exist?”
…………..
Fine interview.
mortimersays
Muslims, take note. The harder you look for your prophet, the less visible he becomes. History has almost no proof that Mohammed existed.
The caliphs concocted Mohammed from legends and they created many of those legends as well. There is no archeology to support Mecca was a holy city or a city at all until 110 years after the purported death of the mysterious figure the Koran calls ‘Ahmed’. For 60 years following the death of Mohammed, no one spoke of him.
I thoroughly recommend “Did Muhammad Exist?” by Robert Spencer. It will change your mind, especially if you are a Muslim looking for answers.
Terry Gainsays
Mortimer,
If Mohammed never existed then how does one explain the difference between the Meccan Koran and the Medinan Koran?
mortimersays
Yes, and they couldn’t find a single thing in any of Robert Spencer’s many books and hundreds of articles and speeches that broke any laws. In frustration, they asked him what bad things he might have said. They were stumped by the wild goose chase that the Libtard politicians had sent them on.
The Lib-Jihad Party of Canuckistan is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Steve Wollamsays
Let’s not forget how the Republicans have supported Islam via Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc.
Follow the money. Republican Presidents love the Wahhabi Sunni Saudis and are, therefore, supporting Wahhabi Sunni Islam. And, the Wahhabis are radical Islamic fundamentalists much like ISIS and the Taliban. Plus, the Saudis have always supported terrorism. After all, 15 of the 19 terrorists of 9/11/2001 were Saudi.
gravenimagesays
Actually, every American president for almost a century–of both parties–has considered Saudi Arabia to be an ally. This is just terribly foolish.
mortimersays
Referring to Raleigh Epp above: CSBA found nothing to criticize in Robert Spencer. It was pure harassment initiated no doubt by the Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the Jihadi Justin government.
mortimersays
To TG: did you read ‘Did Muhammad Exist?’ I did. The Koran refers to ‘Ahmad’. Who was he? The two Korans that you refer to raise an excellent question: Were there TWO ‘Mohammeds’? Were there MORE than two ‘Mohammeds’? The very name ‘Mohammed’ may actually refer to Christ according to a number of scholars. ‘Mohammed’ is ‘The PRAISED One’. Only God should be praised, not a human!! ‘The Praised One’ can only refer to the Son of God, but Abd al Malek changed it to refer to the Prophet. He did not realize (or care) that praising a human is blasphemous!
So, the very terminology of Islam is suspicious. Islam is all mixed up (as Spencer says in the interview). No Islamic teaching is consistent. Every teaching is paired with a contradiction or update or abrogation. Well over 100 verses in the Koran are abrogated.
I call the Koran one of the greatest cases of BAIT-AND-SWITCH. Bait-and-switch is the most constant feature of a criminal mind. The first book about Mohammed that was written is called ‘The Raids’ … it was destroyed by other Mohammedans and no longer exists. A desert caravan raider was later endued with a fake biography that made him a religious leader.
Listen to interview, TG. Robert Spencer gives all this material.
Terry Gainsays
Mortimer
Thank you. I will listen to it when I have time, but you’ve answered a very important question for me. Your answer perhaps explains why the Koran says that Christians should follow the Bible.
mortimersays
Yes, GI, in fact, it is likely the BEST interview on this topic with TWO SUPERBLY INFORMED men who have worked for decades on this historical material.
This interview should be emailed to EVERYONE we all know. It is VERY DAMAGING to the traditional narrative of foundational Islam.
Muslims who hear this for the first time will have their faith severely challenged. This interview is a tsunami of damaging evidence against Islam!
If you are unaware of this material, I recommend people listen to this interview at least three times … four will be better.
Please, everyone, get this material into your brain. It should be at our fingertips. Then we can change the world.
This is as close to a crash course in ‘The Foundations of Islam’ as you will get! Magnificent and packed with information!
YOU SHOULD ALL TAKE THE TIME … LISTEN TO THIS INTERVIEW.
To TG: The Koran does indeed tell Christians that ‘they have nothing to stand on if they do not stand on the Gospel’ (‘the gospel’ is the original name of the Christian Bible).
The author of the Koran did not know that the New Testament was 90% or more contradicted by the Koran. This cocksure endorsement of the NT was a blockheaded mistake by the author of the Koran. The Koran endorses the inspiration, preservation and authority of the Christian Bible.
This error shows that the author of the Koran was NOT all-knowing. Humans are not ‘all-knowing’, so the author of the Koran was human.
This proves the Koran is a manmade forgery.
FYIsays
There is also the silly nonsense of Jesus having the Gospel,given to Him by allah{since allah of course claims he wrote it}which is an obvious historical error.
“WE bestowed on {Jesus} the Gospel wherein are guidance and a light confirming that which was revealed before it in the Torah”
Koran 5 v 46
But the Gospel was not written personally by God{Christians don’t believe that and neither was the Torah} but by humans empowered by God’s Holy Spirit{note the HS is MISSING in islam}and it came AFTER the Time of Jesus.
Consider too the nonsense of Jesus having the Gospel even as an infant in a a crib..
“Lo!I am the slave of allah.he hath given me the SCRIPTURE and appointed me a prophet”
Koran 19:30
The dawa folk insist that {koran 19:30} is Jesus speaking in the koran but it is not an adult as we can see from the context{the birth of a baby koran 19 v 23-27}and the previous line {koran 19:29} when visitors ask “How can we talk to one who is in cradle,a little boy”}
Yes indeed:how do you talk to an infant in a crib?But never mind,it speaks like an adult.And this “Jesus” is of course,an Arabic speaking muslim and definitely not Jewish.
allah confirms the Gospel in koran 5:47 and since he claims he wrote it{“that which allah hath revealed” }he even condemns those who don’t Judge by it,calling them evil:that is something which muslims who attack the Bible don’t get or don’t know.
allah actually condemns muslims who attack the Gospel as evil doers.
FYIsays
And another thing;allah claims he gave the Torah{which of course he personally wrote himself}to musa {the muslim moses}
“And verily WE gave unto musa the scripture..”
koran 2:87
But the Torah was revealed in HEBREW,not in Arabic.
allah insists in the koran he can only be understood via Arabic koran 41:44.Then WHY oh why was the Torah not revealed in Arabic then?
Why reveal the Torah in HEBREW?
In going from the Torah to the Gospel to the koran {if allah was the same as YHWH}it would mean that God somehow lost the ability to be understood in…. OTHER languages.Did allah forget the Torah was written down and revealed in HEBREW?
A universal God is available in ALL languages which is why a Bible is available in ANY language.
Sad allah the Arab can only be understood via Arabic:yet he claims to be the author of the Torah which was revealed …in HEBREW!
Of course the answer is simple;allah the linguistically challenged ARAB god of the koran is NOT the multilingual YHWH of the Bible.
allah of the koran is a fake Arab god impersonating the Biblical God, desperately hoping nobody will see all the ERRORS in his “perfect” book.
gravenimagesays
Mortimer and FYI, Islam has an out on this. It claims that the “Injeel” (Gospel) was corrupted by Christians, and originally did not contradict the Qur’an. Never mind that there is no proof for this of any kind.
Kesselmansays
For the sake of Arabic conquer Mo and Islam were invented as a unifying force. Excellent interview on the origin of Mohammad; Spencer is an expert.—Interesting to later learn about the “exact” origin of Allah. A Mideast moon-god, perhaps?
Henry Mansfieldsays
Interesting.
As a child I remember being agnostic about whether Jesus really existed or if He had a divine origin, as in the story of Christmas. I was more concerned with day to day life in a Christian culture.
Many Muslims in a Muslim culture must have felt the same way.
After learning more about the differences in cultures and theology, it’s made me more appreciative of the example set forth by Jesus.
The self-sacrifice and application of ethics inspired by Jesus may seem like weakness compared to the violence and degradation inspired by Mohammed, but across a culture over generations it leads to much better results.
A survey of facts on the ground in traditionally Christian versus Muslim lands confirms this rather quickly.
gravenimagesays
So true.
Shapleighsays
Great historical discussion. It’s all about conquering the west which many Muslims see as weak. Islam has to reform or we are all just blowing hot air. Many in the Islamic world just want revenge against the west, which they see as culturally inferior, in my opinion. These two men are an inspiration and make me want to get involved more and work harder, thank you.
mortimersays
A companion video to the above: Who was the false prophet referred to in ‘Doctrina Jacobi’?
Conclusion: it describes a Saracen warlord, brigand and anarchist who is a Christian heretic.
Yes, FYI, very good. This is the Koranic Dilemma … since the Koran endorses the Bible available in the 7th century and since the 7th century Bible text is the same as that of today (apart from minor differences) and since the Koran contradicts the Bible, the Koran contradicts and refutes itself and is exposed as a manmade forgery. An all-knowing deity would not make factual blunders when the text of the Bible was well-established and widely available in the 7th century in several languages. There is no way for Muslims to wiggle out of the Koranic dilemma.
Keep working on it. However, this the MOHAMMED DILEMMA we are discussing.
Francis Lankestersays
RS is wrong regarding Did Muhammad Exist as mainstream scholarship rejects the thesis of the book Hagarism which tellingly Patricia Crone herself later rejected. For an explanation why Muhammad is not very visible in the 7century see Wakeley, The Two Falls of Rome. Also remember that Muslims were a tiny minority at first and would have had to tread warily until strongly established. Caliph Muawiyya tried to issue coins but the Christian majority would not use them. Only later was Abdul Malik strong enough to issue overtly Islamic coinage and build the Dome of the Rock to overawed Jerusalem.
gravenimagesays
Francis, “Did Muhammad Exist” is a *question*. The idea that Infidels should not be allowed to ask questions about Islam is utterly false–although this is indeed what pious Muslims say.
The fact is that there is virtually no mention of the “Prophet” Muhammad for the first hundred and fifty years or so of Islam–certainly, this is an interesting and unexpected discovery. Why shouldn’t Infidels be allowed to explore this point of history?
And the idea that violent Muslims conquering their neighbors–in less than a hundred years after the start of Islam, they conquered Arabia, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Persia, North Africa, Iberia, and parts of India–were “treading warily” is just grimly hilarious.
Francis Lankestersays
My point is that it has been explored and the idea has been found wanting. Two important things to keep in mind are that archeological evidence is often pretty limited, and the Saudi government has trashed Mecca to ‘modernize’ it and keep in with the ulema by pretending that it does this to properly Islamicise remains from the Jahiliyya-the supposed time of ignorance before Islam. Secondly, political structures do not appear until they are needed. Coins with ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of God’ were first minted by governors of Abdullah ibn Zubayr, the counter caliph to Abdul Malik as a propaganda accusation that the Ummayyads were not Islamic enough. Abdul Malik learned a lesson from this and covered himself and his dynasty by wrapping them in the Prophet. See Robert Hoyland’s work (a student of Patricia Crone) especially ‘Seeing Islam As Others Saw It’ and comments that non-Muslim sources from the conquest period and soon after do identify Muhammad.
Ecosse1314says
Please explain Mecca. No evidence that a highly respected trade centre existed there at this time.
Would also be helpful if you could explain the use of Syriac words in a book with claims to be pure Arabic.
Lastly where are the Korans discovered in a mosque in Sana’a Yemen.
gravenimagesays
Francis Lankester wrote:
My point is that it has been explored and the idea has been found wanting.
………………….
The implication that one cannot explore an aspect of history because you have found it wanting is mistaken.
More:
Two important things to keep in mind are that archeological evidence is often pretty limited, and the Saudi government has trashed Mecca to ‘modernize’ it and keep in with the ulema by pretending that it does this to properly Islamicise remains from the Jahiliyya-the supposed time of ignorance before Islam.
………………….
This is true. The idea that Saudi Arabia has removed all mention of the “Prophet” Muhammad strains credulity, though. Then, the Saudis have only been in power for about a century. The implication that no one has ever engaged in archeology in Arabia prior to this is incorrect.
Moreover, there are no third-party references to Muhammad, either. It is noteworthy that the Byzantine Empire, Persia, and other surrounding polities made no mention of Muhammad.
More:
Secondly, political structures do not appear until they are needed. Coins with ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of God’ were first minted by governors of Abdullah ibn Zubayr, the counter caliph to Abdul Malik as a propaganda accusation that the Ummayyads were not Islamic enough. Abdul Malik learned a lesson from this and covered himself and his dynasty by wrapping them in the Prophet. See Robert Hoyland’s work (a student of Patricia Crone) especially ‘Seeing Islam As Others Saw It’ and comments that non-Muslim sources from the conquest period and soon after do identify Muhammad.
………………….
Actually, Robert Spencer does indeed address this:
This was not until 685 AD. This was over fifty years after Muhammad is supposed to have died, and this reference stands virtually alone for many years, and it is by no means clear that this refers to the historical Muhammad, should one exist.
I actually think that Muhammad was so specific in his viciousness that he likely did exist–or else was possibly an amalgam of several figures. But this figure’s historicity is *certainly* a valid subject for study, just as are the historic figures of Jesus and Buddha (this is where the similarity ends, of course).
Ecosse1314says
Mr Lankester has mentioned that “these views have been found wanting”. I wonder if these scholars who have come to this conclusion are on the payroll of certain countries. Indeed it would be interesting who funds their research.
Lo Allah is very generous.
Holger Krugersays
Really good video. Time for rethinking…..
Hesham Shehabsays
I realized the issue of the Quran and the “Islamization” of Arab history during the Umayyad period when I was writing my Ph. D dissertation on Ibn Al Zubair. A lot of facts are buried under textual rubble!
tim gallaghersays
I do not believe that Mo existed. It would be very appropriate if, at the very core of islam, which is full of endless lies and nonsense, is that central lie, that Mo didn’t even exist. The troubling thing is that this disgusting ideology, Islam, has been so successful. Over a billion members of this evil cult. I think it shows, unfortunately, how successful murderous violence and thuggery, which terrorises people into submission, can be. Hopefully, the disgusting cult will die out some day. The world would be so much better without it.
eduardo odraudesays
Here’s Jay Smith using his powerful voice at Speakers Corner:
Raleigh Epp says
He got interrogated by the CBSA at the Toronto International Airport several years ago in Toronto, Ontario, Canada!
Sharmistha says
Nicely explained
gravenimage says
Sharmistha, are you new here? Welcome to Jihad Watch!
gravenimage says
Video: Jay Smith interviews Robert Spencer on “Did Muhammad Exist?”
…………..
Fine interview.
mortimer says
Muslims, take note. The harder you look for your prophet, the less visible he becomes. History has almost no proof that Mohammed existed.
The caliphs concocted Mohammed from legends and they created many of those legends as well. There is no archeology to support Mecca was a holy city or a city at all until 110 years after the purported death of the mysterious figure the Koran calls ‘Ahmed’. For 60 years following the death of Mohammed, no one spoke of him.
I thoroughly recommend “Did Muhammad Exist?” by Robert Spencer. It will change your mind, especially if you are a Muslim looking for answers.
Terry Gain says
Mortimer,
If Mohammed never existed then how does one explain the difference between the Meccan Koran and the Medinan Koran?
mortimer says
Yes, and they couldn’t find a single thing in any of Robert Spencer’s many books and hundreds of articles and speeches that broke any laws. In frustration, they asked him what bad things he might have said. They were stumped by the wild goose chase that the Libtard politicians had sent them on.
The Lib-Jihad Party of Canuckistan is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Steve Wollam says
Let’s not forget how the Republicans have supported Islam via Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc.
Follow the money. Republican Presidents love the Wahhabi Sunni Saudis and are, therefore, supporting Wahhabi Sunni Islam. And, the Wahhabis are radical Islamic fundamentalists much like ISIS and the Taliban. Plus, the Saudis have always supported terrorism. After all, 15 of the 19 terrorists of 9/11/2001 were Saudi.
gravenimage says
Actually, every American president for almost a century–of both parties–has considered Saudi Arabia to be an ally. This is just terribly foolish.
mortimer says
Referring to Raleigh Epp above: CSBA found nothing to criticize in Robert Spencer. It was pure harassment initiated no doubt by the Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the Jihadi Justin government.
mortimer says
To TG: did you read ‘Did Muhammad Exist?’ I did. The Koran refers to ‘Ahmad’. Who was he? The two Korans that you refer to raise an excellent question: Were there TWO ‘Mohammeds’? Were there MORE than two ‘Mohammeds’? The very name ‘Mohammed’ may actually refer to Christ according to a number of scholars. ‘Mohammed’ is ‘The PRAISED One’. Only God should be praised, not a human!! ‘The Praised One’ can only refer to the Son of God, but Abd al Malek changed it to refer to the Prophet. He did not realize (or care) that praising a human is blasphemous!
So, the very terminology of Islam is suspicious. Islam is all mixed up (as Spencer says in the interview). No Islamic teaching is consistent. Every teaching is paired with a contradiction or update or abrogation. Well over 100 verses in the Koran are abrogated.
I call the Koran one of the greatest cases of BAIT-AND-SWITCH. Bait-and-switch is the most constant feature of a criminal mind. The first book about Mohammed that was written is called ‘The Raids’ … it was destroyed by other Mohammedans and no longer exists. A desert caravan raider was later endued with a fake biography that made him a religious leader.
Listen to interview, TG. Robert Spencer gives all this material.
Terry Gain says
Mortimer
Thank you. I will listen to it when I have time, but you’ve answered a very important question for me. Your answer perhaps explains why the Koran says that Christians should follow the Bible.
mortimer says
Yes, GI, in fact, it is likely the BEST interview on this topic with TWO SUPERBLY INFORMED men who have worked for decades on this historical material.
This interview should be emailed to EVERYONE we all know. It is VERY DAMAGING to the traditional narrative of foundational Islam.
Muslims who hear this for the first time will have their faith severely challenged. This interview is a tsunami of damaging evidence against Islam!
If you are unaware of this material, I recommend people listen to this interview at least three times … four will be better.
Please, everyone, get this material into your brain. It should be at our fingertips. Then we can change the world.
This is as close to a crash course in ‘The Foundations of Islam’ as you will get! Magnificent and packed with information!
YOU SHOULD ALL TAKE THE TIME … LISTEN TO THIS INTERVIEW.
gravenimage says
+1
Relic says
public
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUo5lKDUJVw
mortimer says
To TG: The Koran does indeed tell Christians that ‘they have nothing to stand on if they do not stand on the Gospel’ (‘the gospel’ is the original name of the Christian Bible).
The author of the Koran did not know that the New Testament was 90% or more contradicted by the Koran. This cocksure endorsement of the NT was a blockheaded mistake by the author of the Koran. The Koran endorses the inspiration, preservation and authority of the Christian Bible.
This error shows that the author of the Koran was NOT all-knowing. Humans are not ‘all-knowing’, so the author of the Koran was human.
This proves the Koran is a manmade forgery.
FYI says
There is also the silly nonsense of Jesus having the Gospel,given to Him by allah{since allah of course claims he wrote it}which is an obvious historical error.
“WE bestowed on {Jesus} the Gospel wherein are guidance and a light confirming that which was revealed before it in the Torah”
Koran 5 v 46
But the Gospel was not written personally by God{Christians don’t believe that and neither was the Torah} but by humans empowered by God’s Holy Spirit{note the HS is MISSING in islam}and it came AFTER the Time of Jesus.
Consider too the nonsense of Jesus having the Gospel even as an infant in a a crib..
“Lo!I am the slave of allah.he hath given me the SCRIPTURE and appointed me a prophet”
Koran 19:30
The dawa folk insist that {koran 19:30} is Jesus speaking in the koran but it is not an adult as we can see from the context{the birth of a baby koran 19 v 23-27}and the previous line {koran 19:29} when visitors ask “How can we talk to one who is in cradle,a little boy”}
Yes indeed:how do you talk to an infant in a crib?But never mind,it speaks like an adult.And this “Jesus” is of course,an Arabic speaking muslim and definitely not Jewish.
allah confirms the Gospel in koran 5:47 and since he claims he wrote it{“that which allah hath revealed” }he even condemns those who don’t Judge by it,calling them evil:that is something which muslims who attack the Bible don’t get or don’t know.
allah actually condemns muslims who attack the Gospel as evil doers.
FYI says
And another thing;allah claims he gave the Torah{which of course he personally wrote himself}to musa {the muslim moses}
“And verily WE gave unto musa the scripture..”
koran 2:87
But the Torah was revealed in HEBREW,not in Arabic.
allah insists in the koran he can only be understood via Arabic koran 41:44.Then WHY oh why was the Torah not revealed in Arabic then?
Why reveal the Torah in HEBREW?
In going from the Torah to the Gospel to the koran {if allah was the same as YHWH}it would mean that God somehow lost the ability to be understood in…. OTHER languages.Did allah forget the Torah was written down and revealed in HEBREW?
A universal God is available in ALL languages which is why a Bible is available in ANY language.
Sad allah the Arab can only be understood via Arabic:yet he claims to be the author of the Torah which was revealed …in HEBREW!
Of course the answer is simple;allah the linguistically challenged ARAB god of the koran is NOT the multilingual YHWH of the Bible.
allah of the koran is a fake Arab god impersonating the Biblical God, desperately hoping nobody will see all the ERRORS in his “perfect” book.
gravenimage says
Mortimer and FYI, Islam has an out on this. It claims that the “Injeel” (Gospel) was corrupted by Christians, and originally did not contradict the Qur’an. Never mind that there is no proof for this of any kind.
Kesselman says
For the sake of Arabic conquer Mo and Islam were invented as a unifying force. Excellent interview on the origin of Mohammad; Spencer is an expert.—Interesting to later learn about the “exact” origin of Allah. A Mideast moon-god, perhaps?
Henry Mansfield says
Interesting.
As a child I remember being agnostic about whether Jesus really existed or if He had a divine origin, as in the story of Christmas. I was more concerned with day to day life in a Christian culture.
Many Muslims in a Muslim culture must have felt the same way.
After learning more about the differences in cultures and theology, it’s made me more appreciative of the example set forth by Jesus.
The self-sacrifice and application of ethics inspired by Jesus may seem like weakness compared to the violence and degradation inspired by Mohammed, but across a culture over generations it leads to much better results.
A survey of facts on the ground in traditionally Christian versus Muslim lands confirms this rather quickly.
gravenimage says
So true.
Shapleigh says
Great historical discussion. It’s all about conquering the west which many Muslims see as weak. Islam has to reform or we are all just blowing hot air. Many in the Islamic world just want revenge against the west, which they see as culturally inferior, in my opinion. These two men are an inspiration and make me want to get involved more and work harder, thank you.
mortimer says
A companion video to the above: Who was the false prophet referred to in ‘Doctrina Jacobi’?
Conclusion: it describes a Saracen warlord, brigand and anarchist who is a Christian heretic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hamaVI-6_CQ
mortimer says
Yes, FYI, very good. This is the Koranic Dilemma … since the Koran endorses the Bible available in the 7th century and since the 7th century Bible text is the same as that of today (apart from minor differences) and since the Koran contradicts the Bible, the Koran contradicts and refutes itself and is exposed as a manmade forgery. An all-knowing deity would not make factual blunders when the text of the Bible was well-established and widely available in the 7th century in several languages. There is no way for Muslims to wiggle out of the Koranic dilemma.
Keep working on it. However, this the MOHAMMED DILEMMA we are discussing.
Francis Lankester says
RS is wrong regarding Did Muhammad Exist as mainstream scholarship rejects the thesis of the book Hagarism which tellingly Patricia Crone herself later rejected. For an explanation why Muhammad is not very visible in the 7century see Wakeley, The Two Falls of Rome. Also remember that Muslims were a tiny minority at first and would have had to tread warily until strongly established. Caliph Muawiyya tried to issue coins but the Christian majority would not use them. Only later was Abdul Malik strong enough to issue overtly Islamic coinage and build the Dome of the Rock to overawed Jerusalem.
gravenimage says
Francis, “Did Muhammad Exist” is a *question*. The idea that Infidels should not be allowed to ask questions about Islam is utterly false–although this is indeed what pious Muslims say.
The fact is that there is virtually no mention of the “Prophet” Muhammad for the first hundred and fifty years or so of Islam–certainly, this is an interesting and unexpected discovery. Why shouldn’t Infidels be allowed to explore this point of history?
And the idea that violent Muslims conquering their neighbors–in less than a hundred years after the start of Islam, they conquered Arabia, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Persia, North Africa, Iberia, and parts of India–were “treading warily” is just grimly hilarious.
Francis Lankester says
My point is that it has been explored and the idea has been found wanting. Two important things to keep in mind are that archeological evidence is often pretty limited, and the Saudi government has trashed Mecca to ‘modernize’ it and keep in with the ulema by pretending that it does this to properly Islamicise remains from the Jahiliyya-the supposed time of ignorance before Islam. Secondly, political structures do not appear until they are needed. Coins with ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of God’ were first minted by governors of Abdullah ibn Zubayr, the counter caliph to Abdul Malik as a propaganda accusation that the Ummayyads were not Islamic enough. Abdul Malik learned a lesson from this and covered himself and his dynasty by wrapping them in the Prophet. See Robert Hoyland’s work (a student of Patricia Crone) especially ‘Seeing Islam As Others Saw It’ and comments that non-Muslim sources from the conquest period and soon after do identify Muhammad.
Ecosse1314 says
Please explain Mecca. No evidence that a highly respected trade centre existed there at this time.
Would also be helpful if you could explain the use of Syriac words in a book with claims to be pure Arabic.
Lastly where are the Korans discovered in a mosque in Sana’a Yemen.
gravenimage says
Francis Lankester wrote:
My point is that it has been explored and the idea has been found wanting.
………………….
The implication that one cannot explore an aspect of history because you have found it wanting is mistaken.
More:
Two important things to keep in mind are that archeological evidence is often pretty limited, and the Saudi government has trashed Mecca to ‘modernize’ it and keep in with the ulema by pretending that it does this to properly Islamicise remains from the Jahiliyya-the supposed time of ignorance before Islam.
………………….
This is true. The idea that Saudi Arabia has removed all mention of the “Prophet” Muhammad strains credulity, though. Then, the Saudis have only been in power for about a century. The implication that no one has ever engaged in archeology in Arabia prior to this is incorrect.
Moreover, there are no third-party references to Muhammad, either. It is noteworthy that the Byzantine Empire, Persia, and other surrounding polities made no mention of Muhammad.
More:
Secondly, political structures do not appear until they are needed. Coins with ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of God’ were first minted by governors of Abdullah ibn Zubayr, the counter caliph to Abdul Malik as a propaganda accusation that the Ummayyads were not Islamic enough. Abdul Malik learned a lesson from this and covered himself and his dynasty by wrapping them in the Prophet. See Robert Hoyland’s work (a student of Patricia Crone) especially ‘Seeing Islam As Others Saw It’ and comments that non-Muslim sources from the conquest period and soon after do identify Muhammad.
………………….
Actually, Robert Spencer does indeed address this:
https://books.google.com/books?id=fE06AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT88&lpg=PT88&dq=earliest+Coins+with+%E2%80%98Muhammad+is+the+Messenger+of+God%E2%80%99+were+first+minted+by+governors+of+Abdullah+ibn+Zubayr&source=bl&ots=oP_KYW5g0I&sig=ACfU3U2tUpVKVCT9O27dr2LNT3WBiuTNkg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwil0Nv_8cjpAhURT6wKHbMbCVMQ6AEwAHoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=earliest%20Coins%20with%20%E2%80%98Muhammad%20is%20the%20Messenger%20of%20God%E2%80%99%20were%20first%20minted%20by%20governors%20of%20Abdullah%20ibn%20Zubayr&f=false
This was not until 685 AD. This was over fifty years after Muhammad is supposed to have died, and this reference stands virtually alone for many years, and it is by no means clear that this refers to the historical Muhammad, should one exist.
I actually think that Muhammad was so specific in his viciousness that he likely did exist–or else was possibly an amalgam of several figures. But this figure’s historicity is *certainly* a valid subject for study, just as are the historic figures of Jesus and Buddha (this is where the similarity ends, of course).
Ecosse1314 says
Mr Lankester has mentioned that “these views have been found wanting”. I wonder if these scholars who have come to this conclusion are on the payroll of certain countries. Indeed it would be interesting who funds their research.
Lo Allah is very generous.
Holger Kruger says
Really good video. Time for rethinking…..
Hesham Shehab says
I realized the issue of the Quran and the “Islamization” of Arab history during the Umayyad period when I was writing my Ph. D dissertation on Ibn Al Zubair. A lot of facts are buried under textual rubble!
tim gallagher says
I do not believe that Mo existed. It would be very appropriate if, at the very core of islam, which is full of endless lies and nonsense, is that central lie, that Mo didn’t even exist. The troubling thing is that this disgusting ideology, Islam, has been so successful. Over a billion members of this evil cult. I think it shows, unfortunately, how successful murderous violence and thuggery, which terrorises people into submission, can be. Hopefully, the disgusting cult will die out some day. The world would be so much better without it.
eduardo odraude says
Here’s Jay Smith using his powerful voice at Speakers Corner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95Z-42EXp7U
gravenimage says
+1
Lenny Leaps In says
You all should do a Youtube search on JAY SMITH. His teaching refuting Muhammed and the Koran are the best! Riveting watching.