Author’s note: This is the second segment of my review of Robert Spencer’s new revised and expanded edition of Did Muhammad Exist?. Part 1 is here.
In chapter 1, Spencer shows how, while the origins of Christianity have been subjected to critical examination for a very long time (after all Spinoza scrutinized the Old Testament skeptically as early as the seventeenth century), the origins of Islam have been scandalously accepted totally uncritically, and even credulously, ever since Ernest Renan (1823-1892) proclaimed confidently in the nineteenth century that Islam was born in the full light of history. Fortunately, there were some scholars who cast doubt on the historicity of the traditional Islamic account. Spencer points to the pioneering work of Ignaz Goldziher (1850-1921), the Hungarian scholar who is often considered the founder of the modern study of Islam. Goldziher carefully casts a skeptical eye on the whole so-called science of hadith, that is, the vast collection of traditions or the sayings and deeds of the Prophet and his Companions. He, as Spencer recounts, demonstrated that a huge number of traditions, even those collected by putatively scientifically rigorous Muslim scholars such as al-Bukhari, were pious forgeries invented to provide texts and arguments for various polemical, political and doctrinal reasons. Furthermore, these hadiths were collected more than two hundred years after the death of the Prophet.
But the work of Goldziher was not built upon. Roughly around the 1920s, Western scholars lost their critical faculties. It was the American scholar John Wansbrough (1928-2002), working at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, who revived robust Western scholarship, and took a healthily skeptical attitude towards the Islamic sources. In two formidably difficult works published in 1977 and 1978 (Quranic Studies and The Sectarian Milieu), “Wansbrough postulated that the Qur’an was developed primarily to establish Islam’s origins in Arabia and that the Hadith were fabricated in order to give the Arabian empire a distinctive religion so as to foster its stability and unity.” Spencer guides us through the works of revisionist historians such as Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, and other scholars such as Gunter Lüling, Christoph Luxenberg, and Dan Gibson. Each of these scholars — whether as philologists, archaeologists or historians — has been chipping away at the traditional story of the rise of Islam until nothing convincing remains, certainly not history.
In chapter 2, Spencer discusses the nature of our sources for the life of Muhammad. He also examines the non-Islamic sources such as the Doctrina Jacobi, which was written in Greek sometime between 634 and 640 by a Christian in Palestine: “One thing that can be established from this is that the Arabian invaders who conquered Palestine in 635 (the ‘Saracens’) came bearing news of a new prophet, one who was ‘armed with a sword.’ But in the Doctrina Jacobi this unnamed prophet is still alive, traveling with his armies, whereas Muhammad is supposed to have died in 632. What’s more, this Saracen prophet, rather than proclaiming that he was Allah’s last prophet (cf. Qur’an 33:40), was ‘proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come.’ This was a reference to an expected Jewish Messiah, not to the Jesus Christ of Christianity (‘Christ’ is ‘Messiah’ in Greek).”
Spencer patiently goes through the writings of Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and again shows us that a different narrative than the traditional Islamic one emerges. This is also true of the account given us by the Armenian bishop Sebeos, whose chronicle written in the 660s or 670s portrays a “Mahmet.” From this account, “one gets the impression that as late as the 660s, the Muslims and the Jews were spiritual kin and political allies. This doesn’t correspond to anything in Islamic tradition or the conventional account.” As Spencer summarizes: ”Non-Muslim chroniclers who were writing at the time of the early Arabian conquests made no mention of the Qur’an, no mention of Islam, no mention of Muslims, and scant mention of Muhammad.”
In early inscriptions, there is no mention of the Koran, Muhammad or Islam. Early coins also fail to mention Muhammad, and even though one coin struck between 647 and 658 does bear the name Muhammad, it shows a figure holding a cross. Is it possible that “Muhammad” is in fact not the historical figure we know as “Muhammad,” but is to be taken as meaning “the Praised One,” who could be anyone, and perhaps even Jesus? Spencer has a detailed discussion of the inscription on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, and concludes that “In fact, the entire inscription makes much more sense as a literary and theological statement if one understands ‘muhammad’ as referring to Jesus. Then the whole passage is about Jesus being but a messenger of God rather than his son. By the standard Islamic interpretation, the inscription mentions Muhammad essentially in passing, identifying him as a messenger from God and his servant; then, without explanation, it turns away from Muhammad to Jesus, calling him also a messenger from and servant of God, and spends the bulk of its time correcting Christian Christology.“
Spencer points to the crucial role that Abd al-Malik played in the development of what we know as “Islam.”
The Koran says very little about Muhammad, there are no specific details of his life. That is precisely the reason the Hadith were needed, and why they elaborated and invented the biographical details that we know today. Hadith proliferated as they began to be forged for various political and doctrinal reasons. After an exhaustive examination of the problem of forgeries of hadith, Spencer concludes, “The unreliability of the Hadith makes it impossible to know for certain anything about Muhammad. Further doubts arise because, as we shall soon see, there is scant evidence establishing Mecca as the center for trade and pilgrimage that it was reputed to be in Muhammad’s time. But in the eighth century, the first biography of the prophet of Islam appeared. And that book, combined with the beginning of the collection of the scattered and chaotic hadiths, heralded a momentous event: the mysterious and shadowy figure of the prophet of Islam began to move ever more confidently into ‘the full light of history.’”
gravenimage says
The earliest texts mentioning ‘Muhammad’: examined and found wanting
……………….
Good stuff from Ibn Warraq.
mortimer says
Yes. More scholarship needs to be done on the meaning of ‘muhammad’ (mhmt in the Syriac).
It appears that the early AMIRS (they did not yet call themselves ‘caliph’) used the HONORIFIC EPITHET of ‘muhammad’ as a rough equivalent of the ROMAN CAESARS’ epithet ‘AUGUSTUS’ (or ‘SEBASTOS’ in Roman koiné Greek).
The ‘muhammad’ referred to in ‘Doctrina Jacobi’ may have been OMAR ibn Khattab. This OMAR may have been the actual ‘muhammad’ who took Israel from the Romans.
It is curious that Omar is also honorifically called ‘Al-Farooq (the ‘Redeemer’), presumably because he ‘REDEEMED’ (bought back) Israel from the foreign Romans and returned it into the possession of the Descendants of Abraham, the rightful owners of the Levant (Arabic: ‘Shams’).
The religion of the Levantine Arabs before Islam appears to have been something called ‘HANAFISM’ … an obvious hodge-podge religion composed of eclectic elements of paganism, Zoroastrianism, heretical Christianity, half-understood Judaism and a planetary religion that may have been Sabianism.
The scholarship on these hints found in the primary source texts of Islam and secular accounts from time are proving the standard Islamic narrative (SIN) is false.
mortimer says
For a discussion of the true identity of ‘muhammad’:
“Was the historical person referred to as Muhammad, Umar?” – 1,342 views Jul 12, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrFhFsohNMU
gravenimage says
Thanks for that link, Mortimer.
Darwin says
Quality synopsis of the murky origin of Muhammad.
I have always wondered how so many get fooled by the standard story of Islamic origins. Questioning is something not allowed in many places including regrettably by many in the West as well.
Plans for any debates on this book would be great to share. Lastly, any chance that contemporary scholars working on Islam’s origins can be interviewed by Mister Spencer or Mister Warraq or perhaps even jointly?
Michael Copeland says
“O you who have believed, do NOT” …[WHACK!] ….”ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you.”
Koran 5:101
This is how the Koran is taught in the madrassas.
P.S. O you who have believed, if you question things you will be killed as an apostate.
gravenimage says
Yep–Islam has ways of shutting up questions.
Jim says
There seem to be two strands of historical religions, like Islam and Christianity or Judaism. On the one hand, the historical events that can be studied factually, and on the other, the mythical or poetic, which are grounded in the realm of art. Perhaps it can be shown that Muhammed did not care about Jerusalem or even know much about it. That could be historically argued. But the mythical, poetic claim of faith, the irrational element of faith, can still claim the city. Some terrorists studied sciences at the university, and they still appeared to believe that destroying the Twin Towers would gain them a place in Heaven with virgins forever. Only some believers might be swayed by historical arguments, others would not care what actually happened in fact. Their faith is not based on facts. So, what can be done?
Terry Gain says
Can we not agree that as a matter of common sense Muhammad (assuming there was such a person) did not fly on a winged horse to Jerusalem? If that fact is acknowledged then what claim does Islam have to Jerusalem?
gravenimage says
It is even recorded that Aisha said that Muhammed dreamed the whole “night flight”, and never left his bed.
Francis says
I have just purchased the Kindle edition & only had time to look at the Prefaces & Intro-the one by Volker Popp is particularly interesting. I will read the book with interest as I disagree with the revisionist/mythicist case and have written ‘Did Muhammad Exist? A Counterblast to the Revisionists’ with the subtitle Why Robert Spencer, Inarah, Jay Smith & the Sneaklers Corner Are Wrong (available on Kindle).
egor says
I shall be interested to hear what you say, Francis. I find all that has come from Jay Smith over the last year and a half very interesting. I do not believe that Mecca came out of the Hadiths until the mid 8th Century. I support the notion that there is more to be found around Petra and AlUla. I also believe the Saudis are well aware of this. They are knocking down the alleged historical homes of Muhammad’s companions and of Khadija in gay abandon. If there was any historical context to these buildings they would be cherishing them and not replacing them with 5 star ho5tels. Then, on the other hand,they want Petra reciognised as a world heritage site and are going to rebuild AlUla. I am certain they know the history of Mecca does not fit with the narrative in the Ahadeeth. Good luck.,.
mortimer says
Indeed. Many Mohammedans are now discovering to their horror that MECCA doesn’t appear on any map before 740AD. That’s more than 100 years too late. The Islamic apologists realize they have a problem.
If MECCA was supposed to be an important city in 630, and no evidence of it can be found, then it was NOT an important city. MECCA was created by Ibn Zubayr when he stole the Black Stone from Petra (‘petra’ means ‘stone’) and hid it deep in the Arabian desert.
The Standard Islamic Narrative (SIN) has HOLES and many Mohammedans are now seeing it for the first time in their lives.
Terry Gain says
As we all know, it’s a SIN to tell a lie.