The new revised and expanded edition of Did Muhammad Exist? contains:
- 25% new material.
- Answers to objections raised to the first edition.
- Information that makes it clear that Islam could not have originated the way it is described as doing so in the standard, canonical Islamic accounts.
- The reasons why it is more likely that the Muhammad of Islamic tradition is more myth and legend than historical figure.
- Newly revealed facts showing that the current Qur’anic text is not the original, and has been changed multiple times.
- Why the traditional Islamic stories of Muhammad’s life could not have taken place where they are described as happening;
- How the Arabs of the time in which Muhammad is supposed to have lived and its immediate aftermath did not believe in Islam as we understand it today;
- Evidence that the Qur’an was not collected and distributed in the year 653, as Islamic tradition claims, and parts of it existed as separate books over fifty years after that;
- Indications that the seventh-century Arab conquerors did not think of themselves as Muslims, and never called themselves Muslims;
- Startling signs that although Muslims everywhere in the world today pray facing Mecca, this practice was unknown in the earliest mosques to be built;
- The false premises of modern historians: how the man whom modern-day historians say received reports from “his aunt Aisha” about Muhammad’s life: why he is not a reliable source for anything Muhammad said or did, or even for his existence itself;
- “There is no god but Allah, and Qutham is his prophet”: the extraordinary Islamic traditions that record that Muhammad was originally known by another name;
- The strange and telling inconsistencies in the Islamic traditions about Muhammad’s first revelation;
- How the Arabic of the Qur’an is not the Arabic of southern Arabia, where Islam is supposed to have originated;
- Which angel appeared to Muhammad to give him the Qur’an? The Islamic traditions naming one other than Gabriel;
- Much, much more.
Preorder here.
Jillian says
We know that they all lie and tell their followers to lie, but it appears this whole ‘religion ‘ is a LIE!
mortimer says
The foundational narratives (more than one!) of Islam are disproved by archeology and by contemporaneous texts from as far away as China. In the foundational period of Islam (ca. 600 – 740 AD) no outside source is aware of ‘Muslims’ or the Koran. After 691AD, when Mohammed came into literary existence, there is a growth of hadiths about him which continues even into the late middle ages. The full Koran appears not to have been completed until 740 or so. The Koran did not fall into ‘Mohammed’s’ lap from an angel, but was elaborated by devious men 100 years after the alleged date of his demise from poisoning. Who heard of a founder of a religion who was poisoned by his followers? The foundational myths of Islam defy human psychology.
gravenimage says
Proof: Islam could not possibly have originated the way canonical Islamic texts claim
……………..
Fascinating list. I have not heard Muslims able to address any of these points.
Infidel says
Oh, they won’t believe it. After all, it’s written by Robert the islamophobe, who routinely violates Pakistani law while sitting in the USA! ?
gravenimage says
Yep. Pious Muslims seldom listen to any Infidels–especially those who dare take a stand against the horrors of Islam.
PRCS says
Haven’t studied it, but why do those–particularly the kuffar–who would never say The Prophet Moses or The Prophet Jesus constantly refer to The Prophet Muhammad.
So, glad to see the Amazon listing for Rober’s new book state:
“Is there any sound historical evidence that the prophet of Islam actually existed, or is the entire story of Muhammad fable or fiction?”
gravenimage says
Yes–this is very odd, PRCS–but also very common.
Also bizarre is referring to the “Holy Qur’an” by people would who would *never* refer to the “Holy Bible” or “Holy texts of Hinduism”.
Otto says
Actually it’s “The noble Qur’an” and not the Holy Qur’an. I forgot why though.
It was emphasised by some scholar.
PRCS says
True.
gravenimage says
True, Otto–I’ve heard both. But the vicious Qur’an is neither noble nor holy.
Wellington says
I should think the time is overdue to start using the term “Islamic mythology.”
Westman says
Ah, but the Greek Gods had amazing attributes and abilities that were the basis of interesting rivalries and extraordinary stories. Islam only has a boring self-aggrandizing origin story and a history of mahem. Referring to Islam as “Islamic Mythology” is a promotion. Perhaps Islam is a kind of, “Alexander, The Not So Great”?
Infidel says
Very true. Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian and Hindu mythology all have positive attributes about them. Using the same term to denote islam is as bizarre as referring to islam as a real religion
Wellington says
I agree with you and Westman, Infidel, though just as one can have evil religions (examples being Islam and the now dead Aztec religion) it’s possible to have evil mythologies, though being evil, whether a religion or a mythology, I do not think makes it less “real.” After all, a lot of reality sucks.
Jim says
Christianity could not have originated the way the New Testament describes. And Christians actually sometimes claim that the Bible shows the truth about evolution. Yet our society allows studies that try to show what the historical truth of Christianity could be. We do not cut off the heads of scholars who dare to question fundamentalist beliefs. That is one reason that Islam can never rule the world, at least not forever. Denying the possibility of objective truth dooms Islam to defeat. The problem is more one of damage limitation and of how long it can continue to tyrannize the Western world with jihad strikes.
owensgate says
The one indisputable Truth is that a Lie cannot exist in Heaven. God cannot tell a Lie, nor can He instruct any emissary, supposedly “Gabriel” in this instance, to tell a lie. The “Lie” is an act of rebellion against God and Heaven. Only one “truth” can be True. If it were true that God instructed Gabriel to tell an ignorant goat herder to start a “religion” that denied the Deity of His Son, Jesus, then that would make the Creator of the universe bipolar, a schizophrenic , or worse. It is fare more likely, plausible in fact, that the source of islam lies deep in the archives of the Vatican. After all, the “catholic church” was taken over by Satan almost at its inception,
Ecosse1314 says
Yup so true. The RC Church founded Islam so they can then fight it for centuries. Really????
owensgate says
They’re not fighting it all that hard now, are they….?
Ecosse1314 says
So you are saying that The RC Church founded Islam in the 7th century knowing that 1200 years later we would have an idiot on the papal throne.
Your argument is really very poor
Wellington says
“…the source of Islam lies deep in the archives of the Vatican.” After all, the ‘catholic church’ was taken over by Satan almost at its inception.”
Sorry, owensgate, but this is just wacko talk. You will lose a hell of a lot of reasonable people with statements like this. In fact, it is quite arguable that the Roman Catholic Church did an enormous amount to preserve and expand upon Western Civilization. Aside from insuring many works from ancient Greece and Rome were not lost, Roman Catholicism gave the world Gregorian Chant, Romanesque, Gothic and Baroque architecture, the intellectual architecture of clerics like Anselm, Aquinas, Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, and the magnificence of Italian Renaissance painting, sculpture and architecture. Michelangelo alone is evidence of the great heritage bestowed upon mankind by the Roman Catholic world.
Reconsider.
Ecosse1314 says
+ 1
Wellington says
Thank you, Bannockburn.
Ecosse1314 says
As our anthem goes “those days are past now”. God knows what is to come.
owensgate says
I would not deny there is some Truth to your statements concerning works of art, Gregorian Chant (and oratorios of Bach, Haydn quartets, etc. – Haydn penned recognition of God on most of his compositions…), but these were in honor to God the Creator, not necessarily to the Vatican or the Pope. I stand by my statement that the Catholic Church is not really Christian, as it promotes heretical ideas like devotionals to Mary being equal with Christ unto Salvation. Could it not be true that the Vatican needed a physical enemy to fight, in order to plunder the Middle East and amass a fortune at the Vatican? The ostentatious display of crimson robes, fancy vestments, the Pope’s silly “hat”, ceremonies, blasphemous pronouncements, I think Christ finds that disgusting. And to call a man “Father”, as Heavenly Father, is a Sin in and of itself. We have only One “Father”. The Catholic Church will be central to the One World Religion, and it WON’T be “Christian”. I think it reasonable, there not being any, provable, sequential “origin” history of islam, that the idea could be entertained that a nefarious “plot” was hatched. Sure, it’s far-fetched, but then so is islam as a “religion”.
Ecosse1314 says
You are obviously totally ignorant as to RC doctrine if you think we regard Mary as equal to Christ. Your arguments are extremely sectarian and sadly very foolish
Wellington says
Owensgate: As Ecosse1314 has already accurately conveyed to you, the Roman Catholic Church DOES NOT make the Virgin Mary equal to Christ, her son. There is no ambiguity here at all if you bothered to read Catholic dogma. The Catholic Church honors Mary, asserts that she is the only human being born without original sin, but she is still “only” human and in no way is she, in Catholic dogma, equal to Jesus. Roman Catholic dogma calls for the worship of only God in Trinitarian form. Mary and other saints are venerated, honored, etc., but in no way are they worshipped or placed on the same level with God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is something so many Protestants have gotten dead wrong over the centuries.
If you wish to disagree with Catholic doctrine, that is your right, but you should at least get Catholic dogma down correctly before disagreeing with it.
More: “Could it not be true that the Vatican needed a physical enemy to fight, in order to plunder the Middle East and amass a fortune at the Vatican?”
The short answer to this is “No.” The longer answer is that when Pope Urban II (1088-1099) in 1095 called for the First Crusade when in Clermont, France he did so primarily to retake Jerusalem from an extra nasty bunch of Muslims, i.e., the recently arrived Turks in the Middle East, secondarily to direct Western European Christians from fighting each other in interminable wars and focus their attention on a common enemy, in this case infidel Muslims, and thirdly to comply with a request from the Byzantine Emperor, Alexius Comnenus (1081-1018), for help from the West since the Byzantine Empire was in a very compromised position from the Battle of Manzikert (1071) onward. Yes, some Crusaders were mostly interested in loot and the Fourth Crusade of the early 13th century can hardly be defended, but none of this had to do with any kind of Vatican directives.
Really, owensgate, I think you mean well, and we certainly share an antipathy to Islam, but accuracy is key in any assessment of the past, which so influences the present and future history. I think a little more study is needed on your part. Give it a shot.
BTW, as many know here at JW, I am not religious in the least. I am an agnostic and my approach to a possible higher power is purely a philosophical approach and not a religious one, but fair is fair and your characterization of the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church is, to put it mildly, way off the mark. Again, reconsider.
somehistory says
Not to be an interloper here in your conversation, but perhaps it’s things such as this that causes a lot of questions, misunderstandings, confusion among many, with Catholics and non-Catholics alike: just where does the RC stand on some things: The final part of the paragraph below….
“demons possess or harass people in a myriad of ways (even when they do not enter a body), and they are defeated decisively by the power of Christ and His Church―and especially by invocations to the Blessed Mother.”
Diary of an American Exorcist: Demons, Possession, and the Modern-Day Battle Against Ancient Evil Hardcover – June 22, 2021
by Msgr. Stephen Rossetti (Author)
https://nypost.com/2021/07/03/dark-stories-of-catholic-priest-who-performs-20-exorcisms-a-week/?
Protestants do not pray to Mary or through her name, but only to God, through the Name of Christ Jesus.
Ecosse1314 says
Intercession of the saints has been Rc and orthodox doctrine from the 3rd century.
Obviously if you are not RC you will not accept it as is your right .
gravenimage says
Ah, yes–the idea that the Catholic Church created Islam–even though there were few Catholics in Arabia, the Catholic Chuch had no influence there, and the Catholic Chuch was one of the main sources of defending against Islam for about a thousand years. This takes unfounded hatred of the Catholic Church to a particularly bizarre and unhinged level.
Pray Hard says
Acharya Sanning/D.M. Murdock had written a “similar” book, but passed away before it was published. Understanding that “mohammed” was probably nothing more than a mythical construct of the typical savage male of that era is extremely important in beginning to understand how to defeat the hordes of “mohammed”. Robert, I wish you’d contact Free Thought Nation and work out a deal with her family to publish that book, with no changes. It’s written from a mythicist, possibly even atheist perspective, but I still wish you’d do it. If I had the resources, I’d pay one of her contemporaries to do it. She was a great admirer of yours.
gravenimage says
Acharya Sanning/D.M. Murdock–actually Dorothy Milne Murdock–mostly claimed that Christianity was a conspiracy by sun-worshipping pagans (oddly, little mention of Judaism here). She claimed that the Roman Empire’s adoption of Christianity somehow led to wide-spread illiteracy–making no mention of the barbarian invasions and the dark ages. She has also claimed that paganism was feminist, which has no basis. Generally poor scholarship.
It seems that “Free Thought Nation”claims that Christianity was invented by the Roman Empire–a hoary old claim that makes no sense, especially in the light of the Roman Empire persecuting Christians for several centuries.
Pray Hard–with all respect–not sure why Robert Spencer would want to champion this stuff.
Besides, they have their own publishing house–Stellar House Publishing.
somehistory says
The police detective who knows his job, will routinely trip up a liar. One way is to ask the same questions over and over, ask the same questions with different phrasing, etc.
A liar cannot remember the lies he tells, so his story changes and, over time, the changes are very apparent, even to someone with less experience at discovering them.
The whole thing…even if there was a mass-murdering, raper of children, sex-slave owner/trading thief, lying sack of slug slime, filthy son of satan the devil…is built on a big pile of lies.
If he existed, then he was the liar he shows himself to be. If he did not exist, but was the nasty figment of some slime’s filthy imagination, what is written is all a pack of lies written with the intent to cause people to worship the scum and his “fake god.”
Mike Ramirez says
Hmmm..so, if Muhammad, aka Qutham, did not really exist, then the first of the Islamic “rightly guided Caliphs,” Abu Bakr, must have been the father-in-law to an imaginary person who married his daughter, Aisha. The imaginary Muhammad, aka Qutham, also had an imaginary daughter Fatima by Mo’s imaginary wife Khadija. Later, imaginary Fatima married her real cousin, Ali, the Fourth Caliph of Islam, who claimed to be related to the imaginary Muhammad, aka Qutham…Alrighty then…Got it. 🙂
gravenimage says
Mike, your idea that it is impossible to make up stories if they are complex enough to include in-laws is *very* odd.
In that case, Greek and Roman and Celtic mythology must be true–not to mention involved stories like Harry Potter and Game of Thrones.
This in and of itself does not mean that Islam has no historic roots, of course–but neither is it proof that it does as you appear to believe.
Ecosse1314 says
Actually Mike there is precious little evidence for the first 4 caliphs. In fact none
Mike Ramirez says
Happy Independence Day, Ecosse1314, and thanks for your insight. Hmmm… if what you say is true, then I guess Mr. Spencer has some more good material for future publications if he hasn’t already mentioned this before. For example: “Did The Four Rightly Guided Caliphs of Islam Exist?” Then Iran needs to be convinced that Ali didn’t exist either and that their Shia’ sect is null and void.
gravenimage says
You could just read the book, of course.
Ecosse1314 says
https://youtu.be/lXkaVznhdtE
Hi here is a short video discussing the Caliphs. As is pointed out there is little or no evidence to their existence
Ecosse1314 says
Good series on you tube called did muhammed exist. One of the episodes deals with the 4 recently. Might be od interest to you.
Sadly we Scots don’t celebrate independence day(we’ll not yet). Hope you have a good day
Ecosse1314 says
Bloody predictive text. Should read the 4 rightly guided caliphs
somehistory says
A young girl babysitting her little niece for the first time, heard an intruder breaking into the house. She tried to text her mom for help and the cell phone changed what she was trying to write and sent her mother into confusion as it didn’t make any sense.
I hate it when my phone changes words…like have to gave, or five to give. Or sometimes things that don’t fit at all. I finally found a way to stop my email from trying to read my mind and getting it wrong time after…wish I could do my phone the same way.
Ecosse1314 says
Very very true SH
Smith Geir says
Hello,
Hulagu founded Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and Syria and destroyed Baghdad and the Caliph.
gravenimage says
Smith, this does not mean that the first Muslim conquests until the thirteenth century. In fact, many of the places he conquered were already Islamic.