Author’s note: This is the fifth and final segment of my review of Robert Spencer’s new revised and expanded edition of Did Muhammad Exist?. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. Part 3 is here. Part 4 is here.
Here is more from chapter thirteen, “Making Sense of it All,” which gives a wonderful summary of all the arguments, and their conclusions, to be found in this book:
- Around the same time as the reign of Abd al-Malik, Arabic became the predominant written language of the Arabian empire, supplanting Syriac and Greek.
- Abd al-Malik claimed, in a passing remark in one hadith, to have collected the Qur’an, contradicting Islamic tradition that the collection was the work of the caliph Uthman forty years earlier.
- Multiple hadiths report that Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, governor of Iraq during the reign of Abd al-Malik, edited the Qur’an and distributed his new edition to the various Arab-controlled provinces—again, something Uthman is supposed to have done decades earlier.
- Even some Islamic traditions maintains that certain common Islamic practices, such as the recitation of the Qur’an during mosque prayers, date from orders of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, not to the earliest period of Islamic history.
- While the canonical Islamic account holds that Muhammad was born in Mecca, which was a thriving center for trade and pilgrimage, the extant records show that during the time Muhammad is supposed to have lived, it was not a city of any importance.
- Although the directive to Muslims to pray toward Mecca is supposed to have been revealed during Muhammad’s time, the earliest mosques were built facing Petra in Jordan, up until the early years of the eighth century. Some of these ancient mosques face Petra to this day.
- In the middle of the eighth century, the Abbasid dynasty supplanted the Umayyad line of Abd al-Malik. The Abbasids charged the Umayyads with impiety on a large scale. In the Abbasid period, biographical material about Muhammad began to proliferate. The first complete biography of the prophet of Islam finally appeared during this era—nearly 150 years after the traditional date of his death.
- The proliferation of hadith literature, including biographical material about Muhammad, reached its zenith in the ninth century, over two hundred years after Muhammad is traditionally said to have died.
- The biographical material that emerged situates Muhammad in an area of Arabia that never was the center for trade and pilgrimage that the canonical account of Islam’s origins depends on it to be.
Muhammad, the Koran and Islam were necessary creations that were required by political theology.
Muhammad, if he did not exist, or if his actual deeds were not known, would certainly have been politically useful to the new Arab empire as a legendary hero. The empire was growing quickly, soon rivaling the Byzantine and Persian empires in size and power. It needed a common religion—a political theology that would provide the foundation for the empire’s unity and secure allegiance to the state.
This new prophet needed to be an Arab, living deep within Arabia. If he had come from anywhere else within the new empire’s territory, that place could have made claims to special status and pushed to gain political power on that basis. Muhammad, significantly, is said to have come from the empire’s central region, not from borderlands.
He had to be a warrior prophet, for the new empire was aggressively expansionistic. To give those conquests a theological justification—as Muhammad’s teachings and example do—would place them beyond criticism.
This prophet would also need a sacred scripture to lend him authority. Much of the Qur’an shows signs of having been borrowed from the Jewish and Christian traditions, suggesting that the founders of Islam fashioned its scripture from existing material. The new scripture had to be in Arabic in order to serve as the foundation for an Arabic empire. But it did not have an extensive Arabic literary tradition to draw on, especially because Abd al-Malik and his fellow Umayyad caliphs were centered not in Arabia but in Damascus. It is perhaps no coincidence that this Arabic scripture contains numerous non-Arabic elements and outright incoherencies. Their conquest had brought them to Damascus, but as Arabians they wanted to establish their empire with Arabic elements at its center: an Arabian prophet and an Arabic revelation.
The above account is an inadequate summary of the intellectually exhilarating impact of Spencer’s book, which leaves no stone unturned. He is not afraid to confront putative counter examples which allegedly refute his main arguments. The disciplines of archaeology, numismatics, philology, history and textual criticism are carefully brought to bear on the question of the historicity of the man we know as Muhammad, and all fail to convince us of the existence of the Prophet, and the veracity of the traditional Islamic account of the rise of Islam, and the compilation of the Koran. Read Soencer’s book, and be instructed.
Francis says
One of the problems of DME is that it does not merely argue that Muhammad did not exist (except originally perhaps as a minor figure). It postulates a late Quran. But if the Quran only appeared with Abdul Malik (or even later, being finished in the Abbasid period) then in the mature imperial period when Arabic was the language of administration as well as religion, there should be contemprary records-and there are none. The mufassirun (the Muslim exgetes) preserve no reliable memory of the Quran’s compilation, of who the Sabians are, what the huruf al mukattta’at (detached letters at the start of surahs: ALM, HM etc), nor do they understand the “They killed him not nor did they crucify him” reference nor of the Quran’s undoubted structure. This suggests the Quran is already old by Abdul Malik’s time, not late.
Another issue is that apart from Volker Popp, Gerd Puin (slightly) and Koren & Nevo, there is little about the professional revisionists in the Inara (Enlightenment) Institute and the professional mainstream refutation of its work. One of the drawbacks is that a lot of the Inarah material (apart from ‘The Hidden Origins of Islam’) is available only in German. I must improve mine. Meanwhile, my ‘Did Muhammad Exist? A Counterblast to the Revisionists’ is available on Kindle (shameless plug for my book!).
mortimer says
Very partial agreement with Francis, because only PARTS of the Koran were ‘old’ … namely, they predated the presumed birth of ‘Mohammed’, A number of accounts claim Hajjaj created parts of the Koran, replacing parts of previous writings he didn’t like, and Hajjaj himself claims that Muslims should admire ‘Amir’ Abd al Malik more than they admire Mohammed. This points to Hajjaj knowing that Islam was fake. He would know if he was the one who faked it.
There is nothing ‘reliable’ in the standard Islamic narrative (SIN).
gravenimage says
Francis, Robert Spencer follows the evidence. You seem to consider a late Qur’an to be troubling, but you do not say how it is incorrect.
As for the INÂRAH Institute, I know little about them, but I am glad to see others question the message of Islam.
mortimer says
Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, governor of Iraq under ‘Amir’ Abd al Malik, created the Koran and commanded that it be read for the first time in the mosques in the form of a ‘lectionary’. That is why Hajjaj imitated the name ‘Qur’an’ following the Syriac name of the Chaldean church’s ‘lectionary’ (‘qeryana’).
When one analyzes the various plagiarisms in the Koran, one sees that most of the original texts were available in the region between the Tigris and the Mediterranean, rather than being texts one could readily find in southern Arabia, deep in the Hejaz.
When you plot the plagiarized source texts of the Koran on a map, all these hints and clues are found in the Levant, Iraq, Syria and Israel. The Arabs considered this to be their ancestral empire unjustly robbed from them by the Romans.
Islam and the Koran were created to justify the reconquest of the Levant and Persia in the name of all Arabs.
Mike Ramirez says
If Mr. Spencer succeeds in discrediting the existence of Muhammad and Zuhdi Jasser succeeds in reforming Islam, then this should be the headlines for Breaking News: “The New Islam: More Peace, Less Terror, Because There Ain’t No Mo.”
mortimer says
No Mo! No more! (ha ha)
Robert Spencer says
Your thinking that what I’m doing has any compatibility with the work of Zuhdi Jasser is the prime indication of how spectacularly you are misunderstanding the entire agenda of “Did Muhammad Exist”
Mike Ramirez says
I pointed out two efforts here by two authors dealing with Islam. In 2018, I contacted Zuhdi Jasser by email and he acknowledged receipt of my inquiry. Mr. Jasser was asked to let me know his action plan; how he planned to reform Islam without abrogating terror verses from the Qur’an and Ahadith which in turn would discredit the credibility of Muhammad being a prophet who received divine revelations. To date, he has not revealed how to go about reforming Islam.
In the case of “Did Muhammad Exist?” I would like to know your agenda, Mr. Spencer.
1.) Who is your target audience?
2.) Do you think it will be accepted by the 1.6 Billion Muslims & Islamic governments?
3.) What do you hope your book will accomplish?
I think these are fair questions, Mr. Spencer, and I look forward to your answers.
Thank you very much.
Robert Spencer says
1. Anyone interested in the issues at hand.
2. No.
3. Further exploration into Islam’s shaky foundations, more honesty about these issues, greater courage on the part of people who wish to investigate them, and ultimately widespread knowledge of Islam’s actual origins.
gravenimage says
This seems to be more of the same from Mike Ramirez–that if “Did Muhammed Exist” doesn’t immediately and decisively destroy the threat of Islam all ove the world that no one has the right to question Islam at all–which is just absurd. And Robert Spencer has never made this claim about his work in any case–this is straw man stuff.
Mike Ramirez says
Thank you, Mr. Spencer. Your response to question 2., “No”, confirms that Islam will remain an existential Enemy Threat Doctrine to Western Civilization until it finally succeeds in establishing the desired tyrannical goal of world domination with Sharia law. Why? Because the West was unable to stop it and had accepted Islam as a great world religion of peace.
gravenimage says
Mike Ramirez claiming that if Robert Spencer’s book is not embraced by all 1.6 billion Muslims–a claim that Spencer never made in any case–then it is his fault if Islam is not immediately neutered is just bizarre.
And implying that if this book doesn’t single-handedly end the 1400-year scourge of Islam that this means that Spencer accepts Islam as a great religion of peace is completely dishonest.
Is there a purpose to Mike Ramirez’s postings here–or is he just castigating Anti-Jihadists? This certainly appears to be the case. Certainly, he seems enraged that Spencer is exposing Islam, and has constantly demanded that he justify daring to question Islam. Very odd and troubling stuff.
Mike Ramirez says
Think what you wish, gravenimage. In another thread, I asked how you would deal with Islam. I have not said that Islam shouldn’t be questioned. Mr. Spencer’s book, while thoroughly researched as it may have been will not be accepted by 1.6 Billion Muslims and Islamic governments, as he has even admitted. I appreciate your defending Mr. Spencer and chuckle at your comments about me but in the final analysis, Islam is still not being deterred in its goal to attain world domination nor will your idea of keeping Muslims out of the West ever happen. As I wrote that would be discrimination. To defeat an ideological enemy that wants to exterminate Western Civilization requires a plan of action. Besides keeping Muslims out of the West how would you defeat Islam and liberate the majority of the 1.6 Billion people who wish they could leave that death cult but can’t upon penalty of death. How would you deal with preventing the 1400+ year spread of Islam before it overtakes America and all Western Civilization, gravenimage? Let’s have your answer? Thank you.
Ecosse1314 says
At least Mr Spencer is doing something. With his website his books and speaking engagements.
Mike you really have to recognise that DME is a historical exercise and lays foundations for anyone to argue against Islam. Itis not an automatic apostasy machine.
gravenimage says
Mike Ramirez wrote:
Think what you wish, gravenimage.
…………………………..
Of course, Mike Ramirez does not answer my question–in itself very telling.
More:
In another thread, I asked how you would deal with Islam. I have not said that Islam shouldn’t be questioned. Mr. Spencer’s book, while thoroughly researched as it may have been will not be accepted by 1.6 Billion Muslims and Islamic governments, as he has even admitted.
…………………………..
The implication that Robert Spencer’s book is some sort of failure and that he has “admitted” this to Mike Ramirez is ludicrous and dishonest. The purpose of this book is to explore the earliest historical references to Islam, *not* as Mike Ramirez claims to be accepted by all Muslims.
More:
I appreciate your defending Mr. Spencer and chuckle at your comments about me but in the final analysis, Islam is still not being deterred in its goal to attain world domination nor will your idea of keeping Muslims out of the West ever happen. As I wrote that would be discrimination.
…………………………..
It apparenlty has not occurred to Mike Ramirez that anyone might actually *agree* with Robert Spencer about not wanting to live in a totalitarian society–nor in believing that such societies do not make their victims safe.
And it is unsurpising that he would “chuckle” at someone wanting to defend our freedoms. *Ugh*.
Then, it is not “discrimination” to identify a harmful ideology as such. Certainly, the US and the rest of the west were not importing hundreds of thousands of Nazis in the 1940s–the idea that we have to allow Muslims to flood into the west in the millions is not the case.
And wherever you have Muslims you have Jihad and stealth Jihad–the idea that these are unrelated strains credulity, to put it mildly
More:
To defeat an ideological enemy that wants to exterminate Western Civilization requires a plan of action. Besides keeping Muslims out of the West how would you defeat Islam and liberate the majority of the 1.6 Billion people who wish they could leave that death cult but can’t upon penalty of death. How would you deal with preventing the 1400+ year spread of Islam before it overtakes America and all Western Civilization, gravenimage? Let’s have your answer? Thank you.
…………………………..
Mike Ramirez keeps positing that it is up to the civilized world to liberate Muslims from their avowed faith–but it is not. Then, his claim that the majority of Muslims actually reject Islam and want to leave–if only the ‘filthy Infidels’ would let them!–is just bizarre. There are some Mulims who want to leave Islam, but they *hardly* make up the majority of Muslims as he pretends.
In fact, if most Muslims were ipso facto apostates, there would be little threat from Jihad terror, yet this is *hardly* the case. And polls among Muslims find that not only do a large number of them openly admit to supporting Jihad terror, but even more admit to wanting to impose brutal Shariah law. Even in the US this number is over 50%. This rather gives the lie to the idea that most Muslims are somehow not Muslim at all.
Putting the brakes on Muslim immigration, exposing the threat of Islam, and demanding that our laws be enforced–including deportation of non-citizens or the naturalized after they have served their terms–would go a long way to protecting us. And no–this does not entail destroying the First Amendment for Islam.
Mike Ramirez says
Reference postings from the July 14, 2021 Jihad Watch article titled, “If Muhammad is legendary, why were stories invented about him that portray him in a negative light?” by Ibn Warraq
gravenimage says
Jul 15, 2021 at 9:33 pm
“…Best to keep Muslims out of the west to begin with. Before the invasion of Muslims into the west we were largely safe from Jihad.”
******
Comment:
This also goes to show that gravenimage does not really comprehend the Islamic mindset at all. Besides being discriminatory to keep Muslims out of the West, they literally believe that this whole world already belongs to Muslims, including the West. Why? Because that is one of the teachings in the Hadith that they literally believe, as cited herein:
“Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been given five things which were not given to any amongst the Prophets before me. These are:
1. Allah made me victorious by awe (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.
2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum. Therefore my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me (and was not made so for anyone else).
4. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation exclusively but I have been sent to all mankind.
5. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection.) ”
(Sahih Bukhari: Volume 1, Book 8, Number 429, Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah
gravenimage says
Yet more from Mike Ramirez:
Reference postings from the July 14, 2021 Jihad Watch article titled, “If Muhammad is legendary, why were stories invented about him that portray him in a negative light?” by Ibn Warraq
gravenimage says
Jul 15, 2021 at 9:33 pm
“…Best to keep Muslims out of the west to begin with. Before the invasion of Muslims into the west we were largely safe from Jihad.”
******
Comment:
This also goes to show that gravenimage does not really comprehend the Islamic mindset at all.
………………………..
This is really odd. Is Mike Ramirez claiming that we were in as much danger from Jihad terror when there were almost no Muslims here? Citations, please.
And how does my noting that pious Muslims are dangerous mean that I don’t understand how Muslims think? How does that work?
More:
Besides being discriminatory to keep Muslims out of the West, they literally believe that this whole world already belongs to Muslims, including the West. Why? Because that is one of the teachings in the Hadith that they literally believe, as cited herein…
………………………..
Of course I am familiar with these Hadith, as I have said many times here. And it is not just the Hadith, but the Qur’an itself that teaches Muslims to spead their foul creed all over the world, including imposing it on civilized Infidel lands.
Qur’an 9:33:
“It is He who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it prevail over every other religion, though the unbelievers hate it.”
There are other similar verses.
And the idea that we have to continue to import violent Muslims because *they themselves demand that we do so that they can conquer us* is utterly bizarre. I don’t believe that we should make our policy based on what Islam demands. That Mike Ramirez believes this is appalling.