This new episode of The Glazov Gang features Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. His latest books are The Critical Qur’an and The Sumter Gambit. Follow him on Twitter here.
Robert discusses The Myth of Muhammad, unveiling the startling evidence that the prophet of Islam never existed.
Don’t miss it!
[Order Jamie Glazov’s new book: Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America.]
Show your support for Mike Lindell and The Glazov Gang by using this link for MyPillow and save up to 65% on all your purchases!
Follow us on our Rumble Channel and on JamieGlazov.com, GETTR: @jglazov, Parler: @Jamieglazov11, Gab: @jglazov and Facebook.
Please donate via our Pay Pal account.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
I agree w/ the conclusions of both Robert & Jay Smith that Muhammad probably never existed. I watched a video of Jay’s debate w/ David Wood a few days ago, where Jay hypothesized on who the “Muhammad” actually was – some Umayyad Christian in Baghdad?
I also have a theory based on my reading of “Did Muhammad exist?” about the Arab conquests. While the usual historical narrative has been that it started in Mecca, & after Mohammed’s death, first conquered Damascus, and then all the other places. Based on the proof that neither Mecca nor Medina were major centers of Arabia in the 7th century, I concluded that all those conquests started in Damascus. In the battle of Yarmouk, the Arabs were said to have defeated the Byzantines. While a battle there may have taken place, I doubt that any archeological excavation there would have revealed which side which army came from
A look into what was going on in Damascus at the time is merited. There was a theological dispute b/w the local Syrians and their Byzantine overlords in Constantinople, which likely led to a revolt. The Syrians saw that both the Byzantine & Sassanid armies were exhausted by a 20 year war they had fought since 600 AD, and took advantage of that to clear them both out. But to do that, they needed to cut off the Byzantines from a major portion of their empire, namely Palestine and Egypt
So they started from Damascus southwards, defeated the Byzantines at Yarmouk, kept moving southwards and occupied Jerusalem, Petra and moved in to Egypt, defeating the Byzantine forces there. In the meantime, another part of their army moved eastwards and defeated the Sassanids, and their capital, Ctesiphon, which was right on the frontiers of the Persian empire. From there on, once the royal dynasty fled, they overran the rest of the country
Once they had conquered Palestine, Egypt & Persia, the Byzantines were pretty much down to just Anatolia and whatever they had in Europe, and defeating the Arabs was from then on out of the question
Also, on the Abbasids, I disagree w/ Jay Smith on one detail. That empire was more of a Turkic than an Iranic empire. Aside from Baghdad, the other major center where islam was developed was Buqhara, the capital of the Samanid empire. But given that it was the Turkic successors to the Samanids – namely the Ghaznavids, Seljuqs and Khwarezmids – who were the most zealous spreaders of islam, I tend to believe that islam was more a Turkish project than an Iranian one, and definitely not Arab
It would be interesting to see that aspect discussed by Jay or Robert