On this show, I briefly restate and explain the main reasons for doubting the historical veracity of the Islamic accounts of Muhammad’s life. These are:
- The lateness of the sources;
- The fact that so many were forged, which even Islamic sources freely and openly acknowledge;
- The unreliability of the Islamic methods to determine which are true and which false.
There are many other reasons for this doubt, as I explain in detail in Did Muhammad Exist? and Muhammad: A Critical Biography. As I noted in this video, this is not an issue that one can become fully informed about by watching some YouTube debates or other videos. There is just too much to it. You’ll have to read some books. But a large and stupid controversy has arisen of late, involving a gaggle of supremely arrogant and semi-informed people who are dismissing and ridiculing skepticism about the Islamic sources as if it were not only wrong, ridiculous, and stupid, but also for some reason a dangerous idea that no one should dare to entertain. And as usual these days, another gaggle of groupthinkers has rushed to jump on the bandwagon and dismiss a priori any hint of a claim that the Islamic accounts of Muhammad aren’t one hundred percent accurate.
You can see that in the comments on this video. Some of them, of course, are the usual rage that occurs whenever I appear on a show that is outside the usual circle where I’m likely to appear, or one that many believe to be out of ideological alignment with my positions. I’m supposed to stay on my reservation. And so this appearance on the popular Capturing Christianity YouTube channel has sparked outrage from several quarters. Leftists and Islamic apologists are furious that Capturing Christianity has featured a conversation with a “bigot,” the quarter-century old canard that jihadis, leftists, and their enablers throw at me and at anyone and everyone who dares oppose jihad violence and Sharia oppression. Half-informed and self-infatuated Christian apologists are insisting that the matter is settled and closed, and that there is no doubt about Muhammad’s existence that any decent person should entertain. All of these people are angry that I am daring on the show to defend a position that “no reputable historian” holds. Of course, none of them answer any of the points I raised in the discussion, or any of the many, many others that you’ll find in Did Muhammad Exist? and Muhammad: A Critical Biography. Even more embarrassing, they raise objections that I deal with in the books, thinking they’ve made a “gotcha” point that kills the whole argument. Some even raise “gotcha” objections that I deal with in this discussion, showing that they didn’t actually watch it.
To be sure, reading YouTube comments is often like listening to an argument at a lunatic asylum, but the comments here are an indication of how this entire question has been poisoned of late, with tribalism, factionalism, groupthink, and worse taking the place of honest and sober historical analysis. The historicity of Jesus has been questioned and examined for several centuries, and it does not provoke this tidal wave of hysteria from all corners, leftists, Muslims, and Christians. But if you dare to question the historicity of Muhammad, watch out. And contrarian that I have always been, that just makes me think all the more that there is something here worth investigating. But you won’t find the answer in videos. The one here is just a basic introduction. You want to learn about it, read my books, and those of Ibn Warraq, Christoph Luxenberg, Yehuda Nevo and Judith Koren, and others.
Tim gallagher says
Maybe a few Muslims would have the integrity to ditch stinking Islam if they found out it is all bullshit, but most won’t care. Muslims are nothing but a bunch immoral thugs who want to win their evil war against us even though Islam is all a load of total bullshit Muslims won’t ever stop trying to impose the degenerate filth on us all. In the afterlife justice will send the Muslims to hell because of all the obviously evil filth they have spent lives promoting. God won’t let them get away with such evil.
bill says
So why does he let them get away with it all the time? Punishing them in the alleged ‘after life’ will not do their victims any good
Tim gallagher says
It would be handy if the Christian god, the one I believe in, butted in all over the place like Superman when Muslim scum were about fly planes into buildings or rape young girls, etc, but he gave mankind freewill, bill. I think god is probably thinking why do non Muslims put up with evil Islam why are they so slack. Time for another crusade. I do believe there is an afterlife and judgement for all of us and hell is for Muslims because they do so much evil. No one knows though, maybe there’s just nothingness.
Robert Latta says
Millions of Muslims are leaving the religion every year, especially in Indonesia! Have hope.
Tim gallagher says
Thanks for that info, Robert. It does give hope. What a better world it would be if every Muslim ditched evil islam.
Kepha says
While I still disagree with Mr. Spencer on this topic, and think that Muhammad ibn Abdallah was indeed historic, I also believe that Muhammad was no prophet of God. Indeed, I am skeptical of all claims to post-Rev. 22:18-19 from the Montanists through Muhammad through Joe Smith through the feral-looking Kenneth Copeland, etc.
But, after a visit to Turkey, during which our Alawi tour guide impressed me (with my Master of Divinity degree) with a knowledge of the New Testament and early Christian history that surpasses people I’ve encountered from the likes of Harvard or Princeton divinity schools, and then explained that such is required of every licensed tour guide in Turkey, I have prayed for her and others of her trade to be called and converted by God’s Word and Spirit. Holy Spirit, blow on the embers!
gravenimage says
Kepha–with all respect–Islam teaches that Jews and Christians corrupted the Bible. which used to be as savage as the Qur’an–never mind there being absolutely no evidence for this. I do not doubt that your Alawi guide was knowledgeable about Christianity, but that claim that Turkey teaches its tour guides orthodox Christianity seems a bit iffy…
There is nothing here in the official English-language site on Turkish tour guides that implies any such thing:
https://www.bestturkeytour.com/turkey-tour-guide/
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Noted your first 2 points about why Muhammad didn’t exist in past analysis of “Did Muhammad exist?” – the one about it being 200 years after the fact, and the one about a majority of those hadiths being ruled as forged. The third one about the isnads was known, but what you discussed here was interesting: that the isnad chains themselves were forged, w/ reputable transmitters being inserted at will into different stories to buttress their credibility w/ muslim followers. The one about the isnad chains dating after the maten that it was supposed to have authenticated
Talking about Muhammad as a warrior prophet, as mentioned by those non-muslim writers of the 7th century in Damascus, Jerusalem and other such places, it would still contradict what’s in the hadith & sirah literature. In the latter, almost all of Muhammad’s activities took place within the Hijaz, and towards the end of his life, islam was spread to the rest of the peninsula – Qatar, Muscat, Abu Dhabi….. So how would people based in Jerusalem who didn’t regularly travel to Arabia know of him? Since all the conquests outside Arabia proper happened after Muhammad’s death, as per those muslim sources
The video did end rather abruptly, after Robert finishes the 2 accounts of the incident where Muhammad bedded Mary the Copt instead of his usual wives. I’ve noticed this w/ other YouTube videos as well, that seem to get terminated early, w/o a clean conclusion
Robert, wonder what you think about this observation by Raymond Ibrahim – that denying Muhammad’s existence to non-muslims actually helps, rather than hurts, islam?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Qw02tCZ3I
gravenimage says
Infidel, Robert Spencer has discussed Raymond Ibrahim’s views on Muhammed before with David Wood.
Then, Robert Spencer is a scholar–the idea that he would fake his findings if he believed that Muhammed not having existed would–somehow–be more apt to spread Islam is mistaken. Spencer is actually interested in the truth, and so presents his findings without omission.
Now, you can come to a different conclusion re the historicity of the “Prophet”–intelligent people like Ibrahim and Wood have–but that is very different from thinking Spencer should fudge his findings.
I think that the truth always works in our favor.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Actually, here I was thinking less about whether RS should fudge his findings, and more about the problem Raymond discusses in that linked video – that he or someone else is discussing the personality & character problems of Muhammad w/ some muslim, and then somebody else butts into the comments w/ Jay Smith’s conclusions that Muhammad didn’t exist, completely derailing the discussion. Here, Raymond is right: a muslim who’s turned off by Muhammad’s behavior is more likely to leave islam, than one who just hears someone else theorize (not conclusively prove, since that’s impossible) that Muhammad didn’t exist
From a purist historical standpoint, what RS is doing is completely justified: exploring whether Muhammad conclusively existed or not, and if not, when and how exactly was islam put together. Incidentally, it also explains the “Gates of Ijtehad” being closed theory: if the Abbasids were the ones who put it together, then it makes sense that they’d build the entire edifice of this new religion and then pour concrete on it to make it unalterable
Robert Spencer says
It’s a silly, stupid argument. There are two distinct issues here: one is what Muhammad said and did according to Islamic tradition. That is an extremely important inquiry, as Muslims worldwide pattern their behavior after what Muhammad said and did. One can and should criticize Muhammad on that basis, and I have done so for decades and continue to do so.
The other issue is whether what Muhammad said and did according to Islamic tradition is actually historically accurate. That inquiry is a matter of historical research. It is not valuable or worthless based on how useful or useless it is for some other activity such as Christian apologetics.
One issue doesn’t cancel out the other. One can, and should, criticize Muhammad’s behavior as depicted in the Hadith and Sira literature. One can also investigate the historical value, or lack thereof, of those documents. I’ve been saying this for 15+ years, ever since I wrote the first edition of “Did Muhammad Exist?” To pretend that it is an issue now is either incredibly ignorant or simply an attempt at scoring cheap rhetorical points among those who are ignorant.
Westman says
Doesn’t every major religion have a sketchy beginning of contradictory, after the founder’s death recorded, history and revelations that are weaned until they become codified and permanent?
And how many did not have a God-given method of succession when the founder had passed, resulting in conflict and division?
If Allah was “all “knowing” why are there no instructions for succession in the Quran? It’s one thing to claim the founder was the “last prophet”, and quite another to explain why a “god” left no assigned leader. It makes the religion appear very man-made.
Joe1 says
The problem with the Islamic story is that it comes way too late when people were recording history in written accounts. The “Muslims” (actually they were Arians) who conquered Jerusalem knew nothing of a Muhammad as recorded by Bishop Sophronius. The Muslims who assigned John of Damascus as the administrator of Syria knew of Muhammad, but Muhammad was a Paul Bunyan figure who was attached to a lot of crazy tales such as his camel creating rivers of milk and urine. Some Qurans predate Muhammad, and those Qurans are highly spiritual. Even now, 1/4th of the current Quran is word for word St. Ephrem’s lectionary after the diacritical marks are changed from Arabic to Aramaic. We have a lot of writing from the time that Islam was formed, but they all contradict the story of Islam.
Gandalfs Trouserpress says
I’m not an academic,
Not sure if I should join in with this polemic,
But from the attic of my brain,
I remember a refrain,
‘Is Mohammed a real prophet,
Or just a fiction embellished for profit?’
When I watch film of muslims caressing goats after pleasuring them,
Or bathing in and drinking camel urine,
I feel sure that I am not missing anything,
That I could spend my dwindling time in.
gravenimage says
🙂
James Lincoln says
As long as muslims believe that muhammad existed, from a practical point of view, it probably doesn’t matter if it is all false…
࿗Infidel࿘ says
True
There is one practical scenario where it makes sense: the Temple Mount. Right now, Israel has a policy of recognizing it as an islamic holy place b’cos they take seriously the islamic claim to the site based on Muhammad’s dream. But if they ever were convinced that historically there isn’t enough evidence to prove the very existence of Muhammad, then that could be enough of a pretext to completely dismiss those islamic claims, and then hand all the Temple Mount properties to their rightful owners – the Jewish people
James Lincoln says
Infidel,
Thank you for your informative reply.
gravenimage says
It is not just Muslims who can benefit from reading Robert Spencer’s work. And just asking these questions is important–you can’t question the “Prophet” in Islam.
pfwag says
Islam is the Borg. Resistance is futile,. Surrender and become part of the collective… or get your head chopped off.
gravenimage says
Yep–that’s it.
Walter Sieruk says
The topic of if or if not the prophet of Islam actually existed is a very interesting subject of debate.
Another subject of interest is that in the United Kingdom the infiltration and influence created by the Muslim who are stealth jihadists is so very strong in the British law system that any criticism of Islam , ,however mild, it now illegal in the UK
The apologists and propagandists for Islam will never be honest to admit it , but the real cause for those laws in England forbidding any criticism is because the foundations of Islam are crumbling is because basic fundamentals of that religion are fragile and weak To put this in another way, it may be ,truly, said that the foundations of Islam are built on sand.
Walter Sieruk says
An example of how Islam is built on foundation of sand is that supreme book is a hoax, which is seen when the errors and contradictions in it are discovered. As revealed on pages 145 through 157 in THE ISLAMIC INVASION by Robert Morey in which he wrote a section on the Qu‘ran with its self-contradictions. Just two of the many he cited are the following “The Qu’ran differs on whether a day is a thousand years or fifty thousand years in God’s sight’ and “Who was first to believe? Abraham or Moses [Sura 6:14 versus 7:143]? The above is inconsistent and illogical. Further, Morey wrote about “The fact that Judaism and Christianity broke up into different sects was used in the Qu ‘ran to prove that they are not of God [Suras 30:20-32. 42:13, 14]. Yet Islam has broken up into many warring sects and therefore cannot be true if the Quran is right.”
Moreover, Morey in his book shows many more contradictions and absurdities in the Quran, there are and how Muhammad incorporated extra Biblical and Jewish folklore along with pre-Islamic Arabian myth and parts of Zoroastrian and Hindu stories into the Quran.
Furthermore, the Muslims claim that “the Qur ‘an is the direct, literal word of God unmodified in any way by the Prophet who uttered them at the bidding of God.” In addition, in the book UNVEILING ISLAM by Ergun Mehmet Caner and Eethi Caner has shown that the Quran was modified in the following account on pages 45. “Muhammad felt the need to improve on the words of Allah, since he changed Allah’s wisdom for his own on several occasions. A hadith tells of the nonchalant emendations of Muhammad:’ On a number of occasions he [a scribe] had, with the Prophet’s consent changed the closing words of verses. For example, when the prophet had said ‘God is mighty and wise ‘ Adbollah b. Abi Sarh suggested writing down ‘Knowing and wise’ and the Prophet answered that there was no objection. Having observed a succession of changes of this type, Adbollah renounced Islam on the grounds that revelations, if from God could not be changed at the prompting of a scribe such as himself. After his apostasy he went to Mecca and joined the Qorayshites.’ Other writers reveal that later Muhammad and his people did go war with the Qorayshites and he personally killed Abdollah. Obviously Abdollah knew too much and Muhammad wanted Abdollah’s knowledge to die with him.”
In conclusion, the Qu ‘ran is not only a fiction, it’s also a hoax.
It should be added that the last statement of the above that “the Qu ‘ran is not only a fiction, it’s also a hoax.” To put this in a Biblical way. As in from the Bible, it may be truly explained that the Qu ‘ran is a deceptive work of “the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.” Ephesians 14:12.. [N.I.V.]
Walter Sieruk says
A very important question is the Qur ‘an really divine or is it a hoax ?
So, a very important question should be asked “Does the Qur ‘an have errors and contradictions in it ?”
The answer to that question is found on pages 145 through 157 in THE ISLAMIC INVASION by Robert Morey in which he wrote a section on the Qu‘ran with its self-contradictions. Just two of the many he cited are the following “The Qu’ran differs on whether a day is a thousand years or fifty thousand years in God’s sight’ and “Who was first to believe? Abraham or Moses [Sura 6:14 versus 7:143]? The above is inconsistent and illogical. Further, Morey wrote about “The fact that Judaism and Christianity broke up into different sects was used in the Qu ‘ran to prove that they are not of God [Suras 30:20-32. 42:13, 14]. Yet Islam has broken up into many warring sects and therefore cannot be true if the Qur’an is right.”
Moreover, Morey in his book shows many more contradictions and absurdities in the Quran, there are and how Muhammad incorporated extra Biblical and Jewish folklore along with pre-Islamic Arabian myth and parts of Zoroastrian and Hindu stories into the Qur ‘an.
OLD GUY says
Big Moe may have not existed, but that doesn’t matter if he exists in their minds. Changing Islamic followers minds is almost impossible it is in every fold of their lives and corner of their mind. Islamic leaders are the main problem. They wish to spread their power and control over the entire world much the same as Nazi Germany did back in the 1930s. We are in for the fight of our lives again.
Daniel Moore says
I like your comment about YouTube comment insanity. The Internet is full of that stuff. My position on Islam is simple: It is a Satanic death cult. Period.
gravenimage says
Video: Robert Spencer on Three Reasons Why the Muhammad of Islamic Tradition Didn’t Exist
……………………………………………………
Muslims don’t want anyone asking these questions about Islam.
jewdog says
The two books that have clinched my understanding are Robert’s “Did Mo Exist” and Shomaker’s “A Prophet Has Appeared”, which is a compendium of translated Christian and Jewish witness accounts from the 7th century.
Putting the two together, here’s what I learned. There were two phases.
Phase 1:
The 7th century saw the rise of a largely non-sectarian rebellion against the Byzantine rulers, led by a group calling themselves “Believers”, indicating a generic religiosity, as there was no Islam yet. The identity of Muhammad as leader was mentioned in gthe docs. Despite fighting Christian Romans, documents show a respectful attitude towards Christians. There is evidence of an effort to rebuild Solomon’s Temple for this group, and the ban on Jewish residence in Jerusalem, imposed since the Bar Kochba rebellion in 134 was probably lifted. Thus, a powerful coalition was put together for success (unlike Bar Kochba’s narrowly-based effort, which failed). This was no religious war, but political one. There was no evidence of religious fanaticism at that time, and Muhammad (or the leadership in general) did not demand a specific religious adherence, though acknowledment of Muhammad’s prophethood was required.
Phase 2:
Now that the Byzantines were ousted, the Believers had a huge amount of land and people to control. To help with that, probably in the 8th century, the Abbasid Caliphs synthesized Christian and Jewish liturgy, often mistranslated to make the Quran. They transformed the 7th century rebellion into a religious struggle, mythologizing Muhammad as a religious zealot, introducing religious supremacy and intolerance by dividing believer and unbeliever, identifying belief with loyalty to the Caliphate, and unbelief as treason. Quranic virtue meant loyalty to the state and the willingness to fight and die for its expansion. It was formula for power and control. At the time, the empire was dynamic and expanding, so aggression was prized as a virtue.
Based on the witness documents and other clues, Muhammad and his team were probably based in what is now Petra, Jordan. That makes sense as Petra was under Roman rule, and there were certainly more recruits avalaible than in the Hijaz. In any case, Medina and Mecca were not under Roman rule, and very sparsely populated, so a rebellion there was unlikely. Plus, ancient mosques faced Petra’s direction, not Mecca. Mecca was probably chosen because of it significance as a religious center in pre-Islamic times. Placing the Hijaz as the origin of the revolt would be like claiming that the Founding Fathers were located in the far west, outside British control in no-man’s land.
In conclusion, Islam is a handmaiden of empire; it’s all about domination and power. It is an ideology to fit a political situation that no longer exists, yet lives on as a kind of malign ghost, spewing its supremacist message in a world that has moved on. Terrorism is part of the aggressive ethic encouraged by the caliphs, as though the empire still existed. It’s all just a hideous anachronism which plagues so much of the world.