Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins Paperback – September 1, 2014

This book was great. It summed up most of the evidence against the traditional view of the origins of Islam. I was already starting to come to several of these conclusions myself based off on other books I have read, but this book threw the discussion into a whole new ball field. Other books like Philip Jenkins'  The Lost History of Christianity  talked about how interesting the rise of Islam was, and how the Muslims converted most of the monophysite Christians from north Africa in only a matter of years. Why was this? He drew the conclusion that it because the Muslims were very similar to a Christian sect during that time period. So coming into this book I admit to having my bias against the proper origins of Islam, but this book was still a fantastic resource that I will probably re-read in the near future.I will go through the eleven different chapters and explain the point and purpose of each, before giving a summary. But do understand that I am just giving a basic overview of each chapter. They are more complex than I can go into in a review:The Full Light of History: This is the introduction chapter, which speaks about how Muhammad is heralded as the only religious leader who is not shrouded in history. He claims that this is not so. "The issue is whether legend supplemented a historical record to the extent that it was no longer possible to determine what was legend and what was history." (p.15)The Man Who Wasn't There: He examines the absence of a Muhammad figure from any non-Islamic historical records, and how the earliest writings containing a record of an "Arabian Prophet" give details that downright contradict an orthodox Islamic view of Muhammad.Jesus, the Muhammad: He talks about how the word "muhammad" actually means "praised one (p.55)." An early text of the Qur'an says, "Muhammad is the servant of God and his messenger." However, this could also be translated, "Praised be the servant of God and his messenger." Mix this with the coins and architecture from this period which have Christian crosses on them and you can interpret this as talking about Jesus, and you can interpret it this way without any strain at all.Inventing Muhammad: So how did Muhammad come about then, if he was just a made up character? It was actually through the use of a type of story called a "hadith." In the power struggle that ensued the fall of the Umayyads, the Abbasids and the Shi'ites both started pumping out hadiths in order to show how Muhammad had credited them as the true rulers while considering the opposing side as betrayers or unworthy. Eventually over 293,000 hadiths were discredited and only around 2,500 of the hadiths were said to be accurate, even when they contradicted each other.Switching on the Full Light of History: Apparently, the first biographer of Muhammad, whose biography all others are based on, didn't write his biography until around 125 years after the death of Muhammad. He was also not a credible author, and later biographers who supposedly based their biographies off of his added details and embellished points. This makes the biographical tradition of Islam un-credible.The Embarrassment of Muhammad: Muhammad has some embarrassing stories. He even supposedly forgot some of the Qur'an in his life, yet this was because "Allah made him forget it on purpose." These embarrassing stories are often used as proof that Muhammad existed (because why embarrass the great prophet?), but Spencer argues that these were left to show that it's okay that recent history doesn't mention anything about Muhammad because he himself forgot stuff and it was divinely mandated. The fact that we all forgot about him in the history books was divinely mandated too. He uses other examples as well.Here the book changes focus away from Muhammad himself and switches to showing how the Qur'an was not written by a single author, and how it does have variants and is not the original revelation to a single person.The Unchanging Qur'an Changes: In this chapter he shows the diversity inside the Qur'an, and how Muhammad himself is said to have had no problem whatsoever with diversity of readings of the Qur'an. He also shows how the order of some Qur'an passages have been rearranged from their original form.The Non-Arabic Arabic Qur'an: This was the chapter that had me hooked. Spencer talks about the nonsense readings of the Qur'an. He talks about how the Qur'an feels the need to consistently say that it was originally in Arabic to a fault, and how there are actually major hints that it was originally in Syriac. For example, the nonsense readings that make no sense in Arabic often make perfect sense in Syriac, and these readings generally do not come out as Islamic readings, but they closely resemble early Christian literature.What the Qur'an Might Have Been: This is where the historical "fact" of the Qur'an being written by Muhammad is brought under scrutiny. It makes the most sense in light of the evidence to say that the Qur'an was originally a Christian lectionary. Even the word "Qur'an" closely resembles the Syriac word for "lectionary." He talks about how it would make sense for this to have been the teachings of Arius, the man from Nicaea who claimed that Jesus was not God, only a messenger of God (A Prophet of God?).Who Collected the Qur'an: Lastly, Spencer shows how the traditional accounts of Uthman collecting the Qur'an is false. "Beyond the fact that the text Uthman supposedly collected does not survive, there is also no mention of the Koran as such in the available literature until early in the eighth century. What's more, although Uthman supposedly burned other versions of the Koran, some variant reading in the Koranic text have survived to the present day. To be sure, none of the extant variants is large, but even the smallest is enough to debunk the Islamic apologetic argument that...the Koranic text is...unaltered, unedited, not tampered with in any way, since the time of its revelation (p.193)." He talks about how the truth of who collected the Qur'an actually leads us to Abd al-Malik and Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. This would have been for the political reason of discrediting the Umayyads, who had never heard of Muhammad and thus needed to be overthrown for the good of Allah (who they said the Umayyads had purposely ignored)!!!Making Sense Of It All: Spencer summarizes all of his points from throughout the book into point format as well as going over the obscure "facts" that are torn down in the book.Overall, this book was extremely interesting. I have heard others say that these are arguments from silence. I would contend that they are not. Here you have motives, not blank "I don't know why they would make him up" scenarios. I have avidly opposed the "mythicists (Jesus never existed)" for some time now because this is the nature of their arguments. "Well we don't see Jesus over every billboard in the first century Middle East, so this small time 'prophet' must have not existed." Also they cannot produce a good motive for the random invention of Jesus other than "because Paul wanted too." This book does not go down to that level. It presents clear arguments that show a clear political motive for the invention of Muhammad.I still think that there was some sort of "Muhammad" figure in history, but this book made a clear and dominant case against the authenticity of the Islamic accounts. Much Recommended.

For the last two centuries, secular and skeptical scholars have attempted to learn about the "historical Jesus", the actual person behind the Gospel accounts, and to develop a secular explanation for the origin of Christianity. This effort necessarily involves some degree skepticism about the traditional accounts of the life and words of Jesus and the apostles found in scripture. There has not really been much of an effort to find the "historical Mohammed" and to reconstruct the early history of Islam.The historian who wishes to investigate the origin of Islam suffers from two disadvantages that the historian of Christianity does not. First, while the evidence for Jesus' life outside the New Testament is scanty, Jesus and the early Christians lived in a literate culture and the earliest Christians writings and non-Christian references to the new religion begin to appear within decades of Jesus' death. Islam, on the other have, began in an almost completely illiterate, predominately oral, culture. The earliest written accounts of the life of Mohammed do not appear until more than a century after his death. These are largely those collections of Mohammed's sayings and deeds called the Hadith, which were transmitted orally for several generations, and even Muslim scholars concede that many are spurious. The Koran is supposed to have been roughly contemporary with Mohammed, but there is good reason to suppose that it too was not collected until more than a century after Mohammed.The second disadvantage that the skeptical scholar of Islam faces is the fact that he literally endangers his life by making inquiries that the followers of the religion of peace disapprove of. For this reason, several scholars are obliged to use pseudonyms or invest in security. Less daring investigators prefer to study less dangerous subjects, such as the origins of Judaism or Christianity, whose followers are noticeably less inclined to murder them when they are offended.For this reason, we have good reason to be thankful that Robert Spencer is willing to take on the subject of the origin of Islam in his latest book, Did Mohammed Exist? Robert Spencer is not a scholar and offers no original research in writing Did Mohammed Exist. Instead, he has presented the works of those scholars who have questioned the traditional origin story of Islam in a clear, easily understood manner and convincingly makes the argument that Mohammed, at least in the sense of being the prophet from Mecca, did not exist.Did Mohammed exist? It may seem an odd question to ask. Surely, there is as much evidence that Mohammed existed as Jesus or Socrates. Even a non-Muslim must concede that, even if he does not believe Mohammed is a prophet. In fact, as Spencer shows, the evidence for Mohammed's life is sparse. As I mentioned above, Muslim accounts of his life are not found until more than a century or more after his death. Non-Muslim chroniclers, although they describe the invasions of the Arab armies, make no mentions of the Arab prophet or of the Koran. Coins minted by the earliest caliphs are more likely to show Christian symbols, rather than quotations from the Koran.Spencer also notes that the Koran is a very strange book in that it is very disordered and many Arabic words don't actually make any sense. This is due, in part, to the fact that the earliest Arabic alphabet did not make distinctions between certain letters and if some of the letters are changed, the text makes more sense. Spencer also notes that much of the Koran may, in fact, have been written in Syriac, a language closely related to Arabic, and again if some words are actually Syriac, than the text makes more sense. (For one thing, those virgins that martyrs are promised are more likely to be white raisins.)As for Mohammed, that name only appears a few times in the Koran. The name means "one who is highly praised" and could be a title rather than a proper name. While it is likely that there was a warlord or prophet with that name or title, the Mohammed of Islam almost certainly did not exist. Spencer shows that the historical evidence simply cannot confirm the traditional accounts. There is much that is contradictory in these accounts and there is much that does not match what is known of the conditions in Arabia in the time that Mohammed is said to have lived. It seems more likely, according to Spencer, that the legend of Mohammed and much of the religion of Islam was created, out of Jewish and Christian traditions in the first century of the Arab Empire as an attempt to provide an Arabic religious ideology to unify the diverse conquered peoples. Whether the reader ends up agreeing with Robert Spencer's thesis or not, they are sure to find Did Mohammed Exist? A thought provoking exploration of the story behind the origins of one of the world's largest religions.

A very well researched,A very scholarly work.I admire the courage of the author to write down a politically incorrect book.I don't have enough words to more glorify this book.

Very good book ! Muhammad is not what you believe ! The Qur'an ia a human book written long after the death of Muhammad ! Spencer did a very good job to show how Islam appeared !

Chapeau pour l'auteur, et merci pour ce travail de recherches qui abondent TOUS vers le même constat à travers le monde des scientifiques. Muhammad est un personnage emprunté pour le déshabiller et le rhabiller d'une autre vie, et dans des régions différentes, au gré des califats pour rendre "saint" un livre, une histoire, diabolique !

A must read.

The facts underlying this very readable and revealing work by Robert Spencer have all the appearances of having been carefully researched and investigated. When we come to investigate the origins of all kinds of religion its soon becomes apparent that the greater part of religious belief is based on fiction rather than fact and Islam is no exception to this rule. This truth begs the question: would such religions have survived had their doctrines changed to keep pace with the advancement of truth? Seeing the way in which these religions react to genuine attempts to reveal the truth behind their origins, it is hard not to accept that they feel threatened by such investigations, which causes them to go to great lengths to protect what they see as the integrity of their beliefs even when many of them are plainly contrary to proven truth.Robert Spencer has no axe to grind. He is interested only in searching for and revealing the truth without animosity of any kind. The work contains an introduction, ten chapters, notes, further reading, acknowledgements and an index. The ten chapters are: 1: The Full Light of /history?2: The Man Who Wasn't There. 2: Jesus, the Mohammad. 3 Inventing Mohammad.4: Switching on the Full Light of History. 5: The Embarrassment of Mohammad. 6: The Unchanging Qur'an Changes. 7: The Non-Arabic Arabic Qur'an. 8: What the Qur'an May Have Been. 9: Who Collected the Qur'an? 10: Making Sense of it All. The book contains no maps or illustrations. Although this may, a first, seem to be drawback, it is easily remedied by availing oneself of a whole plethora of such aids from atlases and internet sources. Realising this, the author probably thought it better to concentrate on his careful research and lucid reasoning.There really is no need to anyone to feel either threatened or insulted by such carefully researched and reasoned explanations as presented in this work. When I was a school we had a play ground saying that went: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. The best kind of religion is that which mellows with age, finding itself able to accept and absorb new truths as they are revealed. Just because it is revealed that something has very different origins from those that it has long believed to have had doesn't mean that this something is suddenly useless and of no value. Indeed, just the opposite may prove to be the case as is stated in the old adage: truth is often stranger than fiction. Since our understanding of life, the universe and our place in it is constantly being improved and developed, why should religion of any kind be an exception to proven fact? We are told that 'the laws of the Medes and the Persians could never be changed'. Well, where now are the Medes and the Persians?In the overcrowded, ever more complicated world in which we live to today, people are looking for kind hearted, straightforward, helpful guidance that can help to make life less stressful. In this masterpiece of carefully researched thinking, Robert Spencer provides us with the tools with which this liberating freedom of thought may be achieved. High moral standards and religion are not the same. History teaches us that religious dogma all too often undermines natural caring and compassion. Robert Spencer approaches his subject in a kind, caring and understanding way which religion of all kinds would do well to emulate.