Robert Spencer Asks: Did Muhammad Exist?

Pages: 1 2

Editor’s note: Robert Spencer’s acclaimed new book, Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins, is now available. To order, click here

One of the jihadists’ most potent psychological weapons is the double standard Muslims have imposed on the West. Temples and churches are destroyed and vandalized, Christians murdered and driven from the lands of Christianity’s birth, anti-Semitic lunacy propagated by high-ranking Muslim clerics, and Christian territory like northern Cyprus ethnically cleansed and occupied by Muslims. Yet the West ignores these depredations all the while it agonizes over trivial “insults” to Islam and Mohammed, and decries the thought-crime of “Islamophobia” whenever even factual statements are made about Islamic history and theology. This groveling behavior confirms the traditional Islamic chauvinism that sees Muslims as the “best of nations” destined by Allah to rule the world through violent jihad.

Even in the rarefied world of academic scholarship, this fear of offense has protected Islam from the sort of critical scrutiny every other world religion has undergone for centuries. Some modern scholars who do exercise their intellectual freedom and investigate these issues, like Christoph Luxenberg or Ibn Warraq, must work incognito to avoid the wrath of the adherents of the “Religion of Peace.” Now Robert Spencer, the fearless director of Jihad Watch and author of several books telling the truths about Islam obscured by a frightened academy and media, in his new book Did Muhammad Exist? challenges this conspiracy of fear and silence by surveying the scholarship and historical evidence for the life and deeds of Islam’s founder.

As Spencer traces the story of Muhammed through ancient sources and archaeology, the evidence for the Prophet’s life becomes more and more evanescent. The name Muhammad, for example, appears only 4 times in the Qur’an, as compared to the 136 mentions of Moses in the Qur’an. And those references to Muhammad say nothing specific about his life. The first biography of Muhammad, written by Ibn Ishaq 125 years after the Prophet’s death, is the primary source of biographical detail, yet it “comes down to us only in the quite lengthy fragments reproduced by an even later chronicler, Ibn Hisham, who wrote in the first quarter of the ninth century, and by other historians who reproduced and thereby preserved additional sections.”

Nor are ancient sources outside Islam any more forthcoming. An early document from around 635, by a Jewish writer converting to Christianity, merely mentions a generic “prophet” who comes “armed with a sword.” But in this document the “prophet” is still alive 3 years after Muhammad’s death. And this prophet was notable for proclaiming the imminent arrival of the Jewish messiah. “At the height of the Arabian conquests,” Spencer writes, “the non Muslim sources are as silent as the Muslim ones are about the prophet and holy book that were supposed to have inspired those conquests.” This uncertainty in the ancient sources is a consistent feature of Spencer’s succinct survey of them. Indeed, these sources call into question the notion that Islam itself was recognized as a new, coherent religion. In 651, when Muawiya called on the Byzantine emperor Constantine to reject Christianity, he evoked the “God of our father Abraham,” not Islam per se. One hundred years after the death of Muhammad, “the image of the prophet of Islam remained fuzzy.”

Non-literary sources from the late 7th century are equally vague. Dedicatory inscriptions on dams and bridges make no mention of Islam, the Qur’an, or Mohammad. Coins bear the words “in the name of Allah,” the generic word for God used by Christians and Jews, but say nothing about Muhammad as Allah’s prophet or anything about Islam. Particularly noteworthy is the absence of Islam’s foundational statement “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” Later coins referring specifically to Muhammad depict him with a cross, contradicting the Qur’anic rejection of Christ’s crucifixion and later prohibitions against displaying crucifixes. Given that other evidence suggests that the word “muhammad” is an honorific meaning “praised one,” it is possible that these coins do not refer to the historical Muhammad at all.

Pages: 1 2

  • 2binzion

    It is long overdue that the good people of this world stamp out this virulent form of Islam. Throughout the centuries as Spencer has written in his book, Islamic thugs have been lying in order to intimidate and force people into submission. We are seeing this on a daily basis, from the rantings coming from Iran and even Farakhan. I pray that this book will be successful in opening the minds of good people everywhere so that they realize they must no longer be passive. WE MUST BE STRONG! Otherwise the world is headed once again into the Dark Ages, but this time it will be nuclear.

    • ProgDestroyer

      Sorry, Islam is as much of a religion as Ford Mustangs are a fruit. It is a tyrannical oppressive totalitarian political dogma that is statism hiding behind a fig leaf sized patina of religiosity. It like it's pagan/secular brother marxism needs to be opposed at all cost with the same vigor Ronaldus Magnus dispatched the brother. The first step is to root out and destroy the PC culture and then to start deporting them. Islam is completely incompatible with representational democracy and a free classical liberal society. They are one of the enemies within.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      It is long overdue that the good people of this world stamp out this virulent form of Islam.

      Curious, can you provide any evidence that there is any other form of Islam? Notwithstanding the fact that the crackpot version of Islam Farakhan practices and promotes is not really Islam.

      We are seeing this on a daily basis, from the rantings coming from Iran and even Farakhan.

      Uhm…I can promise you that the bastardized lunatic version of Islam that Farakhan practices is in no way similar to true Islam as practiced in the Islamic world, rendering your moral equivalence utterly absurd. In fact, if Farakhan lived in an Islamic country as opposed to America and advocated the same kind of bastardized lunatic version of Islam he does over here, he would have been executed many decades ago.

    • Admonish

      Mr.Spencer, Seems like that you are so mesmerized and baffled with the astonishing and unparallel personality of Prophet Muhammad that you have lost the common sense. With your line of argument you have proved time and again that you are baised and rather ignorant person. Your argument that Did Muhammad Exist? can be given for any prophet (Ibraheem, Moses, Jesus…)or even for God. Question is does it matter ? If God wants to send his teachings, it could be sent in any way he chooses. So it is the great teachings of Islam which has attracted Billions of people to follow……ALWAYS REMEMBER THIS POINT

  • truebearing

    Fascinating piece, yet not surprising. The political agenda of Islam dominates the purpose of this pseudo-religion and the spirituality of Islam seems to me to be awkward, contrived, and obsessively political. I am certainly no expert, but from what I know, I have concluded that Islam is a cut and paste job from the Middle Ages.

    This revelation about Islam's parasitic history reminds me of what the Left does when they take over a cause, eg. environmentalism. Once in control, they continued to project an environmental message, but it is shrill and false, with a palpable rapacity for political power that is cloaked, but thinly disguised, in the husk of the original movement.

  • crackerjack

    Did Jesus exist? Abraham, Moses, Saul or David? Religious figures are made up of legend, folklore and centuries of manipulation through the religious establishment.

    And theose……."quintessential and powerful Western ideals", didn't prevent the Holocaust, World Wars, slavery etc.

    • RonCarnine

      Crackerjack, your assertion that "Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Saul or David" didn't exist certainly goes against the evidence that exists that argues the opposite. I'm not just talking about religious evidence, but references from secular sources. The evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is the opposite of the evidence for Mohammed. You further argue since there were World Wars, slavery and the Holocaust this is further "evidence" that Jesus didn't exist. That's kind of like arguing that since, for example, we had a terrible WW2 that Truman didn't exist. How is that evidence? That isn't even a rational argument. We now have evidence that Jesus lived and that evidence exists in the form of manuscripts less than 100 yrs old. New finds of David and his Kingdom have now been found in archaeological excavations in the land of Israel. Further you state that all the ref. to Biblical characters are "…Western ideals". Nothing could be further from the truth. These truths came out of the Middle East, and then the rest of the world, with the West coming in long after the Christian movement was well established.

      • TruthSeeker

        Perhaps one reason few manuscripts of the Holy Quran, unlike New Testament versions, exist is that the people who compiled the official version had variant copies destroyed. Whoops! Did someone just desecrate the Holy Quran????

        Also, Crackerjack doesn't argue what you say he is. He is arguing that the "quintessential and powerful Western ideas" didn't prevent the Holocaust, World Wars (sic), slavery, etc. He overlooks that human nature created all of these, and that Western ideas were the source of the now two centuries-old effort to eradicate slavery.

      • aspacia


        Cracked is an undereducated, illogical liberal.

        • Roger


    • Tom

      We have a picture of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin.

      • intrcptr2

        That shroud is a medieval fraud.
        Recall, Luke mentions that there was a "napkin" over Jesus' face when he was entombed. It would have completely obscured his features.

        • Ricky Michael

          You would find reading more shroud lore interesting I think. There was both a napkin over his face and a shroud burial cloth. Also, the medieval fraud that you assert as yet to be duplicated by anyone. There are a whole lot of theories floating around about how it was made, yet they can't do it, exactly as it exists.

          There is a puzzling 3-dimensional quality embedded into the image that cannot have been done with 2-dimensional painting in any fashion possible. No pigment exists on the cloth. Degraded human blood does. Interesting to say the least.

          This puzzle will never be solved with 100% certainty.

        • Roger

          I believe Luke describes it as a burial cloth.
          Luke 23:53.
          Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid.

          That would seem to indicate the entire body was wrapped.

          • intrcptr2

            Sorry, wrong book, bad memory;

            The entire body was wrapped, yes. But typically not with a single wrapping around the long axis. And John does indicate that he had a separate cloth over his face.

          • Roger

            I had to go back and check. You're right on what John said.Matt. 27:59 says that the entire body was wrapped.Mark 15:46 says the body was taken down, and wrapped.This is a 3:1 thing that might cause some to doubt the accuracy. I don't see why there wasn't a different additional linen over his face. Remember how badly he was beaten and had the crown of thorns, all that would have caused trauma. And that meant fluids leaking from the wounds. They may have wanted to do both. And it still would have left fluids to leak through one thin layer on his face.I don't see that you're wrong on the small piece over his face, I just don't see where that proves the shroud, or disproves the shroud.I don't need the shroud of Turin to have my faith. I just don't attack it since I'm not Catholic.

      • aspacia

        This is probably not Jesus.

        • Roger

          The false argument they allow us is this.

          Either we prove the shroud is real or they deny the event happened.
          The cruxifiction is an historic event, whether the shroud is authentic or not.

          So, they're working from a flawed position.

    • Paul of Alexandria

      Actually, yes. The Old Testament has been shown to be historically accurate through archeological evidence. It was written as a history by eyewitnesses. Likewise, the Gospels are not simply a collection of stories but are eyewitness accounts collected in such a manner as to be admissible in a court of law. The existence of Josephus is also attested to by non-Christian historians such as Josephus and Tacitus. You might want to check out the podcasts at "Issues, Etc":
      and the series on Biblical Chronology with Dr. Andrew Steinmann:

      • aspacia

        Yes, Paul,

        I am a Deist, and a historian, but have no doubt that Jesus did live and preach.

    • RoguePatriot6

      "religious establishment"???

      Is this a global organization or something that's bent upon world domination?

    • aspacia


      Jesus did exist, and this is documented in several nonChristian texts, Josephus comes to mind.

      The problem is that the patriarchs trashed huge amounts of Christian texts during the Council of Nicaea. The Gnostics Bible casts other insights into Jesus and his teachings. It appears that the apostles were very jealous of Mary Magadelene and Jesus was very communal.

      Secularism has caused the death of more people than religion ever did: Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al

    • popseal

      Too many contemporaries of Jesus died horrible deaths rather than deny His existence and work in their personal lives for us today to reasonably question His history, to say nothing of His mention once in secular documents of His era. I received Him into my life (as Savior), repenting of my past, and have enjoyed His grace for 41 years since.

    • ProgDestroyer

      I read your comment a bit differently than the others that have posted. You stupidly seem to be saying that in essence that Christian philosophy is responsible for the monstrous actions of the past including the 20th century incarnations. Only a ignorant fool would say that the true believers that followed nazism, marxism and it 41 flavors were Christian based. They were in fact secular with pagan flavoring fool. Why is it with you assclowns that any criticism of the moon-god worshippers must include an even more vigorous assault on the only two religions in the west? Attacking those who won't fight back and would rather smile and pray for you is pathetic and weak. I'll bet you thought you were the tough guy in school because the special needs kids ran from you in fear. You really are richard cranium.

  • Chezwick

    I tend to believe in the historical Muhammad. The portrait of him conveyed in Islam's own canonical texts, the Ahadith and the Sirat Rasul, is of a warlord, a pedophile (Aisha), a mass murderer (the POWs of the Banu Qurayza tribe), a man who solicited the murder of a pregnant poetess and an octogenarian, and someone who advocated changes in date-pollination strategies that resulted in dramatically reduced yields.

    Sure mores change, but even by 7th century standards, this is hardly what one would call a flattering portrait. How improbable that such moral turpitude would be contrived in the building of a false personna.

    • Wallabee

      I think the point is that the legends of Muhammad were a type of political propaganda used to justify the actions of various Islamic conquerors.

      If you were a nasty depraved warlord who wanted to justify your own pedophilia, mass murder, assassinations, polygamy, sexual slavery, thievery, dishonesty etc, etc etc, wouldn't it be very useful to create and/or perpetuate the idea of a divinely sanctioned "model" who not only condoned but practiced these things?

      And if you had the power of the sword to enforce these views, who would argue?

      And if it worked really well for you, why should that same legend not work for others?

      I have this tendency, as you seem to, to think that any "legend" that has had such a significant impact (and heavy toll) on the world would have to be rooted at least somewhat in an historical person.

      But I think Spencer is making some very valid points, and I plan on purchasing the book.

    • Curious

      Can I ask where you read about him being described as a warlord, mass murderer and such, I would like to read up on it. Thanks.

      • Orlando

        Try: Why I am not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq

  • proxywar

    Can i get this on my nook?

    • Eldon

      There's a good chance that your nook can read the kindle version. If not, download a free program called Calibre and you can convert the kindle version to a version that your nook can read.

  • Gamaliel

    Maybe Muhammad didn't exist but that raises some questions. If I was making up stories of a prophet I would give him unlimited powers. When the infidels challenge him to move mountains I'd have him move the mountain not make excuses. Likewise after he claimed to fly on buraq to the heavens I wouldn't have his wife Aisha say that his body was next to her all night. These events described by Islamic texts suggest that a charlatan by the name of Muhammad really did exist.

  • David M

    Robert Spencer has done a great work and I hope the book can change the mind of some muslims who have lost all sense of goodness and humanity and have become the enemy of our civilization. This monster mohammad (imaginary or real) and this islam cult have declared war, by their zombie followers, on our life, freedom and civilization.

  • jacko

    why people do not comment or question Islam is because they are afraid of the brutal primitive and barbaric behaviour of Moslems who reerve the right for themselves to kill and murder all who disagree with their view that Islam and the caliphate is destined to rule over the world. (Salman Rushdie) They compllain that the Jews are taking over the world when it in effect it is their desire to do so and they are gradually succeeding due to the weakkneed Christian world who are frightened of offending them and the politicians who rely on their votes to cling on to their lucrative seats.

    • southwood


      The problem is, it's not a "weakkneed Christian" world, it's a weakkneed Western society which has cast off Christianity. It now has no backbone. The basic Christian beliefs are what gives a society such backbone. Evidence ? Look at the Christians who HAVE to believe in it or be killed, Christians under the rule of Islam. These Christians stand up for what they believe in. Pastors have accepted beheading rather than renounce Christianity. A pastor is currently under sentence of death in Iran because he refuses to accept Islam. If we had such leaders in the West, in church and in state ; if we had such Christians proliferating in our societies, we would be standing up to Islam, exposing it, weakening it. Instead we have pragmatism and political correctness. Islam will walk all over the West while these are its ruling ideologies.

  • Geneww

    Excellent article …
    The main fact remains that 'God Authored The Bible' as proven at ! All other 'Holy Books' that claim errors in the Bible or disagree with the Bible had an authored inspired by a god other than the God who created this universe, heaven and provides salvation for eternity in heaven for those who acknowlege they are sinners, repent of their sin [yet remain a sinner by nature], acknowledge that Jesus Christ paid for all sins as a gift, and ask for that gift of forgiveness.

  • Michael S.

    I wholeheartedly agree with Chezwick and most of the other posts above me. Born Jewish, I see the almost carbon copy imitations of the two religions that came after Judaism, i.e Christianity and Islam.
    There are many very good societal reasons to follow many of the "laws" that are laid down in these religious texts but one must always remember that in the end everything that "Religions" profess is there to grow, the 'Tribe' and protect it from other 'tribes' that are trying to do the same thing.
    'Power' and 'Protection' of the tribe are the key words in discussing meaning of religion

    • intrcptr2

      That's a very nice, secular take on it all, except for one thing; it was Jews who created Christianity in the first place.

  • Schlomotion

    Did Muhammad exist? D'oh. Solved that for ya:

    • stern

      Ah yes, wikipedia. First (and last) resort of the intellectually challenged and lazy.

      • Schlomotion

        I suppose it's lazy to show the man a picture of the round Earth, too, but in matters of delusional thinking, time is of the essence.

        • stern

          Just think how much time you would save if you ignored this site, rather than using it as an outlet for your Jew hatred.

          • Schlomotion

            I am extravagantly rich in time and intellect. I like to spend freely.

          • Roger

            Doing nothing much of consequence…..

            Other than using liberal talking points (which don't make sense by the way).

          • Schlomotion

            It must be a lot of consequence because you latch onto every comment in order to try to counter it.

          • Roger

            Not with a straight face.

            Isn't it time you blame the Jews for something again?

          • Schlomotion

            How about the Anti Islamic Terrorist Army protecting us from baseball shirts?

          • Roger

            It's that 'rule of law' thing. You won't understand it.

          • Schlomotion

            Right. The "rule of law" dictates that the entire free republic be reconstituted around counter-jihad and that these very expensive totalitarian police forces should be used to arrest people who sell jerseys at flea markets.

          • Roger

            So many big words.

            The rule of law is that the judge is to uphold the constitution. That says he has a right to say what he wants to. And you can't show anything else.

            Why are you so determinedly dense? No jews to blame?

          • Stephen_Brady

            Interesting … woops! I started to say "give and take" … but Schlomotion, who freely "gives" of his "vast intellect" (/sarc off), merely allows you to take him to the woodshed for an intellectual spanking. Poor fellow can't help it. He doesn't realize it's happening …

          • Roger

            I really don't think they allow themselves that much honesty.

          • guest

            you are a pauper in intellect and rich in cowardice – just like all the Jew hating trolls on this site who don't have the balls to attack islam – just keep scapegoating those Jews – at least you won't get beheaded.

          • Schlomotion

            People only say things like you do when they know they will never meet that person. It's a shame people don't act the same way online as they do in real life. There are a lot of people here who are still in the "I am a ten foot elf-lord" phase of internet use.

    • Awhat?

      The problem with that is that Wiki is relying on the very artifacts that Specer calls into question. If you make an appeal to authority (Wiki) and that authority is using for its support what has been called into question, then it isn't an authority.

      Now I'm skeptical of Mr. Spencer's claims, but it would seem that they have to be resolved

    • intrcptr2


      Don't quit your day job, buddy. :/

  • Rick

    All religion is for babies. End of conversation.

    • Tanstaafl

      Some of those babies have weapons of mass destruction.

    • Stephen_Brady

      It is for you.

    • RoguePatriot6

      All atheism is for fools. I wasn't the first to come up with this.

      • Boston

        Atheists only believe in what they can understand which is why they believe in nothing.

        • Roger


    • intrcptr2

      OK, daddy.

      Can I put the star on top of the Dawkins tree this year?

      Looks like somebody forgot his pacifier…

    • ObamaYoMoma

      What does Islam, a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology masquerading as being a religion to dupe the gullible societies it intends to subjugate into a very draconian form of Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia, have to do with religion? It's one thing to trash all religions collectively, but nonetheless I hate to be the one to have to inform you of this, but Islam isn't a religion you moonbat. Indeed, your response is so typical of most leftwing loons.

  • montlasky

    How would you ever get the Muslim masses to believe that Mohammed is a myth?
    Robert Spencer and other authors trying to prove the point of Islam's fictitious beliefs are a candle in the wind. However, if their writings wake up the Western civilisations to take notice and investigate further to show the non existence of Mohammed, this would result in a massive religious war which has already started as far as the Muslims are concerned. We in the non Muslim world must take steps NOW to fight Islam irresepctive of proof or no. If we wait much longer the Muslims will overrun the infidels and then research will be a waste of time as we will all be wearing turbans and burchas!

  • Atlas_Collins

    Let me sum up all the comments to save the reader some time:

    "My tribal storm god is better than your tribal storm god!"

    Odin be with you …

    • Tanstaafl

      All praise to Cerunnos!

    • intrcptr2

      Well, actually, yes.

      Might be why Israel is still here…
      And the Vikings aren't.

    • stevefraser

      Time to read the work of Ken Wilber. Start with "A Brief History of Everything".

  • Ron

    And on top of all this, Mohammed has spent millions of dollars fighting the disclosure of his birth certificate in court.

    • Tanstaafl

      Not to mention the fact that he sealed his records at Ka-Boom University!

  • StephenD

    The truth is, it doesn't matter if he actually existed or not. The cultic ideology that is meant to rule every aspect of human life does exist. Call it whatever you want but totalitarianism by any other name is still Tyranny. Islam is merely the venue in which evil would subjugate humanity and strip it of its God given freedom; freedom of conscience, of will…still matters. Killing that would be to cripple the relationship available between Man and God. Who else but Satan would want such a thing?

  • Tim Underwood

    The history of religious writing should be taught in grade school so by the time students enter high school they can synthesize this knowledge into mature reasoning. How on earth are young people ever to come to grips with political influences like Catholicism if they don't have an understanding of which Roman courts financed the writings of the Gospels? Naturally the same holds true for the Qur'an.

    • intrcptr2


      • Roger

        Another really intelligent atheist?

        • fightwarnotwars

          No, he's actually right. The new testament as a book, was assembled by the Roman Catholic Church, they decided what was and wasn't. Anyone who thinks the bible is the "word of god" must believe that the Pope and catholic scholars of the times were "gods".

          • fightwarnotwars

            "Following the Epistle of Athanasius in 367 C.E., the Church finally reached agreement upon which writings were truly authentic and representative of apostolic tradition, thus forming what we know today as the canonical New Testament. Although factions of the Church continued to debate the merits of various books for centuries, and many even used other writings in their liturgy, most uncanonical writings were ordered to be destroyed."

          • Roger

            The dead sea scrolls were buried long before the Catholic church, yet all the texts match. Go figure.

          • Roger

            Actually, everything in the New Testament was around before the Catholics decided to make it official. Anyone that thinks the Bible just happened to come together over that length of time must not worry about the odds much, why not go see how those odds pay off at Vegas?

          • mlcblog

            God gives better odds than Vegas.

    • puc

      Dear Tim
      I believe intelligence is measured by the ability to see fine distinctions. There is a rather large distinction between what Catholics (and other Christians) mean when they speak of the bible being the word of God and what Muslims mean when they assert that the Quran is the word of God. I have no reason to believe you lack the intelligence to see such differences. I must infer therefore that you possess the fashionable disdain of religion in general. I am dismayed by such an unworthy attitude given the seriousness of the topic being discussed.
      puc canada

      • mlcblog

        Well said, puc. Applause!!

  • aaron kaplan

    Of course he existed; how else could pedophilia be legitimized.

    • Ahmed

      We often see this sort of thing from neo-Nazi propagandists, but they
      usually fail to mention that when the Koran was written
      girls even younger than nine were fair game for Christians. It was not
      until centuries later that the Christians in western countries put a
      lower age limit on sexual intercourse.

      A statutory age of consent to sexual intercourse for the purposes of the
      criminal law in the United Kingdom can be found as early as 1275. It was
      originally 12, was raised to 13 in 1875 and to 16 in 1885.

  • steve

    Very interesting, but then what did motivate the Ishmaelite tribes to conquer most of the Roman and Persian empires in 100 years?

    • intrcptr2

      Same thing that always motivates such; greed.

      Or were you seeking an explanation for their success? Like internal discord and economic/military weakness (Kinda like what our leaders are giving us right now).

    • Orlando

      I agree – they minded their own business in Arabia for centuries and then suddenly went out in waves of conquest…. I am not sure why Robert Spencer is so keen to suggest Mohammed didn't even exist. All you need to do to discredit Islam is point out what he was like from the Islamic texts themselves.

  • AntiSharia

    I certainly look forward to reading this book. But I wouldn't expect any changes in the thinking towards Islam. Reasoning with Muslims or their leftist allies is like explaining Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to a tree. We must also remember when considering the existence of Muhammad that absence of evidence does not always mean evidence of absence. It's possible that he didn't exist, it's also possible that he did and that he was exactly as the Muslim world teaches, it's possible that he existed but he's more myth as reality. We'll never really know.

    • Pavelina

      What matters is that Muslims believe he existed. That's what is causing the problem.

  • DrBukk

    I think the way to beat this religion is to try to educate liberals and change the narrative of history.

    From the words of Henry M. Stanley, of Livingston fame, "In Darkest Africa", 1890, "We see in this extraordinary increase in number of raiders in the Upper Congo basin the fruits of the Arab policy of killing off the adult aborigines and preserving the children. The girls are distributed among the… harems, the boys are trained to carry arms… For every tusk (of ivory) a whole village has been destroyed". The best fighters were rewarded with wives and booty.

    This might explain why Arabs have never been accused of imperialism. Hardly anyone survived to complain of victimhood! Islamic polygamy unavoidably causes a drive to conquer lands to find wives for the male victims who were not chosen to marry within their tribes; men also known as "cannon fodder".

    • winoceros

      And the African post-pubescent males they captured were castrated, to boot. Most died.

      Lovely Islamic slavers. A thousand years of this stuff.

  • tom

    The question is not "Did Mohammed exist?" The question is why has his existence not been discussed with the same level of rigor by historians, linguists, archeologists and theologians with the same level of rigorous skepticism that the Judeo-Christian belief system has been subjected to and still is since the Enlightenment. No-one seems to be able to answer this question with any coherence, but questioning of judeo-christian tenets seems to be the beginning of all rational thought, and the rock upon which academe is built; i submit that if Islam were invited to the club, watch the rock get dynamited.

    • intrcptr2

      That sort of scholarship is, today, the bastard offspring of Christianity. Muslims had early learned it, but the Gates of Inquiry were slammed shut sometime near the turn of the 10th Century.

      Islam thus has no native capacity for such self-examination or theological investigations. Curiously, whereas Christians are often content to allow the scholars to destroy themselves with such games, Muslims take it as a personal affront which must be instantly avenged; a heretic, or false wolf, can thus prosper in a "christian" land, but in a Muslim society, he will die.

      I would be careful though, questioning the BIble is not the beginning of rational thought. Jewish history, and thinking, is centuries longer than Greek, and by the time Paul was strolling around the Aegean, the Greeks and Romans both ahd realized that their polytheisitc/humanist philosophy did not answer the questions they had been framing for 400 years.
      If evil exists, and I participate in it (Which every last human being does), then rationaltiy demands that I admit it and strive for reconciliation. This of course presumes the existence of evil. And the Greeks were quite clear that such concepts do not originate within man (Evolutionary/atheistic arguments for morality being some sort of adaptive trait are laughable, really; they also fail to explain why so many people ignore such "instinctual" urges); good and evil are not reducible to biological imperatives, nor are they derivable from logic or rational thought. The ancients knew this. That is one major reason the Gospel spread as it did for 300 years before the empire (Constantine) co-opted christianity for his own ends.

  • Pramer

    An interesting venture looks like. It shall certainly further expose the evil doctrine that has been 'finely' indoctrined either by the 'existed' evil Mohammed or by a disguised third party men/man. It is very sad to see that the world has allowed this EVIl to grow too long.

    Remember, an evil ideology can be defeated only by TRUTH, and TRUTH is the enemy of Islam. The Islam is frightened of TRUTH. Certainly these facts unraveled in the book by Robert Spencer earns the anger and hatred of the Muslim world. But the EVIl has to be exposed. Thank you for the commendable work. More awareness on this violent religion should be spread, besides extensive research to expose the true facts to the Muslim brothren.

  • fightwarnotwars

    Of course he didn't exist, just like Moses, Jesus and Buddha didn't exist. But i's possible that Muhammad is probably easier to "believe" because the Qur'an does not overtly describe Muhammad performing miracles, he was just a "guy" who claimed to speak to angels while in a cave (what in this day we'd call schizophrenia) and besides, someone has to have invented Islam.

    All religious "characters" were created many decades after the so-called events took place to justify certain narratives. It's just a matter of looking at these "Savior" types, whose origin and life stories are all very similar, which have been re-created over and over again to fit different religious movements.

    1.Attis (204 B.C.)–Born of the virgin Nana on Dec. 25th. Both the father AND the son. Died and was reborn. His followers were the first to be "washed in the blood", through the slaying of a sacred bull, where they stood under a grating to allow the blood to shower down on them.

    2. Osiris (1,800 B.C.)–Crucified and resurrected. The first to pass judgement on his followers for their good and bad deeds.

    3. Dionysus (1,200 B.C.)–Born of a mortal woman and sired by the god Zeus. He was killed by being rent apart and was resurrected from his buried heart. First to promise his followers eternal life through baptism and salvation, his resurrection celebrated by a communal meal. Called "King of Kings", "Savior", "Redeemer" and "Alpha and Omega", among others.

    4. Mithras (300 B.C.)–Born of a virgin on Dec. 25th, traveled with 12 disciples teaching and illuminating, was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected. Called "Savior", "Son of god", "Redeemer" and "Lamb of God". His followers kept the Sabbath holy, eating sacramental meals in rememberance of him (Bread and wine which were symbolic of his body and blood). He baptised with blood.

    5. Krishna (1200 B.C.)–Born of a virgin and a god. Whose mortal father was a carpenter. Of royal descent. Had the divine title of "Savior". Was without sin. Crucified between two thieves.

    6. Quexalcote (300 B.C.)–Virgin birth–duh! The first to be tempted in the desert for 40 days. A painting in the Codex Borgianus depicts him nailed to a cross, between two thieves. He resurrects and ascends to heaven.

    • RoguePatriot6

      Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras, Krishna and Quexalcote died and stayed that way.

      • fightwarnotwars

        the only reasong Christianity prevailed and the story of Jesus outlasted the others is because it had the power of the Roman Empire under Constantine. Christianity, like Islam, was spread by the sword.

        • RoguePatriot6

          and now?

          The Crusades were a long time ago.

          • fightwarnotwars

            and now what? It's less and less important in western culture, and jesus is completely irrelevant if you are born in India, China and almost anywhere in Asia (except South Korea, lot of Christians there). All religions are bound to fade/disappear in the end.

          • RoguePatriot6

            "It's less and less important in western culture, and jesus is completely irrelevant if you are born in India, China and almost anywhere in Asia (except South Korea, lot of Christians there)."

            I guess it never occured to anyone that this might be the reason why we have beceome less and less of a great nation or civilization. It's funny that folks like you blame Christianity for in-civility yet take a look around, is Christianity the cause of it?

          • fightwarnotwars

            No, no one's said that Christianity is the 'cause of it, but if Christianity always had its way we wouldn't have international travel (catholics believed the Earth was flat, and though Columbus to be a heretic), the combustion engine, space exploration, medical science, etc. Humanity has progressed intellectually as it moves away from religious belief, and most of the time it's religion that has to do some catching up and adapt to the changes.

            If you flip the argument though:

            I really don't believe the religion of choice necessarily always has any influence in the development of nation-states/societies. Sure, in a place like Afghanistan where the Taliban made it regress to the Middle Ages, you can see how much damage a fundamentalis/literalis form of religion can do.

            The West (North America and Europe), in case you need to be reminded, in large part built its riches and civilizations through invasion, enslavement and expropriation of resources from other nations.

            Was Spain one of the wealthiest empires in Europe during the 15th and 16th centuries because it was a Catholic nation or was it because it had the foresight of financing exploration and therefore discovering America and new routes to Asia for trade? And all this despite the Catholics belief that the world was flat?! Did it not use the forced labor of the original people's of the American continent to dig for gold, copper, and other precious metals. Who built those cities? = Slaves.

            The same could be said for the "greatness" of most of the history of Europe. And if we come to the 19th and 20th Century, that legacy continued with the imposing of economic and military policy on smaller post-colonial nations (in the Americas, in Africa, Asia, etc.).

            Was that Christianity? Last time I checked, there's nothing in the New Testament about conquering nations, converting them and then using them as slave/or cheap labor.

            So no I don't blame Christianity for the ills of the world, we can do that all by ourselves. But adopting a religion doesn't necessarily help either.

          • RoguePatriot6

            "Last time I checked, there's nothing in the New Testament about conquering nations, converting them and then using them as slave/or cheap labor. "

            That was my whole point from the beginning, there's nothing in the New Testament about conquering nations. There is nothing doctrinally correct about any of the attrocities committed by Christians over the centuries. However if you study Islam and Muhammad's teachings and commands to his followers, you will find there's little, if any, that's doctrinally incorrect about what they're doing.
            When I was talking about being less of a great nation or society I was talking about our moral decline and how it's dragging us down the sewer. For ex. We as a society have justified killing a human being in the womb and are now making the argument that's it "okay" to do it to infants shortly after they're born. Remove God and invite other gods and moral decline along with it.

          • fightwarnotwars

            Well, I would say "no gods", not invite other gods. A healthy society should not live according to supersitions of any kind. As for abortion, I agree that its awful, but nor from a religious perspective, I think its awful because it can be prevented yet we have people who would ban all forms of contraception based on their religious beliefs.

            "it "okay" to do it to infants shortly after they're born" never heard of that….

          • RoguePatriot6

            "I think its awful because it can be prevented yet we have people who would ban all forms of contraception based on their religious beliefs."

            We we also have who would do abortion and far worse, because in their minds there's no God therefore there's no evil.

            "A healthy society should not live according to supersitions of any kind."

            You mean what you would call superstition. Oh, and by the way, look around, our abandonment of the "superstition" has done us a whole lot of good, hasn't it?

          • fightwarnotwars

            Well, if you compare our life expectancy and quality of life to that of Europe during the Middle Ages, the U.S. during the depression, the 1800's, yes, we're a lot better off.

            We live longer, better and our societies are far less violent than they were. Sure, we're very far from perfect, a lot needs to improve. But as a man of 33 my life is far easier now that it would have been in 1940, 1918, 1865, 1776, 1492, etc…

          • RoguePatriot6

            "We live longer, better and our societies are far less violent than they were."

            You cannot be serious. We are less violent? Have you observed our serious problem with violent crime lately? Not only is it prevalent on the streets but it's an epidemic in our schools. Kids have no respect for authority nowadays partly because their parents are still kids and dad is non-existent in alot of cases which brings to us another indicator of moral decline.

          • fightwarnotwars

            Actually violent crime statistics are at a historical low in the U.S.

            "The Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts the annual National Crime Victimization Survey which captures crimes not reported to the police.

            In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969 (-9.4%)."

            As for worldwide:

            "So far they haven't even been close. In fact, the last decade has seen fewer war deaths than any decade in the past 100 years, based on data compiled by researchers Bethany Lacina and Nils Petter Gleditsch of the Peace Research Institute Oslo. Worldwide, deaths caused directly by war-related violence in the new century have averaged about 55,000 per year, just over half of what they were in the 1990s (100,000 a year), a third of what they were during the Cold War (180,000 a year from 1950 to 1989), and a hundredth of what they were in World War II. If you factor in the growing global population, which has nearly quadrupled in the last century, the decrease is even sharper. Far from being an age of killer anarchy, the 20 years since the Cold War ended have been an era of rapid progress toward peace.

            Armed conflict has declined in large part because armed conflict has fundamentally changed. Wars between big national armies all but disappeared along with the Cold War, taking with them the most horrific kinds of mass destruction. Today's asymmetrical guerrilla wars may be intractable and nasty, but they will never produce anything like the siege of Leningrad. The last conflict between two great powers, the Korean War, effectively ended nearly 60 years ago. The last sustained territorial war between two regular armies, Ethiopia and Eritrea, ended a decade ago. Even civil wars, though a persistent evil, are less common than in the past; there were about a quarter fewer in 2007 than in 1990.

            If the world feels like a more violent place than it actually is, that's because there's more information about wars — not more wars themselves. Once-remote battles and war crimes now regularly make it onto our TV and computer screens, and in more or less real time. Cell-phone cameras have turned citizens into reporters in many war zones. Societal norms about what to make of this information have also changed. As Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker has noted, "The decline of violent behavior has been paralleled by a decline in attitudes that tolerate or glorify violence," so that we see today's atrocities — though mild by historical standards — as "signs of how low our behavior can sink, not of how high our standards have risen." "

          • winoceros

            Sorry, who in power has proposed banning contraception? Is this another made up thing?

          • Roger

            That's a huge topic with verses and theologies both ways.

            Catholics feel life is a gift, from conception to natural death. And they feel God is the one to decide.

        • Pavelina

          Christianity was not spread by the sword. The followers of Jesus walked out into the world unarmed to spread the Good News. They were all martyred except John.
          The purpose of the Crusades was not to spread Christianity by violence. European Christians went to the Holy Land at the request of the Christians there who were being persecuted by their Muslim masters.
          Muslims are instructed to conquer the world for Allah by violent Jihad. No Christian is told to proselytize by violence. It is against the teachings of Jesus.

    • intrcptr2


      • fightwarnotwars

        wrong about what exactly?

    • Jim Deferio

      You are either very very ignorant and easily deluded or you are simply a blatant liar? Check your sources! here is the truth and it is well documented:

      • fightwarnotwars

        So there are minor differences, still, the myths are still all very much alike. It's obvious that whoever was writing about the life of Christ was influenced by these previous myths. Especially given the huge influence that Greeks had over the Mediterranean, including Jewish scholars. C'mon…

        • Roger

          Or there is a plan to Salvation and satan threw up a lot of smoke screens.

          • fightwarnotwars

            Ok sure…. if you believe in an actual Satan, then there's no point in arguing with you.

            By making that argument than you must believe that the Buddha and Dionysus also actually physically existed, although that would counter any literalist view of the bible, since those gods/religions predate Christianity by thousands of years.

            If they were false prophets "created" by Satan then does Satan have the power to create life in your religious view?

            The point that scholars have made for decades is that each religion carries with it similar archetypes, creation myths and parables. Which show that the worlds population have for centuries attempted to justify their existence by coming up with these magnificent stories that all sound really similar. It also shows that people of different tribes/cultures traveled and interacted a lot more than we thought.

          • Roger

            Unless you believe in evil, there is no point in your arguing about religion that delivers us from it.

          • fightwarnotwars

            Evil is the violation of a moral code, we had both long before Christianity. Why would a "perfect god" not have a control of an "evil being" such as Satan, why would it even allow the existence of "competition". Big hole in the argument about an all powerful god right there.

            Praise Mithra

          • Roger

            Not a hole in the ground argument.

            Every culture has had some concept of evil and the power behind it. They may have had different symbols or myths to explain it, but even the simple folks of the past were able to wrap their minds around it.

            Christianity, and Judaism to some degree are the only religions that offer a God that had a plan to offer us a way for Him to pull us above it all.

          • fightwarnotwars

            Really? How about Buddhism? Have you ever studied it? Have you ever visited a city/town/country influenced by Buddhism?

            It's a peaceful and fairly benevolent belief system which hasn't 'caused the same amount of damage that Christianity has. No crusades in the name of Buddha.

            Maybe your Satan's true smokescreen was Christianity? After all, the many centuries of European antisemitism that led to the Holocaust and Russian pogroms had their origin in the Christian doctrine and belief that Jews had killed Christ. Or how about the Inquisition, or the conquest of the American continent and Africa? Millions dead and enslaved. If I had to believe in a Satan, that would sound a lot like his work.

          • Roger

            Why do you trolls always make us do the digging for you?

            "Evil as external force. In this view, evil lurks about and infects or seduces the unwary into doing bad things. Sometimes evil is personified as Satan or some other character from religious literature."

            Anything else I need to find for you?

          • fightwarnotwars

            no one asked you to look for anything…

            Calling anyone who questions your belies a "troll" is quite frankly very childish, so I will disregard it. Since you were incapable of proving to me how Christianity is superior, unique, or significantly different from all the other religions, I'm done.

            The fact that you are most likely a christian, and the fact that most of us in the West grew up in judeo-christian is really simply a factory of history. We inherited it simply because Romans spread it by the sword, as did the European empires later. That's no different than any other religion out there. Christianity got the upper-hand simply because a warmongering Roman decided to adopt it and then force it on others.

          • Roger

            You said "Really? How about Buddhism."

            Anything else? Just not up to the big boy pool, are you?
            Until Constantine Christianity was spread in spite of the sword. You know all those fish bumper stickers? You need to find out it's history. When two suspected Christians would meet, one would draw the top line, the other would complete the bottom line and they would know they were both believers.

            It is different than other religions. Christians depend on the gift of Christ, other religions depend on the works of the adherent.

        • winoceros

          I'm taking it you didn't read the material in the link. Because you just doubled down on cut-and-paste made-up stuff. Want to take a second look at the references?

          Interested in references?

      • fightwarnotwars

        fun fact Jim:

        Some Mormon scholars believe that Quetzalcoatl, who has been described as a white, bearded god who came from the sky and promised to return, was actually Jesus Christ. According to the Book of Mormon, Jesus visited the American natives after his resurrection.

        Latter-day Saint President John Taylor wrote: "The story of the life of the Mexican divinity, Quetzalcoatl, closely resembles that of the Savior; so closely, indeed, that we can come to no other conclusion than that Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being. But the history of the former has been handed down to us through an impure Lamanitish source."

        A common argument agains the similarity between the Quetzacoatl myth and the similarities of the Jesus story is that America had not been "discovered", sure maybe not by Europeans. But it's a well known fact that the original native peoples of the American continent migrated from Asia, thousands of years before and they brought with them their cultures/religions/art/customs/ etc..

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Of course he didn't exist, just like Moses, Jesus and Buddha didn't exist.

      What does any of the aforementioned have to do with Islam and why are you attacking faith-based religions in response to Islam. Indeed, Islam isn't even a faith-based religion you gullible dupe. Instead, Islam is a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology that masquerades as being a religion in order to dupe the gullible societies it intends to subjugate into a very draconian form of Islamic totalitarianism via the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is exactly what will become of Europe in the next 50 years, if not America too a few decades later. It's amazing how PC multiculturalism combined with moral relativism can destroy so many minds!

    • momukchu

      5. Krishna (1200 B.C.)–Born of a virgin and a god. Whose mortal father was a carpenter. Of royal descent. Had the divine title of "Savior". Was without sin. Crucified between two thieves.

      At least this claim is false…

  • Dubeliveau

    I agree with fightwars and Atlas all above. Is there any difference between Hebrew mythology, Christian, mythology, Greek Mythology, etc? All myths and great stories…but myths nonetheless. The world be be a much better place without all this nonsense.

    • RoguePatriot6

      Theres alot of reasons why the world would be a better place.As far as this "nonsense" is concerned nations that have embraced atheism all througout history have wound up with leaders and regimes that were just as ruthless as Islamists, if not more.

    • intrcptr2

      Yeah, there is.


      And no, it wouldn't be; USSR lasted only 70+ years, for those who survived…

      • fightwarnotwars

        well, one could argue that for the USSR was also ruled by a religious-like faith in the Party, same goes for Nazi Germany. Faith in a leader and a false mythology based on the supremacy of a race, or in the USSR's case the supremacy of an ideology.

  • DogWithoutSlippers

    Muslims will never relinquish the idea that Mohammed was a living person. To do so would make all of the Quran a lie. Obviously, Robert Spencer has courage to write his book in an effort to document and reveal the truth behind this (if he even existed) most evil of men as recorded by muslims themselves! Hopefully, the floodgates of truth Robert Spencer has opened will eventually allow all of islam's adherrents to escape.

  • MikeGiles

    So. Why do atheists care? The fact that others believe does them no harm; but they angrily insist that no one else should hold beliefs that differ from theirs. Last I checked – with one rather major exception – no one is forcing them to believe. Why the hostility? Why the attacks on Judeo-Christianity? Anyone have an explanation?

  • RCCA

    Reading through all these comments simply put proves the point that Mr. Spencer has been stating all along, that there have been endless discussions questioning the authenticity of Christianity. It is high time that Islam be questioned just as rigorously. I welcome his new book because it will serve as a catalyst to bring Islam into line with the other great religions, and puncture the delusions of many Muslims about the Koran.

  • John Oakes

    To say that " Christian territory like northern Cyprus (was) ethnically cleansed and occupied by Muslims" as Robert Spencer apparently does shows a woeful ignorance which I hope is not typical of this book . True, there has been such an exchange of population. But it came forcibly after a period which extended from at least 1956 to 1974 during which it was the numerically-superior Greek Orthodox population which attempted to ethnically cleanse the minority Turkish Cypriot community in its open pursuit of Enosis, union with Greece. Of the 385 members of the British Armed Forces who died trying to intervene, not one was shot by a Muslim Turk.

    • aspacia


      The point is that Cyprus was Greek until the Turks came, expelled and discriminated against them. In the USA, the Christians are the majority, but are often victimized by Muslims. Why do you call this an exchange of populations??? This is no different than Jordan expelling the Jews from Jerusalem.

  • Fightfair


    Spot on dude, you have suproted all that wee said above, religions are just for babies, whether atheism formed a good government or not, does not prove the validity of the existence of a god.

  • Fightfair


    Spot on dude, you have suproted all that wee said above, religions are just for babies, whether atheism formed a good government or not, does not prove the validity of the existence of a Christian or any other gods.

  • Fightfair

    Make that ‘you have supported’ not suproted.

  • Addeen

    Since Al-Quran existed, therefore Muhammad existed. Why? Because Muhammad was the one and only recipient of these arabic words. No man could have written the verses in the Quran in the same manner.

  • ahmadnb

    No surprise here…and we are to believe that Jesus existed, was the "son of God" and came to die for our sins? Medevial Christians did't exactly behave in the manner that was expected of them by Biblical teachings, either…was that all made up, too? Hmmm….

    • Roger

      You wouldn't understand, since you're a muslim.

      We don't have to work our way to heaven. It's already arranged. We just accept and grow into a relationship with the person who made it possible.

      All that 'forced submission' isn't compatible, so the reasoning won't make sense to you.

      • ahmadnb

        Then go to heaven and leave the rest of us alone. Perhaps another acid trip…

        • Roger

          Why don't you go visit some cousins or something and leave us alone?

  • ObamaYoMoma

    This groveling behavior confirms the traditional Islamic chauvinism that sees Muslims as the “best of nations” destined by Allah to rule the world through violent jihad.

    Although over the years I've learned a lot from Spencer and agree with him often, I wish he wouldn't focus almost exclusively only on violent jihad, since covert and deceptive non-violent jihad, especially via mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of mass Muslim infiltration and stealth demographic conquest, is employed by the Islamic world against the West astronomically far more prevalently and constitutes an exponentially far greater threat to the continued peace and security of the West. In fact, unless something very drastic happens, the Islamic world can't ever hope to conquer the West via violent jihad. However, via covert and deceptive non-violent jihad, Europe will be Islamic in the next 50 years and the USA is on the fast track too.

  • avidyananda

    Spencer makes a good case and I'm willing to consider his ideas. But then how do we explain the changing nature of the Koran verses: the early verses were conciliatory towards non-believers, with an obligation to pray towards Jerusalem and so on. Once Mohammed becomes a warrior, and particularly a winning warrior, his verses become increasingly hostile to non-believers. How do we account for this change in the nature of Koranic verses, which correspond with the history (real or fabricated) of Mohammed and his establishing Islam?

  • Musarrat Khan

    I am a Muslim.Ineed Islam. Islam does not need me.Islam is a faith like any other.Ihave ,like Billions of others have accepted our Religion as is.Now if some one comes around and questions as whether our Prophet did really exist and throws a bunch of facts,which i have no way to confirm or deny,what does he want me to do.I am not as learned as he is. Itherefore I ask myself as to why he did not put the same infront of a Forum where he might find people as learned as he is. I now only wonder as to his motive

    • momukchu

      Musarrat Khan You are right on point– You are on a wrong forum…

  • Brian

    Viva la islamic revolucion long live Muhammad!

  • ManIsNoWasteman

    You lot are so dumb.

  • karunai

    "{This evidence, Spencer suggests, raises the provocative possibility that al-Malik “greatly expanded on the nascent Muhammad myth for his own political purposes.”}" – This is exactly what is said about St Paul “greatly expanded on the cruciFICTION myth for his own purposes"

  • Guest

    I believe Mohammed was a myth, invented by powerful story tellers, for religious & political motivations. With the life and death of Mohammed, the only account is the Koran, which appeared as a known writing centuries after Mohammed's alleged death or his so called departure from the earth. When a group of highly influenciable people want to create a change in a society, that goes against the established way of thinking & the standard practice in life, the best way to do so is to invent a mythical character who lived centuries ago that has already performed such a change, & to give that mythical character so called divine instructions; orders to seemingly validate what that character does & says as coming from the highest authority. If a group of people demanded religious change & political change; they would simply get in trouble with the exisiting religious & political authorities. If a member of that group claimed he was acting under divine orders from (a) God; people would demand proof which he would not be able to give. The story of someone who lived and died(or was rose to Heaven) centuries ago before a written account appears on that person allows the person to not be around a to be questioned or demanded to give proof.

  • Guest

    Continuation: The idea of religious change & political change is not necessarily a highly popular thing with the vast majority of people.It could be, but doesn't have to be. Forced prayer 5 times a day, wars against people of different religious(infidels), not allowing art which shows images,squatting on your knees in a building while you listen to a sermon instead of sitting in a pew; these are a few of the changes which Mohammedianized Islam has created.

  • Fani

    Non-Muslim Assessments
    Traditional Western animus

    Few non-Muslims doubt Muhammad's achievement in terms of uniting Arabia, establishing an embryonic empire and leaving behind him a faith tradition that developed into the second largest religion in the world. They have been less inclined to accept the religious claims made about him. For Muslims, Muhammad is the perfect man and there is no question that he was sincere, moral, righteous and God revealed that Islam to him. Indeed, Muslims believe that God guided and directed the birth of Islam and the affairs of the early community. God is intimately involved in His creation, sustaining it daily (Q13:17, 15:16-23, 20:50, 30:40, 43:11, 56:63-74). Non-Muslims have often taken a much more critical view, and many have regarded Muhammad as self-serving, insincere, immoral, the inventor of Islam

  • fani

    Christians have long accused Muhammad of making up his religion based on borrowed material. Early accounts report meetings between Muhammad and a Christian monk, Bahira (see Guillaume, 79-82), while Q16:103 may respond to the charge that he was coached by a young Christian called Jabr (see Guillaume, 180). He has been called a fake prophet, a charlatan and worse. Some have attributed his "revelations" to epilepsy or some form of mental illness. Early writers even portrayed him as an idol worshiped by Muslims. His name was invariably misspelled.

  • fani

    Many Europeans, though critical of his motives, nonetheless credited Muhammad with political and military success. Even in this there have been skepics, notably Aloys Sprenger (1951), who depicted him as a tool in the hands of greater men such as Abu Bakr and Umar. However, William Muir (1894), whose biography of Muhammad is one of the earliest and most detailed biographies by a non-Muslim based on the best sources, while he echoed many of the above criticisms (indeed, as a Christian he suggests a satanic origin for Muhammad's inspiration), concluded that Muhammad, not those around him, “formed Islam” (lxxxvi).

  • fani

    Minou Reeves' Muhammad in Europe: A Thousand Years of Mythmaking (2000) traces the story of how non-Muslims in Europe have depicted, misunderstood, insulted, mythologized and demonized the life and character of Muhammad:

    In the works of an overwhelming majority of European writers Muhammad was portrayed as a man of deep moral faults. Churchmen, historians, Orientalists, biographers, dramatists, poets and politicians alike had sought to attribute to Islam and especially to Muhammad fanatical and disreputable, even demonic characteristics. (x)

  • fani

    Western appreciation for Muhammad

    Reeves' book, however, also uncovers another tradition—that of such writers as Roger Bacon and William Montgomery Watt—who have tried to “understand Muhammad's cause, Muhammad's message, Muhammad's social and political reforms, Muhammad's personality and character in the context of his times and with an open mind, [seeking to] “dispel the myths and the stereotypes and to show how Islam embraces values dear to religions that have regarded it as their sworn enemy” (300).

  • fani

    Muir followed others in seeing Muhammad at Mecca as sincerely searching for the truth but alleged a moral decline at Medina where worldly ambition mingled with his original goal, and robbed him of any virtue he may have had at Mecca. Muir singles out many events in Muhammad's life for moral censure yet even he praises his simple life-style, his “urbanity and kindness of disposition [and] magnanimity towards his enemies” (although he accuses him of murdering some of his critics, such as the poet Ka'b ibn Ashraf (see Lings, 160 for a Muslim explanation) (see Muir 1858, vol. 4, 304-310).

  • fani

    In recent years, Christian writers Kenneth Cragg (1984), William Montgomery Watt (1961) and Clinton Bennett (1998) have attempted to find ways of affirming that he was a prophet of God while remaining loyally Christian. Watt, asking whether Muhammad was a prophet, concluded:

    …not all the ideas he preached [from Watt's Christian perspective] are true and sound, but by God's grace he has been enabled to provide billions of men [and women] with a better religion than they had before they testified that there is no God but God and that Muhammad is the messenger of God (240).

    In today's interfaith climate, more and more non-Muslims have come to resonate with these views; they accept that God stands behind Islam, thus recognizing with Muslims the genuineness of Muhammad's spiritual experiences and leadership. Although they do not accept every aspect of Muslim belief, they reject the view that Muhammad was insincere or that he invented Islam.

  • fani

    For secular historians, the question of Muhammad's sincerity or authorship of Islam is irrelevant. His legacy in terms of a worldwide civilization is sufficient. For those who believe in God as the prime mover behind and within history, the issue of whether Muhammad was really inspired by God cannot be avoided. Either he was not, and despite political success he was a charlatan, or he was inspired and so was used by God to spread faith in him and to teach the importance of obedience to God. Islam is either Muhammad's creation, or God's. If God's, then the binding of people together in a common faith across race and nationality, with a single hope in God's ultimate perfecting of the world, is providential not accidental. Muslims are the first to admit that they have not always lived up to the ideal. The ummah has not remained united yet Muslims aspire towards unity, and all know that equality, justice and fairness are of the essence of Islam