|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Craving even more FPM content? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more. Click here to sign up.]
Make sure to order Robert Spencer’s new book, Muhammad: A Critical Biography: HERE.
In my apartment, I have over a hundred highly informative books about Islam written by a range of authors in a variety of languages. In addition, I’ve read countless additional volumes about the Religion of Peace, many of them excellent. But if someone were to ask me which five or six books they should turn to in order to set about educating themselves in regard to the essential facts of the faith, its history, and its theology, I’d reply that they could hardly do better than to dig, first of all, into the incomparable oeuvre of Robert Spencer – which includes such definitive titles as Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs (2008), The Complete Infidels’ Guide to the Koran (2009), The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS (2018), Confessions of an Islamophobe (2017), and The Critical Qur’an: Explained from Key Islamic Commentaries and Contemporary Historical Research (2022). All of these books, while informed by a comprehensive and indeed unparalleled knowledge of the topic, are written for the educated common reader in a lucid and coherent way that helps the reader to begin to make sense of Islam. Well, no, come to think of it, that’s not exactly the right way to put it: just as there’s no humor in Islam, there’s no sense in Islam, either.
Put it this way: in one book after another, Spencer spells things out without pretense or affectation. And as if all this weren’t enough, he’s also written two invaluable books about the putative prophet himself: The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion (2006) and Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry Into Islam’s Obscure Origins (2012). Now he’s published a third, entitled Muhammad: A Critical Biography, which he describes as “the first critical biography of Muhammad.” The first thing that needs to be known about Islam’s beloved founder is that the man’s very existence, as Spencer demonstrated at length in his 2012 book, is shrouded in doubt. Since the Koran mentions him by name only four times, the story of his life – assuming he did live – has had to be cobbled together, from the outset, from the secondary but nonetheless highly revered documents known as the hadiths and the so-called “sira literature.”
Dating back, at the earliest, to the eighth century, long after the generally accepted date of Muhammad’s death, the hadiths originally numbered – mind-bogglingly – in the hundreds of thousands, only a small fraction of which came to be considered canonical. Spencer calls the amount of alleged biographical information contained within them “breathtaking,” but notes as well that many of them, instead of showing evidence of being based on reliable oral traditions, were patently invented out of whole cloth for a number of reasons – for example, to support the author’s claim to a caliphate. “The sheer scale of fabrication,” maintains Spencer, “is staggering.” Yet even though the historicity of the hadiths and sira literature is exceedingly dubious, the professors of Islamic and Middle East Studies in today’s Western colleges and universities – whose departments, not incidentally, receive their funding, to a great extent, from such centers of objective historical scholarship as Saudi Arabia and Qatar – treat all of the assertions in them as factual. Consequently, what these supposed educators are serving up in their classrooms is not history at all but Islamic apologetics.
For over two centuries, serious scholars of Judaism and Christianity have engaged in the critical study of biblical texts – which means, among much else, acknowledging internal contradictions in the books of the Bible, comparing historical claims made in the scriptures to those made in other sources dating to antiquity, and determining the order in which the gospels were written. But such close analysis is essentially forbidden in the academic study of Islam. Muslims are obliged to believe – or at least to profess to believe – that every last statement in the Koran that reads like an assertion of historical fact is, however utterly contrary it may be to the fundamental laws of physics, not meant to be taken as a flight of fancy but, rather, as literal history.
A remarkable number of faculty members who teach Islam, whether they identify as Muslims or not, feel obliged to treat the purportedly historical statements in the documents that the religion has agreed to consider sacred with this same mindless credulity. Yes, they acknowledge that some of the sura (the chapters of the Koran) are theologically inconsistent with others, and in those cases they follow the long-established practice of declaring that the older sura are abrogated – that is to say, superseded – by later sura (which tend to be a lot more intolerant, brutal, and violent). And on the rare occasions when such professors dare to reject – or, let’s say, to proffer strained and dubious interpretations of – certain passages of the Koran or hadiths or sira literature, they do so, as a rule, only in order to present a picture of the faith and its founder that will be somewhat more palatable to the delicate sensibilities of Western students who may balk at the notion of revering a psychopath who had sex with children and, when it came to being a murderous megalomaniac, was right up there with Hitler and Stalin.
The contentions in the Islamic texts that are considered holy but that are deeply questionable are nothing less than multitudinous. Muhammad is said to have been born in Mecca and to have spent the first decades of his life there. But Mecca is mentioned only once in the Koran. Why? Furthermore, traditional Muslim texts repeatedly depict Mecca as having been a major international trading center during the period when Muhammad lived there and started preaching Islam. Yet this claim seems almost surely to be erroneous, given that “virtually nothing” is said about the city in contemporary records from, say, Greece, Rome, and Persia. Time and again, indeed, material that is presented in the hadiths and sira literature, and embraced by the faithful, as solid biographical information about Muhammad reveals itself to be, as Spencer puts it, “myth, fable, folk tales, sermonizing, factionalism, and guesswork.” The number of canonical Islamic texts that strain credulity to the breaking point, and whose less than realistic counterparts in the Bible are today read by almost all Jews and Christians as symbolic or allegorical, is beyond impressive: twenty-first-century Muslims are obliged to attest, for example, that Muhammad was “born circumcised.” (That must have been one hell of a gifted mohel.) Another tale that believers are obliged to consider historical has Muhammad traveling to Paradise and meeting Jesus, Moses, Abraham, and other figures from the Jewish and Christian scriptures – none of whom, incidentally, said anything to him that he considered worth passing along.
There’s more – lots more. The references in various approved texts to Muhammad’s birth, to the circumstances of his first marriage, and to the early days of his career as a prophet contradict one another wildly. Was the first angel who allegedly delivered divine revelations to him Gabriel or some other member of the heavenly host? Which sura was the first to be revealed? Who was Muhammad’s first male follower? (His first follower, according to tradition, was a female – namely, his first wife, Khadija.) In the hadiths and sira documents, the answers to these questions are all over the place. Another curious conundrum: if Islam began in Mecca, then why was the Koran composed in a dialect of Arabic that is very different from the Meccan dialect of the time but that is strikingly similar to the dialect that was spoken in Petra, in what is now southern Jordan (which is over 800 miles away – or 32 hours by camel – from Mecca).
Then there’s the matter of the so-called Satanic Verses, which, in utter contradiction to everything said about infidels in the now-standard text of the Koran, described the gods to which certain non-Muslims prayed as authentic and deserving of worship. Did Muhammad concoct these verses knowingly and willingly – or was he under the sway of Satan when he propounded them? In any event, he reversed himself soon enough on these verses – and by doing so raised a couple of uncomfortable queries in the minds of believers. On the one hand, if he was indeed fooled by Satan in this instance, who was to say that the entire Koran hadn’t been dictated to him by the great deceiver? On the other hand, if he invented those verses out of whole cloth, how could anyone be sure that this was not the case with every single word of the Koran? The episode and its implications were so ticklish for Muslims that it was eventually dropped, more or less, down the memory hole – until the novelist Salman Rushdie brought it all up again, thereby ushering in the latest chapter in the centuries-old fractious relationship between the Christian West and the Islamic world.
Another story that many Muslims would prefer to see disappear is that of Muhammad’s wife Aisha, who, according to “numerous Islamic traditions,” including some of the most widely credited hadiths, was six years old when she “married” the prophet and nine years old when the “marriage” was consummated. This whole icky business, as Spencer notes, puts today’s Western academic apologists for Islam in quite a pickle. It causes few problems, however, for a great many Islamic leaders, who, far from finding such a union appalling, “point to Muhammad to justify marrying children.” After all, to refrain from wholeheartedly countenancing child marriage, they argue, would be – God forbid – to “impugn the reputation of Muhammad himself.”
There’s plenty more in Spencer’s book, of course: seemingly endless accounts of bloodthirsty conquests, acts of barbaric hostility toward Christians and Jews – the latter of whom Muhammad (who may have been a role model in many ways, but not when it came to subtlety) called “brothers of monkeys and pigs and worshipers of evil” – and the heartless execution of otherwise devoted Muslims who’d inadvertently said or done something that rubbed the boss the wrong way. So it went. Over the years, Muhammad took more wives, ordered the wanton destruction of pagan idols, and (generally speaking) dialed the medieval propensity for murder, mayhem, and massacres up to eleven, acquainting his followers and rivals alike with “the power of intimidation, terror, and violence.” Not least, he drove into believers’ minds for all time the notion that they were superior to non-believers and that their first duty as stewards of the faith was to conquer the world, and crush the infidel, in his name. These tenets, needless to say, had, and continue to have, a multiplicity of implications for those of us who would prefer never to have heard the word Islam or the name of Muhammad.
But back to the $64,000 question: did the man even exist? Spencer observes that the recurrence from one canonical document to another of certain assertions about Muhammad’s life could be interpreted as an indication that they were all based on an oral tradition founded in fact; alternatively, he points out that the whole story bears an extraordinary resemblance to that of Moses in the Old Testament, while adding that another scholar, Robert Kerr, has suggested that “the life of Muhammad is patterned after a figure closer to hand than Moses: the Roman emperor Heraclius,” the key dates of whose life correspond to a surprising extent to the key dates in the canonical accounts of Muhammad’s life.
In any case, concludes Spencer, the total lack of any reference to Muhammad in “any remotely contemporary literature, and the abundance of contradictory materials, leads to the inevitable conclusion that in the hadith and sira literature, we are dealing with a collection of fables with apologetic intent, not scrupulously remembered or carefully compiled history.” In short, Muhammad probably never even existed – a fact that makes it all the more ironic that the era in which we are living is increasingly being shaped (and not for the better, to say the least) by those who not only believe fervently that he did exist but who regard him as the ideal man. Which makes them and their passionately held beliefs a supremely dangerous force – and makes this cogent, compelling, and comprehensive study of the tales of their religion’s purported father, and the roots of the doctrines that he is said to have transmitted to humankind from the One True God himself, a book of the first importance.
I saw a documentary that pointed out that the oldest, earliest mosque, do not point towards Mecca, but rather Petra.
Mark, you are on to something. For the first 100 years of Islam, all Mosques built around the world were oriented towards the mother mosque in Petra. This is the subject of a book by Dan Gibson entitled Qur’anic Geography. It is published by ISP (Independent Scholar’s Press and is an imprint of CanBooks, Saskatoon, Canada.
It goes on to say that after the first 100 years, the orientation of new mosques was all over the place but finally, they began to orient on Mecca. Very strange, indeed.
that muslims swallow the ambiguous drivel of the koran i can fathom considering they are tribal know nothings but that the west hasnt the fortitude , integrity and honesty to call it out shows you that people will believe anything that is a lie , goebells would be proud and hitler would be elated . the west and its governments are going to pay a high cost to severe to mention in this column and so vast it would make the 2nd world war a minor skirmish . time to get your house in order .
Just why do they keep the face of their Prophet hidden from everyone?
Probably because he never existed in the first place.
Whether the “prophet” Muhammad existed or not the fact is that there are no prophecies from this character that ever came true.
WAIT… not even the 72 virgins……. so, martyrs are being duped???
The same goes for Christ
An interesting excursus is to compare the origins and principles of Islam and Mormonism, e.g., Gabriel, polygamy, last ultimate prophet, supposed corruption of the Bible, stance on women, etc., etc. Of course, the origin of both religions is Abaddon.
Interesting. They both come from the same dark source I guess.
Don’t think I’ll be curling up with this book in front of the fireplace……….or any other books about these freaks.
Who has the time anyway?
I’ll wait for the movie.
I think we saw the movie. 9-11 2001.
And the sequels are sure to be even more terrifying and bloody.
I’ve bought several books by Robert. Never read most of ’em. Don’t have time.
But buying his books support him and his publishers.
And … all of my kids have read most of his books because they saw them on my “unread” shelf, picked ’em up, and couldn’t put down.
The works of Bernard Lewis, former chair of Mideast Studies at Princeton are informative also. The short summary is “Islam is a primitive, aggressive superstition founded by a known killer.”
Slick Willie and Muhammad have something in common – abusing underage girls.
So it’s understandable that Bill is so tolerant of the “religion-of-peace”. (Also hints why he passed on getting Osama Bin Laden three times when he was president.)
pOPE: “All religions are on a path to God.” He goes on to say that there is only one God… but don’t Muslims refer to theirs as ALLAH and the path to him many times involves martyrdom, the KILLING of Humans to then rewarded in Heaven? What God is the pope talking about? Shouldn’t he try to covert Muslims away from a false prophet? Maybe Spencer can meet with him or at least send his book to the Vatican.
“ISN’T IT IRONIC that Com-Left Godless Vampires, who always cringe at the sight of a Crucifix, love this pOPE?” SC
It must be that he’s one of them and one that preaches the Gospel of Marx, Liberation Theology that a real Pope, Pope John-Paul II warned his flock about in the ’80s when Central American priests were preaching it with the help of GODLESS COMMUNIST AMERICANS! What does El Salvador translate to in English? This was a period when our own CPUSA and the KGB teamed up to take over Central America and a time when their FRONTS were infiltrating churches to promote Social Justice. (I’m a musician and I performed in a church circuit, and I would always go to the bulletin board and there were the flyers. At one Catholic church service I was at, the Priest stopped to make a speech before the collections: “We’re going to have two collections today. The first one for the church and the second one… I’ll let these two ladies explain that one.” TWO LADIES FROM THE PEACE CENTER, PRO-MARXIST: “We’re raising money to help our brothers and sisters in EL SALVADOR!” That was CODE for the Communist FMLN rebels in their Zonas de Controlidad! I ALMOST SCREAMED. After the service, I met the priest in the lobby who was greeting people and told him who these ladies really were. He walked off. I called the next day to set up a meeting. The secretary called back: “He doesn’t want to meet with you!” WHY NOT? THESE PEOPLE WERE RAISING MONEY FOR WAR, TO HELP GODLESS COMMUNISTS!)
Can’t wait to see the smoke!
John Paul II had seen the fruits of Communism in Poland. Maybe as a godly man he’d have known better anyway – but he didn’t need to exercise any discernment on this one.
Interesting. They both come from the same dark source I guess.
MUSLIMS ARE A FREKY, VIOLENT CULTURE. WITHOUT THE OIL, THEY’D BE LIVING IN CAVES WITH THEIR GOATS AND WE COULD ALL FORGET ABOUT THEM.
Is Arab hatred for Israel a product of the child abuse normative in the Arab world?
By M. Simon
Two months after the October 7th attacks on Israel, I wrote that the murderous rage the attackers expressed is probably not the result of any political issue, but, most likely, it was displaced anger/rage from child abuse. As a former abused child (beatings)—former because I gave up the anger—I’m very familiar with the feelings of rage and nihilism it provides. Those feelings were never directed against my father (when he gave up the anger, we reconciled) but against the world. I should add that long-term PTSD (the name of where the anger comes from) is genetic. As far as I know, everyone is susceptible to it short term (post-trauma). I estimate it runs in my family.
Am presently reading Tommy Robinson’s “Enemy of the State.” With all of the terrible things happening in Europe, one wonders if countries like England and Sweden are even salvageable, now.
As a Christian I can keyboard that there is a chance the Muhammad actually might had been a prophet but the important thing to understand is that Muhammad was NOT a prophet send by God. Instead, Muhammad was a deceptive, lying false prophet send by Satan to lead many people astray and even and straight into hell. Jesus, in fact, had predicted and warned of the coming of such men as Muhammad. For Jesus taught “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Matthew 7:15. In addition, the Bible further warns that “many false prophets have gone out into the world.” First John 4:1.
For me, the thing that says it all about Islam is the Muslim practice of saying “Peace be upon him” when they refer to Mohammed. No Christian or observant Jew would ever say “Peace be upon him” when we speak of Isaiah or of King David – we take it completely for granted that the gracious and faithful God whom they served is reliably looking after them. In Islam, though, Allah is capricious, he can hate people without reason, even when they are faithful Muslims, and he is characterised as “the great Deceiver”.
Apparently, this article and comment thread were prior to the massive attack today, where Iran fired over 180 ballistic missiles at Israel… more than the previous attack.
High tech super sonic missiles were within this strike package.
China and Russia are trying to stoke this crap.
Time to throw down on Iran and the Houthis.
This comports well with the theory that Muhamad never existed at all. That theory is that Islam began as a rogue Christian sect hell bent on conquest. It never originated in the Hajj, that western part of Arabia with Mecca and Medina but rather with existing immigrants from Arabia that lived in Mesopotamia and the Levant. This explains their obsession with Jerusalem as well as their copy cat claim as an Abrahamic religion.
The phoney profit did not exist.
It’s a good theory. Sound, logical, and plausible.
It corresponds to the theory that Jesus did not exist. Moses did not exist. And King David did not exist.
The theory exposes the weakness of Islam’s claims …
… but it also shows the strength of the West’s claims.
Do I believe it? No.
Islam is not just an insane collection of wild and wicked platform agendas.
Reverse your logic. If you wanted to create a system for making ignorant, drooling, stupid, wicked, baby raping, baby killing, mass-murdering liars and murderers into all powerful gods …
… YOU could not do it.
Yet Islam can.
It’s only weakness is that it’s ability to burn, loot, murder, and destroy everything decent, effective, or useful is too strong. Islam is a parasite. Islam needs a host that can be consumed and destroyed in order to be more effective. It also needs a distraction to prevent internal conflict.
Believing Islam is an accident is like believing the Federal Reserve was an accident. Or the Soviet Union. Or the French Revolution. Or …
So. Maybe the Big Mo did not exist. But someone existed. And he created this monster.
You can believe whatever you want, but it’s ridiculous to think Islam just “evolved” from some chemical reactions.
… Have you ever met a pedophile? A murderer? A lunatic?
Supervillains like Hannibal Lector only exist in comic books. They’re a distraction.
Think about it.
Admit it or not Islam is the bastardization of Judaism. Most Islam’s practices are based on early Judaism. Over 3000 years Judaism has evolved into current version. Islam on the hand is stuck on 1000 BCE. One assertion is that Muhamad was an illiterate. How an illiterate man can refer Jewish and Christion scripture. Most likely never existed. He was created by powerful desert dwellers to unify divers desert tribes.