Did Muhammad Exist?
An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins
Author: Robert Spencer (2021)
This post will probably not see the light of day for apparent reasons. The people about whom the subject matter is written are not kind towards anyone, especially the non-believers, commenting on their beloved religion. Neither are they the type who are willing to engage in intellectual discussions on Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, Hadith and anything related to their faith. On the one hand, they encourage debate, but on the other hand, they are hostile towards anyone challenging what they say. Their way of dealing with polemics is 'My Way or the Highway,' decapitation being the preferred method of making their point. Whilst a learned person of that faith will utter that that action is not the accurate representation of the religion, he would not be initiated to lift even his little finger or raise a single decibel to argue against his brethren for fear of stirring the wrath of his fellow member of the fold. The religion legitimises vigilantism to execute Allah's decree on Earth.
Many years ago, in a private WhatsApp discussion with my childhood friends, the question of the Quran's authenticity as a literal transcription of Allah's message to mankind arose. One of them, a Muslim, insisted that the Quran is indeed the word of God. It is infallible as every word is precisely what Allah wanted his worshippers to know, and it was given to the Prophet to be given to Man. On further prodding, I was told that it was said to Him in Arabic and recorded as such. There was no place for error. Everything was preserved in translation, even though there was a transfer process. It was written in Arabic, which was the language used in Jannah. He said the question of error of transcription, as it went from vision to scribe to writing, did not arise. It is verbatim what the angel Jibril (Gabriel) told Him and has remained so since 610 CE.
Since its inception, sceptics and cynics have questioned many aspects of religion. There were only so many people who would argue. Many crumble at the end of the unsheathed sword and at the thought of their dear life at a hair's breadth away. They convert or become theists. In peaceful times, many historians and scholars try to argue scholarly what theologians preach. Traditionally, non-Muslims are more receptive and accommodating towards these religious criticisms.
Robert Spencer established the website 'jihadwatch.org', which has been quite critical of many things Islamic faith groups advocate on the net and worldwide. Many other historians and scholars have also worked tirelessly to investigate the truth behind all the Islamist rhetoric.
The world is told that an illiterate goatherd, Muhammad, received an epiphany one day. Puzzled about what that was all about, his much more mature wife, Khatija, explained that he indeed received a divine message through the angel Jibril (Gabriel). Then he started receiving more good news, gained a following, expanded his influence, conquered lands, displayed exemplary conduct, and shared with the world everything that needed to be known. He is also said to have given the Quran. After his demise, soldiers from this faith went on a rampage from the Arabian Peninsula northward and westward to spread the good news.
Bunkum, says the author of this book. He is toying with the idea that the character of Muhammad is an afterthought. At a time when empires were ideology-based, the Byzantine Empire, with Christianity, and the Persians, with Zoroastrianism, the newly established kingdom had to establish an identity to keep its lands intact. Hence, a hodgepodge of scriptures was compiled from parchments available at the time and place to produce the religion of Islam. The lingua franca of the area where Islam is said to have originated was, interestingly, Syriac-Aramaic, not Arabic, as the Quran was written. Scholars feel that the earlier Qurans gave the impression of being added on, with various writing styles. They also think that it is funny that the Holy Scripture has to emphasise so many times that it was the true Scripture and that Allah was the true God, as if they were writing at a time when people were questioning its authenticity.
Suppose Islam had already marked itself as a force to be reckoned with when the Arabic warriors expanded to Damascus. Why were they called Ishmaelites, Saracens, Mahajirun, and Hagarians but not Muslims? Even after nearly 100 years of Islamic hegemony in that region, why did coinage, inscriptions, and signage still bear the cross (crucifix) if the Muslims were such strong iconoclasts?
The first standardised Quran is said to have been produced under the reign of Abd al-Malik, the fifth Caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty. Coins and inscriptions reflecting Islamic beliefs also began to appear at that time. Hajjaj ibn Yusof, the governor of Iraq, is said to have distributed the standardised Quran during Abd al-Malik's reign, not Uthman. In this era, Arabic was the dominant language.
At the time of Muhammad, Mecca was a city of trivial importance. The kibla, the direction worshipers prayed, was Petra in Jordan, not Mecca. The earliest mosques were built in this direction. Many of the hadiths were added, subtracted, and modified to suit the times, in keeping with the ruling regime. The Shias interpreted certain hadiths differently to present Ali in a favourable light. As we already know, Bukhari removed a significant number of Hadiths and kept only a small selection.
In essence, Islam is a political ideology that is ruled by putting the fear of God. It puts all subjects to toe the line and not ask too many questions. It creates the illusion of an angry God who easily gets offended and punishes not only non-believers but also brothers of the book who fail to comply with His will. The God of Islam also deputises his duties to his worshippers. These God's lieutenants have every right to take justice into their own hands. They do not have to feel guilty, but paradoxically feel honoured to have performed God's justice here on Earth.
.jpeg)
