Top Menu

More Proof Why You REALLY Shouldn’t Trust Robert Spencer’s “Scholarship”

Robert Spencer, pseudo-scholar, once again gets Arabic 101 lessons from LoonWatch

A few days ago, I published an article entitled Why You Shouldn’t Trust Robert Spencer’s Biography of the Prophet Muhammad (I).

I took issue with Robert Spencer’s opening sentences of his biography of Muhammad (p.5 of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam), in which he wrote:

Muhammad already had experience as a warrior before he assumed the role of the prophet.  He had participated in two local wars between his Quraysh tribe and their neighboring rivals Banu Hawazin.

I wrote a response as follows:

What Spencer leaves out from this talking point–“Muhammad already had experience as warrior before he assumed the role of prophet”!–is quite telling.

He is referring to what is known in Islamic history as Harb al-Fijar (the Sacrilegious War), a series of conflicts that took place when Muhammad was a teenager. The spark that ignited the war was the unsettled murder of a member of one tribe, which lead to a blood feud. Due to “entangling alliances,” many different tribes in the area found themselves at war with each other.

Like most of Muhammad’s life, the details of this event are contested. This dispute is not simply one between modern-day Muslim apologists and Islamophobes, but rather one that traces its way back to the earliest biographers of the Prophet.

In specific, Muhammad’s level of participation in these wars is disputed. On the one hand, some Shia biographers reject the idea that Muhammad partook in them at all. Meanwhile, Sunni biographers write that Muhammad simply accompanied his uncle but did not directly fight in these wars. He only took on a very limited support role: picking up enemy arrows from the battlefield. At the most, he fired off a few arrows, but did not kill anyone.

Not only was Muhammad’s role severely limited, but even this he would later express regret over. Muhammad later recounted: “I had witnessed that war with my uncle and shot a few arrows therein. How I wish I had never done so!” [1] Spencer conveniently omits this very important fact, one that mitigates Muhammad’s participation in the war, especially in regards to his views about war and peace.

Spencer replied:

In 2006 I wrote the book on the right, The Truth About Muhammad, a biography of the prophet of Islam based on the earliest Muslim accounts of his life, in order to illustrate what Muslims generally believe that Muhammad said and did. In my forthcoming book, Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam’s Obscure Origins, which will be published April 23 by ISI, I examine the historical value of those early Muslim accounts. It is an attempt to determine whether what Muslims believe Muhammad said and did, as recounted in The Truth About Muhammad, actually corresponds to historical reality.

There are numerous reasons to question the historicity of the early Muslim accounts of Muhammad’s life. Take, for example, an incident I refer to briefly in yet another book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades):

Muhammad already had experience as a warrior before he assumed the role of prophet. He had participated in two local wars between his Quraysh tribe and their neighboring rivals Banu Hawazin.

That he participated in these wars, known collectively as the Fijar War, or Sacrilegious War, is generally agreed upon, but there is no agreement about what he thought later about his role in them. The Egyptian writer Muhammad Hussein Haykal, in his 1933 biography, Hayat Muhammad (translated into English as The Life of Muhammad), quotes Muhammad expressing regret for his participation in this war:

“I had witnessed that war with my uncle and shot a few arrows therein. How I wish I had never done so!” (Pp. 52-3)

However, the ninth-century Muslim historian Ibn Sa’d, in one of the earliest and most important sources for biographical information on Muhammad, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, directly contradicts Haykal by quoting Muhammad saying this about the Fijar War:

I attended it with my uncles and shot arrows there and I do not repent it. (I.143)So which is it?

Is Haykal right that he really did express regret, or is Ibn Sa’d right that he explicitly ruled out doing so? Haykal doesn’t give his source, but it is possible that he had access to a hadith or some Islamic tradition that flatly contradicted the one Ibn Sa’d recorded eleven centuries earlier — although this is unlikely, since Ibn Sa’d often records variant and contradictory reports and discusses how they can be harmonized, or why one should be accepted and the other rejected. In this case Ibn Sa’d gives no hint of any variants. Haykal may simply have altered this tradition for apologetic purposes. Those who cite him as their source on this, or try to build an argument upon his quotation, do so at their own risk.

Nonetheless, such contradictions abound in the hadith reports. Muhammad can quite often be found saying contradictory things, as I show in Did Muhammad Exist?. In that book also I discuss how this odd situation came about: opposing factions both invoked Muhammad as an authority, and invented traditions to support their point of view.

Spencer is hawking his new book, which he is pushing as a “scholarly work” about how Muhammad didn’t exist.  His home page boasts that Robert Spencer is “[t]he acclaimed scholar of Islam”, “[a] serious scholar”, and “a brilliant scholar.”

I have pointed out in the past that Spencer is not a scholar of any sort–especially not on anything related to Islam.  He simply does not have the academic qualifications to claim this.  What other “scholar” do you know of that doesn’t even have a master’s or PhD degree on the subject he claims to be a “scholar” of?  He only has a one-year master’s degree in “the field of early Christianity”.  How does that make him an “acclaimed scholar of Islam”?

Another major problem with Spencer’s claim to scholarship is that he simply does not speak or understand Arabic.  This much has been apparent in the past, and it becomes painstakingly obvious in his latest response to me (as I shall show below).  I don’t think Spencer needs to know Arabic to criticize Islam (as some Muslim apologists insist), but I do think he needs to know it in order to be considered a “scholar of Islam” (a title he claims)–let alone “[t]he acclaimed scholar of Islam.”

Combine (1) not having any academic qualifications whatsoever with (2) not knowing Arabic and you have a situation like this: imagine some random blogger claiming to be “a world renowned physician” without ever having (1) gone to medical school and (2) without ever having studied or learned anatomy.  Such a blogger might be able to bring up good points about the field of medicine, but nobody in their right mind would consider him a “world renowned physician”–and if he claimed any such thing, his credibility would be shattered.

The need to understand Arabic in order to be a “scholar of Islam” cannot become more apparent than it is now with Spencer’s latest reply.  And here’s why:  Spencer argues (see quote above) that the hadith (saying of the Prophet Muhammad) found in Haykal’s Hayat Muhammad contradicts the one in Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir.  He argues that Haykal may have reproduced another hadith that contradicts the one found in Ibn Sa’d’s book, or even that Haykal may have engaged in academic deceit (i.e. “altered this tradition for apologetic purposes”).  That’s a serious and bold claim to make against Haykal.

Yet, had Spencer simply been able to read Arabic, he would have realized that the hadith in Haykal’s Hayat Muhammad and Ibn Sa’d’s Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir are the exact same!  They are word-for-word identical.  In other words, Haykal took the hadith from Ibn Sa’d’s book.  That Spencer couldn’t see this speaks volumes about his “scholarship.”  So, Spencer’s blathering on about Haykal finding another contradictory hadith or of manipulating the text is indicative of his sophomoric “scholarship.”

How could Haykal have reproduced another hadith or have manipulated the text when in fact the wording in both Haykal’s book and Ibn Sa’d’s is the exact same?  Here is what is found in Haykal’s book:

Source: Haykal, Muhammad Husayn, Hayat Muhammad [The Life of Muhammad], 14th ed. (Cairo: Dar al-Ma’arif, n.d.): 134

And here’s the exact same found in Ibn Sa’d’s book, which Spencer quoted to “trump” Haykal’s hadith (stupidly not realizing they are the exact same!):

Source: Ibn Sa’d,  Tabaqat al-Kabir, edited by Ali Muhammad Umar (Cairo: Maktabat al-Khaniji, 2001) 1:106

To Robert Spencer, who doesn’t read or understand Arabic, that looks like a whole lot of jibberish.  One can imagine Spencer saying: “That’s Greek Arabic to me!”  But, if we help Spencer out by underlining as we did above, even he should be able to verify that they are the exact same–word-for-word.

So, if the two quotes are the exact same, why does Spencer’s quote seem to say the exact opposite as what I quoted?  Why did I translate it as such:

I had witnessed that war with my uncle and shot a few arrows therein. How I wish I had never done so!

Whereas Spencer used the following:

I attended it with my uncles and shot arrows there and I do not repent it.

Why the difference?

Being the “acclaimed scholar of Islam” that he is, Spencer relied on Google search to find this English translation of Ibn Sa’d’s book and/or was forced to rely on an English translation of the book (due to his inability to read the source text).  In doing so, Spencer didn’t realize that the sentence he reproduced was a faulty translation.

In Arabic, the underlined part is:

وما أحب أني لم أكن فعلت

In transliteration (for Spencer’s sake), it would be:

wa ma uhibb anni lam akun fa’alt

It translates to:

and what I wish is that I had not done it!

Breaking it down, we have:

وما (wa ma) – and what

أحب (uhibb) – I love/wish (See Hans Wehr for the meaning of this verb)

 أني (anni) – is that I

لم أكن (lam akun) – had not

فعلت (fa’alt) – done [it]

The translator Spencer used made a mistake with the word ما (ma), which is a participle in Arabic that is modified by the words surrounding it.  Hans Wehr lists nine different uses of the word ما (ma), one of which is indeed negation.  However, from a linguistic standpoint, the “negative ma” cannot be used in this particular sentence.  Indeed, it would render the sentence into a nonsensical “double negative”:

And I do not love that I had not done it.

Huh?  If you translated it like so, that would actually mean that Muhammad did not participate in the war.  So, even still, this would actually be proof against Spencer’s claim that Muhammad took part in it.

The translator Spencer relied upon saw two negatives and just tried to “simplify” the text to read: “and I do not repent it.”  This, even though the word “repent” does not appear anywhere in the text.  It is completely imagined.  It should be noted that the translator’s native language was neither Arabic nor English. He didn’t know what to do with the nonsensical double-negative–a sentence that would actually mean that Muhammad did not love the fact that he did not participate in the war.

In reality, the word  ما (ma) was being used as a “relative ma“:

Source: Ryding, Karin C., A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005): 326

The translator can be forgiven for making a mistake, but Robert Spencer, being “[t]he acclaimed scholar of Islam” should have known better.  The only correct translation of this text would support the translation I used, namely that Muhammad regretted his participation in the war, which was the point of my article.  It was this fact that Spencer failed to include in his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).  Instead, he tried to give the exact opposite (and false) impression, i.e. that Muhammad was already a “warrior” before he became a prophet.

Watch how this hadith from Ibn Sa’d’s book–which Spencer is currently using as his strongest proof–will be quickly tossed away by Spencer now that it doesn’t support his argument any more.  This is, after all, his methodology for “finding the historical Muhammad”: any hadiths that paint Muhammad in a positive light are jettisoned, whereas those that do the opposite are trumpeted and used as a club to hit Muslims over the head with.  With such a biased “methodology”, do you really want to trust Robert Spencer as a source for Muhammad’s biography or for anything related to Islam?

*  *  *  *  *

The bottom line is that Spencer relied on an incorrect translation to write a response to my article.  This has two implications:

1)  Our entire discussion underscores how important it is for a “scholar of Islam” to read, understand and have mastery of the Arabic language.  This is what is expected of a scholar at any credible university, and this is what must be expected of Robert Spencer if he wishes to don the mantle of a scholar of Islam.  It is exactly because of situations like these where knowing how to read Arabic can make or break the argument.

2) Specifically with the Prophet Muhammad, Spencer’s biography is misleading because it portrays Muhammad as “already [having] had experience as a warrior”, which is meant to purposefully mislead the reader.  It is intended to paint a portrait of Muhammad as a fierce warrior–hence, Spencer’s choice of title, “Muhammad: Prophet of War”.

What Spencer leaves out is the fact that, at most, Muhammad’s involvement in the war was menial–mostly just in a support capacity.  This is a far cry from the “fierce warrior” image that Spencer is trying to portray.

Muhammad not only expressed regret for participation in the war, but more importantly, after hostilities ceased he supported the League of the Virtuous (Hilf al-Fudul), which was similar to the League of Nations formed after World War I.  The goal of the League of the Virtuous was to bring an end to bloodshed, violence, and war.  Muhammad’s participation in this–and his ringing endorsement of the League even in his later years of life–tells us a lot about how he viewed the war (and warfare in general).  Under the entry of Hilf al-Fudul, Thomas Patrick Hughes’ A Dictionary of Islam says:

A confederacy formed…for the suppression of violence and injustice at the restoration of peace after the Sacrilegious war. Muhammad was then a youth, and Sir William Muir says this confederacy “aroused an enthusiasm in the mind of Mahomet [Muhammad], which the exploits of the Sacrilegious war failed to kindle.”

The war Muhammad was not too keen of.  But, the body designed to bring peace on earth was something he was deeply inspired by.

These are facts that Spencer wouldn’t have the reader know.  Yet, whereas there was disagreement among biographers about Muhammad’s participation in the war, there was–as far as I know–no difference of opinion about his participation in and support for the League of the Virtuous.  Why is it that Spencer’s biography focuses on contested facts but stays clear from a more accepted occurrence? It is only because one event helps build his case against Muhammad, and the other does the opposite.  So, he includes what helps and ignores what doesn’t.  Should you really trust Spencer’s biography then?

*  *  *  *  *

Spencer also writes in the same article:

Nonetheless, such contradictions abound in the hadith reports. Muhammad can quite often be found saying contradictory things, as I show in Did Muhammad Exist?. In that book also I discuss how this odd situation came about: opposing factions both invoked Muhammad as an authority, and invented traditions to support their point of view.

Robert Spencer has recently argued that Muhammad didn’t in fact exist.  The desire to negate Muhammad’s existence altogether is born out of his strongly pro-Catholic, anti-Muslim views.

Yet, Spencer should know that historians have doubted the historicity of Moses and Jesus as well.  Almost all of the arguments used against the historicity of Muhammad can be applied to Moses and Jesus.  Some scholars have doubted Moses and Jesus’ existences altogether, just as Spencer doubts the existence of Muhammad.  Once again, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, but try arguing this point and Spencer will cry “tu quoque, tu quoque!”  How dare you apply the same standards to Spencer’s religion and beliefs that he does on a routine basis to others!

However, most scholars don’t believe Muhammad didn’t exist, just as most don’t deny the existence of Jesus.  But, the details of Muhammad’s life are far more controversial and up for debate, just as is the case with Jesus.  Finding the historical Muhammad is, like finding the historical Moses or Jesus, an important endeavor.

Yes, contradictory hadiths abound, but that’s no different than is the case in Christianity: Bible scholars argue that the Gospels, for example, are highly contradictory to each other, especially with regard to Jesus.  I can hear it now already: tu quoque, tu quoque!

The fact that contradictory reports exist just means that scholars need to exert energy to determine what’s more reliable and what’s not–and there will always be a level of guesswork and doubt about it.  But the correct way to find the historical Muhammad is not the way Spencer does it: agree with whatever casts Muhammad in a bad light, and dump everything that doesn’t.

Finding the historical Muhammad is an important endeavor that modern scholarship will need to undertake, and you won’t find me disagreeing with that.  Yes, it might call into question stories that many Muslims take for granted, but it will also cast doubt on events that Islamophobes like Robert Spencer rely on to bash Muslims over the head with.

Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.  For the writing of this article, Dawood (guest contributor) was consulted.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Nadir

    @MrT: Excellent, and good luck! I believe maa in the sentence from the article is being used like your first example: maa ajmala hadhi siyyara. How beautiful this car is! Though I have to admit it’s hard to tell with transliteration, because in your example siyarra should be definite. And I’ve never heard maa referred to as the verb of wonder. It’s not a verb, it can’t be conjugated. What book are you using?

  • khushboo

    Kafir, Spencer just throws out bogus numbers and words also backed by bogus names with more bullshyt and you dummies believe whatever he says without any fact checking.

  • Awesome

    @ Kafir Harby

    Suckers. Spencer’s scholarship is high respected and above suspicion. And that is precisely what’s bothering you. Heh heh.

    The only ones who have a high-regard for Spencer’s self-proclaimed “scholarship”, are either those who haven’t bothered to cross-examine such claims and simply assume they are true, or they are those who have ulterior motives for supporting such claims.

    Either way, the fact remains that in spite of how much Spencer’s supporters like to trumpet his claims, they never actually substantiate them. Like his height, Spencer can only ever come out on top when standing on something that artificially elevates him. His expertise is only in snake oil salesmanship and nothing more.

  • Daniel

    Danios, you are making Spencer’s complete lack of authority crystal clear.

    I wonder if Spencer is scrambling with his resident translator (“the translated”) to figure out how to address this.

    This–among with countless other evidence–clearly shows that Spencer is not a scholar, carefully researching information and then coming to a position, but rather he is a polemicist, cherry picking data to support his polemic.

  • mrT

    MAA AJmala hadhi sayaarah

    MAA afqarahaa

    MAA ashala hadhaa adras

    i am studying arabic

    my book says this is fi3lu ata3ajubi

    verb of wonder

  • Nur Alia

    @ Believing Athiest.

    Lets understand that Patricia Crone uses sources OTHER than the Arabi to come to her conclusions about Islam.

    Althugh she is studied in Islam, like people are saying here, you have to be able to navigate the Arabi to understand Islam, and claim scholarship.

    The sources she uses is from the Armenian, Greek, and some middleastern languages to conclude that Muhammad was a warrior against the Byzintine and Persian empires, and needed to ‘start a religion’ to gather the various tribes under one ideology to help him.

    I belive this was called Hagarism, and the plausablity of this notion is rejected by most scholars, Islamic and historical as well. This is not a new idea. It has been around for a long time, and Christians first used this notion to try and discredit the Prophet.

    Beliving Athiest, I do enjoy your posts, and belive them to be thought provoking and fair…as most people who belive like you are.

  • Nur Alia

    If Spencer is going to now say…the person he has made his fame and fortune condeming and making other people fear never existed…where exaclty does he do with his credibility as a scholar.

    So…now…for example Muhammad was a pedophile, but he never existed?

    He is undermining himself here. He is more like politician.

  • Ahmed

    Well said, Dave.

    Here at LoonWatch we always make it clear – we have nothing against anyone of any religion, and that Spencer is a disgrace to the good Christians out there.

  • Ahmed

    I know that one of the authors of the Hagarism theory later said he/she does not believe in it any longer.

    The bottom line is, there will always be theories about as to exactly what happened 1000s of years ago. I mean, come on, we don’t even know what exactly happened 100 years ago, so how can we expect to know exactly what happened more than a thousand years ago.

    But we all know Spencer’s reason for the book. He knows his other lies have been exposed, and so he now wants something else to attack Muslims. By saying we do not know for sure about the life of Muhammad (pbuh), he is trying to say that Muslims are following a religion made up by others. Of course, this is exactly what many people have said about Christians and what Muslims say about Christians.

  • I take issue with Robert Spencer being described as pro Catholic. The Pope has made great efforts towards reaching out to Muslims and Jews for the purposes of understanding, reconciliation and for bringing people together.
    In my mind, Spencer’s words and actions are just as abhorantly ant-Catholic/Christian as they are anti-Muslim. The fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center has Robert Spencer on their hate watch website and includes him in their top 10 of anti-Muslim people whom they are tracking, confirms this for me. Hate has no place in any religion and hate towards any group of people is anti-human rights by definition.
    Spencer’s constant demonization and disparaging of Muslims and their religion, Islam, is not Christian in any way, shape or form. He is a bigot, plain and simple!

  • Believing Atheist

    I personally think Spencer has the wrong thesis in claiming that Muhammad did not exist. As I said in another thread there are at the very LEAST two non-Muslim sources for Muhammad’s existence. The first is Doctrina Jacobi and the second is by the Armenian Bishop Sebeos called “A History of Heraclius.”

    Now, as I said before Muhammad may not have existed as the Hadiths and the biographies depict him as existing. I am currently reading a very controversial book by the Islamic scholars Patricia Crone (I believe she is now in Princeton) and Michael Cook called “Hagarism The Making of the Islamic World.”
    The entire book has been converted to PDF and can be read for free here:

    This book claims that Muhammad was actually a military leader set out to conquer Jerusalem and hence he and his fellow Hagarenes needed to build a religion to unify the Hagarenes and the Jews in order to conquer the holy land from the Byzantines. That religion was of course soon to become Islam.

    The book is very controversial and has been criticized by numerous other Islamic scholars such as John Wansbrough. But nevertheless it is a fascinating read and regardless of what you think of Muhammad (either as prophet or mere man) it will get you all to think.

  • Garo





    Another violation of my own decision,because mainly of what you and Garibaldi write. Nothing left for me to do except to get rid of my computer and forget about blogging and the Internet. I just may do that.

  • Nadir

    I think “ma” is a word of emphasis here, not “what” but “how” – “Indeed, I attended it with my uncles and slung arrows; and how I wish that I hadn’t done what I had done!”

    Similar use is seen in Abu-Ala al-maa’aari’s famous poem…وما اعجب الا … “And how I wonder…”

    I don’t see anything about “a few” arrows like the first, more accurate translation indicates and suspect it was added by the translator in an effort to minimize the extent of his involvement in the war –  asham (arrows) is simply the plural of sham (an arrow). 

    So a good neutral conclusion just based on the Arabic here is that Muhammed participated in the war as an archer, and later regretted having done so. 

    Great article, well done.

  • Samir

    Excellent article Danios. Bravo!! Spencer must be crying about now, his world is crumbling faster than you can say “Islamophobe”. The gaping holes in his work and his credentials are becoming exposed.

  • IbnAbuTalib

    “Another major problem with Spencer’s claim to scholarship is that he simply does not speak or understand Arabic.”

    Not only Arabic, but one also needs to know German, French, Persian and other Middle Eastern languages before enrolling in Islamic studies PhD programme, at least that is what’s required in places like University of Chicago, Yale and elsewhere.

  • MrIslamAnswersback

    Job well done Danios. You smoked Spencer with the facts yet again. Spencer you and I both know if you have a one on one debate with Danios that your career is over!!

  • The claims in the “scholar of Islam”‘s book are being refuted, even before the book comes out. This is why he is running from a debate.

  • mrT

    “Another major problem with Spencer’s claim to scholarship is that he simply does not speak or understand Arabic.”


  • mrT

    “I have pointed out in the past that Spencer is not a scholar of any sort–especially not on anything related to Islam. He simply does not have the academic qualifications to claim this. What other “scholar” do you know of that doesn’t even have a master’s or PhD degree on the subject he claims to be a “scholar” of? He only has a one-year master’s degree in “the field of early Christianity”. How does that make him an “acclaimed scholar of Islam”?”

    the guy is a f-king prick. i wonder what DEBLOIS and HOYLAND make of this prick?

  • mrT

    “Spencer is hawking his new book, which he is pushing as a “scholarly work” about how Muhammad didn’t exist.”

    Yusuf B Gursey , a non-muslim , wrote about muhammad vs spencers galilean god in flesh.

    Let me reiterate just a few actually well-known points about Jesus and the New Testament. The books of the New Testament were composed at different times and contain glaring discrepancies both in their narrative content and in their theological content. …

    In the narrative parts of the four canonic Gospels, Jesus is depicted
    almost exclusively as a doer of miracles and consequently they cannot be regarded as historical or biographical documents in any meaningful sense of these words, while the teachings that these Gospels put into the mouth of Jesus are, at least in part, theologically dependant on Pauline doctrine. They cannot therefore be seen as records of the actual teachings of Jesus, but reflect certain defined positions in the history of Christian doctrine.

    Now let us take a look at Muhammad and the Quran. In contrast to the New Testament, the Qur’an is, on the whole, a book of consistent style and consistent theological content. Although the surviving Muslim sects (the Shi’ites, Kharijites, and those who eventually came to be known as Sunnites) separated from each other within a decade of the death of Muhammad, they all agree on the content of the Quranic canon. By contrast, the surviving Christian sects, all of which split off from Roman imperial Christianity at a very late date, not earlier than the fourth century, have different versions of the
    biblical canon;

    Muhammad would appear, at least in theory, to be a far more apposite
    subject for historical inquiry than the founder of Christianity. The most
    abiding and forbidding obstacle to approaching the historical Jesus is
    undoubtedly the fact that our principal sources, the documents included in the New Testament, were all written on the hither side of Easter; that is, their authors viewed their subject across the absolute conviction that Jesus was the Christ and the Son of God, a conviction later rendered explicit in Christian dogma. There is, however, no Resurrection in the career of Muhammad, no Paschal sunrise to cast its divinizing light on the Prophet of Islam. Muhammad is thus a perfectly appropriate subject of history: a man born of woman (and a man), who lived in a known place in a roughly calculable time, who in the end died the death that is the lot of all mortals, and whose career was reported by authorities who share the contemporary historian’s own conviction that the Prophet was nothing more than a man.

    Christianity is hard to define, as there are many sects and
    interpretations.I would say the Qur’an has more to say on the betterment of the Earthly position of Mankind in this world, while Christianity, as defined by the NT, leaves it up to the Hereafter.

    In contrast to the miracle stories that make up virtually the whole of the narrative strand of the Christian gospels, the sirah, the traditional
    biography of Muhammad, is realistic in the sense that it contains
    virtually no public miracles, that is, miracles supposedly witnessed by
    large groups of people. The sirah does, of course, record the private
    miracle of Muhammad receiving the Quran from an angel. But from a
    positivist, sceptical point of view it is possible to accept that highly
    imaginative people in pre-modern times sincerely believed that they
    received their knowledge through divine inspiration.

    My conclusion is thus that Jesus is a biographically intangible figure
    located in a very well documented historical milieu, whereas Muhammad is a biographically at least plausible figure located in a historical vacuum.

    the title of the article is “New documentary texts and the early Islamic
    state” and the idea is that wecould gleen a lot more from the graffito and texts in Arabic that have come to light in recent decades. also there is de Blois’ point that there are radical differences betrween the body of knowledge about early Islam and the body of knowledge about early Christianity. in the case of Islam, one is confronted with a very believable (from the secular point of view) narartivve in a place where historical historical knowledge is scarce, but in the case of
    Christianity, one is confronted with a very incredilous story in a place
    where historical knowledge is abundant. so different methods of critcism must be used.

    I have already suggested elsewhere that the virtual absence of real
    textual variants in the Qur’an is the result of a biographically
    intangible figure located in a very well documented historical milieu,
    whereas Muhammad is a biographically at least plausible figure located in
    a historical vacuum.

    New documentary texts and the early Islamic state
    Bulletin of SOAS, 69, 3 (2006), 395416.

    Some scholars would argue that the religion of Islam was indeed very
    different in its formative years. Of course most, including many Muslim
    thinkers past and present, would accept that the early Muslim conception of their Prophet and their faith evolved over time, and that they therefore held a different conception from that of later Muslims, but a number of revisionist scholars would go much further and posit a
    discontinuity between nascent Islam and classical Islam. For example, they have postulated that Mecca was not Muhammads birthplace or the Hijaz Islams home, that the Quran was not compiled in the seventh century or written in Arabic, and even that Muhammad and the Arab conquests were a later invention. Most of the impetus for such radical theories stems from the sense that a major world religion could not have been born in such a remote corner of the Middle East and from a desire to root Islams origins and early development more fully within the world of late antiquity, and so to argue against the traditional Muslim perspective that Islams birth was ontogenetic, untainted by alien wisdom and foreign creeds. While one sympathizes with these aims, one might be wary of such a wholesale rewriting of the later Muslim historical accounts about this period. But if we are not to trust these accounts, as revisionists urge, then we have to fall back on non-Muslim sources and documentary evidence, which are particularly unforthcoming regarding religious matters. They do at least record a new era (starting in 622 CE) and new name for the Arabs (Arabic muhajirun/ Syriac mhaggraye /Greek magaritai or moagaritai), an emphasis on the One God, a sacred place in Arabia, a head of state entitled ‘commander of the believers, and a ‘guide’ and ‘instructor’ called Muhammad, which allows us to infer that the newcomers did possess a distinctive cult.Furthermore, there have been new discoveries and many known texts could fruitfully be milked much harder for insights …

  • mishon

    A joy to read as always 🙂

  • Ahmed

    That was brilliant – this is an epic fail. I bet Spencer wishes that the parents of Danios had never decided to get intimate 9 months before Danios was born!!! 😀

    The theory that Muhammad (pbuh) did not exist has been around before. But as Danios points out, there are those who say Jesus did not exist either. But Spencer, will, as usual use two different criteria.

    What is funny is, there are plenty of Muslims who doubt the Hadiths and Seerah – that is why you get Quran-only Muslims. And then there are those Muslims who follow the Hadiths but accept they might not be correct.

    Ultimately, this will end up being an own-goal for the Islamophobes. Because if they’re saying that things about Muhammad (pbuh) were made up later, then they can no longer say he (pbuh) is a paedophile*, and they can no longer claim he (pbuh) killed a Jewish tribe!

    * The below link shows that Hadith’s are not 100% reliable – as Muslims believe that Allah SWT did not protect them, but only the Quran. So even orthodox Muslims already acknowledge that information about Muhammad’s (pbuh) life is not 100% certain.

  • @Danios: Would you consider closing all the other “Spencer flees” threads with a link to this thread, please?

  • Kafir Harby

    Suckers. Spencer’s scholarship is high respected and above suspicion. And that is precisely what’s bothering you. Heh heh.

  • mindy1

    Can someone answer the question who TRUSTS this guy 😯

Powered by Loon Watchers