A long post, I'm afraid, but it's a big question.

In recent decades, with scholarship's increased methodological sophistication, the major world religions have all been faced with revisionist views of history that have questioned their founder’s existence and the unique sacredness of their texts. With the exception of Islam, all have acknowledged these views, at least to the extent of not threatening the lives and liberties of the revisionist scholars.

There are those who say the Buddha was not an historical figure, or that he was born in Iran. The historicity and identity of Jesus has been a hot topic since the 19^th century. Ditto for Abraham, Moses and others. Adi Shankara, the great Hindu reformer, has been placed in both the 5^th century BCE and the 8^th century CE, raising questions about his historicity. The religion most seriously threatened by the arguments of revisionist scholars should be traditional Christianity, with its core doctrine that Jesus not only lived and taught in Galilee, but that he was the incarnation of the Logos, God’s “son”, the Redeemer in the Trinitarian Godhead (i.e. not just an avatar like Krishna).

However, the major world faith that appears to have no capacity whatever to countenance a revised view of the foundation stories and the life and person of the founding prophet is Islam, which actively and often violently persecutes those scholars who believe, on the basis of their research, that the traditional accounts of Muhammad, the Qur’an and the early years of the faith don’t stand up to scrutiny. With a few exceptions, scholars attached to the formal Centers of Islamic Studies in the West have been reluctant to critique the traditional accounts, dependent as they are on funding from the Arab states and on the goodwill of universities and governments who tend to regard any perceived criticism of the beliefs of Muslims as Islamophobia or, at least, as a provocation to violence from elements in the Muslim communities eager to unleash their fury on anyone who is deemed to disrespect the religion and/or the prophet.

Nevertheless, a book was published in 2012 that makes a strong case for the non-existence of Muhammad and for the development over decades of the Qur’an, a scripture taught dogmatically to have been revealed in its eternally true form orally to Muhammad and given its imprimatur as the only correct written version in the caliphate of Uthman (644-656) two decades after Muhammad’s death in 632. The book is by Robert Spencer, and is titled Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins. There are 81 reviews of the book on Amazon, most of them favorable, but including a couple of quite impressive hostile reviews critiquing Spencer’s understanding and treatment of his sources. He is involved with Jihad Watch, an anti-Islam site, and he wears his own hostility on his sleeve. That is enough for some reviewers to dismiss his work, but he gets plenty of support both on the Amazon page and from reviewers found on Google.

The main components of Spencer’s assault on the traditional, and orthodox, foundation stories are as follows:

1. The Qur’an appears to include material from Christian and Jewish sources that predate its revelation to Muhammad. There are also no extant early copies. The very early fragments found at Sana’a in 1972 include what appear to be the earliest Qur’anic texts available (no later than 660), but the main palimpsest of interest shows significant variation from the canonical text and indicates a process of formation that challenges the orthodox view that the Qur’an was revealed to the prophet fully formed and eternal.

2. The fundamental source for the traditional account of Muhammad’s life is the biography written by Ibn Ishaq in the 8

^th

century. There is no extant version of Ibn Ishaq’s work, but it is known by Ibn Hisham’s heavily edited 9

^th

century version – edited to remove “things which it is disgraceful to discuss [and] matter which would distress certain people”. All traditional accounts of Muhammad’s life and work refer back to Ibn Ishaq’s biography. Non-Muslim sources from Muhammad’s time and some time after do not refer to him.

3. The early Muslim political and military campaigns indicate an alliance of Arabs with Syrian Christians and Jews in toppling the terminally ill Byzantine powers in the fertile crescent. Spencer, following Crone and Cook’s earlier (and superseded?) work, argues that the Arabs only came to see themselves as Musilms over a period of time as they saw the need for a religious identity and a prophet of their own. Over time, as the Muslims looked back at their history they no longer saw the others and suppressed their documents. Muslim history became “salvation history”.

Whether or not one accepts Spencer’s theses, it is glaringly obvious that Islam simply lacks the confidence and maturity to consider any possible deviation from the orthodox accounts. The religious leaders, backed by the secular authorities in the Muslim world, especially the Arab states, come down very heavily on any scholar who challenges the traditional view. Look up Suliman Bashear (Palestine) and Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd (Egypt) as examples of scholars who have suffered for their views.

Will this change? Will things get better in the Islamic world for people who see things differently and speak up? It doesn’t appear likely at present. Perhaps the one thing that would make the Muslim lands more open to freedom of inquiry, speech and publication, is social, economic and political development, but there appears to be a correlation between Islam and social conservatism, economic under-development and political immaturity. To critique Islam, simply by following the sources and drawing defensible conclusions and then voicing one’s findings, will just provoke childish and violent responses. To remain silent is to confirm Edmund Burke’s warning that “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. But what is to be done?

My personal opinion is that Mohammed did exist.

He was greatly influenced by the large Jewish community in M'dina at the time, and indeed he fled there when expelled from Mecca.

Even that Jewish community was somewhat divorced from the mainstream Jewish thought of the rest of the Diaspora, as was the community that stayed in the Tigris/Euphrates basin after being taken there as slaves by Nebuchadnezzar.

But Mohammed put his imprimature on the Islamic interpretation of the Holy Scriptures with a very large helping of intolerance. The Christians (of the then mainstream - future Roman Catholicism) also put their own interpretations on the large body of work that represented all the opinions on a monotheistic religion at such gatherings as that at Nicaeae (sp?).

In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, the entire works have been edited, some discarded, and all has been put into a form that suited the powerful and would-be powerful of the day.

Due to the amount of time that has passed since these 'definitive' versions were issued, they have now become 'the Word of God'. when in fact, in all three religions, they are the work of political men of the (ancient) day. All should be open to query.

In a more direct response to the OP, remember that the date according to the Muslim (Hijiri) calendar is 1434 (or the calendar according to the Prophet's death 1424).

What was happening in Christian areas at that time?

We were fighting the Islamists in Spain, persecuting Jews everywhere, Working our way towards the greatest schism in Christianity (Martin Luther was still 100 years away). Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox church were absolutely not speaking to each other and neither was aware of Copts or Armenians, the local priests were the doctors and scribes of the nations and held all knowledge close to their chests. In the following centuries people were slaughtered in their tens of thousands for holding (or not holding) certain religious beliefs.

Is Islam any different to Christianity?

My personal opinion is that Mohammed did exist.

He was greatly influenced by the large Jewish community in M'dina at the time, and indeed he fled there when expelled from Mecca.

Even that Jewish community was somewhat divorced from the mainstream Jewish thought of the rest of the Diaspora, as was the community that stayed in the Tigris/Euphrates basin after being taken there as slaves by Nebuchadnezzar.

But Mohammed put his imprimature on the Islamic interpretation of the Holy Scriptures with a very large helping of intolerance. The Christians (of the then mainstream - future Roman Catholicism) also put their own interpretations on the large body of work that represented all the opinions on a monotheistic religion at such gatherings as that at Nicaeae (sp?).

In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, the entire works have been edited, some discarded, and all has been put into a form that suited the powerful and would-be powerful of the day.

Due to the amount of time that has passed since these 'definitive' versions were issued, they have now become 'the Word of God'. when in fact, in all three religions, they are the work of political men of the (ancient) day. All should be open to query.

A great deal of sense in this post. Thanks.

My personal opinion is that Mohammed did exist.

He was greatly influenced by the large Jewish community in M'dina at the time, and indeed he fled there when expelled from Mecca.

Even that Jewish community was somewhat divorced from the mainstream Jewish thought of the rest of the Diaspora, as was the community that stayed in the Tigris/Euphrates basin after being taken there as slaves by Nebuchadnezzar.

But Mohammed put his imprimature on the Islamic interpretation of the Holy Scriptures with a very large helping of intolerance. The Christians (of the then mainstream - future Roman Catholicism) also put their own interpretations on the large body of work that represented all the opinions on a monotheistic religion at such gatherings as that at Nicaeae (sp?).

In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, the entire works have been edited, some discarded, and all has been put into a form that suited the powerful and would-be powerful of the day.

Due to the amount of time that has passed since these 'definitive' versions were issued, they have now become 'the Word of God'. when in fact, in all three religions, they are the work of political men of the (ancient) day. All should be open to query.

A great deal of sense in this post. Thanks.

Based only on the most scant research of mine, I understand that there is good reason to believe that the Quran was pretty much written by Mohammed but not in the order in which it is read, and that, read in the order that it is written, it follows a fairly logical progression of views.

SC

One of the best arguments FOR the existence of Mohammed seems to be, as far as I remember, the fact that he is recorded as performing a number of discreditable actions. The founders of religions generally manage to get these edited out.

Really interesting question.

As my Wife and her Family are devout (done the Haji and all that) and I am a non believer I will be watching this thread eagerly.

Ask any question you wish me to pose to the mrs for an Indonesian Muslim point of viewif you like?

Of course he existed.

I have been to his mother's burial place on top of a mountain in the desert between Madinah and Jeddah.

This topic can now be closed.

Of course he existed.

I have been to his mother's burial place on top of a mountain in the desert between Madinah and Jeddah.

This topic can now be closed.

Did you get a souvenir coffee mug? (Like at Mary's house in Ephesus.)

Of course he existed.

I have been to his mother's burial place on top of a mountain in the desert between Madinah and Jeddah.

This topic can now be closed.

Did you get a souvenir coffee mug? (Like at Mary's house in Ephesus.)

No, but I did pick up a souvenir rock and took it home.

I have also seen Eve's tomb in Jeddah but they didn't have any rocks there.

Perhaps brother Naam visited there as well and can back up my story??

If he did, that should be proof positive that Adam existed as well.

A (to me) persuasive negative review of Robert Spencer's book is the one on the Amazon page by "Yasin100" (Aug 3, 2012) at http://www.amazon.co...#wasThisHelpful

No, but I did pick up a souvenir rock and took it home.

I have also seen Eve's tomb in Jeddah but they didn't have any rocks there.

Perhaps brother Naam visited there as well and can back up my story??

If he did, that should be proof positive that Adam existed as well.

i can confirm that Eve's tomb does exist in Jeddah and that 45 minutes drive to the east interested parties can approach a rock that carries the footprint of ol' Abraham. for non-muslims that means managing to cross the haram boundaries which surround Makkah al-Muharram... not recommended for Jingthing and Steely Dan!

If you're quick (and have a time machine taking you back to 1620 or thereabouts), you can see the house of St Ann, mother of Mary, in Loretto. This was its fourth location, the moves having occurred miraculously. On the other hand, since that was a long while ago, it may have moved elsewhere one or more times since then.

(I could provide a reference for this, but the book in which I read it is hard to obtain. More interestingly, it provides a personal account by someone who was racked by the Inquisition.)

you can see the house of St Ann, mother of Mary, in Loretto. This was its fourth location, the moves having occurred miraculously.

the culprits are the Ferengis. they "stoled" the house, put up a copy and sold the actual house with a huge profit to a secretive species in the Gamma Quadrant.

they have no honour... these Ferengis!

I used to drive by T. E. Lawrence's house in Yanbu. It was a small hut with a tin roof in the early 80's.

Had a wrecked red Toyota in the front yard.

Ii can confirm that Eve's tomb does exist in Jeddah and that 45 minutes drive to the east interested parties can approach a rock that carries the footprint of ol' Abraham. for non-muslims that means managing to cross the haram boundaries which surround Makkah al-Muharram... not recommended for Jingthing and Steely Dan!

Well, that's something I didn't know! I spent four yrars in Jeddah and another couple within an gour's drive. Never heard of Eve's tomb.

On one job we had an American interior designer. He was as queer as a nine-bob note and brought his raving boy-friend with him. On one Friday they took a trip to Mecca and stopped at the overpass with the "No non-believers beyond this point" sign, got out and posed for photos in very brief, very noticeable shorts and singlets.

They left Saudi within 24 hours. We didn't miss them.