What an interesting question? Can one question the history of Islam? Did Muhammad actually exist? Was he really illiterate? Creeping Sharia asks those and other questions.
The question really should be whether it is possible to question Islam and not be threatened, injured or killed, slandered, or arrested.
Robert Spencer via PJ Media » Is It Still Possible to Question Islam?.
Is it “Islamophobic” to question whether or not the standard picture of Muhammad as depicted in Muslim texts is historically accurate?
Certainly many people think so, notably the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The OIC is a fifty-six nation body (plus the
Palestinian Authority) that, since the demise of the Soviet Union, comprises the largest voting bloc at the United Nations. It has been
working for years to compel the UN to criminalize “Islamophobia.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a closed-door meeting with the OIC in December 2011, apparently to facilitate just that and figure out ways to circumvent the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of
Journalist Claire Berlinski notes that “the neologism ‘Islamophobia’ did not simply emerge ex nihilo”:
It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia. … Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word. “This loathsome term,” he writes, “is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.”
Yet the mainstream media has for the most part bought into this perspective, treating all investigation of how Islamic jihadists use the
texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism as “Islamophobic,” however useful it might be to understand the motives and
goals of those who have vowed to destroy the U.S. and Western civilization. Into this atmosphere comes my book Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam’s Obscure Origins, which doesn’t touch directly on terror issues at all, but does demonstrate that Islam was political, supremacist, and violent before it was religious — a fact with considerable implications for today’s political scene.
In broad outline, the accepted story of Islam’s origins is well known. It begins with an Arabian merchant of the Quraysh tribe of Mecca,
known to the world as Muhammad, a name that means the “praised one.” He rejected the polytheism of his tribe and was given to frequent prayer in the hills and caves outside Mecca. In the year 610, when he was forty, he was praying in a cave on Mount Hira, about two miles from Mecca, when he was suddenly confronted by the angel Gabriel, who commanded him to recite.
For the next twenty-three years, until his death in 632, Muhammad did just that: He recited the messages he received from Gabriel, presenting
them to his followers as the pure and unadulterated word of the supreme and only God. Many of his followers memorized portions. The Arabia in which Islam was born was an oral culture that respected poetic achievement, and thus the prodigious feats of memory required to memorize lengthy suras were not so unusual. After Muhammad’s death, the revelations he had received were collected together into the Qur’an, or
“Recitation,” from the accounts of those who had memorized them or written them down.
Muslims around the globe are not the only ones who take this account for granted; even non-Muslims generally accept the broad contours of
this narrative, which has been told and retold for centuries. However, virtually none of that standard account stands up to historical scrutiny, for several key reasons:
- No record of Muhammad’s reported death in 632 appears until more than a century after that date.
- The early accounts written by the people the Arabs conquered never mention Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. They call the conquerors
“Ishmaelites,” “Saracens,”“Muha- jirun,” and “Hagarians,” but never “Muslims.”
- The Arab conquerors, in their coins and inscriptions, don’t mention Islam or the Qur’an for the first six decades of their conquests. Mentions of “Muhammad” are non-specific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross. The word can be used not only as a proper name but also as an honorific.
- The Qur’an, even by the canonical Muslim account, was not distributed in its present form until the 650s. Contradicting that standard account is the fact that neither the Arabians nor the Christians and Jews in the region mention the Qur’an until the early eighth century.
- During the reign of the caliph Muawiya (661–680), the Arabs constructed at least one public building whose inscription was headed by
a cross – a symbol abhorrent to Islam.
The lack of confirming detail in the historical record, the late development of biographical material about the Islamic prophet, the atmosphere of political and religious factionalism in which that material developed, and much more suggest that the Muhammad of Islamic tradition did not exist, or if he did, he was substantially different from how that tradition portrays him.
Unmistakably historical, however, are the Arab conquests and the empire they produced. Every empire of the day was anchored in a political theology. The Eastern Roman Empire was Christian; the Persian Empire was Zoroastrian. The realm of political theology offers the most
plausible explanation for the creation of Islam, Muhammad, and the Qur’an. The Arab Empire controlled and needed to unify huge expanses of
territory where different religions predominated. Islam began as an umbrella monotheistic movement that presented itself as encompassing the
true forms of the two great previous monotheistic movements, Judaism and Christianity.
Historical records make clear that toward the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the eighth, the Umayyad leaders of the Arab
domains began to speak much more specifically than anyone had before about Islam, its prophet, and eventually its book. Muhammad, if he did
not exist, or if his actual deeds were not known, would certainly have been politically useful to the new Arab Empire as a legendary hero. The
empire was growing quickly, soon rivaling the Byzantine and Persian Empires in size and power. It needed a common religion—a political
theology that would provide the foundation for the empire’s unity and would secure allegiance to the state.
In any case, the late appearance of the biographical material about Muhammad, the fact that no one had heard of or spoken of Muhammad for
decades after the Arab conquests began, the changes in the religion of the Arab Empire, the inconsistencies in the Qur’an—all of this needed to
be explained. But is attempting to do so “Islamophobic?” Or can disinterested historical investigation still be carried out in the free West?
It is most interesting that the book Did Muhammad Exist? has been greeted with silence or opprobrium. Yet now, more than ever before, historical investigators have the opportunity—in fact, the responsibility—to usher Islam’s origins out of the shadows and into the light, and the responsibility not to be cowed by Islamic supremacist intimidation in doing so. Were they not to discharge that responsibility fully or properly, we will all be the poorer.