Robin Hood, King Arthur, Muhammad

Robert Spencer is known as a bête noire to Islamist sympathizers. He published a critical blog with a chapter-by-chapter study of the Qur’an during 2007-2008, and in his current blog,, furnishes us with up-to-date information hardly ever available from the mass media. He has also published several books on Islam and Muhammad; but his latest book, Did Muhammad Exist?, offers us significant departure from his previous endeavors. Like Tom Holland in The Shadow of the Sword, Spencer shows that the origin of Islam in the Arabian desert is doubtful – but he goes even further in doubting the existence of the “prophet” who started it all.

Can he be serious?  Is he just trying to be provocative? Spencer explains that in the Introduction to his 2006 book, The Truth about Muhammad, a biography based on the earliest Muslim sources,

I pointed out “the paucity of early reliable sources” and observed that “from a strictly historical standpoint, it is impossible to state with certainty that a man named Muhammad actually existed, or if he did, that he did much or any of what is ascribed to him.” Even then, however, I said for a variety of reasons that “in all likelihood he did exist.” That may have been an overly optimistic assessment.

Proofs of non-existence – even of God – are notoriously difficult to substantiate.  But Spencer is content to focus on the strange lack of historical evidence for the existence of Muhammad.  This lacuna contrasts unfavorably with the abundant testimony, not only from believing Christians, but from Jewish and pagan historians, of the existence of Jesus.  Hardly any trustworthy, roughly contemporary testimony is available for Muhammad. The quest for the “historical Muhammad” is made even more challenging by the fact that Muslim scholars, mostly because of religious taboos, have not applied anything analogous to the “historical-critical” methodology employed by Christian scripture-scholars.

The “canonical” story, briefly, is that Muhammad, brought up as a child by an uncle after his parents’ death, worked as a merchant in Mecca, a pilgrimage site and bustling commercial center, married at 25, started to receive revelations from the angel Gabriel at age 40, fled from Mecca to Medina after his attempts to convert pagan polytheists were rebuffed, became a prophet/warlord in Medina, receiving messages from Allah which later were compiled into the Qur’an, and conquered hostile opponents to Islam, which was meant to supersede all other religions; he acquired a sizeable harem, great wealth and prestige, and died in 632 at the age of 62.

Numerous problems emerge with this narrative, according to Spencer:

  • There are no records of Mecca being a pilgrimage site or a commercial center.  Because of its location in Western Arabia, it was hardly likely to be a crossroad for commerce.
  • A coin struck by the first Arabian conquerers between 647 and 658 does bear the inscription muhammad – but this is a figure carrying a cross! – which certainly does not jibe with Islam as we know it.
  • The first attempt to record stories about Muhammad (“hadiths”) did not begin until the 8th century, under the 5th Umayyad caliph, Abd al-Malik; this project continued on into the 9th century, when the first biography of Muhammad was authored by Ibn Ishaq.  All subsequent biographies have been based on Ibn Ishaq’s very late-appearing work.
  • Ibn Ishaq’s biography goes into great detail about the birth, childhood, adulthood, marriage, visions, raiding campaigns, marriages, etc, but also is peculiarly replete with miracles attributed to Muhammad.  This is peculiar because the Qur’an (29:51) asserts that Muhammad did not perform miracles, because the Qur’an itself was a sufficient miracle to convince believers.

Problems turn up also with the history of the Qur’an, the editing and expanding of which began after Muhammad’s death by the fifth caliph, Abd al-Malik:

  • The first non-Muslim reference to the Qur’an was by a monk, 80 years after the book was supposedly completed, and 60 years after it was supposedly collected and distributed.
  • Some hadiths assert that parts of the Qur’an were missing, and had to be gathered together by various caliphs, starting with the first caliph, Abu Bakr.
  • Caliph Uthman (644-656) and caliph Abd al-Malik (685-705) seemed to compete with each other in altering verses to favor their own political claims.
  • Early fragments have no diacritical markings. But the same word with different markings can have very different meanings.
  • Spencer cites the philologist, Gerd-R. Puin, regarding the complete unintelligibility of about one-fifth of the Qur’an, and gives examples of verses that make some of Gertrude Stein’s “stream of consciousness” experiments sound lucid.
  • The Qur’an has been subjected to variant translations, which sometimes lead to contradictions. For example, Sura 3:158 says that those who die or are slain will be gathered to Allah, while a 1978 translation published in Tehran says that they will not be gathered to Allah.
  • Some references seem to be reinterpretations of Christian writings or liturgical accouterments. The “Night of Power” (Sura 97:1-5), and the vigil associated with it, is commonly associated with the first appearance of Gabriel to Muhammad, but seems to have involved an incorporation of the Syriac Orthodox Liturgy of the Nativity, e.g. the midnight celebration of Christmas. The reference to the “virgins” of Paradise offered as a reward to martyrs is an example of a similar incorporation, as well as an orthographic misreading.  It is really a reference to white raisins – a prized delicacy at that time in the middle east, and possibly related to one of the 4th century hymns of St. Ephraem the Syrian, which refers to the “grapevines of paradise.”

So what are we to make of such obscurities?  That Mohammed never existed? Spencer concludes,

The full truth of whether a prophet named Muhammad lived in seventh-century Arabia, and if he did, what sort of man he was, may never be known. But it would be intellectually irresponsible not to ask the question or consider the implications of the provocative evidence that pioneering scholars have assembled.

The evidence that Spencer examines leads only to the cautious conclusion that a warlord/prophet may have existed, who, with help from adulating admirers, became a larger-than-life hero, like Robin Hood, King Arthur, Macbeth, and El Cid.

What seems clear and incontestable is that someone in the middle east started a political religion that energized his followers for conquest extending from Spain to India, from Sudan to the Caucasus, and that he subsequently became the “stuff of legend.”

Read an excerpt of Did Muhammad Exist?

Howard Kainz


Howard Kainz is professor emeritus at Marquette University. He is the author of several books, including Natural Law: an Introduction and Reexamination (2004), The Philosophy of Human Nature (2008), and The Existence of God and the Faith-Instinct (2010).

  • Pingback: Robin Hood, King Arthur, Muhammad | Catholic Canada()

  • Marchmaine

    Hmmn, not sure Crisis should follow Mr. Spencer down this particular rabbit hole.

    • John Key

      But why?  I just don’t understand why the refusual to ask reasonable questions? Why is this a rabbit hole? What in this post is possibly beneath your level of inquiry? It is NOT because a compelling argument has been made on the Islamic side…and that’s the whole point, in the entire history of the world’s largest religion, fundamental questions have never been answered.  Are you not even a wee bit curious?

    • Ironyman

      This isn’t a rabbit hole at all.  Which is easier to believe?  We have heretical Christians (eg Arianism) who didn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus and who were being exiled or self-exiling themselves and their followers  into the east around and into Arabia.  That those beliefs should become wide-spread over a couple of hundred years and provide the impetus for a conquering army isn’t a huge leap of reason, especially given the contemporary accounts.  Mr Spencer in his book informs us that Mohammed was not just a name but also a title ‘the Praised One’ and when read like this makes much sense of the inscription in the Dome of the Rock.  The first sentence telling us that the praised one was a servant and messenger of Allah, the rest of the inscription going to great pains to explain that Jesus was not divine.  Early coins that showed the praised one holding a cross, etc.

      It wasn’t until the Arab Empire had become vast and unwieldy that power had needed to be consolidated – remember these weren’t nomads in desert tents any more, these were ‘caliphs’ administrating from great cities.  What better way than to tell the populous that you have sent out messengers to bring together all the scriptural material but then just have forgers make up a lot of it to support your political position and ambitions.  The hadiths themselves tell of such industrial scale forgery going on.  That’s why the details surrounding Mohammed’s life become greater in detail the further away from his supposed origins you get.  The Abbasids and the Umayyads both did this which also explains many contradictions found in the texts.  ‘The Praised One’ had become a person called Mohammed and confused with those early men that had led the Hagarians/Saracens on their initial crusade to deny the divinity of Christ and fill the vacuum left by the Persians and Byzantines.

      This is so much easier to believe than a single man had received contradictory revelations from God through the Angel Gabriel including exhortations to extreme violence and murder, etc.  Then no one, be it conqueror or conquered, mentions him or his qu’ran or indeed ‘Islam and Muslims’ for at least 60 years after he died, and we know nothing about him or his life at all for at least a hundred and twenty odd years after his supposed death, when suddenly we know everything he did for pretty much every single day of his prophetic career!  That account is the rabbit hole.

      • Bob

        Agreed. Islam is one of the five great heresies against the Catholic Church. Just look at the differences in the teachings: Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour, one of three persons of the blessed Trinity. Muslims do not. Right there is proof that Islam is a false religion.

    • Bob

      Regardless…….God became incarnate in Jesus Christ, and ONLY the Catholic Church contains the fullness of His teachings and truths. Historically, Islam is a distortion of Catholicism, a heresy. What is wrong in calling that out? It is not charity to tell Muslims their faith is A-OK too. If we do not witness to the truth of Christ given to us, we insult the memory of the thousands of martyrs who went to their deaths proclaiming Jesus Christ is Lord. Francis of Assisis was prepared for death when evangelizing the Muslim Sultan. Most Cathlics are cowards when asked to suffer even white martyrdom for their faith.

      • Bob

        Pakistani government official Shabahz Bahti was recently killed for standing up for his Catholic faith in a Muslim nation. He is a martyr and a saint. Pope Benedict’s speech in Regensburg concerning faith and reason was spot on. Why would a faith like Islam claim that if you disagree with us you should be killed? Would a loving, “reasonable” God want or allow that? Please…no analogies to the Inquisition. There is no doctrine in Catholicism that says someone should die if the disagree with the Catholic Church.

  • Dan

    A depiction of Muhammed? Questioning the Qu’ran? Oh my!!! The death threats will be coming…

  • hHold

    I wish people could as freely investigate the existence of air chambers.

  • poetcomic1

    Mr. Spencer is especially hated as a practicing Eastern Catholic – people who have born the brunt of ‘the Religion of Peace’ for 1,300 years.

  • “…The evidence that Spencer examines leads only to the cautious conclusion that a warlord/prophet may have existed…”
    I don’t agree. This warlord Mohammed supposedly was at the root of a great Arab empire that toppled the superpowers of the day, in particular the Persian empire. There are many records of the time, the Byzantines and Sassanides did keep records at the time. However, none of them talk about mohammed. This is inexplicable if mohammed actually existed at the time. Therefore, it is very unlikely that the warrior mohammed of the hadith and sirat did exist in the 7th century.

  • kirthigdon

    This sounds like the anti-Islamic equivalent of birtherism.  One is tempted to say that if Muhammed did not exist, people like Mr. Spencer and Pam Geller would have had to invent him.

    • John Key

      You comment is silly. Anti-Islamic? How do you possilbly reach that conclusion from this list of questions? The inquiry here is respectfully asking for just a little evidence. Even Obama was able to produce a birth certificate. How about it Muslim world? Either shut Spencer up once and for all and figure out how to answer even a few of these or come to grips that your faith is as fantastic in origin as Mormonism. And no, threatening to cut his head off is not an argument.

    • Why shouldnt it, the evidence and sources regarding the myth and legend of Muhammed undergo similar study and critique as the life of Yeshua… Even Christian scholars them selves are highly critical in their scientific/historical methodology? What if fabrication can be proven one day? It would probably save many peoples lives every year, who now suffer the cruelties and barbarism of Jihad… so why is it anti Islamic? if it leads to the truth it has to be pro Islamic.

    • Mark

       Isn’t it true that Bill Clinton was the first “birther”?

  • Pingback: Robin Hood, King Arthur, Muhammad | Infidel News Network()

  • Pingback: Mohammad, fact or fiction – seeking - My Telegraph()

  • Curious

    Uhmm, finally we have reasonable intellectual inquiry that
    is both healthy and provocative.  Whether
    you are a follower of Islam or of Christianity toes will always be stepped upon
    when one questions another’s belief system. 
    Robert Spencer raises good and compelling questions that if nothing else
    requires us to question who we all are in the big scheme of things.  Our humanity requires us to self
    evaluate.  Hopefully, in the pursuit of truth.  Following the historical truth in the life
    and times of Christ in an attempt to make the record clear would hardly make
    one a bad Christian.  I would doubt that
    such an inquiry would call another Christian to sever the head from one who
    chooses to do the same if the findings happen to conflict with the other’s belief
    system.  I would like to think I am not
    that insecure in my faith.   After all,
    therein lies one of the fundamental differences of our cultures.  The Western world is founded upon free
    thought and inquiry.  For better or worse
    this is who we are.  The Islamic world is
    dramatically hindered in that it is not free to do so.  This hindrance, as I see it, is similar to
    our dark ages.   I truly believe that if
    it were not for the dark ages “we” would probably have colonized
    other planets by now.  In my view, Islam
    is still in the dark ages for it is hindering its own growth through its rigid
    and uncompromising belief system.

    • msmischief

      The “Dark Ages” was a moniker made up by people who wanted to glorify classical civilization beyond reason. In fact, it was a time of technological innovation and agricultural advances.

  • kirthigdon

    It’s rather common to assert that Islam is a Christian heresy.  Observers from St. John of Damascus to Hillaire Belloc have made that point.  It’s also not only possible but likely that details of Mohammed’s life have been embellished.  That happened to Christ as well and it’s why the Church has a canon of approved scripture.  But let’s not in birtherist fashion move the goal posts on this one.  Spencer is getting publicity not by claiming that Islam is heretical but by challenging the existence of Mohammed.  The equivalent of this (for those making comparisons to Arianism and Mormonism) would be to claim that Arius and Joseph Smith did not exist.  As far as Pope Benedict’s Regentsburg speech is concerned, his controversial quote concedes the existence of Mohammed and would make no sense if Mohammed did not exist.

    All this said, I suspect I am witnessing the birth of a new cult, the equivalent of birtherism and also of those atheists (and I’ve encountered at least one of them) who deny not just the existence of God but the existence of Christ as a historical figure. 

  • JP

    At the very least Spenser’s writings illustrate the cultural differences between the Christians and the nomadic people who populated the Arabian Penninsula. The people of North Africa and Asia Minor were greatly influenced by Greek and Roman customs, traditions, scholarship, law, and manners. The Early Church of this period was heavily influenced by these cultural foundation stones. As a consequence, there existed an intellectual arm of the Church that gave form to the evangelical efforts of the Church’s missionaries and priests. Fighting intellectual and theological heresey was something the Church did from the very beginning. On the other hand, Islam grew out of the warriror culture of the Arabian Penninsula. Obedience, conquest and enslavement were just as important as any other feature of Islam.

    Over the 1000 or so years, both religions retained thier cultural affinities. What is amazing is that Islam retained its cultural moorings in areas as diverse as Indonesia, India, and Niger. Once Islam conquers a land, it is rare society that throws off its yoke. Spain was an exception. Christianity, on the other hand, over time relied more and more on intellectual persuasion in its evangelical pursuits. Once a society was “converted” it was hoped that cultural inertia would keep things in place. However, just as it appeared that Christianity would become the dominant religion worldwide, the heart of Christianity, Europe, began a rapid decay. That decay spread to the US in the later half of the 20th Century. Enlightenment Rationality, the step-child of Christianity, cut God’s apron strings. Christians continued to advanced intellectually over the last few hundred years; but they did it under the shadow of a kind of secular rationality so famously excoriated by Nietzsche. Christian theology had to now compete against Existentialsim, De-Constructionism, and a host of Post-Modern, neo-Marxists systems of thought. Intellectual fads became all the rage. Some of the “critical schools” attacked the historical roots of Christianity, go so far as to question the existence of Christ as Savior; others attempted to de-construct Christ along Marxists, Feminists, and Gay lines. All the while, the cultural allure of Chrsitianity began to rapdily extinguish amongst the young. Throughout the 20th Century, all types of neo-pagan and Progressive movements sprouted up to take the place of the Christian culture that could no longer explain itself (Fascism and its child, Nazism, were the most famous). Even Vatican II could be seen in this light. So, we are now faced with a Christian religion that tries to stay relevant in a world that is at best ambivalent. Yet, on the otherside of the coin, Islam, a religion that treats Reason as a dangerous construct, relies upon suicide bombers, terrorists, and blunt force to evangelize (see the Phillipines, Thailand, Niger, and Lebanon).

    • @ecfa38b637fbca44d001befd688e02e7:disqus ,

      While I would agree with the general sequence of events in your account of the changes in modern western history, I think your timeline is a bit “off.” It was not in the “latter half of the 20th century” that the decay spread to Western cultures, but rather in the closing years of the 19th Century, with the arrival on the scene of a burgeoning progressive movement, and the rise of Marxism. Other than that (relatively minor) quibble, I would agree with the rest of your comment.

      Pax et bonum,
      Keith Töpfer

  • Godofreason

    Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry into
    Islam’s Obscure Origins

                                                         ANOTHER EXPLANATION


    In his excellent new book “Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry into Islam’s
    Obscure Origins,” Robert Spencer has questioned the very
    existence of Prophet Muhammad.   Robert
    bases his thesis of the non-existence of Muhammad on the following key reasons.


    Quoting from Spencer:


    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.


    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.


    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


    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.”


    One of the questions that must be addressed is why there is a
    “personality change” between the initial peaceful Mecca Surahs and the later
    violent Surahs.  If the entire Quran was cooked up after the
    fact, there wouldn’t be that difference – as it would all come from the
    same “pot.”   


    accept only the possibility of Spencer’s premise of the creation of the
    myth of a warrior prophet. (Read Ali Sina’s comments at end of this article,)
     (It is possible that there was this warrior prophet – Muhammad much as
    described that these early Arab conquerors were so jealous of his stature and
    viewed his legacy and his followers as a threat and therefore did not
    proclaim Muhammad’s existence until these later 7th century rulers
    mentioned by Spencer embraced and possibility embellished his legacy.)  But whatever happened – there is no way Muhammad could have been created from
    scratch as described by Spencer. I do not believe that these ruthless
    conquerors had the genius or foresight to create the initial Mecca peaceful
    teachings and then the violence, sex slave, conquest, violent teachings etc.
    Without these initial Mecca peaceful teachings granting religious credibility cloaking
    the murderous evil teachings, Islam would cease to exist. Again,
    there is no way these rulers could have thought this out. In
    Spencer’s scenario, it seems more plausible that there was a failed
    preacher Muhammad who actually created a religion called Islam, God – Allah,
    book – Quran and then went to historical oblivion like so many
    thousands of other failed preachers. These 7th century Islamic
    rulers discovered this man with his already made religion Islam
    and build their warrior prophet hero mythology – what Spencer
    termed “legendary hero” to unify their empire.


    is another explanation


    Throughout history, there have been many men who have
    pertained to be prophets of God possessing a special relationship with God
    including communicating with God or an intermediary. The fact that there would
    have been a man called Muhammad proclaiming to be a prophet around 610 AD
    claiming to be receiving divine teachings thru Angel Gabriel would not have
    been unusual. 


    We know that Islam is divided into 2 phases; the initial
    Mecca phase where Muhammad preaches peace and tolerance and the Medina phase in
    which the Quran becomes a violent, military manual of death and destruction
    bent on conquering the world for Allah, subjugating its peoples and destroying
    all other religions. 


    Again – it is important to understand that Islam without the
    initial Meccan peaceful teachings would have gone to oblivion. Without the
    cover provided by these early teachings, Islam would have lacked any religious
    creditability masking the Medina call to conquest.


    Prophet Muhammad was born around 570 AD in Mecca. He
    belonged to the Quraysh
    tribe of Mecca.  Muhammad became
    a trader who married an older, rich woman. 
    One day in 610, he claims to have met the angel Gabriel in a cave on Mount Hira. Gabriel transmits
    teachings from God to Muhammad. For the next 13 years, Muhammad labors as a
    preacher trying to convince the Jews, Christians that his God – Allah is the
    same God as worshipped by them and convince them and the pagan Arabs to join
    his new religion Islam and become Muslims. 
    After 13 years, with his wife dead and no success in Mecca, Muhammad
    departs Mecca for Medina with a small band of believers where he dies.  After his death, his followers collected the
    revelations Muhammad claimed to have received from Gabriel into the Quran.  Muhammad, Islam, Allah and the Quran go to
    historical oblivion. 


    would have disappeared from history if it had not been for the leaders of the
    Arab empire who near the end of the 7th century needed a religious
    ideology to unify the empire.




    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.”


    These leaders discovered that hundreds of years before there
    had been a preacher born in Mecca who had preached a new religion called Islam,
    followers were called Muslims of a God called Allah and had a book recording
    this new religion’s teachings.  In
    short, they had a pre-packaged religion and their necessary “legendary hero” upon which to
    build the mythology of their warrior prophet. 


    At this
    point, they turned the Quran and Islam into a military ideology with their God
    – Allah rewarding his followers with a virgin delight Paradise for those who killed
    kafirs or were slain in the attempt, as many sex slaves as they could conquer,
    women as their property and 80% of the booty from the conquered
    territories.  To finance the conquests,
    a special tax was imposed on the Jews and Christians and later the Hindus. 


    These new
    teachings were incorporated into the original peaceful Quran and the original
    peace teachings were cleverly utilized to give Islam its religious cloak to
    deceive the kafirs while the Muslim armies planned their military demise.  Of course, the new Quran’s teachings
    abrogated Muhammad’s original Quran.


    If this is so, then
    Prophet Muhammad was a good man who never killed, raped, terrorized, tortured
    anyone but tried to make a difference to his community.  Prophet Muhammad after his death would have
    joined Gabriel in heaven. 


    Muslim men followers of this new Islam created by these evil leaders upon their
    death would not ascend to any paradise filled with virgins but descended into
    hell to join not only these evil Islamic conquerors but all the other killers
    of history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc who sold their souls for power.


    A WAY


    The bastardization of
    the original Quran and the creation of a monster from Prophet Muhammad life by
    these men of evil gives Muslim men a way out of the Islamic nightmare that now
    perils mankind. Muslim men could rise up and renounce these pretenders,
    denounce their warrior prophet fabrication and embrace Prophet Muhammad and his
    teachings. Unfortunately this is not going to happen.


    Muslim men will never
    give up the benefits granted to them by these later teachings made up by these
    Islamic conquerors. Their women and children are their property, unlimited sex
    with sex slaves, child brides, unlimited booty, unlimited political power and
    unlimited eternal sex. 


    So tonight, Prophet Muhammad is in heaven to be joined by
    all Muslim women who having been brain washed and mentally and physically
    abused from their birth deserve external solace while all their sons, brothers,
    fathers, husbands having been born with free will have chosen to follow evil
    condemning their souls for all eternity.   


    In conclusion,
    whatever be the truth about Muhammad’s existence, whether he
    never existed as proposed by Spencer, or was an obscure preacher as I described
    embraced by these later Islamic conquerors who created the mythology of the
    warrior prophet, or a warrior killer much as described in Hadeth, Sira giving
    us the historical record as mentioned by Ali Sina (read below) namely “the Tabaqat, and has seen the log list of Muslims of Mecca,
    of Medina, the women in Islam, the names of the mohadethin, and all those
    detailed stories about each one of them” but never achieved a
    stature that would have made him a hero to these early Islamic conquerors until
    these later rulers embellished his legacy, or he is exactly as Ali Sina states
    in his commentary – Muhammad, as presented in his actions
    outlined in the Quran, Hadiths, and Sira, was one of the most diabolically evil
    persons in history. Such an evil incarnate can never be a representative of the
    supreme creator of the Universe. Even if one claims that Muhammad was
    thoroughly bastardised by these later Islamic rulers, it is impossible that a
    true prophet of the omnipotent God could be so badly bastardised by earthly man
    to the point of making him the most evil ever. So, Muhammad was never a prophet
    of God, period! 

    Whether Muhammad existed or not, is
    not of so much importance today. Muhammad matters because of the religion of
    Islam, whether founded by Muhammad, or created in his name. Islam is there,
    believed to be the truest and the final religion for all mankind, by the
    world’s fast expanding 1.5 billion people. And Islam – a violent and fascist
    ideology – threatens the future of civilized humanity. And we have to fight
    Islam, accepting for what it is. Doubting Muhammad’s existence – which is
    impossible to establish – would help little in the battle against Islam. Some
    say, it might even act as counter productive in the battle against Islam.


    So, we have to fight the threats of Islam in the very term
    what it is, which is real. An imaginary speculation, such as whether Muhammad
    existed, would bear no fruit in defeating what is real. We have to focus our
    attention to the ideology and doctrines of Islam.


    What is of most critical importance and we must stay
    focused on in our struggle against Islam is that Allah of the Quran is a fraudulent creation. If Allah was created by a
    real Muhammad, He represented nothing but the mind of Muhammad himself, and a
    most vile one. Muhammad never received God’s message via Gabriel. The Quran is
    a fraudulent book – a product of a psychotic human mind, whether of a real
    Muhammad or of the ones, who created it in Muhammad’s name. ISLAM IS “EVIL IN



    Following is a commentary by Ali Sina editor www.

    Of course Muhammad existed and he is just as the Sira
    depicts him. I am really surprised that this question is even discussed. I read
    half of the book of Robert. Most of the questions he raises can be answered.
    They are misunderstandings. The ones that cannot be answered is because we just
    don’t have enough data. For example the coin. On the coin there is Muhammad, a
    cross and Ankh, the Egyptian symbol of life. We don’t know who made this coin
    and whether it was a coin for exchange or simply a decorative object. We can’t
    take this coin which is utterly ambiguous and throw away thousands of solid
    evidences pointing to Muhammad.

    Anyone who has read the Tabaqat, and has seen the log list
    of Muslims of Mecca, of Medina, the women in Islam, the names of the
    mohadethin, and all those detailed stories about each one of them will not
    entertain the question about the existence of Muhammad not even for a

    Jake Neuman is
    the author of “Islam and Sharia Law Are Treason: Jihad Is Treason”
    and Prophet Muhammad (AKA ALLAH): Monster of History (free download)
    at   His book ISLAM EVIL IN THE NAME OF
    GOD™ was banned in Malaysia.






















  • Interesting to note that in the qu’ran there are many passages about Mary (mother of Jesus).  In the area of where Mohammed was supposedly from there were many heretics of the Christian Faith.  They also had a very strong “mary cult” I wonder if they were not truly responsible for the whole of the creation of Islam.

  • James Stagg

    Without trying to be flippant, why should we not question the origins of Muhammed just like we should question the origins of Barack Hussein Obama?

  • Ric D.

    Interesting!  I recall one author stating that Muhammad was a diabetic subject to diabetic attacks and hallucinations?  Being a traveling merchant, he came in contact with Jews beliefs, and Catholic beliefs, and simply combined mainly Jewish beliefs, with a discrediting of Jesus as only a prophet who came to announce Mohammed’s arrival.  He added a few of his own beliefs, and you have a new type of Reformed and modified Judaism.
    The followers of Islam should not be surprised that Islam’s prophet is “Examined!”  Look how so-called scholars try to rip everything about Jesus apart-they question EVERYTHING about Him!  So why not Mohammed!

  • pamelanak

    One would wish that those who long to know all the bad things about Islam would be equally curious  about the Jewish religion as it exists today. One can only imagine the shrieks of rage if a muslim said the same as this rabbi did:  He is not just ANY rabbi either:
    Why isnt there a website to promote and expose such claims as these? Perhaps Mr. Spencer could expand his website to include such misbehaviour by Jewish authorities so as to give a more complete picture of what we are facing in the ME instead of focusing exclusively on one side’s actions and beliefs and ignoring the other’s.

  • emgallaher

    I was drawn in by the title because am currently watching via Roku the BBC TV series “Robin Hood”.  The portrayal of Muslims is intriguing (historical background is King Richard the Lion-hearted on Crusade in the Holy Land).  Unfortunately the article was not illuminating in this particular.  But still very interesting!

  • It doesn’t make any difference!  Islam is a Satan worshiping cult, the objective of which is the destruction of God’s creation on Earth.  This cult must be totally destroyed!

  • faith quotes

    Including daily reminders of your life purpose in each day’s routine can help keep your focus on your goals

  • 3d renderings

    most commonly found today on conservation projects and listed buildings. Lime render is very breathable
    3d architectural rendering services

  • andy

    Robin Hood, King Arthur, Muhammad could be the best reference to jual obat herbal keputihan

  • andy