www.islam-watch.org

In 2008 Professor Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a convert to Islam since the age of 15 and practicing Muslim who taught Islamic Theology at Munster University in Germany announced that he no longer believes that Muhammad existed. According to his own testimony in German, Kalisch made the following statement:

"My position with regard to the historical existence of Muhammad is that I believe neither his existence nor his non-existence can be proven. I, however, lean towards the non-existence but I don't think it can be proven either. It is my impression that, unless there are some sensational archeological discoveries – i.e. an Islamic "Qumran" or "Nag Hammadi" — the question of Muhammad’s existence will probably never be finally clarified."

Kalisch began his essay as follows:

"Up to some time ago I was convinced that Muhammad was a historical figure. Although I always based my thinking on the assumption that the Islamic historical narrative regarding Muhammad was very unreliable, I had no doubts that at least the basic lines of his biography were historically correct.

I have now moved away from this position and will soon publish a book in which I will, among other things, comment on this question and explain my arguments in more detail. This essay is only a short summary of my most important arguments."

The book was never written probably due to outrage in the Muslim community, declarations of apostasy from radical Clerics and a genuine fear for his life. While Kalisch never published his thesis, now in 2012, famed critic and bestselling author Robert Spencer has published his own investigative work on the question at hand. Spencer is a Christian who is more interested in exposing Islam then preaching Christianity, has rightfully entitled his publication “Did Muhammad Exist, An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins”.

Muslims will immediately jump on the bandwagon of Spencer simply being an opportunist and hatemonger hoping to make some money through a proactive title. Quite to the contrary this book promotes legitimate investigation to the question it posits.

Spencer argues that for the first sixty years, between the 630’s to 690 AD, there is no mention of the Qur’an or Muhammad by either the Arab conquerors or those who were conquered. He argues that such an omission and “extraordinary silence” is absolutely strange from a historian’s perspective. Spencer does say that he believes that a man by the name of Muhammad may have existed in the same way that a Robin Hood may have existed, but all of the stories and legends about him were likely made up by competing factions who are documented by Muslim scholars themselves as fabricating stories for political reasons and/or to support their beliefs and practices.

The book goes into further fascinating details about the possibility of the name ‘Muhammad’ which is mentioned in the Qur’an no more than four times without any details about a historical figure, could have simply been an attribute given to Jesus by certain Unitarian Christians. A coin which was minted during the early parts of the Muslim era shows one side of the coin with a man holding a cross and on the other side the name of Muhammad.

Regardless of whether Muhammad existed or not, Spencer makes a valid point that such an investigation and inquiry is necessary and that while scholars such as Bart Ehrman are able to produce material to question the existence of Jesus (others such as Richard Carrier and Acharya S / DM Murdock have also questioned the existence of Jesus)  or for that matter investigation into the existence of any other historical figure, why should Muhammad be exempt? Perhaps the right of inquiry and investigation of this sort is more valuable than the conclusion itself.

Comments (17)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Very interesting!
written by Gnostic , May 12, 2012

BTW, according to my knowledge, Kalisch left islam meanwhile but is still teaching islamic studies at university. One of the main arguments was that Muhammad ford not really appear in the quran. In fact there are supposed to be no more than 4 quotes more or less referring to Muhammad, but most of them can be also taken as adjectives, thus referring to Jesus as an attribute. There is only one quote apparently referring to Muhammad himself, in the story of his sexual relationship with the wife of his son in law, however, in this case some scholars believe that this is a later interpolation in order to legtimate the same by some islamic rulers.

Thus, the main argument is that Muhammad is not a name but a title much like Messias (The annointed") which refers to Jesus. There seems to be some numismatic evidence supporting this, There are coins with "Muhammad" on the one side and a cross on the other; even the scriptures in the Al Akhsa mosque in Jerusalem, which is slightly different from the quran, seem to support this theory.

I think that in the early years islam was not so much about religion. The religion may have been a vehicle used to free the Arabs from the sassanid and byzanthine rulers. They had to pay poll tax and then they took the same takes from the infidels. I think that this was the primary reason and islam as a religion was only secondary.

...
written by kope , May 12, 2012

the only reason robert spence wrote this book because he fear that islam is spreading in the west and this stupid book will stop islam spreading

...
written by kope , May 12, 2012

first book robert spencer wrote "The Truth About Muhammad" in this book muhammad existed lol

@kope
written by truth , May 12, 2012

why don't u try to disprove spencer then?

Kope comforts himself
written by Demsci , May 13, 2012

Kope, you only talk about some kind of fear-motivation of Robert Spencer because it is your excuse to cling to Islam. Your excuse not to read and be openminded.

It is only getting worse for the untrue Islam, kope.
written by Demsci , May 13, 2012

Look Kope, roughly there are 3 possibilities; 1. The Islamic holy texts tell the truth and Muhammad was the last messenger of Allah. 2. The Islamic holy texts tell the truth but they also show Muhammad as a fallible, faulty human being, not inspired by Allah. 3. The Islamic holy texts were largely made up, mythical.

Robert Spencer only responds to position 1 when he wrote his first book. But now he admits that possibly believing in the truth, yet not in the divine connection of Muhammad, that even that was giving too much credit to the Islamic Holy texts.

Anyway, both positions 2 + 3 undermine Islam's credibility. And it is of no comfort to you that Robert Spencer changed, or improved rather, his mind.

@ Kope and Moh
written by Infidel and More Proud , May 13, 2012

"first book robert spencer wrote "The Truth About Muhammad" in this book muhammad existed lol"

No describing facts about a charecter mythological or real or man or animal does not prove its existence..

For example if I say a snake with ten head will bite at ten things at once is a description but does not prove the snake exists.

Infidel and More Proud
written by kope , May 13, 2012

if islam is as bad as you discribed why is it islam growing in the westtern people?

how did Islam grow in the west?
written by dead or alive , May 13, 2012

From handouts like,food stamps and welfare checks.

To kope
written by Archpagan , May 13, 2012

Beggars from Muslim countries are making a bee line to Europe for a living taking advantage of the civilized law practiced there. Of course , some jail-birds are converting to Islam for the facility of taking breaks from prison life 5-times a day on the pretext of those unholy swearings mis-called as prayer. Some hard-core criminals are converting so that they can commit crime on infidels without scruples. But, rest assured, more people are converting out of Islam. You are day-dreaming. Muslims are the poorest and weakest people on earth. When petroleum is exhausted, Kaa'ba will have to be mortgaged to infidels.

Archpagan
written by Abc , May 13, 2012

Deluded veg?

What is really sad
written by fineliving56 , May 13, 2012

Is this contrast ….

The most richest people in the world are Muslims in countries like Saudi and Dubai …. and the most poorest people in the world are also Muslims … like Somalia and Sudan .

But the common thing betwwen the richest and poorest Muslims is that they mostly back-warded and ignorant people

@ Kope
written by Infidel and More Proud , May 13, 2012

It is a thing as cancer. So cancer is increasing in the world, HIV is increasing similarly muslims are increasing. Yes beggers will only go to places where they get alms not to places where they die of hunger and starvation such as Somalia.

@ abc Well ?
written by 1proudkaffur4life , May 13, 2012

are you reduced to only write insults here? Is this the "best" you can do in the "defense" of the foolishness called Islam?

To Abc
written by Archpagan , May 13, 2012

'Deluded veg' is far better than a 'proud rape-seed'.

WHERE DO I GET THIS DIVINE BOOK ?
written by HARKAT UL JIHAD EI KAFIROOON , May 14, 2012

WHERE DO I GET THIS DIVINE BOOK ?

KOPE
written by Truthseeker , May 16, 2012

You asked, if Islam is so bad why is it growing in the west?

Well, the primary reason is this....the bible calls people sheep for good reason; sheep are basically the dumbest animals in the planet, willing to follow any voice. Why do you think they obey dogs so easily?

The bible says There is a way that seemeth right unto a man but the end thereof are the ways of death.