Robert Spencer's Non-Scholarly Tricks Revealed

[Rayaan]

Here is a rather keen as well as a stinging analysis for Spencer lovers that was posted by a reviewer on the Amazon website. It's a review of his book "Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins" which lays bare the reprehensibly inconsistent and biased methodology that he uses to support his fringe theory of a mythic historical Muhammad.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R8FAOHQ58SL...161017061X


Some worthy points:

One of the most immediate problems one encounters is Spencer's subjective use of scholarly material and a flick through his bibliography illustrates his heavy handed bias for revisionism. Since no reputable academic scholar, mainstream or sceptic, holds to the non-existence of Muhammad, Spencer is forced to rely on an obscure ultra-revisionist fringe, some of whom are scholars whose works are largely marginal or dated, and some others who are evidently not scholars at all. In his introduction, Spencer lists the scholars whose work he researched, classifying them as "earlier generation" and "modern-day" scholars. Regarding the earlier generation, Spencer uses their material craftily pouncing on any area of the Islamic literary tradition they doubted while ignoring their overall assessment of the sources. Thus Goldziher's suspicion of some political and theological traditions is transformed to a suspicion of all traditions. Schacht scepticism regarding legal traditions is transformed to scepticism of everything. What Spencer fails to mention to his readers is that many of these `earlier generation' of scholars were in actual fact known for their biographies of Muhammad. Spencer utilizes some of David Margoliouth's arguments, but fails to tell his readers about, or include in his bibliography, the 550 page biography of Muhammad written by Margoliouth entitled "Muhammad and the Rise of Islam". Similarly, Spencer utilizes the arguments of Aloys Sprenger without mentioning, or noting in his bibliography, that Sprenger authored a 220 page biography of Muhammad entitled "The Life of Muhammad from Original Sources". He utilizes a few of William Muir's points without mentioning that Muir wrote a massive 4 volume biography of Muhammad entitled "The Life of Mahomet". Thus one has to question Spencer usage of these scholars when they wrote so extensively about the Muhammad.

Spencer failed to engage with the documentary evidence that directly refutes his linguistic word-play. He failed to mention the bilingual Greek-Arabic administrative papyri that clearly translate "Muhammad" as "Muhammad" in Greek. Further still, he failed to mention the Arab-Sasanian coins of Kirman which translate "Muhammad" as "Muhammad" in Middle Persian. So the Greeks held "Muhammad" as proper name, the Persians held "Muhammad" as a proper name, the Arab held "Muhammad" as a proper name, but Spencer wants us to believe it was not a proper name but "could have been" referring to Jesus even though all Christian documentary sources from the time refer to him as nothing other than Jesus.

A third problem is the inadequacies of Spencer's methodology. For example, he is frequently inconsistent and incoherent. As for inconsistency, readers will encounter Spencer rubbishing a source because it is late. You will then surprisingly find that he uses late, sometimes very late, material when it supports his thesis. There are several instances of this. One especially notable case is found in chapter 2, page 59, where Spencer argues that the Qur'an postdates Caliph Abd al-Malik. To argue this, Spencer adduces as evidence a tradition found in the work of 16th century traditionalist al-Suyuti (d. 1505 CE). Spencer remarks that "it is hard to explain why this hadith would have been invented at such a late date unless it contained some kernel of authenticity". Thus while Spencer adopts the revisionist criteria of history, he has no qualms utilising literary material 900 years after the fact as long as it supports his argument.

Spencer failed to engage with the documentary evidence that directly refutes his linguistic word-play. He failed to mention the bilingual Greek-Arabic administrative papyri that clearly translate "Muhammad" as "Muhammad" in Greek. Further still, he failed to mention the Arab-Sasanian coins of Kirman which translate "Muhammad" as "Muhammad" in Middle Persian. So the Greeks held "Muhammad" as proper name, the Persians held "Muhammad" as a proper name, the Arab held "Muhammad" as a proper name, but Spencer wants us to believe it was not a proper name but "could have been" referring to Jesus even though all Christian documentary sources from the time refer to him as nothing other than Jesus.

The argument raises more questions than it answers. Too many awkward questions arise. Firstly, why now? Why did Christians, after 600 years, start referring to Jesus Christ as Muhammad? Why not continue with the name they always used, namely `Jesus' or `Christ'? Spencer provides no reason. It's just logically possible. Secondly, if the Christians of the seventh century referred to Jesus as Muhammad, then how do we account for the depiction of that Muhammad in their own texts? That Muhammad was clearly a person alive in the seventh century. That Muhammad was clearly an Arab. That Muhammad had a new religion. That Muhammad was a merchant. In their estimation, that Muhammad was a `false prophet', `a liar', and an `anti-Christ'. Why were they so hostile to this Muhammad if he was in fact their lord and saviour? Thirdly, if the Christians of the seventh century referred to Jesus as Muhammad, then why did they make a distinction between this Muhammad and Jesus himself? Some of there texts make mentions of Jesus in high esteem, but when they mention Muhammad, it's usually not so nice. If Muhammad was really Jesus, why did they make the distinction between him and Jesus? Lastly, if the Christians of the seventh century referred to Jesus as Muhammad, how do we distinguish that Muhammad from the Muhammad of eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth century Christian texts.

There is not a shred of evidence. Nowhere does Spencer provide any evidence for this argument. He merely asserts it as a possibility. It would have been impressive if Spencer explored the Christian writings of the preceding centuries and produce an instance when they referred to Jesus as Muhammad or some cognate word. If he were able to do so his argument would have had some weight. Predictably he brings forth nothing. The only evidence is that it's possible.

Thus, it seems Mr. Spencer's fresh and tasteful thesis does not stand up to close inspection.

Oh well. Maybe better luck next time.