How They Do It– ‘Did Muhammad Really Exist?’

ed note–of the many things that can be reactively said in immediate response to the thesis of this piece, probably the one that says it all in just one single word is ‘wow’.

Now, for those not particularly well-versed in the subject matter and exactly why the thesis would elicit such a response, we’ll break down ‘wow’ and what it means.

Firstly, a little bio info–

The ‘genius’ who has conjured up this ‘thesis’ is none other than Robert Spencer, picked alongside the feral and deranged Hebress Pamela Geller seen in the pic below humping his thigh like a dog-in-heat —

Now, as much as Spencer could at first glance be confused with being a member of ‘la famiglia’, the fact is that he is only a mere shabbos goy of the Hellenic persuasion, but an important one nonetheless. As an ‘honorary member’ of Judea Inc he has been pushed front-and-center as a hired gun in OFAG’s war against Islam and in throwing fuel on the fire known as the ‘clash of civilizations’ which Israel got kicked off with her Mossad-engineered terrorist attacks taking place on 9/11/2001.

His claim to fame in that regard has been his ‘scholarly’ study of Islam and his ‘academic’ writings that have deliberately and with malice aforethought painted the completely and deliberately inaccurate picture that has functioned as a MAJOR spark plug in Judea’s war against the Islamic world–the notion that the religion brought by Mohammed is ‘warlike’, ‘violent’ and means to take over the world via the mechanism of ‘conversion by the sword’.

And the feral and deranged Hebress pic’d next to him, Pamela Geller, has been his ‘handler’ in that regard.

For many years they have functioned as the ‘dynamic duo’ of the Islamo-phobia industry and have acted as dutiful trigger-pullers in carrying out Israel’s grand assassination plans by fueling Western hatred of Islam and using deliberate deception and complete twisting of facts to do so.

Now, as far as Spencer’s piece itself, despite the fact that he is ‘credited’ with writing the piece, the truth of the matter is that this is but a regurgitation/re-deployment of a very old/well-used tactic which the Sin-a-Gog has used in defaming Christianity for 20 centuries, which is to call into question the very historical existence of those deemed ‘enemies of Zion’, so in that regard, there is nothing new, novel or special about what Spencer is writing.

What is important to note however is the GLARING chutzpah which comes boiling off the pages of this nonsense like heatwaves off of an Arizona highway in mid-July. Spencer asks the question ‘Why would anybody invent such a person and such a religion?’ and then goes on to ‘explain’ that the Arabs, seeking to create an ’empire’, developed a ‘new religion’ that was ‘martial, aggressive and expansionist’, sort of like, well, Judaism, to wit–

Now, the ‘remedy’ that Spencer advocates is–surprise, surprise–the very same ‘remedy’ that has destroyed Western Civilization as a result of the toxic effects of Judaism being poured into the collective consciousness via media and academia and which has left the Christian West a rotted-out shell of what it once was, to wit–

‘Were there to be a liberalized, modernized Islam that proceeded from the basis that Muhammad is more fable than fact, it is likely that such an Islam woul discard the doctrines of warfare against, and subjugation of, unbelievers that have plagued the world for 1400 years, and still do today.’

Now again, Spencer–to the best of our knowledge here at this humble little informational endeavor–is not a member of ‘la famiglia’, but by his diabolic writings and his willingness to allow himself to exist and function as an extension and plaything of those Judaic elements who were, are, and always will be–as the apostle Paul infamously wrote ‘displeasing to God and hostile to all men’–a living affirmation of what Jesus Himself once said concerning those who fall under the control of the rabbis and of the Sin-a-Gog, to wit–

‘You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.’ 


The Jewish Press

Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, spoke to participants in a January 15 Middle East Forum webinar about the scarcity of historical evidence that Muhammad, Islam’s prophet, actually existed.

Spencer noted that Muhammad is mentioned only four times in the Quran, and those few mentions are vague and devoid of any specifics. Most of the details about Muhammad’s life are found in the Hadith, reports about Muhammad’s “words and deeds.” The Hadith are the foundation for Islamic law followed today and the basis for imitating Muhammad, “most notably by jihadis.” The Hadith date primarily from the 9th century, whereas Muhammad, according to Islamic tradition, died in the year 632. For two centuries, “you have this massive empire stretching from Spain to India, and there’s virtually no mention of the person who is supposed to be the guiding figure that made those conquests happen.”

Islamic apologists typically explain the absence of contemporaneous Arabic accounts of Muhammad by pointing to the fact that the Arabs relied on oral tradition to pass knowledge from generation to generation. But written accounts by various people conquered by the Arabs from the 7th century on are quite voluminous, yet there is little mention of Muhammad in them.

For example, Sophronius, the Christian patriarch of Jerusalem who surrendered the city to Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab in 637 described the invaders as followers of Abraham who came out of Arabia, but did not describe them as Muslims or record them as making claims about Muhammad or about a new religion. Other conquered peoples, such as the Persians and the Indians, also wrote of their ordeals, but omitted mention of Muhammad. What early references to Muhammad can be found do not line up with the Hadith canon.

This begs the question, “Why would anybody invent such a person and such a religion?” Spencer said it makes perfect sense given the nature of empires at that time. The predominant religions of the Byzantines, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and the Persians, Zoroastrianism, were integral to the cohesion of their empires. Devoid of institutions like parliaments and constitutions that are the glue holding contemporary nation states together, religion defined who merited citizenship in the empire. “The common religion of all the adherents … was considered to be the unifying principle of the empire.”

Arab leaders therefore developed an “aggressive and expansionist” religion fitting the needs of their empire.

Having “stormed out of Arabia and amassed this huge empire,” explained Spencer, “the Arabs, who professed a vague monotheism, … recognized the inadequacy of their religion … at that point for unifying their new empire.” And so “they developed – out of Jewish traditions, Christian traditions, and Zoroastrian traditions, primarily – a new religion” that was “martial, aggressive and expansionist … in order to perpetuate and defend [their] empire.”

This matters, said Spencer, because the “seeds” of 1400 years of Islamic imperialism “are in the Islamic texts themselves …written in the Quran.” The obligation to “fight them until religion is all for Allah” (Qur’an 8:39) “does not come from the time of Muhammad, it comes from the rulers themselves placing that in the holy book in order to justify their own continued aggression.”

Recognition by Muslims that Muhammad is “more legend than historical figure” would help facilitate a much-needed Islamic reformation, said Spencer. “Were there to be a liberalized, modernized Islam that proceeded from the basis that Muhammad is more fable than fact,” it is “likely that such an Islam would … discard the doctrines of warfare against, and subjugation of, unbelievers that have … plagued the world for 1400 years, and still do today.”

%d bloggers like this: