What is it with Muslims and their Beliefs?

Introduction

In researching Christianity and the Jews, I had decided that we might as well delve into the world of what it means to be Muslim. For one, it isn’t fair to only pick on one side of an argument if you are not willing to go all in. For another reason, Muslims do tend to be the most violent when it comes to defending their religion, and it would be interesting to see if they have a more solid footing than the religions we’ve already discussed. For this reason, we’re going to focus on the primary claims to see where things stand.

Was there a man named Muhammad?

The most extraordinary part of this story was that an uneducated man named Muhammad began conversing with God, and that the Quran was the result of those conversations. For this reason alone, it would seem fair to ask if this man actually existed. The time period was the 7th century, and these writings were claimed to have come from that period. Yet, right off the bat, we’re presented with a dilemma. In the 7th century, there were no vowel markings in the language in which these texts were written. Muslims claim that Muhammad received divine revelations from Allah beginning in 610 CE, united the Arabian Peninsula, and established Islam as a complete religious system before he died in 632 CE. They claim the Quran was compiled shortly after his death, that his sayings (hadith) were carefully preserved, and that Islam spread because it was the true religion revealed by God.

Yet, there is not a single textual reference during that time that substantiates the claims. No wartime claims, no mention of anyone having that name, no stories in other countries or regions noting the great conquests of Muhammad, nothing. For someone so great to have lived, there are no references to his name, other than those presented 200-plus years later. One of the most significant problems with his name, though, is how it would have been written. There were no vowels in the written language used, محمد (M-Ḥ-M-D), with no vowel marks, which would have been pronounced “Mahmud” and was actually used in Hebrew at the time to refer to “Chosen one.” It has this meaning in both languages, in fact. Even more damning, though, was a letter John of Damascus wrote in Greek about the Ishmaelites. Because Greek had vowels, his translation of the term is significant, and when he transliterated the Arabic name into Greek, he used vowels and wrote:

• Μάμεδ (Mamed)
• Or Μαχμούδ (Machmud/Mahmud)

NOT “Muhammad” (Μωάμεθ/Moameth would be closer to “Muhammad”)

John describes this movement as:

• A deviant form of Christianity
• An Arian-type heresy (denying Christ’s divinity)
• NOT as a completely separate Abrahamic religion

If Islam was a distinct religion that began in 622 CE, why does someone writing 110+ years later still see it as a Christian heresy? He also never writes about Muslims or any such religion during that time, as it hadn’t been developed yet. For the first 60 years after Muhammad supposedly died, there are no detailed accounts from his followers, no Arabic inscription mentioning “Muhammad,” no coins mentioning “Muhammad,” no manuscripts of the Quran, and no biographical sources in Arabic.

When was the Quran Actually Written?

The earliest Arabic biography of Muhammad was written by Ibn Ishaq (died 767 CE), 135 years after Muhammad’s supposed death. The original was lost, and we have only later summaries, with the earliest surviving version by Ibn Hisham (died 833 CE), 201 years after Muhammad. Other significant sources include Al-Waqidi (died 823 CE), 191 years after Muhammad, and Al-Tabari’s history (died 923 CE), 291 years after Muhammad. At this point, we have a man supposedly responsible for the start of a religion that can’t be found; his name is not recorded anywhere, and no significant events are attributed to him in his time, yet we’re declaring him the source of one of the most significant religious movements in history.

Muslims claim the Quran was revealed to Muhammad, 610-632 CE, was compiled under Caliph Uthman around 650 CE, and has remained unchanged since then. Yet the oldest complete Quran manuscripts are from the 9th century (800s CE), over 200 years after Muhammad. Early fragments (Birmingham, Sana’a) dated 568-645 CE, predate or overlap with Muhammad’s revelation period, which creates significant problems for the timeline, and show substantial textual variants – different wordings, different verse orders. The Sana’a palimpsest shows that an earlier text was erased and written over, but why, if the Quran is eternal and unchanged? No Quran manuscript exists from 622 to 650 CE, when it was supposedly revealed and compiled.

As mentioned above, 110 years later, people were writing about this group without reference to anyone named Muhammad, Muslim, or the Quran. A strange set of events, when the claims for all of this happening are so vigorously defended by Muslims all over the world, without support from the historical record. The hadith (sayings and actions of Muhammad) are the second source of Islamic law. Yet, Sahih Bukhari (died 870 CE) was written 238 years after Muhammad, Sahih Muslim (died 875 CE) was written 243 years after Muhammad, and other significant collections were compiled in the 9th and 10th centuries. No hadith collection exists from the 7th or 8th centuries. These are claimed to be Muhammad’s actual words. Yet different hadith contradict each other on basic facts and are verified by “chains of transmission” (isnad): “X heard from Y who heard from Z who heard from Muhammad.” Still, they go back 238 years through oral transmission, with no way to verify them, and show massive contradictions across collections.

This would be like writing down George Washington’s exact words in 2037 (238 years after his death) based on “my grandfather’s grandfather’s grandfather told me” – with no written records. Only with religious texts is this level of contrivance allowed.

But What Was The Point Then?

John of Damascus was a Christian monk and theologian who was born and lived in Damascus, which was the capital of the Umayyad Caliphate (661-750 CE). He lived under Islamic rule in the Islamic capital and wrote 100+ years after Muhammad supposedly died. If anyone should know about Islam and Muhammad, it’s someone living in Damascus in the 730s. Yet he NEVER calls them “Muslims” or mentions “Islam.“ He called them Ishmaelites (descendants of Ishmael, Abraham’s son), Hagarenes (descendants of Hagar, Ishmael’s mother) and Saracens (general term for Arabs)

If “Islam” and “Muslims” were the established terms in the 730s-740s, why doesn’t a scholar living in the Islamic capital under their rule use these terms? Because “Islam” and “Muslims” as religious identities hadn’t been fully established yet. He treats them as a Christian heresy, not a separate religion, when he describes the movement as a deviant form of Christianity, an Arian-type heresy (denying Christ’s divinity), and NOT as a completely separate Abrahamic religion. If Islam was a distinct religion that began in 622 CE, why does someone writing 110+ years later still see it as a Christian heresy?

After Arab conquests (630s-650s CE), Arabs controlled:

• Former Byzantine territories (Christian)
• Former Sassanian Persian territories (Zoroastrian)
• The Holy Land (sacred to Jews and Christians)
• Egypt, North Africa, and expanding into Europe

They needed ideological justification and they couldn’t claim:

• To be Roman (they weren’t)
• To be Persian (they defeated them)
• To be Jewish (they weren’t descendants of Isaac)
• To be Christian (Christians opposed them)

They needed a competing Abrahamic claim to legitimize their rule.

Abraham had two sons: Ishmael (first, through Hagar) and Isaac (second, through Sarah). God promised to make both into great nations (Genesis 17:20, 21:13). The covenant and promised land went through Isaac (Genesis 17:19-21), and Ishmael was blessed but sent away (Genesis 21:9-21). Arabs claimed they had divine authorization to rule the territories they conquered because they were descendants of Ishmael (Abraham’s first son). God promised to make Ishmael a great nation (Genesis 17:20), which gave them equal or superior Abrahamic legitimacy to Jews (through Isaac) and Christians (spiritual heirs of Jews), and they declared their prophet to be Muhammad, just like the Jews had Moses. To finish off the cake, they revealed their scripture (Quran) just like Jews have Torah.

This is a brilliant political strategy:

• Ancient pedigree (back to Abraham ~1800 BCE)
• Divine authorization (God’s promise to Ishmael)
• Territorial claims (Abraham’s land)
• Prophetic authority (Muhammad = Islamic Moses)
• Revealed scripture (Quran = Islamic Torah)
• Competing on equal footing with Jews and Christians

It transforms military conquest into divine destiny.

Conclusion

So just like Jews and Christians, nothing about this religion can be supported except through belief. Any analysis of the facts supporting the religion leads to massive logical failures, and instead of helping the beliefs, it obliterates them. While one could be excused for asking the question, “What does it matter if people want to believe this or that?”, it becomes a societal problem when these beliefs cause physical harm to those who take a different position. It is ok to believe whatever you want, but when you threaten to kill those around you for not believing your story, you have crossed the line from belief to open conflict. The only reason for writing the last three articles, “What is it with the Jews?” and “Were the Jews Right?“, was to provide some insight into whether any of the people following these beliefs have any better footing than the next. In the end, they do not.