Muslim Theologian: Prophet Muhammad probably never existed

[ray245]

MÜNSTER, Germany -- Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a Muslim convert and Germany's first professor of Islamic theology, fasts during the Muslim holy month, doesn't like to shake hands with Muslim women and has spent years studying Islamic scripture. Islam, he says, guides his life.
So it came as something of a surprise when Prof. Kalisch announced the fruit of his theological research. His conclusion: The Prophet Muhammad probably never existed.


Muslims, not surprisingly, are outraged. Even Danish cartoonists who triggered global protests a couple of years ago didn't portray the Prophet as fictional. German police, worried about a violent backlash, told the professor to move his religious-studies center to more-secure premises.
"We had no idea he would have ideas like this," says Thomas Bauer, a fellow academic at Münster University who sat on a committee that appointed Prof. Kalisch. "I'm a more orthodox Muslim than he is, and I'm not a Muslim."
When Prof. Kalisch took up his theology chair four years ago, he was seen as proof that modern Western scholarship and Islamic ways can mingle -- and counter the influence of radical preachers in Germany. He was put in charge of a new program at Münster, one of Germany's oldest and most respected universities, to train teachers in state schools to teach Muslim pupils about their faith.
Muslim leaders cheered and joined an advisory board at his Center for Religious Studies. Politicians hailed the appointment as a sign of Germany's readiness to absorb some three million Muslims into mainstream society. But, says Andreas Pinkwart, a minister responsible for higher education in this north German region, "the results are disappointing."
Prof. Kalisch, who insists he's still a Muslim, says he knew he would get in trouble but wanted to subject Islam to the same scrutiny as Christianity and Judaism. German scholars of the 19th century, he notes, were among the first to raise questions about the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Many scholars of Islam question the accuracy of ancient sources on Muhammad's life. The earliest biography, of which no copies survive, dated from roughly a century after the generally accepted year of his death, 632, and is known only by references to it in much later texts. But only a few scholars have doubted Muhammad's existence. Most say his life is better documented than that of Jesus.
Sven Muhammad Kalish



"Of course Muhammad existed," says Tilman Nagel, a scholar in Göttingen and author of a new book, "Muhammad: Life and Legend." The Prophet differed from the flawless figure of Islamic tradition, Prof. Nagel says, but "it is quite astonishing to say that thousands and thousands of pages about him were all forged" and there was no such person.
All the same, Prof. Nagel has signed a petition in support of Prof. Kalisch, who has faced blistering criticism from Muslim groups and some secular German academics. "We are in Europe," Prof. Nagel says. "Education is about thinking, not just learning by heart."
Prof. Kalisch's religious studies center recently removed a sign and erased its address from its Web site. The professor, a burly 42-year-old, says he has received no specific threats but has been denounced as apostate, a capital offense in some readings of Islam.
"Maybe people are speculating that some idiot will come and cut off my head," he said during an interview in his study.
A few minutes later, an assistant arrived in a panic to say a suspicious-looking digital clock had been found lying in the hallway. Police, called to the scene, declared the clock harmless.
A convert to Islam at age 15, Prof. Kalisch says he was drawn to the faith because it seemed more rational than others. He embraced a branch of Shiite Islam noted for its skeptical bent. After working briefly as a lawyer, he began work in 2001 on a postdoctoral thesis in Islamic law in Hamburg, to go through the elaborate process required to become a professor in Germany.


The Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S. that year appalled Mr. Kalisch but didn't dent his devotion. Indeed, after he arrived at Münster University in 2004, he struck some as too conservative. Sami Alrabaa, a scholar at a nearby college, recalls attending a lecture by Prof. Kalisch and being upset by his doctrinaire defense of Islamic law, known as Sharia.
In private, he was moving in a different direction. He devoured works questioning the existence of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Then "I said to myself: You've dealt with Christianity and Judaism but what about your own religion? Can you take it for granted that Muhammad existed?"
He had no doubts at first, but slowly they emerged. He was struck, he says, by the fact that the first coins bearing Muhammad's name did not appear until the late 7th century -- six decades after the religion did.
He traded ideas with some scholars in Saarbrücken who in recent years have been pushing the idea of Muhammad's nonexistence. They claim that "Muhammad" wasn't the name of a person but a title, and that Islam began as a Christian heresy.
Prof. Kalisch didn't buy all of this. Contributing last year to a book on Islam, he weighed the odds and called Muhammad's existence "more probable than not." By early this year, though, his thinking had shifted. "The more I read, the historical person at the root of the whole thing became more and more improbable," he says.
He has doubts, too, about the Quran. "God doesn't write books," Prof. Kalisch says.


Some of his students voiced alarm at the direction of his teaching. "I began to wonder if he would one day say he doesn't exist himself," says one. A few boycotted his lectures. Others sang his praises.
Prof. Kalisch says he "never told students 'just believe what Kalisch thinks' " but seeks to teach them to think independently. Religions, he says, are "crutches" that help believers get to "the spiritual truth behind them." To him, what matters isn't whether Muhammad actually lived but the philosophy presented in his name.
This summer, the dispute hit the headlines. A Turkish-language German newspaper reported on it with gusto. Media in the Muslim world picked up on it.
Germany's Muslim Coordinating Council withdrew from the advisory board of Prof. Kalisch's center. Some Council members refused to address him by his adopted Muslim name, Muhammad, saying that he should now be known as Sven.


German academics split. Michael Marx, a Quran scholar at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, warned that Prof. Kalisch's views would discredit German scholarship and make it difficult for German scholars to work in Muslim lands. But Ursula Spuler-Stegemann, an Islamic studies scholar at the University of Marburg, set up a Web site called solidaritymuhammadkalisch.com and started an online petition of support.
Alarmed that a pioneering effort at Muslim outreach was only stoking antagonism, Münster University decided to douse the flames. Prof. Kalisch was told he could keep his professorship but must stop teaching Islam to future school teachers.
The professor says he's more determined than ever to keep probing his faith. He is finishing a book to explain his thoughts. It's in English instead of German because he wants to make a bigger impact. "I'm convinced that what I'm doing is necessary. There must be a free discussion of Islam," he says.


Read a translated excerpt from "Islamic Theology Without the Historic Muhammad -- Comments on the Challenges of the Historical-Critical Method for Islamic Thinking" by Professor Kalisch.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1226...eTabs_comments

I thought that unlike Jesus, the life of Muhammad is pretty well documentated?

[PainRack]

Not so much well documentated as in the existence of various movements and the like would had been difficult if a charismatic leader hadn't existed.

There must had been someone who forged the way forward for Islam to flourish and prosper afterall. Unlike Jesus who's a religious figurehead, the Prophet Muhammad was a religious leader with traditions that got solidified into law and policies.

Without having read the book, perhaps he's suggesting that the Prophet wasn't a single person but rather a group of leaders who was later merged into one?

[ray245]

By the way, do we have any Sassanid or Eastern empire sources regarding the prophet? Early source would be nice.

[Singular Intellect]

I thought that unlike Jesus, the life of Muhammad is pretty well documentated?

So is the life of Anakin Skywalker.

[Samuel]

I thought that unlike Jesus, the life of Muhammad is pretty well documentated?

So is the life of Anakin Skywalker.

I wonder how many of our fictional characters people will think were real in the future. It doesn't help with the cosplayers and the putting images of real people in manga... hmm...

The life of Muhammad is documentated by his followers... who made sure all the pieces fit together, which were complied from memory. You can see how some error might creep in.

[Singular Intellect]

I wonder how many of our fictional characters people will think were real in the future. It doesn't help with the cosplayers and the putting images of real people in manga... hmm...

It doesn't take much imagination to realize that if modern human civilization collapsed, it would hardly be impossible for mythical figures in our fantasy entertainment gaining status as 'actually having existed'.

[PainRack]

We don't even have to go that far. We already KNOW of fictional people who supposedly exist. John Frum of cargo cult fame, King Arthur, Robin Hood, Sun Wu Kong who actually gained status as a deity. Ghost Teacher, the supposed teacher of Sun Tzu and other famous military strategists in the Warring States era(which if real, would had lived for over a hundred years).

We also know that it doesn't require religions to spawn fictional characters. For example, the existence of Hua Mulan and the Yang Family Generals are currently ahistorical, existing only as oral traditions that got written down after the events had passed and posessing no official historical status.

What would be interesting is, exactly how many people believed that King Arthur would return when England needed her most and why that belief died off.

[Marcus Aurelius]

We don't even have to go that far. We already KNOW of fictional people who supposedly exist. John Frum of cargo cult fame, King Arthur, Robin Hood, Sun Wu Kong who actually gained status as a deity. Ghost Teacher, the supposed teacher of Sun Tzu and other famous military strategists in the Warring States era(which if real, would had lived for over a hundred years).

We also know that it doesn't require religions to spawn fictional characters. For example, the existence of Hua Mulan and the Yang Family Generals are currently ahistorical, existing only as oral traditions that got written down after the events had passed and posessing no official historical status.

What would be interesting is, exactly how many people believed that King Arthur would return when England needed her most and why that belief died off.

I do not know much about the Chinese fictional or should we say, allegedly fictional characters, but it has been known for a very long time that King Arthur is probably mostly fictional or at least a composite character. The same goes for Robin Hood. Once it was also very common to think that Jesus Christ was fictional, but lately this theory has fallen out of favor as more evidence has been found. There is still the "mythological Jesus" school of thought, but their thinking is just an interesting hypothesis not really backed up by evidence. What they propose is certainly possible, but it does not appear likely. It would be interesting to know what evidence Prof. Kalisch has for the non-existence of Muhammed. Usually you can't just assume that somebody did not exist even if no indisputable evidence of existence is available, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: instead you need concrete evidence that he or she is a composite or entirely fictional.

[Kanastrous]

Once it was also very common to think that Jesus Christ was fictional, but lately this theory has fallen out of favor as more evidence has been found.

Do you happen to have links or ISBN #s for materials detailing that new evidence?

There is still the "mythological Jesus" school of thought, but their thinking is just an interesting hypothesis not really backed up by evidence.

What sort of evidence would one need, to back up a theory suggesting that a given figure did *not* exist? Minutes of a meeting at which the authors of the Gospels conspired to invent Him...?

What they propose is certainly possible, but it does not appear likely. It would be interesting to know what evidence Prof. Kalisch has for the non-existence of Muhammed. Usually you can't just assume that somebody did not exist even if no indisputable evidence of existence is available, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: instead you need concrete evidence that he or she is a composite or entirely fictional.

When extraordinary claims are being made for the individual whose existence is being debated - claims along the lines of Prophecy, possession by angels, etc - extraordinary evidence is required to back the claims up. Suggesting that 'since there's no conclusive evidence disproving the truth of the tales, the tales can be taken as true' seems like wish-fulfillment.

[MarshalPurnell]

One can ignore the supernatural and look at the real-world effects. Somehow the disunited tribes of Arabia were united under one banner in the 630s, and shortly afterward proceeded to overrun Persia and the Byzantine Empire. The Arab Conquest is certainly well documented, and the religious frenzy of the invading armies is well-attested in Byzantine sources. Explaining how that came about without a Muhammad as a prophetic figure to unite the Arab tribes seems impossible, and even a hundred year gap between his death and the first written records of his existence is not enough time to just invent such a figure from whole cloth. Descent from Muhammad was also a vital political matter as early as those first 8th century records, and given the Arab and Bedouin tradition of highly detailed genealogical charting, simply making up such a figure and the complex web of relationships he would have had and made in Meccan society seems improbable.

That said, the 7th century Byzantine sources also described the Arab invaders as heretic Christians and Jews rather than as a distinct religious enemy. It wasn't until the 8th century that the Byzantines seemed to recognize that the Arabs held to a distinctly different religion, rather than a heretical version of Christianity. The Arabs were able to easily win over Jewish and Monophysite populations in the Byzantine East, which may have accounted to some degree for that confusion. On the other hand, textual criticism of the Qu'ran, while very much in its infancy, has produced some results suggesting that the canonical life of Muhammed wasn't compiled until the 8th century, possibly from a variety of other source texts, which were possibly Aramaic in origin. Islam beginning as an extreme Unitarian heresy of Christianity, influenced by Judaizing currents, seems rather reasonable when one considers the influences that Muhammad would have been exposed to at Mecca (Monophysite and Jewish converts) and the odd prominence accorded to Jesus by Islamic theology. However, since almost all Muslims believe that Qu'ran is a literally true and inerrant chronicle of the life of Muhammad as revealed by God, and placating Muslim sensibilities is by far the most important priority of the Middle Eastern Studies discipline, the sort of free-ranging critique of the Qu'ran and Islamic history that the Christian and Jewish scriptures were subjected to in the late 19th century is rather unlikely. Only a handful of scholars are willing to take a look into the Qu'ran or to question the orthodox Muslim history of Muhammad's ministry and the Conquest, and they tend to be isolated and often fearful of religious zealots and their own colleagues.

[Posner]

I doubt whether Jesus ever existed, but to me at least, Muhammed seems historical. Muhammed had a much more profound and immediate effect on his society than Jesus did. Muhammed's followers were all contemperaries, not like the Evangelists and Paul who never even met Jesus. Plus I buy the idea of a historical Muhammed because his fusion of Arianism, Pauline Christianity, Judaism and especially Arabian Polytheism was a great power play in order to become the new leader of Mecca. All prophets are frauds, but I have an easier time believing they actually existed in flesh and blood when they act in their own interest like Joseph Smith, L Ron Hubbard and Muhammed.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I doubt whether Jesus ever existed, but to me at least, Muhammed seems historical. Muhammed had a much more profound and immediate effect on his society than Jesus did. Muhammed's followers were all contemperaries, not like the Evangelists and Paul who never even met Jesus. Plus I buy the idea of a historical Muhammed because his fusion of Arianism, Pauline Christianity, Judaism and especially Arabian Polytheism was a great power play in order to become the new leader of Mecca. All prophets are frauds, but I have an easier time believing they actually existed in flesh and blood when they act in their own interest like Joseph Smith, L Ron Hubbard and Muhammed.

There is, apparently, at least one early source on the life of Muhammad (written by a man named Muhammad Ibn Ishaq which lost to us, but is copiously quoted in surviving sources,) which portrays him in a very unflattering light. Unflattering for a religious figure, but spot-on for a human robber-baron raised in the finest Machiavellian tradition.

[TheLegion]

Regardless of the actual truth of what Professor Kalisch is saying, he did make a mistake in saying this in his role as a authority figure. He couldn't have been ignorant of his reputation with the Muslims at his school. He should have written it not as stated fact until he can find substantial evidence for the claim. To say that Mohammad was not a real person is to say that the Koran is a creation of a human mind. It is almost gauranteed to piss off even the most moderate Muslim as it deals with the most basic core of his religion. Every Muslim believes the shahadah in that Mohammad is considered a messsenger of God. After getting the support of the Muslim base at his uni why would he say somthing to alienate that support? Is he trying to say that he doesn't want the support of his fellow Muslims?

[Kanastrous]

Honest and open investigation and evaluation of anything is crippled once you start worrying about how some group of people will 'feel' about it.

Maybe he's more devoted to pursuing what he believes is the truth, rather than garnering popularity with his co-religionists.

Makes him braver and more honorable than the lot of them, if it's the case.

[The Romulan Republic]

Honest and open investigation and evaluation of anything is crippled once you start worrying about how some group of people will 'feel' about it.

Maybe he's more devoted to pursuing what he believes is the truth, rather than garnering popularity with his co-religionists.

Makes him braver and more honorable than the lot of them, if it's the case.

Brave indeed. I really hope some nut doesn't take his head off for this.

[Pablo Sanchez]

He should have written it not as stated fact until he can find substantial evidence for the claim.

No, that doesn't follow logically. He's not advancing a positive claim that Mohammad didn't exist, he's saying that the evidence supporting the existence of Mohammad is too weak to be accepted as proof. It isn't possible to find substantial evidence that a historical figure didn't exist, because it is impossible to prove a negative. As an exercise, try to prove that Sherlock Holmes did not exist.

There are contemporaries of Mohammad, for example the Emperor Heraclius, who we can basically prove to have existed, because they left behind copious primary evidence of their lives. To contrast this, the most authoritative collection of hadith (the Sahih al-Bukhari) was put together over a century after Mohammad's death, and al-Bukhari's method of research does not encourage confidence--he simply traveled throughout the Abbasid Caliphate collecting people's stories about Mohammad, then picked the ones he considered most reliable (what were his criteria? nobody now knows!) and wrote them down. The failings of this process should be obvious.

On the other hand, my personal opinion is that, given the firm oral traditions of Arab society, it's likely that although most of the stories that al-Bukhari collected would have been of dubious authenticity (equivalent to the European tradition of folk tales about saints) they could very well have described an actual person.

Mohammad is usually accepted in the historical sense because the existence of a charismatic prophetic leader helps account for the abrupt explosion of Islam out of Arabia.

[Patrick Degan]

One can ignore the supernatural and look at the real-world effects. Somehow the disunited tribes of Arabia were united under one banner in the 630s, and shortly afterward proceeded to overrun Persia and the Byzantine Empire. The Arab Conquest is certainly well documented, and the religious frenzy of the invading armies is well-attested in Byzantine sources. Explaining how that came about without a Muhammad as a prophetic figure to unite the Arab tribes seems impossible, and even a hundred year gap between his death and the first written records of his existence is not enough time to just invent such a figure from whole cloth. Descent from Muhammad was also a vital political matter as early as those first 8th century records, and given the Arab and Bedouin tradition of highly detailed genealogical charting, simply making up such a figure and the complex web of relationships he would have had and made in Meccan society seems improbable.

Why? Most of the people who followed the banner of Muhammad during the time of the Arab Conquest would certainly have never known the man, and most of them were probably illiterate. There would certainly have been no living witnesses to the life of the alleged prophet and no living contemporaries. And those who are claiming descent from the prophet as the bona-fides of their leadership are the ones who took it by the sword to begin with, and who's going to argue the point with them after they've just finished conquering land and putting their enemies to the blade? It is quite plausible to posit the notion that a clever enough general or group of tribal leaders could have invented the idea that a desert prophet embued him/them with a holy mission to conquer everything within their sight for the greater glory of God, then spend the intervening time collecting every oral tale about prophet-like figures into a single written source starring a central figure.

Inventing a religion is laughably easy: all you have to say to begin with is "I had a vision" and really sell it to enough gullible people to get a following, and a game of telephone sets the rest in motion. If you're lucky enough to gain enough gold and followers with swords (or guns) in a short enough time, you're halfway on the road to combined spiritual/temporal power. If you're lucky enough to have all that happening for you at a time when there is no solidly established government to oppose you, you're halfway on the road to empire. You can worry about fleshing out the details —like a written testament— after you've conquered your empire and need to solidly legitimise your regime.

[ray245]

I think while you can question the protrayal of the founder of Islam, it is hard to deny the existence of a religious leader in this case.

[PainRack]

Explaining how that came about without a Muhammad as a prophetic figure to unite the Arab tribes seems impossible, and even a hundred year gap between his death and the first written records of his existence is not enough time to just invent such a figure from whole cloth. Descent from Muhammad was also a vital political matter as early as those first 8th century records, and given the Arab and Bedouin tradition of highly detailed genealogical charting, simply making up such a figure and the complex web of relationships he would have had and made in Meccan society seems improbable.

Just to play devil's advocate since I agree with you, but its certainly plausible for the above mentioned effects to occur without a historical person. Religious frenzy could be just as easily attributed to an utterly made up or misinterpretated cause, the Holy Lady of Fatima is a good example of this. Ditto to Constantine.

As for tracing geanology, that's also something that could had been fradulent. For one, Liu Bei of the Three Romance Kingdoms base his claim on being the legitimate ruler of the Later Han dynasty due to his descending from the grandfather/father of the current king(albeit, probably an illegitimate son). HOWEVER, historical analysis also suggest that this claim is utterly false, as said ruler was not in the region at the time of Liu Bei conception.
While we are lacking the records of the Han dynasty, its probable that the novel as well as the SanGuoZhi is blindly supporting Liu Bei claim of royal blood.

[ray245]

As for tracing geanology, that's also something that could had been fradulent. For one, Liu Bei of the Three Romance Kingdoms base his claim on being the legitimate ruler of the Later Han dynasty due to his descending from the grandfather/father of the current king(albeit, probably an illegitimate son). HOWEVER, historical analysis also suggest that this claim is utterly false, as said ruler was not in the region at the time of Liu Bei conception.
While we are lacking the records of the Han dynasty, its probable that the novel as well as the SanGuoZhi is blindly supporting Liu Bei claim of royal blood.

I thought that the Liu family is pretty big to begin with?

[Thanas]

Just look at Jesus - we know there was one from non-christian sources, but 95% of the stories about him cannot be verified. Same with Mohammed.

And Kalisch is a very much respected scholar who probably is the best expert on Islam germany has produced in the very recent years. Note that he has also said that he is expressing a very extremem minority opinion. Sadly I have not found the time yet to read the book.

[bobalot]

Actually, I don't think there is one non-Christian source detailing the life of Jesus. There are no contemporary sources either, which is interesting because a guy coming back to life would be fairly newsworthy.

[VT-16]

Technically speaking, there were many Jesuses, or Yeshuas, in that time period, since that was a common name. The question is which ones which...

[PainRack]

As for tracing geanology, that's also something that could had been fradulent. For one, Liu Bei of the Three Romance Kingdoms base his claim on being the legitimate ruler of the Later Han dynasty due to his descending from the grandfather/father of the current king(albeit, probably an illegitimate son). HOWEVER, historical analysis also suggest that this claim is utterly false, as said ruler was not in the region at the time of Liu Bei conception.
While we are lacking the records of the Han dynasty, its probable that the novel as well as the SanGuoZhi is blindly supporting Liu Bei claim of royal blood.

I thought that the Liu family is pretty big to begin with?

Which changes the fact that Huande claim to royal ancestry through a specific ancestor is dubious? Granted, I'm not up to date on the latest research regarding this, so perhaps I'm now wrong but it was an argument around 7 years back.

[Kanastrous]

Just look at Jesus - we know there was one from non-christian sources, but 95% of the stories about him cannot be verified.

Which 5% are verified? And to what standard?