"Did Mohammed Exist?" - Book by Robert Spencer

http://www.amazon.com/Did-Muhammad-Exist-Inquiry-Obscure/dp/161017061X/ref=zg_bs_12522_3

http://www.jihadwatch.org/
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

Robert Spencer is a prolific writer who has a lot on his plate. He has spent years and exerted massive efforts to inform people about the truths of Islam in spite of the powerful media, Islamic, and Leftist campaigns to paint Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance. He has written several books, operates the website JihadWatch (Above), and often, along with Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs (Also above), goes on speaking tours. In doing so, he and others, who have labored so that we can know what Islam is as opposed to what many Muslims and Leftists want us to think it is, have come under continual fire from both camps.

Spencer's newest book is titled "Did Mohammed Exist?" (Link at top). In his book, he apparently (I have not read it yet) displays incredibly thorough and detailed research of the Koran, the Haddiths, early Islamic historical sources, etc. The author finds that there is a real dearth of mention, quotes, attributions, etc. to a person named Mohammed or the term Islam in the early Islamic world.

Again, I have not yet purchased the book, so I obviously cannot offer any critique of his actual conclusions. Below are links to several reviews of the book from those who have read it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/inventing_muhammad.html

http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2012/04/islam-will-o-wisp-of-political-faith.html (Quoted below)

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/04/23/robert-spencer-asks-did-mohammad-exist/2/

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/04/23/book-review-did-muhammad-exist-by-robert-spencer/?singlepage=true

From what I have gathered from the reviews, Spencer concludes that the men of of the Arab armies that swept north, West, and East from the Arabian peninsula were motivated by a monotheistic faith, but that they did not utilize the term Islam, practice or preach much of what we know to be particular to Islam,  nor did they referred to Mohamed as being their prophet. It appears to Spencer that much of Mohamed was invented by later "Islamic" rulers and notables to provide a more authoritative historical foundation for their beliefs.

I plan to purchase the book. I am not certain that I will fully agree with Spencer's conclusions, but I have no doubt that his research will be a valuable tool. From reading the Koran and the Haddiths, we find so much about Mohamed (or the prophet if he in fact went by another name at the time) that was so plainly awful that I have a hard time believing that his actual supporters would make them up.

The Koran too is treated in the book. There the reader will learn that quite a bit of the Koran was not originally written in Arabic but clearly was taken from Syro-Aramaic Christian texts.(A true Koran can only be written in Arabic according to Islamic thought). Many of the words did not exist in the Arabic language at the time, and the translators seemed to have to rely on guesswork when choosing what Arabic word to employ. This resulted in the extreme difficulty one has in reading a book in which very fifth line or so makes no sense whatsoever. It also explains, among other things, how the 72 virgins came into Islamic thought - the original text almost certainly referred to grapes.

The following is a quote from the below link. This article covers both Spencer's book and treats the book The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran by Christoph Luxenberg. (A pseudonym - the author is, understandably, a marked man)

http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2012/04/islam-will-o-wisp-of-political-faith.html

"… [A] closer philological analysis indicates that the Qur'an does not offer such a…promise. After examining the rasm, the other contexts in which hur appears in the Qur'an, and the contemporary usage of the word houris, Luxenberg concludes that the famous passages refer not to virgins but instead to white raisins, or grapes.

Yes, fruit. Strange as that may seem, given all the attention paid to the Qur'an's supposed promises of virgins in Paradise, white raisins were a prized delicacy in that region. As such, Luxenberg suggests, they actually make a more fitting symbol of the reward of Paradise than the promise of sexual favors from virgins. Luxenberg shows that the Arabic word for "Paradise" can be traced to the Syriac word for "garden," which stands to reason, given the common identification of the garden of Adam and Eve with Paradise. Luxenberg further demonstrates that metaphorical references to bunches of grapes are consonant with Christian homiletics expatiating on the refreshments that greeted the blessed in Heaven. The fact that the Syriac word Ephraem used for "grapevine" was feminine, Luxenberg explains, "led the Arabic exegetes of the Koran to this fateful assumption" that the Qur'an text referred to sexual playthings in Paradise. [p. 169]"-Google books link below:
Pages 263-265

http://books.google.com/books?id=227GhaeKYl4C&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=koran+syro+aramaic+luxenberg+grapes&source=bl&ots=lgpF0X6P0u&sig=RwCN5-as5Yx