robert spencer-did muhammad exist__ an inquiry into islams obscure origins-intercollegiate studies institute (2012) (1)

The real proliferation of material about Muhammad's words and deeds apparently began in the late
Umayyad period but reached its apex during the Abbasid caliphate. The Abbasids replaced the Umayyads
in 750; the great canonical Hadith collections were all compiled early in the ninth century.
Hadiths about Muhammad, as we have seen, were minted by the dozen in order to support one political
position or another. The Umayyads created hadiths of Muhammad saying negative things about the
Abbasids; the Abbasids developed hadiths in which Muhammad said exactly the opposite. The Shiites
wrote hadiths of their own to support their champion, Ali ibn Abi Talib.
The Abbasids emerged as the dominant party, and not surprisingly the bulk of the traditions that survive
to the present day reflect favorably on them. Many hadiths denounce the Umayyads for their irreligion. But
the desire to portray their rivals in a bad light would not have been the only motivation for the Abbasids.
They also needed to convince the people that these stories about the prophet of Islam and his new religion
were actually not new at all. How to explain the sudden appearance of accounts of what had supposedly
taken place in Arabia well over a century earlier? How to explain the fact that fathers and fathers' fathers
had not passed down the stories of this great warrior prophet and his wondrous divine book?
The answer was to blame the Umayyads. They were impious. They were irreligious. Although they
were the sons and immediate heirs of those who had known Muhammad, they were indifferent to this
legacy and let the great message of the Seal of the Prophets fall by the wayside. Now the Abbasids had
come along and—Muhammad emerged! His teachings would be taught throughout the empire. His Qur'an
would sound from every mosque. His faithful would be called to prayer from every minaret.
The late appearance of the biographical material about Muhammad, the fact that no one had heard of or
spoken of Muhammad for decades after the Arab conquests began, the changes in the religion of the Arab
Empire, the inconsistencies in the Qur'an—all of this needed to be explained. The hadiths pinning blame
on the Umayyads helped, but other explanations would have been necessary, too. A common justification
emerged in the hadiths: It was all part of the divine plan. Allah caused even Muhammad to forget portions
of the Qur'an. He left the collection of that divine book up to people who lost parts of it—hence its late
editing and the existence of variants. It was all in his plan and thus should not disturb the faith of the
pious.
Explaining a Political Religion
This reconstruction of events has a good deal to recommend it. It explains the curious silence of the early
Arab conquerors, and of those whom they conquered, about Muhammad and the Qur'an. It explains why
the earliest extant records of an Arab prophet speak of a figure who displayed some kinship with both
Judaism and Christianity, contrary to the portrayal of Muhammad in the canonical Islamic texts. It explains
why Islamic tradition speaks of the Qur'an as the perfect and eternal book of Allah while simultaneously
depicting the almost casual loss of significant portions of the holy book. It explains why Islam, the
supposed impetus for the Arab conquests, is such a late arrival on the scene.
This scenario also explains why Islam developed as such a profoundly political religion. By its nature,
Islam is a political faith: The divine kingdom is very much of this world, with God's wrath and judgment