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

examination of the story, based on what we know of early Islamic history and theology, suggests that the
pronouncements on adoption were not a convenient justification for Muhammad's marriage to Zaynab but
rather were the very point the story was meant to illustrate. In short, this incident no longer appears to be
an embarrassment that Muslims felt compelled to explain away; it seems fundamental to Islam's
theological claims.
Zayd and Usama: Historical Figures?
This explanation has the advantage over the canonical Islamic account in that it does what the mainstream
version does not and cannot do: It explains how Qur'an 33:40, which affirms that Muhammad is not the
father of any of the Muslims but rather is the Seal of the Prophets, relates to the story of Zaynab, even in
the fragmentary form in which it is told in the Qur'an.
This exposition raises other questions, however. Although it explains why the Zaynab story may have
been invented to serve various theological and political imperatives, it seems to take for granted that Zayd
himself was a historical figure, known in the early Muslim community—and that he was known to have
been Muhammad's adopted son. It apparently assumes that Zayd and his son, Usama, had been known and
were remembered, and that their existence, or at least their nonprophetic status, had to be explained.
In other words, the story of Zaynab may not have been constructed to explain away Muhammad's
lechery, but if it was constructed to dismiss Zayd or Usama's claims to succeed the prophet, this suggests
that the story deals with real historical figures, not myths. And if Usama and Zayd were real, wouldn't
Muhammad be also? Is it possible that the mysterious Arab prophet who appears in the earliest documents
of the Arab conquest, apparently preaching some form of monotheism and kinship with the Jews and
Christians, was indeed Muhammad?
At the very least, the figure of Usama must be considered in this context. Zayd may have conveniently
died before Muhammad did, but Usama did not. Usama shows up in several hadiths. For example, Islamic
tradition indicates that in the last year of his life, Muhammad appointed Usama as commander of an
expedition to Syria. This was an unpopular choice among the Muslims, goes the story, but Muhammad
defended Usama: “I have been informed that you spoke about Usama. (Let it be known that) he is the most
beloved of all people to me.” 22 Abu Bakr, Muhammad's successor, later sent Usama on a raid, from which
he returned with captives and booty. 23
All this, however, depends on the Hadith, which, as we have seen, were subject to rampant forgery for
political reasons. There is no contemporary indication that Zayd or Usama existed at all. Given the
theological imperative to establish Muhammad as the final prophet, there would have been ample reason
to invent them. If Zayd and Usama did exist, most of what we know about them appears to be legend that
was attached to shadowy historical personages whose actual deeds had been largely forgotten.
Giving Muhammad a son whom he adopted and then repudiated decades later in obedience to divine
revelation reinforced the Qur'an's point that one should obey not human beings but Allah alone (33:37).
Having Usama appear in the early Muslim community, but not as a contender for the leadership,