Robert Spencer vs. David Wood: Did Muhammad Exist?

Support Acts 17 videos on Patreon: David Wood is creating EPIC videos | Patreon

Muslims and non-Muslims assume that Muhammad existed. Robert Spencer’s new book challenges this assumption, charging that the Muhammad of Islam is shrouded in myths and legends. Can David Wood defend Muhammad’s existence against Robert’s arguments? Find out as Robert and David debate the topic, “Did Muhammad Exist?”


There is much More historical facts concerning the existence of prophet Mohammad SAW than your great grand parents combined , stop deceiving urselves about Islam

Remember that you should refer to it as Sunni Islam.

regarding the satanic verses, “I heard from Satan and didn’t know the difference” was also used to explain away an “embarrassing” mistake by another so-called prophet, Joseph Smith, when his prophecies didn’t come true. He said that some things come from man, some from God, and some from Satan.

I’m Robert Spencer here… David makes assumptions of sofistications just because he can come up with them

Great debate b/w these 2. I’ve pondered this, and one question which I didn’t see asked or answered is what the Byzantine historians had to say about the loss of Syria, Egypt and their other provinces to the Arabs. The Persian historians would have been wiped out or co-opted, since all of Persia was overrun, but Constantinople was still intact and would remain intact for centuries

I still believe that Mohamed actually did exist however regardless of whether he did or not it is absolutely a failed false religion

This David Spencer is an Islamic hater and edl supporter…

ex-CIA employee, professor, and ex-prisoner (seeing Jesus) preacher. an interesting

Dr. Robert Spencer has a very very very strong position. No evidences support the existence of Mohammed anywhere in the Hijaz region from 570 to 632 CE. Dr. David Wood needs a Muhammad to attack Islam and Muslims. It can only keep non-Muslims from converting to Islam. But Dr. Spencer and Dr. Jay Smith’s approach will totally destroy Islam from within.


Here you can see David lost, and the goliath of Islamic scholarship Robert Spencer won!

Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) is mentioned in oldest religious books(Vedas) of Hindu as Kalki Avtar(کلکی اوتار) .
The Vedas are 4000 years old according to Hindu scholars of Vedas. One Sanskrit professor of Varansi Hindu university has written a book that all references cited in Vedas tell us that Mohammad
(PBUH) is Kalki Avtar.

The details mentioned in Hindu’s
scriptures are astonishing. We do not find so much details in any other
religious scriptures like Bible.

What is the real source of these informations? Who could have given all these informations before coming of prophet Mohammad (pbuh) 2500 years ago.

Of cource no common man but a prophet to him revealed all these informations from Almighty Allah-- the crator of humankind.He knows everything.

Who is that prophet?
It is not mentioned in Vedas but ‌‌نوح عليه السلام( prophet Noah).
(pbuh) may be that prophet.
He is mentioned in Torah and in Qur’an. He is oldest and well known prophet after Adam (pbuh) the ancestor of humankind.

These informations were transformed by one generation to another and recorded later on.
Hindus scholars know Mano.

Allah knows best.

Ph.D. (Arabic Lit.) M.A. Arabic Lit.+Islamic Studies)
Amena Institute of Islamic Studies & Analysis
A Global & Universal Research Institute

Muhammad never existed.
Actually, “Muhammad” was
fictitious, imaginary. Hence,
Islam is a political ideology masquerading as a religion:
an audacious, boldfaced lie
spawned by vain politicians.
:us: Marc J. Metivier :us:

It makes more sense to me that there were hundreds of years for the stories to alter and change. It seems that the historical Muhammad and the written Muhammad and there exists some form of synthesis between the two. The argument from silence in this situation feels more compelling than arguments from silence usually do (like when they’re pulled on Christ), but I’m not yet willing to draw any conclusions

The problem with your “embarrassment” argument, is that such stories can easily be explained by later people needing to explain away something. Like, why should we remove this from the Quran? Well, because we know that it was delivered by the devil. If the sources were relatively contemporary, this would indicate there really was a Muhammad, but since they are so late, they actually indicate that they are trying to explain away something else, like a sura that just contradicts completely official doctrine, or something like that. When they get started with such things, it quickly escalates into wild stories. Also, why is it okay for the local leader to suck boys tongues and constantly be covered in semen, etc? Well, because, we just discovered a text in the back that says Muhammad did so, so by the principle of “imitation of Muhammad”, I guess he had no choice.

David Wood is evel, wckd and ader bed words

Youtube reccomend me this in March 2021

I think the first Arabian tribes acted united. Driven by the same ideas. Spread Religion through weapons. This idea was new in this time and the source could be one Person. Called Muhammad