Jesus Christ, the figure at the center of the Christian bible, may well have never existed. Thanks to countless books, films, articles, and other elements, more and more people have started to realize that there is little to no historical evidence in support of this man who supposedly made such a huge impact in his day. Muslims often claim, or seem to believe, that their prophet Muhammad is on more solid historical grounding than Jesus, yet most of the time, the conversation seems to progress no further. Muhammad's existence is simply accepted as a fact that has been so well established that clarification is assumed to be unnecessary. Indeed, many Muslim scholars and academics today will allege that Muhammad's life is better documented than the life of Christ, but when we push it beyond their simple assurance, will we find that this is correct?

I. Use of the Qur'an

For the same reasons that the bible cannot be trusted as a historical source on Jesus Christ, the Qur'an cannot be trusted as a historical source for Muhammad. The Qur'an makes some very extraordinary claims about Muhammad, calling him a prophet of God, indicating that he had visions and that he met with the archangel Gabriel. These assertions alone are enough reason to question the reliability of the Qur'an, because such supernatural tales demand a high standard of evidence. It is likely that many of the stories are exaggerated or allegorical, though if history or archaeology turn out to corroborate the Qur'an, it can then be called a historical book. Until that time, it must be treated with healthy skepticism and suspicion. There are also several other reasons to doubt the Qur'an's historical accuracy, but that is an issue for another article.

The Qur'an can, however, be useful as a guide for where to look concerning any evidence for Muhammad's historical existence. By comparing and contrasting some of the events depicted in the Qur'an to what we know of history, we may be able to develop a decent picture of how the two are either confirmational or contradictory.

II. Ibn Ishaq

The earliest non-Qur'anic account of Muhammad is found in the work of Ibn Ishaq, who wrote the Sirah Rasul Allah, or "The Life of the Apostle of God", in the early 8th century [1]. The Sirah is the source where most of the traditions and the alleged historicity of Muhammad come from. It is commonly thought that Muhammad died in 632 AD, which would mean the biography was written almost 100 years after his death, giving plenty of time for distortions and hyperbole to occur. However, it gets a bit more complicated than that, since Ishaq's work only survives through quotations included in the work of later authors like Ibn Hisham (d. 833) and al-Tabari (838-923). So what we really have are 9th century sources which reference an 8th century work that has not survived, purporting to tell us of a man who lived during the 6th/7th century.

The Sirah itself also claims to rely on earlier sources that have not survived. Like the extra-biblical evidence for Jesus Christ, the earliest evidence for Muhammad comes from nearly two decades after his supposed death and they are not just second-hand accounts, but third-hand or even possibly fourth-hand accounts. Furthermore, the Islamic scholar Alfred Guillaume mentions in his translation of the Sirah that Ibn Hisham had apparently "abbreviated, annotated, and sometimes altered" the writings of Ibn Ishaq, with quite evident interpolations in some cases [2]. So we see that even if Muhammad was indeed a historical figure, the biographies we have that claim to tell of his life are of very questionable authenticity.

III. The Earliest Artifacts

Aside from writings, the earliest artifact discovered with the name Muhammad is an Arab-Sassanian coin dating to about 685 AD [3], nearly 50 years after the death of Islam's prophet. This may seem like ample evidence to some that Muhammad was in fact a historical figure, but it is quite interesting to note how earlier Arab-Sassanian coins invoked Allah with no mention of Muhammad whatsoever (click the link at the very bottom of the third source to see other coins from the early history of Islam). Some Islamic scholars like Muhammad Sven Kalisch, Gerd-R Puin and Patricia Crone have noted the presence of Christian and Gnostic influence in early Islam too, noting that:

Other connections between the religions can be contemplated as well, such as the similarity between Moses' exodus out of Egypt under threat of persecution and Muhammad's exodus out of Mecca to Medina, also under threat of persecution. Moses is the name listed most in the Qur'an too, with over 25 times the measly four references made to Muhammad in the text. Even the name Muhammad has been suggested as a title and not a name, since it literally means 'praiseworthy'. This is, of course, fascinatingly similar to the idea that Christ was also a title meaning 'messiah' or 'anointed one'. While these are mainly speculations with little solid evidence, they do lend credence to the possibility that Muhammad is, like Jesus, an allegorical character who developed from inspiration taken from other myths and faiths.

IV. The Case of the Missing Mecca

Perhaps the most astonishing problem with Muhammad's historical existence is the absence of pre-Islamic evidence for his home town of Mecca. Many Christians attempt to weasel out of the lack of evidence for Nazareth by claiming that it was a small settlement that slipped under the radar in Christ's time. However, Islam asserts that Mecca has been around since the time of Abraham (2000-1500 BC), that it is located near famous trade routes, and that several important wars were fought in the area. These allegations work strongly to the disadvantage of Islam though, since the surrounding regions are indeed well documented with inscriptions, archaeological evidence, and war records - yet none of them seem aware of Mecca.

In his article on The History and Archaeology of Arabia... [5], Dr. Rafat Amari mentions that cities to the North of Mecca, like Qedar, Dedan and Teima, are historically well attested to by numerous monuments and inscriptions dating as far back as the 8th or 7th century BC. Kingdoms to the South of Mecca, such as Haram, Inabba, Kaminahu, and Nashan, are also fairly well documented, although they were smaller than Mecca was considered to be. Dr. Amari gives an overwhelming amount of evidence for surrounding dynasties, cities, and kingdoms in the region, stretching far back into history, and notes how none of them have records, inscriptions, or any references to Mecca.

With Mecca having supposedly been right in the middle of the Northern and Southern cities of Arabia, as well being next to the Red Sea trading route, it seems that some references to the city should have surfaced in the area before the 4th or 5th century AD. If Muhammad had been at war with several tribes in the region, as the hadiths/traditions tell us, one would think that such issues would have stirred up at least enough notice to warrant documentation or evidence of some sort, especially if Muhammad had been attacking caravans on trade routes, as he allegedly did. But it is almost like Mecca did not even exist at the time.

Dr. Amari also makes an interesting observation of ancient ruins in Teima, where the moon is represented in inscriptions as a crescent, and a deity named Lame'h is given the title Rahim, and represented as a brilliant shining star. These details might be some evidence of Islam's pagan roots, something already hinted at by controversial issues such as the "satanic verses".

V. What It Means

'So what?' I can picture an ardent Muslim asking. 'Just because there's no evidence for Muhammad does not mean he never existed.' Actually, that is quite correct, but the intent of this article is not to prove Muhammad was made up. The intent is to provoke critical thinking and show that there is really insufficient evidence to say with certainty whether Muhammad truly existed or not. Even if there was a historical character named Muhammad who lived during the 7th century, it is also possible (if not probable) that he was not the same person the Qur'an and the hadiths speak of. But who would want to believe in such a war-mongering, intolerant version of Muhammad anyway? If the Qur'an and hadiths were absolutely right about a historical Muhammad, he was a very violent, hateful, and self-centered individual [see my article Islam is No Religion of Peace].

Does a Muslim have to believe in Muhammad's historical existence, exactly as tradition tells them, to be considered a 'real Muslim'? Or can you still follow a religion and philosophy without being a total literalist? This is the great question that Islam is faced with today. In the past, they have answered it by beheading or murdering apostates, but we can only hope that as more and more criticism arises, the fanatics will learn that they need not fear or threaten challenges to their faith. Is it not a tad hypocritical for a religion that so dislikes the worship of a man like Jesus - and claims to only praise God - to revere a man like Muhammad as though he is equal to their god in importance?

I would not feel the least bit threatened by any discovery of historical evidence for Muhammad, no matter how much it might confirm the Qur'an or Islam, because it will still ultimately come down to faith or belief. Joseph Smith and L. Rob Hubbard were historical religious figures who most certainly existed, yet many people do not believe they were telling the truth about their supernatural experiences. So ask yourself, is the historical existence of someone really that important in considering what we will believe or disbelieve? Perhaps believers will always find (or invent) reasons to believe, and perhaps skeptics will always find other reasons to doubt. Yet if Muslims think they have the upper hand on any religion, they are sadly mistaken. Much of the modern world may be too frightened or politically correct to hold Islam to the same standard it criticizes other faiths by, but the silence is beginning to be broken. Without free and open dialogue for all ideas, there is no learning and no liberty.

Update:

Two non-Muslim sources for Muhammad's historical existence have since been brought to my attention. The first source, known as the Doctrina Jacobi [6], is a Greek text which mentions a Saracen prophet who came preaching with sword and chariot. However, this source never names the prophet as Muhammad, and it indicates that this Saracen prophet "proclaims the advent of the anointed one, the Messiah who is to come", something that sounds very unlike the Muhammad of Islam. The Doctrina Jacobi was allegedly written between 634-640 AD, which would put it very shortly after the traditional death of Muhammad, yet tracking down the primary source is difficult, with the work generally being directly referred to by only a handful of modern authors (Patricia Crone, Ibn Warraq, Colin Wells, etc).

The second source is one attributed to the Armenian Bishop Sebeos. A History of Heraclius is a document purportedly written about 660 AD, but its connection to Sebeos is greatly disputed [7]. Nonetheless, this source does invoke Muhammad by name, and it makes several comments regarding Islamic teachings such as prohibition of carrion, wine and adultery. Although authorship of the text seems unknown and makes it somewhat difficult to verify, this does appear to reference Muhammad as a historical person. There is one inconsistency in the History though:

While the Qur'an states that Muhammad severed his ties with Jews by 624 AD (Sura 2:144, 149-150), when he moved the direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca, this text apparently suggests that Muslims and Jews were still allies as late as 640 AD, during the conquest of Palestine. As I said previously in the article, it may well be that a man named Muhammad did actually exist, and these texts do give some weight to such a possibility. On the other hand, they do not seem to contradict my suggestion either, that the historical Muhammad may not have been the same one that we hear of in the Qur'an or Islamic traditions.

1. Anonymous. Sirah Rasul Allah. Retrieved Jan. 3, 2009.
2. Guillaume, A. (1955) The Life of Muhammad. A translation of Ishaq's "Sirat Rasul Allah". xvii. Oxford University.
3. Anonymous. (2007) Drachm Of �Abd al-Malik Ibn �Abd Allah... Retrieved Jan. 3, 2009.
4. Spengler. Scandal exposes Islam's weakness. Retrieved Jan. 3, 2009
5. Amari, R. (2004) The History and Archaeology of Arabia... Retrieved Jan. 3, 2009.
6. Lendering, J. Muhammad. Medieval Messiahs. Retrieved Jan. 5, 2009.
7. Anonymous. Sebeos. Retrieved Jan. 5, 2009.