The Myth of Historical Muhammad: A Direct Response to Raymond Ibrahim

By Dr. Tim Orr

This critique addresses Raymond Ibrahim’s assertions concerning the historical credibility of Muhammad, particularly his responses to Jay Smith. While Ibrahim argues that Muhammad is among the most historically supported figures in history, this assertion falters when examined through rigorous historical methodologies. Historical evidence relies on contemporary accounts, corroborating documentation, and independent sources, yet the narrative of Muhammad’s life primarily rests on late Islamic texts. Modern scholarship provides critical tools to assess these claims, highlighting the weaknesses in the traditional Islamic narrative and contrasting it with the robust evidence available for other historical figures like Jesus and Julius Caesar. I will examine each of Ibrahim’s claims in detail, offering a deeper scholarly critique supported by contemporary academic research.

1. "Muhammad is one of the most historically supported people in history."

The claim that Muhammad is highly attested historically cannot be supported by available evidence. The earliest biography, Ibn Ishaq’s Sira, was written roughly 120 years after Muhammad’s death and is preserved only through later redactions, particularly Ibn Hisham’s edited version, which intentionally removed material considered offensive (Guillaume, 1955). In contrast, the historical records of Julius Caesar include contemporaneous writings like his Commentarii de Bello Gallico, alongside accounts by both allies and adversaries (Goldsworthy, 2006). Similarly, Alexander the Great is recorded in multiple early sources that are both Greek and non-Greek in origin, offering a far richer historical record.

Moreover, scholars such as Motzki (2000) have highlighted the presence of fabricated traditions within Hadith collections, questioning their historical value. Crone and Cook (1977) argue that much of the early Islamic narrative was retroactively constructed to provide religious legitimacy. Furthermore, there are no inscriptions, coins, or administrative records from Muhammad’s lifetime that mention him, a striking absence for someone of such supposed historical significance. When compared to figures like Jesus, who is referenced by both hostile and friendly sources within a few decades of his life, the case for Muhammad’s historical attestation is comparatively weak.

2. "Muhammad has more historical support than Jesus."

This assertion is demonstrably incorrect. Jesus of Nazareth is referenced by both Christian and non-Christian sources, some of which were hostile to Christianity. Josephus (c. 93 CE) mentions Jesus’ crucifixion, and Tacitus (c. 116 CE) records that Christ was executed under Pontius Pilate (Ehrman, 2012). Pliny the Younger (c. 112 CE) describes Christians worshipping Christ as a deity (Habermas & Licona, 2004). These accounts, appearing within a few decades of Jesus’ lifetime, provide multiple independent attestations of his existence and form a strong historical foundation.

In comparison, external references to Muhammad appear only decades after his supposed death and often portray him as a political or military leader rather than a prophet. The Doctrina Jacobi (c. 634–640 CE) provides a confused and inconsistent view of Muhammad, indicating that the Islamic narrative of his life had not yet stabilized (Crone, 1987). Moreover, the textual tradition of the New Testament, with thousands of early manuscripts, surpasses the relatively scant and later Islamic texts (Metzger & Ehrman, 2005). The absence of early corroborating evidence for Muhammad challenges the assertion that his historical record surpasses that of Jesus.

3. "If Muhammad didn’t exist, how do we understand the Sunni/Shia divide?"

The presence of a sectarian divide does not necessarily confirm the existence of its founder. History demonstrates that communities often form around legendary or semi-mythical figures, such as Romulus in Roman tradition (Cornell, 1995). Fred Donner (2010) suggests that early Islam began as a loosely defined “believers’ movement,” which only later coalesced around a fully developed narrative of Muhammad to legitimize religious and political authority. The Sunni-Shia split reflects disputes over leadership and succession that could have arisen even without a historical founder in the form described by Islamic tradition.

Additionally, sectarian divisions can stem from sociopolitical dynamics and collective memory rather than direct historical events tied to a single individual. The Sunni-Shia divide, for example, may reflect broader tribal and political struggles that were later framed around the figure of Muhammad. Historical precedents show that such divisions can form around symbolic or even fictional figures, underscoring the need for critical examination of claims regarding Muhammad’s historicity (Donner, 2010).

4. "There are no incontrovertible proofs of Muhammad’s non-existence."

This statement misrepresents historical methodology. Historians do not seek to prove a negative but to evaluate claims based on evidence. The burden of proof lies on those who assert a historical figure’s existence. By this logic, mythical figures like Hercules or King Arthur would be assumed real simply because their non-existence cannot be definitively proven (Horsley, 2012). The complete absence of contemporary evidence for Muhammad—especially in the Byzantine and Persian records, which otherwise document events in Arabia—raises serious doubts about the historical reliability of the traditional narrative.

Furthermore, the absence of evidence is particularly striking given Muhammad’s supposed prominence. Major regional powers such as Byzantium and Persia kept detailed records, yet none mention Muhammad during his lifetime. The lack of contemporary accounts, administrative records, or archaeological artifacts pointing to his existence contrasts sharply with what historians observe for other leaders of the time, indicating that the burden of evidence for Muhammad’s existence remains unfulfilled.

5. "Since the traditions about Muhammad are so embarrassing, why write them?"

The argument from embarrassment is misapplied in this context. What modern audiences may consider morally questionable—such as Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha—may have been culturally normative or even a mark of prestige in seventh-century Arabia (Brown, 2009). Furthermore, Hadith and Sira literature were compiled during periods of intense political struggle. The Abbasids, for example, utilized Hadith to legitimize their rule and discredit rivals (Calder, 1993). Therefore, these traditions often reflect the theological and political agendas of their compilers rather than historical fact.

In addition, the supposed “embarrassing” elements might have been included to illustrate Muhammad’s authority or divine favor rather than to record objective history. What seems problematic today might have reinforced his reputation within his own cultural context. Historians must therefore critically assess these texts rather than assume that their inclusion proves authenticity, recognizing the political and theological motivations underlying their preservation.

6. "Mecca is not an argument against Muhammad."

The lack of pre-Islamic references to Mecca is a significant issue for the traditional Islamic narrative. While Islamic sources describe Mecca as a major trading hub, archaeological and external textual evidence supporting this claim is lacking (Crone, 1987). Crone’s research indicates that Mecca’s geographic position was unsuitable for controlling the lucrative trade routes of the time. Gibson (2011) controversially argues that early mosques’ qibla directions point toward Petra rather than Mecca. While debated, this theory underscores the paucity of evidence corroborating Mecca’s prominence in the early seventh century.

Moreover, the silence of contemporary records concerning Mecca calls into question the traditional accounts of Muhammad’s life. If Mecca had been a vital commercial center as described in Islamic sources, one would expect corroboration from neighboring civilizations. The absence of such evidence suggests that the historical narrative of Mecca’s importance may have been retroactively constructed to serve theological purposes (Crone, 1987).

7. "No one can prove or disprove historical data."

While historical claims cannot be verified with absolute certainty, they can be evaluated using criteria like multiple attestation and contemporaneity. For example, Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon is widely accepted due to corroborating contemporary accounts and archaeological findings (Goldsworthy, 2006). In contrast, the late compilation of Islamic sources and their overt theological agendas render them less reliable as historical documents.

Historical methodology involves weighing evidence and determining probability rather than asserting absolute truth. Thus, the claim that historical data cannot be proven or disproven is a misunderstanding of historical practice. By applying the same criteria used for other historical figures, Muhammad’s life appears less historically secure than that of many other prominent leaders from antiquity.

8. "It comes down to a matter of faith."

If belief in Muhammad’s existence rests primarily on faith rather than historical evidence, then Ibrahim’s claim that Muhammad is well-documented collapses. Christianity, by contrast, does not require faith to establish the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. Even skeptical scholars like Bart Ehrman (2012) acknowledge Jesus’ historicity due to the abundance and early dating of sources. The lack of comparable evidence for Muhammad highlights the methodological gap in Ibrahim’s argument.

Faith and historical investigation are separate domains. While religious belief may accept Muhammad’s existence without question, historians require verifiable evidence. Conflating faith with historical inquiry leads to weak conclusions and undermines the credibility of any argument seeking to establish Muhammad as a well-documented historical figure.

9. "Claims against Muhammad’s existence are merely an academic and subjective exercise."

To dismiss scholarly critiques as “subjective” is to overlook the value of the historical-critical method. This approach, which has been successfully applied to figures like Moses, Jesus, and the Buddha, seeks to assess historical claims based on rigorous evidence analysis (Case, 1912). Scholars such as Patricia Crone and Tom Holland (2012) have raised serious questions about early Islamic history, employing the same techniques that are standard in historical studies of antiquity.

Moreover, the historical-critical method is a tool for uncovering the origins and development of religious traditions. It allows scholars to separate later theological interpretations from possible historical realities. By dismissing these inquiries as subjective, Ibrahim fails to engage with well-established scholarly practices that have yielded significant insights across various fields of ancient history.

10. "The best polemic is to prove how irrelevant Muhammad is for us today."

This conclusion sidesteps the historical issue altogether. The theological and legal authority of Islam is built on the life and teachings of Muhammad. If the historical basis for Muhammad’s life is undermined, the entire framework of Islamic belief and practice is called into question. A serious polemic cannot ignore these historical claims but must address them directly and critically.

Furthermore, asserting irrelevance does not engage with the claims that define Islam’s core teachings. Evaluating Muhammad’s historicity and the reliability of the sources that describe him is essential for any meaningful critique of Islamic theology. Without addressing these foundational claims, any polemic remains incomplete and fails to engage with the central tenets of the faith.

Conclusion

Raymond Ibrahim’s arguments rely on late and theologically driven Islamic traditions that fail to meet the standards of historical evidence. When compared to figures like Jesus or Julius Caesar, Muhammad’s life is poorly attested and dependent on sources written well after his death. By conflating faith with historical inquiry, Ibrahim undermines his own claims. Sound historical scholarship requires careful analysis of evidence, acknowledgment of gaps, and avoidance of circular reasoning. By applying these principles, it becomes evident that the historical foundation for Muhammad is far less secure than Ibrahim suggests.

References

Brown, J. A. C. (2009). Hadith: Muhammad's legacy in the medieval and modern world. Oneworld.

Calder, N. (1993). Studies in early Muslim jurisprudence. Clarendon Press.

Case, S. J. (1912). The historicity of Jesus. University of Chicago Press.

Cornell, T. J. (1995). The beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000–264 BC). Routledge.

Crone, P. (1987). Meccan trade and the rise of Islam. Princeton University Press.

Crone, P., & Cook, M. (1977). Hagarism: The making of the Islamic world. Cambridge University Press.

Donner, F. M. (2010). Muhammad and the believers: At the origins of Islam. Harvard University Press.

Ehrman, B. D. (2012). Did Jesus exist? The historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperOne.

Gibson, D. (2011). Qibla: The forgotten direction. Independent Scholars Press.

Goldsworthy, A. (2006). Caesar: Life of a colossus. Yale University Press.

Guillaume, A. (1955). The life of Muhammad: A translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah. Oxford University Press.

Habermas, G., & Licona, M. (2004). The case for the resurrection of Jesus. Kregel.

Holland, T. (2012). In the shadow of the sword: The birth of Islam and the rise of the global Arab empire. Doubleday.

Horsley, R. A. (2012). Text and tradition in performance and writing. Cascade Books.

Metzger, B. M., & Ehrman, B. D. (2005). The text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption, and restoration(4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Motzki, H. (2000). The biography of Muhammad: The issue of the sources. Brill.

Who is Dr. Tim Orr?

Tim serves full-time with Crescent Project as the assistant director of the internship program and area coordinator, where he is also deeply involved in outreach across the UK. A scholar of Islam, Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant, Tim brings over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six academic degrees, including a Doctor of Ministry from Liberty University and a Master’s in Islamic Studies from the Islamic College in London.

In addition to his ministry work, Tim is a research associate with the Congregations and Polarization Project at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis. His research interests include Islamic antisemitism, American Evangelicalism, and Islamic feminism. He has spoken at leading universities and mosques throughout the UK, including Oxford University, Imperial College London, and the University of Tehran. He has published in peer-reviewed Islamic academic journals. Tim is also the author of four books.