📜 Muhammad Mythicism: Origins, Arguments, and Scholarly Responses

❇️ Abstract:

Muhammad mythicism—the claim that the Prophet Muhammad did not exist as a historical person—has emerged in recent decades from both ideological and revisionist impulses. While it draws on broader skepticism toward early Islamic historiography, it remains largely outside peer-reviewed academic scholarship. This article outlines the development of Muhammad mythicism, evaluates its central arguments, and highlights the scholarly consensus affirming Muhammad’s historicity based on a range of converging evidences.

⸻

♦️1. Introduction

The figure of the Prophet Muhammad stands at the foundation of Islam, yet a small but vocal movement questions whether he existed at all. This position, known as Muhammad mythicism, has garnered attention in popular circles, particularly since the early 2000s. Although often perceived as a new phenomenon, its roots can be traced back to a largely forgotten Soviet Marxist tradition. Today, its proponents include figures such as Yehuda Navo, Judith Corin, the Inara school, Johannes Jantzen, and Robert Spencer. Despite its public appeal, Muhammad mythicism is virtually absent from mainstream academic discourse.

⸻

♦️2. Historical Development of Muhammad Mythicism

Muhammad mythicism has two distinct phases:

• Soviet Marxist Origins: Early expressions of Muhammad mythicism appeared within the context of Soviet ideology, where religion was broadly critiqued as a socio-economic construct. These views, however, did not significantly impact Western scholarship.

• Western Revival (2000s–present): A more developed form of mythicism emerged in the early 21st century, influenced by broader skepticism towards early Islamic historiography. This revival coincided with an increase in revisionist approaches to the study of Islam’s origins, though mythicism remains a fringe position even within revisionism.

⸻

♦️3. Core Arguments of Muhammad Mythicism

3.1. Argument from Silence

Mythicists often argue that early sources fail to mention Muhammad explicitly, implying he was invented later. However, this is contradicted by a growing body of early non-Muslim sources, coins, and inscriptions that reference Muhammad or closely associated events within a few decades of his death. Scholars also note that earlier strata of Islamic reports can often be reconstructed through isnāds (chains of transmission), preserving information from a relatively early period.

3.2. “Muhammad” as a Title

Another mythicist argument claims that “Muhammad” originally functioned as a title for Jesus, rather than a personal name. This interpretation fails linguistically and contextually. In both Quranic passages and early inscriptions, “Muhammad” appears as the definite subject in nominal sentences—a syntactic structure indicating a proper name. Additionally, non-Arabic sources transliterate the name, a treatment typically reserved for personal names, not titles. Historical evidence also shows “Muhammad” was already in use as a personal name decades prior to the earliest known inscriptions bearing the name.

3.3. Geographical Discrepancies – The Petra Thesis

Some mythicists propose that early Islam originated not in Mecca but in Petra, based on perceived discrepancies in geographical descriptions. However, early non-Muslim sources that would have known of Petra provide no such indication. Furthermore, Islamic tradition preserves no memory of a shift in the sanctuary’s location, which would be an unlikely omission had such a move occurred. Scholars widely consider this thesis speculative and unsupported.

⸻

♦️4. Scholarly Consensus on Muhammad’s Historicity

Despite justified caution regarding the reliability of many early Islamic sources, most scholars maintain that a historical Muhammad did exist. This position is supported by several key lines of evidence.

4.1. Corroboration from Non-Muslim Sources

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence comes from an Armenian chronicle dated around 660 CE—approximately 30 years after Muhammad’s death. It summarizes Muhammad’s career in terms that largely match the traditional Islamic narrative. The source is widely accepted as authentic and undermines claims of late fabrication or interpolation.

4.2. Chronological and Political Frameworks

Coins, inscriptions, and non-Muslim writings from the 7th century corroborate the chronological and political framework of Islamic history as preserved in Islamic tradition. These external sources reinforce the notion that key elements of early Islam, including its leadership structures and expansionist policies, were in place soon after Muhammad’s supposed lifetime.

4.3. Reliability of Genealogical Traditions

The detailed genealogical data found in early Islamic sources, particularly regarding Arabian tribes, has been partially verified through inscriptions and is considered largely accurate. Muhammad’s lineage, for example, fits within this broader genealogical framework, further affirming his historical reality.

4.4. Inter-Regional Consistency and the Criterion of Dissimilarity

Early Islamic centers—Medina, Kufa, Basra, and Syria—independently preserved traditions about Muhammad that align on basic facts, including his name, his marriage to Khadijah, and his tribal affiliation with the Banu Hashim. Importantly, some of this information contradicts the interests of powerful factions (e.g., the Umayyads), suggesting it was inherited and widely accepted rather than fabricated. This aligns with the criterion of dissimilarity, often used in historical Jesus studies, which holds that information unlikely to have been invented for polemical reasons is more likely to be authentic.

⸻

♦️5. Conclusion

While Muhammad mythicism has gained some popularity in certain online and ideological circles, it lacks serious support in academic scholarship. The weight of evidence—from early non-Muslim testimony, material culture, internal consistency across regions, and linguistic and genealogical data—strongly supports the conclusion that Muhammad was a real historical figure. The study of ancient figures frequently presents challenges in establishing historical certainty. Nevertheless, the most credible interpretation of the available evidence indicates that a Prophet Muhammad did exist in 7th-century Arabia.

— Azahari Hassim

Founder, The World of Abrahamic Theology