As I explained here, much of the current polemic about the historical veracity of the early Islamic accounts of Muhammad, at least among some YouTubers who are running hard with partial or full misunderstanding or ignorance of the available data, the name “Muhammad” appears to have been used, both before the traditional date of the advent of Islam and in the years of the early Arab conquests, as a title, not a proper name. One indication of this is the existence of mid-seventh century coins from the Arab empire, bearing the word “Muhammad” along with a cross. The standard narrative would have us believe that the early Arab rulers, having heard Muhammad himself say Jesus was not crucified (Qur’an 4:157) and that Jesus would return at the end of the world and “break the cross,” would put the hated symbol on their coins. If “Muhammad” was a title for someone else and the cross denunciations were formulated later, the problem these coins pose disappears. But an establishment scholar and Islamic apologist named Joshua Little claims that this is false simply on the basis of Arabic grammar, maintaining that the word “Muhammad” cannot be understood as a title in early usages of it, because it lacks a definite article.
In the first place, this is applying the established rules of Arabic to a time when the language was still developing. The Qur’an is one of the earliest examples of Arabic literature. To assume that all the grammar rules would be precisely in effect at all times in the sixth, seventh, and eighth-century uses of “Muhammad” would be tantamount to expect Chaucer to conform to the grammatical rules of modern American English. Also, again as I noted here, A Grammar of the Arabic Language by William Wright and Michael Jan de Goeje (Cambridge University Press, 1898) states that “in certain cases,” including when the subject is an adjectival noun, which is the case with “the praiseworthy one,” or “muhammad,” it may not require the definite article.
I’m revisiting this now because my dear friend Ibn Warraq, the ex-Muslim scholar who has done pioneering work on the origins of Islam, has pointed out to me that there is an example of this quite close at hand, in the Qur’an itself. Qur’an 61:6 says: “And when Jesus son of Mary said, O children of Israel, indeed, I am the messenger of Allah to you, confirming what was before me in the Torah, and bringing good news of a messenger who comes after me, whose name is Ahmad.” Not Muhammad, but Ahmad. These are not the same name. Muhammad is مُحَمَّد, that is, MHMD, while Ahmad is أَحْمَدُ, that is, HMD.
Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall’s translation of Qur’an 61:6 also takes for granted that Ahmad is a title, and even renders it as such: “And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is the Praised One.” Yet the word “Ahmad,” which he renders as “the praised one,” carries no definite article in the Arabic.
To be sure, the distinction between a name and a title here is exceedingly fine. In a hadith, one of the Jews, who are frequently cast as skeptics and opponents of Muhammad in Islamic tradition, asks Muhammad: “Why are you named Muhammad and Ahmad and Bashir [‘bearer of good news’] and Nadhir [‘warner’]?” He answered: “As for Muhammad, I am praised on the earth; as for Ahmad, I am more praised in heaven. As for Bashir, I give the good news of heaven to those who obey God. As for Nadhir, I warn those who disobey God of hellfire.” (Qummi, 2:346)
In a similar vein, Bukhari records a hadith in which Muhammad says: “I have five names: I am Muhammad and Ahmad; I am Al-Mahi through whom Allah will eliminate infidelity; I am Al-Hashir who will be the first to be resurrected, the people being resurrected thereafter; and I am also Al-Aqib (i.e. There will be no prophet after me).” (Sahih Bukhari 4.61.3532) Muslim reports a similar statement: “I am Muhammad and I am Ahmad, and I am al-Mahi (the obliterator) by whom unbelief would be obliterated, and I am Hashir (the gatherer) at whose feet mankind will be gathered, and I am Aqib (the last to come) after whom there will be no Prophet.” (Sahih Muslim, book 43, no. 2354a) Ibn Sa‘d likewise has Muhammad saying: “I am Muhammad (praised), Ahmad (praised), al-Hashir (collector), al-Mahi (one who obliterates), al-Khatim (the Last) and al-Aqib (the last),” and several variants of this. (I, 114)
All of these besides Muhammad are clearly titles. Islamic tradition does not show Muhammad being regularly called these as names. Note that some of them have definite articles and some do not. “Muhammad” itself may be a title as well. If so, this could explain why the mentions of Muhammad in the seventh century don’t correspond to the traditional Islamic picture of the prophet: they were referring to someone else altogether.
An intriguing ancillary note: W. Montgomery Watt notes that “as soon as one starts to inquire into the use of the name ‘Ahmad’ in the early centuries of Islam, a striking fact emerges. Muslim children were practically never called Ahmad before about the year 125 A.H. Indeed, the point may be put even more strongly: it is impossible to prove that any Muslim child was called Ahmad after the Prophet before about the year 125.”
Why not, if Uthman settled the Qur’anic text in 653 and distributed it among the Muslims, as some still insist, so that by the year 125 A.H. (741 A.D.), it had been well known for nearly a century? Maybe the text wasn’t as settled as early as some assume.
I realize these are abstruse discussions, and of interest to few. Nevertheless, this is where the controversy is playing out today in some quarters, where skepticism regarding Muhammad’s historicity is met with ridicule and scorn. Some of those who are laughing now would do well to reconsider the evidence.
Get Did Muhammad Exist? here and Muhammad: A Critical Biography here.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
I’ve heard the arguments from both Jay and Raymond about the evidence both for and against the existence of Muhammad. This name argument is the weakest of the lot. As Raymond pointed out to David, today, there are several variations of that name being spelt – Muhammad, Mohammad, Mohammed, Mahmoud, Mahmud, Mehmet,….. The same name would be transcribed differently in different languages
I do think the evidence is against the existence of Muhammad, ironically from a video that Raymond himself did about the battle of Yarmouk, where the Arab armies ostensibly defeated a Byzantine army south of Damascus. That was several centuries before the Medina-Damascus railroad, which the Ottomans built, and so no Medinan army of camel archers and swordsmen would have been fresh after a week of travel on camelback to trounce an army fresh out of Damascus. It also begs the question of what were the people of Damascus doing when the Arabs ostensibly invaded. It turns out they had a theological argument w/ the rulers at Constantinople – the Monophysite argument, so to speak
So chances are that at Yarmouk, there was an Arab-Byzantine battle, but that the Arabs there were local to Damascus, not Medina, which would more cleanly explain to any military historian how they could easily trounce a Byzantine army. It would also explain why Palestine fell later, after the fall of Damascus. If you were an invading army from Medina, why not capture Jerusalem, Jericho, Nablus…. first, before continuing towards Damascus, since those fall on the way? But if you started from Damascus, that would explain why Damascus “fell” before Jerusalem did
Which is why I believe that the 7th century Arab conquests started from Damascus, and neither Mecca nor Medina were anywhere in the picture. In fact, the islamization of the Arabian peninsula may have happened during the Abbasids, rather than during the Rashiduns, who probably never existed
࿗Infidel࿘ says
On a different note, Robert, when will “This week in jihad” return?
gravenimage says
Yes–I miss it!
Joe1 says
Most of the myth of Muhammad was written in the Hadith. But that was written until 200 years after his supposed death. The Muslims insist that it was passed through oral tradition. But that tradition was written and analyzed hundreds of years before the Hadith. The problem is that these writings don’t match or even resemble the Hadith. For example, in about 640, Sophronius of Jerusalem wrote extensively on the people (supposedly Muslims) that conquered Jerusalem, but he doesn’t mention a Muhammad or anyone like him. In another case, in about 720, John of Damascus, who was the Syria’s administrator recorded long discussions with the Muslims. For them Muhammad was a Paul Bunyan legend who had a camel that when milked or urinated would give rivers of milk and urine. The Muslims had many other crazy legends about Muhammad that John of Damascus recorded which in no way are anything like the Hadith. So how was the oral history preserved for 200 years when the leading Muslims didn’t know it?
Siddi Nasrani says
This video is very informative.
Jay Smith shares a compelling message challenging Islam’s foundations using 7th-century evidence and historical sources, which reveal their timing and location discrepancies compared to the events they describe. This thought-provoking message casts doubt on the traditional Islamic narrative, using their own historical framework.
Investigating Islam with Dr. Jay Smith (2 Corinthians 10:5)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40DclW84HkM&t=2s
abu taleb says
Muslims (in Indonesia) claim that the name Ahmad was given to Muhammad by the Quraish because Muhammad was a very honest man such that the Quraish acknowledge that. I counter it with Quran which never gives the name Ahmad to Muhammad, and the Quraish never say about Muhammad’s honesty in Quran, unstead they accuse Muhammad lying, plagiarizing stories and a crazy person. So. according Quran, Muhammad should have the name “al Majnun” (the crazy one), not Ahmad. LOL