Islam may have descended from the Sadducees.

Today | Karl Klefsgård

[Jonty30]

HTML Image

[Cronos]

Hi Trebb,

The point about “Muhammad is used just 4 times in the Quran and that too as a title”

is just one of the points why I state that there was no Muhammad.

I appreciate your response, but I maintain my position that the historical figure of Muhammad, as depicted in later Islamic traditions like the Sirah, Hadiths, and standardized Quran, did not exist as a distinct 7th-century Arabian prophet. Instead, the evidence suggests that “Muhammad” originated as a title—meaning “the praised one” or “praiseworthy one”—likely applied in early Arab-Christian contexts, possibly referring to a prophetic figure like Jesus in Ebionite (Judeo-Christian) traditions, where Jesus was viewed not as divine but as a human prophet. This title was later retrofitted into a biographical narrative during the Abbasid period (post-750 CE) to consolidate religious and political authority in the expanding Arab empire.

My view aligns with scholarship on early Islamic origins, which emphasizes the lack of contemporary evidence and the apparent evolution of Islamic doctrine from pre-existing monotheistic traditions in the region.

Let me list out the the key points supporting my perspective, drawing on historical, numismatic, epigraphic, and textual analysis. I think these will reinforce the proof of the absence of a historical Muhammad and point to a later invention of the prophetic biography:

1. Absence of any contemporary mentions of a prophet Muhammad in the First Century of Arab Rule:

In the period immediately following the Arab conquests (roughly 632–732 AS), there is no reference to
- a prophet named Muhammad,
- a holy book called the Quran, or
- a religion known as Islam
in any surviving documents, inscriptions, or accounts from the highly literate Byzantine, Persian, or Arab contexts.

This is striking given the administrative sophistication of the era; the Arabs were interacting with literate empires and producing records, yet nothing mentions these foundational elements.

For instance, early Arab administrative papyri from Egypt (e.g., from the 640s–650s AD) refer to the conquerors simply as “Saracens” or “Hagarenes” without any Islamic terminology. This silence suggests that the conquests were not driven by a new prophetic religion but were opportunistic expansions following the Byzantine-Sassanid wars (602–628 AS), where Arabs served as proxies for BOTH sides and filled the power vacuum when these two superpowers crushed each other to exhaustion.

References:
- Robert G. Hoyland’s *Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam* (1997) documents this lack of contemporary non-Muslim references to Muhammad until the mid-8th century. Link: https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Islam-Others-Saw-Evaluation/dp/0878501258 (Wikipedia summary of historicity debates)

2. Umayyad Coins featuring Christian Symbols:

The coins minted by the early Umayyad caliphs (661–750 AD), such as those under Mu’awiya (r. 661–680 AD) and Abd al-Malik (r. 685–705 AD), often bore crosses with no Islamic slogans or references to Muhammad. For example, a coin from Bishapur (dated 661–662 AD) shows a cross on steps, and others depict a standing figure holding a cross. This contradicts the traditional narrative of an immediate establishment of a distinct Islamic faith; instead, it indicates that the early Arab rulers operated within a Christian or syncretic monotheistic framework, possibly as anti-Trinitarian Christians or Judeo-Christians, before a separate “Islamic” identity was formalized.

Reference:
- Tom Holland’s *In the Shadow of the Sword: The Birth of Islam and the Rise of the Global Arab Empire* (2012) discusses these coins as evidence of continuity with pre-Islamic symbols. Link: https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Sword-Birth-Global-Empire/dp/0385533659 .

3. Lack of Inscriptions mentioning Muhammad:

There are no inscriptions from the first century of Arab rule—whether produced by the Arabs themselves, their Byzantine or Persian adversaries, or the conquered populations in Syria, Egypt, or Mesopotamia—that reference a prophet Muhammad. The earliest potential reference is the Dome of the Rock inscription in Jerusalem (691–692 CE), but even here, “Muhammad” appears in a context that revisionists interpret as a title praising a divine or prophetic figure (possibly Jesus), not a proper name. The inscription reads phrases like “Muhammad is the servant of God and His messenger,” which aligns with Christological titles in Ebionite traditions, emphasizing unity of God against Trinitarianism.

Reference:
- Christoph Luxenberg’s *The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Language of the Koran* (2007) argues for “Muhammad” as a title. Link: https://www.amazon.com/Syro-Aramaic-Reading-Koran-Contribution-Decoding/dp/3899300882 ).

4. “Muhammad” as a Title in the Quran:

This is not the ONLY reason I stated that Mo didn’t exist, but is one of the reasons. The term “Muhammad” appears only four times in the Quran (3:144, 33:40, 47:2, 48:29), and in each instance, it functions as a title (”the praised one”) rather than a personal name, often in generic or honorific contexts. This sparsity contrasts with the Quran’s frequent use of other prophetic names and suggests it was not originally tied to a specific historical individual. Revisionists propose it referred to a messianic or prophetic ideal, possibly borrowed from Syriac Christian hymns where similar titles praised Jesus.

Reference:
- Yehuda D. Nevo and Judith Koren’s *Crossroads to Islam: The Origins of the Arab Religion and the Arab State* (2003) explores this titular usage. Link: https://www.amazon.com/Crossroads-Islam-Origins-Religion-State/dp/1591020840 (Islam StackExchange on Muhammad as title for Jesus).

5. The late compilation of Islamic texts:
The Quran was not codified in its current form until around 150 years after the supposed death of Muhammad (traditionally 632 AD), with the earliest complete manuscripts dating to the 8th–9th centuries (e.g., the Sana’a manuscript fragments from ~670–750 AD show variants). The Sirah (biography) by Ibn Ishaq was written circa 767 AD (over 130 years later) and survives only in edited recensions, while Hadiths were compiled even later (e.g., Sahih al-Bukhari in 846 AD). This chronological gap allows for significant retrojection of narratives to legitimize Abbasid rule after overthrowing the Umayyads in 750 AD.

Reference:
- Patricia Crone and Michael Cook’s *Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World* (1977) posits that Islamic traditions were constructed post-conquest. Link: https://www.amazon.com/Hagarism-Making-Islamic-Patricia-Crone/dp/0521211336

6. Mecca’s absence in early historical records:
Traditional Islamic accounts place Muhammad in Mecca, described as a major trade hub, yet there is no archaeological or documentary evidence for Mecca as a significant settlement in the 6th–7th centuries. Ancient trade routes bypassed the Hijaz region, and no contemporary maps or texts mention it until the 8th century. This suggests the Quranic “Mecca” may be a later attribution, possibly conflated with Petra or another northern site.

Reference:
- Dan Gibson’s *Qur’anic Geography* (2011) argues for a northern origin of Islam. Link: https://www.amazon.com/Quranic-Geography-Dan-Gibson/dp/0973364289

7. Islam’s evolution from Judeo-Christian sects:
The early Arab religious movement appears to have roots in Ebionite or Nazarene sects—Judeo-Christian groups that rejected Jesus’s divinity but revered him as a prophet. Terms like “Muhammad” (praised one) and Quranic emphases on monotheism echo these traditions. The absence of distinct Islamic markers in early conquests supports the idea that “Islam” crystallized later, with Muhammad invented as a foundational figure to distinguish it from Christianity and Judaism.

Reference:
- Robert Spencer’s *Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins* (2012) synthesizes this evidence. Link: https://www.amazon.com/Did-Muhammad-Exist-Inquiry-Obscure/dp/1610171918 .

8. Sparse and ambiguous Non-Muslim sources:
While some mid-7th-century non-Muslim texts (e.g., the Armenian chronicler Sebeos, ~661 CE) mention a “Mahmet” leading Arabs, these are vague, secondhand, and lack biographical details matching the Sirah. These I hold refer to a generic leader or title, not the prophetic figure, and no source predates the late 7th century with specificity.

Reference:
- https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/8574 .

This position is not about denying the Arab conquests or the eventual emergence of Islam but about recognizing that the traditional narrative was shaped centuries later for ideological purposes. While mainstream scholarship affirms Muhammad’s existence based on later Islamic sources, revisionist approaches highlight these evidentiary gaps as indicative of myth-making.

I encourage you to examinine the primary sources critically.

[trebb]

Uncle!

[dennisw]

in general, Islam does believe in a resurrection........

Shia Islam twelvers believe in the return of the 12th Mahdi...which is a semi resurrection

[Dr. Franklin]

The early Arab religious movement appears to have roots in Ebionite or Nazarene sects—Judeo-Christian groups that rejected Jesus’s divinity but revered him as a prophet. Terms like “Muhammad” (praised one) and Quranic emphases on monotheism echo these traditions. The absence of distinct Islamic markers in early conquests supports the idea that “Islam” crystallized later, with Muhammad invented as a foundational figure to distinguish it from Christianity and Judaism.

I appreciate your well sourced post. I would just add that modern Muzzies believe that they are the one true faith, and that Christians and Jews corrupted an ancient form of worship which they have preserved uncorrupted up to the present time. That supports the thesis that Islam is actually a corrupted Judeo-Christian form of worship, which they have been brainwashed to accept under penalty of death for apostasy. There is no reasoning with what they must believe as a matter of faith.

Who then morphed Jesus into a separate prophet named Mohamad? This points to that which is common in Eastern culture, an official religion controlled by the state. The Romans adopted Christianity as the official religion of the Empire. When the Roman Empire split into its Eastern and Western halves, their respective churches evolved differently after the fall of Rome. The Pope became the successor to the emperor in Europe as the moral leader of Europe while remaining largely independent of its kings and rulers. In the East, the Church remained subservient to the state, e.g., the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Muzzies followed the Eastern tradition of an official religion controlled by the state. At some point, one of its leaders decided to transform Jesus into a new prophet called Mohamad, and wrote a new book attributed to him originating from the desert land of Bedouin nomads. To prevent anyone else from doing what they were doing, inventing a new prophet, they backstopped Mohamad declaring he was the last of God's profits until the end of eternity. They declared that all must submit to the new rules, which were intended to keep order in a polygamous tribal society. Thus, the religion was created by those in power to maintain their rule through the creation of a fictional prophet.

[Cronos]

No, seriously, I’d like you to counter these opinions of mine. Poke holes in it, it will help mecregine what I am thinking or even change my mind

[Cronos]

Yesm that’s what I think, an Abbassid movement

[Dr. Franklin]

Yesm that’s what I think, an Abbassid movement

Right, and they then declared that they were descendants of their creation, and thus they should rule by divine right, regardless of the fact that he never existed.

[Cronos]

your opinion holds (to my mind) true.

And that’s the same pattern you see elsewhere — I’m reading a great book “Lords of the Deccan” by Anirudh Kanisetty and he points out how the great Chalukya dynasty of deccan India (6th to 9th century) started from humble farm-laborers, but by the 3rd generation, built a genealogy going back to divine figures. The same with the Japanese, Chinese, etc. dynasties

[Dr. Franklin]

your opinion holds (to my mind) true.
And that’s the same pattern you see elsewhere — I’m reading a great book “Lords of the Deccan” by Anirudh Kanisetty and he points out how the great Chalukya dynasty of deccan India (6th to 9th century) started from humble farm-laborers, but by the 3rd generation, built a genealogy going back to divine figures. The same with the Japanese, Chinese, etc. dynasties

Once we conclude that Mohamad was invented by Eastern rulers looking to legitimatize their rule, the argument about who is descended from him becomes obviously laughable. Yet, that is the whole Shia/Sunni schism, and the Hashemite claim to be direct descendants from "the prophet' is also exposed as a sham. It's the Muzzie equivalent of the divine right of kings.

Thinking back to the Judeo-Christian origins of the Muzzie, the only thing that rings true about them being more authentic than modern Christian dogma is their rejection of the Trinity, which didn't exist before Jesus. Only by recognizing that Jesus was divine is the theological discussion of the Trinity necessary. The Old Testament Jews only knew of God the Father, as the son had yet to come.

[Cronos]

In the 2 centuries before Christ there was the Jewish theology of “The Two Powers in heaven”.

Probably an early trace of the Trinity?

The sunni shia split is the gap in my Muahmmad didn’t exist idea. Because the split is supposed to have started when Ali was killed by the Ummayyads. What is your opinion on that?

[Dr. Franklin]

The sunni shia split is the gap in my Muahmmad didn’t exist idea. Because the split is supposed to have started when Ali was killed by the Ummayyads. What is your opinion on that?

The Middle East of the era has never been of great interest to me. So, I haven't really studied it, and the history of the foundational period of Islam is likely a mythology. If we have no contemporary history of Mohammad, when does any credible history of the religion begin?

My hypothesis is that Ali may have been a real person who died in the Abbasids' rebellions against the Umayyads c. 750 A. D., and he was then declared to be the relative of the newly invented prophet who died in a holy war. The Abbasid rebellion began in the region that is now Iran, and that is the base of power for the Shia, so that fits. If Mohammad had any blood relatives, I would expect that they would have been in Arabia, not Iran, claiming that they were Mohammad's rightful heirs and the true keepers of his faith. Yet, only in Yemen in modern times are the Shia strong on the Arabian peninsula. The population may have converted to Shia there at a much later date by order of the local chieftain.


The early Muzzie history is all BS. There are also the Abadi Muzzies in Oman who are neither Shia nor Sunni, but that is lesser known or noted.

[Dr. Franklin]

Just to add, the distance between Baghdad and Karbala, where Ali reportedly was killed, is all of 65 miles. That is more evidence of Islam originating from that region, and not Mecca or Medina.

[Dr. Franklin]

Here's more strange history about the Abbasid revolt:

The Abbasid revolt originated in the eastern province of Khorasan in the mid-8th century, fueled by widespread discontent with Umayyad rule. The Abbasids, claiming descent from Muhammad's uncle Abbas, capitalized on various grievances, including discrimination against non-Arab Muslims (mawali), heavy taxation, and perceived impiety of Umayyad rulers. Led by Abu Muslim Khorasani, Abu Muslim's army composed largely of Arab settlers disillusioned with Umayyad rule, marched under black banners, forming a powerful force that swept westward in open revolt, defeating Umayyad forces.

Abbasid Revolution

Now, here we have the contradictory statements that the revolt arose from discrimination against the non-Arab Muzzies, but it was fought by "Arab settlers disillusioned with Umayyad rule". More plausibly, the non-Arab settlers rebelled because they could, and claimed their leaders were related to Mohammad, and therefore the legitimate rulers of the Caliphate, as a cover story. The Shia would then be something like "protestant" Muzzies questioning the established orthodoxy, and shaking up the status quo. How did Moe's relatives find themselves so far away from Eastern Arabia in Khorasan? That doesn't ring true.

[Cronos]

And fir the first century, the Arabs kept islam to themselves as their own exclusive religion. Like the Visigoths in Spain kept Arianism for themselves

[Dr. Franklin]

And fir the first century, the Arabs kept islam to themselves as their own exclusive religion. Like the Visigoths in Spain kept Arianism for themselves

Since so little was written about it contemporaneously, we can only speculate about its first century. From what it evolved in to, I suspect that sharia law and its discrimination against non-Muzzies it its courts originated from a preference for other Arabs, i.e., the testimony of Arabs weighed more than non-Arabs, and if three Arabs declared something true, and no non-Arab disagreed, it was adjudged a fact. The Abassids saw an opportunity to rebel against that with Persian support, and succeeded in widening who qualified for that preference and such discrimination became engrained in the religion. That also explains how Islam grew so rapidly, not due to people accepting it as a matter of faith, but as a practical method to survive and then prosper under a new empire.