Truth About Islam

Muhammad vs. Jesus

Who Has More Historical Support?

A Forensic Comparison

Introduction: A Claim Worth Testing

In recent years, Muslim apologists and public intellectuals have increasingly argued that Muhammad is better historically supported than Jesus. The claim, often framed as a rhetorical rebuke, goes something like this: “If you accept Jesus’ existence based on minimal non-Christian evidence, why not Muhammad, who has even earlier and more references?” One prominent voice, Raymond Ibrahim, sharpened this point by saying:

“Christians rightly cite Josephus, Pliny, and Tacitus as early proof of Christ’s existence. But non-Muslim references to Muhammad — which, objectively speaking, are even more compelling, since they were written much closer to their subject’s lifetime — are dismissed as irrelevant… That’s inconsistent, if not dishonest.” [1]

But is this true?

Let’s test the claim using historical method, forensic textual analysis, and the laws of logic — not theological loyalty. The question is not what Muslims or Christians believe, but what the historical record shows.

Section 1: Ground Rules for Historical Comparison

To make this analysis meaningful, we must use consistent standards across both figures:

Acceptable Evidence Criteria:

Primary sources or eyewitness accounts
Early independent attestation (especially from non-believers)
Historical proximity (closer is better)
Geographical proximity (closer is better)
Neutral or hostile sources (more weight)
Internal consistency and manuscript reliability
Archaeological and textual confirmation

We will apply this framework equally to both Jesus and Muhammad.

Section 2: What Does “Muhammad” Actually Mean in Early Sources?

Muslim tradition asserts that Muhammad was a prophet who lived from ~570–632 CE in Mecca and Medina. However, our earliest records outside Islamic texts present a fuzzier picture.

Key Issue: The word “Muhammad” as we know it today is vowelized Arabic. But in the 7th century, Arabic had no vowels in written form. The earliest Qur’anic manuscripts and inscriptions confirm this. The Arabic script consisted of 16 consonants, often without dots, and no diacritics. So early references to “Muhammad” appear only as MHMD — which may be a name, title, or descriptor, not necessarily a person.

Important distinction: The root ḥ-m-d in Semitic languages means "praised" or "chosen." “Muhammad” literally means “the praised one.” This makes MHMD a title potentially applied to various figures — not necessarily the founder of Islam.

Section 3: Earliest References to MHMD — What Do They Actually Say?

Let’s examine the four main 7th-century sources Muslim apologists cite:

1. Doctrina Iacobi (634 CE)

A Christian text referencing a “deceiving prophet” among the Saracens who carries the “keys to Paradise” and is associated with conquest.
No name is given. The term “MHMD” is absent.
Describes a military leader, not a spiritual teacher.

Conclusion: At best, this is a vague hostile reference. It may be describing a warlord, not a religious founder.

2. Thomas the Presbyter (c. 640s)

Mentions a battle in which “the Arabs of Muhammad” were victorious.
Actual manuscript says “MHMT” — not a proper name with vowels.
Scholars debate whether this refers to a person, a divine title, or something else.

Conclusion: The reference to “MHMT” could just mean “the praised one” or a messianic figure. It’s not clear evidence of the historical Muhammad.

3. Syriac Fragment (c. 636 CE)

Flyleaf note says, “many villages were ravaged by the killing of MHMD.”
This seems to suggest that MHMD is already dead, shortly after 632 CE.

Conclusion: If this refers to Muhammad, it’s extremely vague. It reads more like a legendary or honorific title.

4. John of Nikiou (690s, retrodated to 641)

Egyptian bishop writes about the “detestable doctrine of the beast, that is, MHMD.”
No vowels. No geographic or biographical detail. Hostile and theologically loaded.

Conclusion: It confirms fear of Arab conquest, not biographical confirmation of a prophet named Muhammad.

Summary of 7th-century non-Muslim evidence:

No full name “Muhammad” with vowels
No biographical data
No consistent description of a Meccan prophet
All references are ambiguous, hostile, and lacking historical clarity

Section 4: Compare With the Early Record for Jesus

Let’s look at non-Christian sources for Jesus. These include:

Source	Date Written	Type	Key Detail
Thallus	c. 52 AD	Samaritan Hist.	Mentions darkness at crucifixion [2]
Phlegon	1st c.	Greek Writer	Also mentions eclipse during crucifixion [3]
Tacitus	~110 AD	Roman Historian	Explicitly states Jesus was executed by Pilate [4]
Josephus	~90 AD	Jewish Historian	Names Jesus, his brother James, and crucifixion [5]
Mara bar-Serapion	~73 AD	Stoic Philosopher	Refers to “wise king of the Jews” executed by Jews [6]
Lucian of Samosata	~160 AD	Greek Satirist	Ridicules Christians who worship a crucified man [7]

Key Takeaways:

These accounts name Jesus (not just a title).
They identify specific details: crucifixion, Pilate, public execution.
The dates range from 52 to 160 AD — just one to two generations after Jesus.
Several are hostile or neutral, confirming lack of bias.

This is solid historical confirmation of Jesus from multiple independent sources within 100 years, far superior to MHMD references.

Section 5: Biographies and Sayings — A Timeline Comparison

Let’s compare the historical documentation of both men:

Feature	Jesus of Nazareth	Muhammad of Islam
Date of Death	~30 CE	632 CE
First biographies	50–90 CE (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John)	767–833 CE (Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham)
Gap from death	20–60 years	130–200 years
Geographic proximity	Written in Israel/Syria	Written in Iraq/Basra/Bukhara
Number of sources	Dozens (canonical + secular)	Mostly Islamic, no secular bios

If we used Islamic standards for Jesus, he wouldn’t appear in history until the 3rd or 4th century — making him a complete mystery. But historical Christianity doesn’t work that way. It has first-century documentation from the same region, from both followers and enemies.

Section 6: Logical Assessment of the Apologist Claim

Raymond’s Claim:

“Since Muhammad is far more historically supported than Jesus, by denying his historicity, we are being inconsistent or dishonest.”

Let’s evaluate the logic:

Premise 1: If X has more historical support than Y, X is more likely to be real.

Premise 2: Muhammad has more historical support than Jesus.

Conclusion: Therefore, Muhammad is more likely real than Jesus.

Problem: Premise 2 is false. The actual evidence contradicts it.

Jesus has named references, confirmed crucifixion, geographic links, and early hostile corroboration.
Muhammad has ambiguous titles, no consistent biography until 200 years later, and sources from far outside Mecca.

Conclusion: Raymond’s claim collapses. It's not hypocrisy to affirm Jesus’s historicity while questioning Muhammad’s. It's just honest historiography.

Final Verdict: Who Has More Historical Support?

Metric	Jesus	Muhammad
Named in early sources	✅ Yes	❌ No (MHMD only)
Multiple hostile sources	✅ Yes	❌ No
First biography timeline	✅ 15–60 years	❌ 130–200 years
Geography matches story	✅ Yes	❌ No
Non-follower confirmation	✅ Yes	❌ No
Early manuscript record	✅ Yes (NT papyri)	❌ Sparse and ambiguous

Conclusion: Jesus of Nazareth is historically far better supported than Muhammad. Suggesting otherwise is not only inaccurate — it’s a betrayal of historical method.

Footnotes / References:

Raymond Ibrahim, Defending the West, Islam section.
Julius Africanus (via Eusebius), referencing Thallus' lost history.
Origen, Contra Celsum (Book 2), referencing Phlegon.
Tacitus, Annals 15.44.
Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.3, 20.9.1.
Mara Bar-Serapion Letter (British Museum Syriac Manuscript Add. 14,658).
Lucian, The Death of Peregrinus.

Disclaimer:
This analysis critiques religious claims, not individuals. It aims to apply forensic standards, not theological ones. No doctrine, prophet, or belief system is immune to historical scrutiny. If a claim collapses under evidence, it deserves to.