Why ‘Muhammad Never Existed’ Is the Weakest Polemic Against Islam, Part 2

In Part 1, I discussed why I believe history shows that Muhammad — whatever one might believe about his status as a “prophet” — was a real man. Today, I promised to evaluate the arguments saying he never existed.

There’s only one problem: I don’t know any of those arguments. But then, I don’t really need to know them to dismiss them.

Why, you may ask? Because I do know one thing: Without hearing any of them, I already know none of them can, by their very nature, be conclusive; none of them can be incontrovertible, incontestable, or irrefutable.

And this is really the grand point I’d like to make here: There is nothing in the annals of premodern history — certainly when it comes to people and events that are fourteen centuries old, such as Muhammad and Islam — that can be proven or disproven. It’s simply impossible. Sure, one can make arguments, but arguments are not incontrovertible proof. And short of concrete, irrefutable proof, people will always believe whatever is most emotionally satisfying to them or fits their needs.

To be clear, I am not saying that the arguments against Muhammad’s existence are wrong; for all I know, they may be right. Rather, I am saying that they cannot be proven one way or another as pure, objective facts that must be acknowledged by any rational human being. There will always be room for another interpretation, for a counter claim. Why? Because it’s history — literally — and we can’t go back in time to prove what really did and didn’t happen.

Of Mecca and Muhammad

For example, let’s look at one of the main arguments against Muhammad’s existence, which many of the people telling me to consult the works of Dr. Jay Smith mention. It’s the claim that there are no early records or archaeological evidence for Mecca — even though Mecca is obviously pivotal for Muhammad’s existence. If there is no Mecca, there is no Muhammad.

My first reaction to this is the famous dictum, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” The fact that we don’t possess the evidence for something does not mean it never existed. What if Mecca was once on dozens of ancient maps, all of which are now — like most of history — lost? Is there proof that cannot be the case?

No. By nature, there is no such proof.

The opposite argument is also true: There are probably many civilizations and important people that we never even heard of. For example, can you imagine how different our understanding of the past would be, how utterly bizarre history might appear, if the Great Library of Alexandria and its world-changing contents hadn’t been torched 48 years before Christ’s birth?

At any rate, the argument against Mecca’s existence reminds me of the ancient city of Troy, (featuring Achilles, Hector, Helen, etc.). For centuries, all serious scholars and archaeologists maintained that Troy was purely mythological, that it never existed except as a make believe stage for Homer’s Iliad. Then, in the late 1800s — nearly 3,000 years after the recorded sacking of Troy — an amateur archaeologist, Heinrich Schliemann, found it in modern-day Turkey. This is a perfect example of how “Absence of evidence was never evidence of absence.”

History Is Messy

But just to show you how nebulous the discipline of history truly is: When I first heard about Schliemann’s discovery in college, all I thought was, How do we know what he found was Troy? How do we know it wasn’t another, perhaps wholly unknown or forgotten, civilization? Such is the messiness of history.

All this leads to my main point: why the Muhammad-never-existed claim is a very weak if not futile polemic against Islam.

It comes down to this: Because very little can be unequivocally proven or disproven in history, guess what? People (in this case, Muslims) will always embrace, and justifiably so, the version that best suits their needs (in this case, that Muhammad existed). It’s really as simple as that.

Want proof? Guess who else even more “scholars” have for approximately two centuries issuing academic book after book to “prove” never existed? Jesus Christ. Has the Christian world been rocked by that? Has Christianity died out? Have you ever heard of a single person who went from being a practicing, observant Christian to apostatizing only because they were convinced by academic arguments that Christ never existed?

Yeah, me neither.

By the way, and interestingly enough, my contention that people will always adopt the historical arguments that best suit their needs works both ways: If the prophet’s followers will simply shrug off the non-existence polemic, without bothering to look into it, those who dislike or are hostile to the prophet will jump on it.

For example, are you willing to examine and believe claims that Muhammad never existed because you are an objective seeker of truth? Or is it because you dislike Muhammad and the notion that he never existed is very satisfying on several levels?

The simple way to answer this question is by asking another: For example, if you’re a Christian, have you read and tried to grapple with all the many claims against Christ’s existence — which by nature should be of far greater consequence to you than claims about Muhammad?

I bet you haven’t. Indeed, I bet that, if you ever heard there were arguments against Christ’s existence, you dismissed them as products of bitter atheists and anti-Christians looking to undermine the Christian faith — arguments unworthy of your attention. You may even, as I am arguing now, have instinctively concluded that, whatever such arguments, none of them can be irrefutably proven, so why bother looking into them?

Equal Measures

If you thought any of that, I’m here to tell you that I agree. But I’m also here to tell you that, whatever the reason for you, as a Christian, being neither interested in nor rocked by claims that Jesus never existed, are the same for Muslims when it comes to Muhammad — except times ten.

Remember, whereas you may consider yourself an objective person who is open to evaluating evidence from any source, including non-Christian ones, Muslims see non-Muslims as the de facto enemy who will never cease trying to destroy Islam. The Koran itself warns Muslims that “Never will the Jews or Christians be pleased with you, until you follow their faith” (2:120).

So when Christians and Jews come along and say, “Hey, you dumb Muslims, guess what? Your prophet never even existed!” how rocked do you think Muslims are?

As an avid and longtime observer of Arabic and Islamic media, I can tell you that responses to the Muhammad-is-a-myth claim veer between indifference and mockery: Muslims either ignore or laugh at it — the very same way Christians ignore or laugh at the Jesus-never-existed claim.

Again, you may say, “But if Muslims only took the time to look into the arguments for Muhammad’s nonexistence, surely they would come around!” — to which again I respond, “So why haven’t you, a Christian, read and seriously evaluated the arguments against Christ’s existence?” Your rationale is theirs. And so we go in circles.

A Matter of Faith

By the way, my argument that people will always opt for the historical interpretation that best suits their needs hasn’t even begun to factor in the powerful “faith” element involved in questions about religion or religious figures. If secular people will adopt the historical interpretation that is most emotionally satisfying, religious people will do so on an even more extreme level.

That’s because, for religious folk, questions about the past are further tied up with their faith. Just as Christian belief in Jesus is ultimately rooted in faith — not this or that historical record or artifact — so too is Muslim belief in Muhammad. So it’s a double whammy!

That’s why, and with all due respect, I marvel at anyone who thinks the claim that Muhammad never existed is revolutionary and somehow going to rock the Muslim world to its core. It hasn’t, and it won’t. Trust me.

Whoever is interested in effectively opposing Islam must do so at its own game. That’s the way it’s always been and always will be. You must embrace the Muslim paradigm and accept Islam’s first premise: that Islam’s scriptures do indeed contain the teachings of Muhammad and his god — but then you must show how such teachings contradict reason, logic, decency, morality, and, most of all, godliness.

Such is the original approach — the only tried and true polemic — that has from the first century after Muhammad’s death till now been challenging and convincing Muslims that theirs is a false prophet.

On the other hand, merely insisting that he never existed may be personally satisfying, but it’s also a way of putting yourself out of the debate altogether — rendering yourself totally moot.

Raymond Ibrahim, author of Defenders of the West and Sword and Scimitar, is the Distinguished Senior Shillman Fellow at the Gatestone Institute and the Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum.