Muhammad is the most important human figure for the world’s approximately two billion Muslims.1 They regard him as the final prophet sent by their deity, Allah, to proclaim truth and provide guidance to all of humankind. According to Islamic teaching, Allah revealed his word through many prophets and messengers throughout history—but the greatest and ultimate revelation came through Muhammad, whose message surpasses and supersedes all earlier ones. Ultimately, Islam rests on two foundational pillars: Allah’s word and Allah’s messenger—the Quran and Muhammad, respectively. Muslims understand Allah’s word as perfectly embodied in the life of Allah’s final prophet; to comprehend the message, observe the man who delivered it. Muhammad, for Muslims, is at once the vessel of divine revelation and the exemplary model of its application. He is, in every sense, central to the faith.
1. Pew Research Center, “Muslim Population Change,” June 9, 2025.
Despite his towering importance, however, most Muslims possess only a conventional knowledge of his life. Many details remain hazy or unknown even to the devout. For non-Muslims, the gap is wider still. So where can people turn to learn more about Muhammad?
Reliable resources are surprisingly few. The Quran itself mentions Muhammad by name only four times and provides no biographical detail (Q 3:144; 33:40; 47:2; 48:29). The Muslim sources that do offer detail—recording Muhammad’s deeds, sayings, and character—contain apparent discrepancies and contradictions, and all were composed at least two centuries after his presumed death.
So, what do we actually know? Who was Muhammad to his followers and to his contemporaries? Did he truly exist? What did he teach? This essay examines these questions by distinguishing three figures: the Muhammad of tradition, the Muhammad of legend, and the Muhammad of history. After considering this, we’ll reflect on how Christians might wisely speak to Muslims about their leader.
The Muhammad of Tradition
According to Muslim tradition, Muhammad was born in Mecca around 570 and died in Medina in 632. Both cities are in modern-day Saudi Arabia. His father, Abdullah, died four months before his birth.
Tradition also surrounds his arrival with remarkable signs. His mother, Amina, reportedly experienced no labor pain. At the moment of his birth, a celestial light filled the room. A mansion in Persia—roughly a thousand miles away—shook violently and fourteen of its pillars collapsed. Even the sacred fire of Persia, said to have burned continuously for a millennium, was mysteriously extinguished.
These traditions were composed by Muslim scholars of the Abbasid caliphate, writing centuries after Muhammad’s lifetime. Their evident purpose was to present Islam’s prophet to the Christians and Jews living under Muslim rule in the expanding caliphate. The reasoning follows an implicit logic: if miraculous signs attended the births of Moses and Jesus, surely Muhammad’s advent warranted them as well. This argument, however, creates a tension within Islamic teaching itself—the Quran insists that the only miracle Muhammad ever performed was the Quran (Q 6:37; 11:12; 13:7; 28:48; 29:50–51).
In matters of character and vocation, tradition portrays Muhammad as a shepherd and trader known among the Meccans as “The Honest” and “The Trustworthy.” A wealthy widow named Khadija hired him, fell in love with him, and proposed marriage, despite being fifteen years his senior. Tradition also holds that Muhammad never participated in the polytheistic idol worship of his people. He inclined always toward the worship of one God, retreating regularly to a mountain cave on the outskirts of Mecca to pray and meditate.
When he was forty, tradition says, the angel Gabriel appeared to him and declared that Allah had chosen him as a prophet with a single, clarifying message: there is only one deity, Allah. This strict monotheism—the absolute oneness of the deity, with no plurality or partners—became the cornerstone of Islamic proclamation. After initial hesitation, Muhammad began preaching quietly among his relatives. When his monotheistic message became known, persecution followed. For thirteen years, he and his small band of followers endured harassment and suffering at the hands of Mecca’s powerful pagan establishment.
Eventually, Allah instructed Muhammad and his followers—a group of roughly thirty men—to emigrate northward to Medina, an oasis city where they could practice their faith without reprisal. In Medina, Muhammad’s fortunes changed dramatically. He grew in power, became a statesman and commander, and began launching military campaigns against three groups: Arab pagans in western Arabia, Jewish communities in and around Medina, and Christian tribes along the Byzantine frontier in Greater Syria. Muslim historians portray him as a highly successful military leader, guided and aided by Allah, who killed enemies, seized lands, claimed possessions, and extended the reach of the new religion. This militarized portrait may seem jarring to modern sensibilities, but it is the portrait Muslim historians themselves advanced—apparently intent on depicting a prophet whose divine favor was demonstrated through earthly conquest and accumulated power.
In one of these campaigns, tradition reports, a Jewish woman whose father, brother, and uncle Muhammad had killed invited him to share a meal. Surprisingly he agreed. She poisoned the lamb she served him. Though he survived the immediate effects, Muslim sources identify this poisoning as the ultimate cause of his death—the toxin, they claim, lingered in his blood for four years before it finally claimed his life, thus allowing him to be numbered among the martyrs.
This is the traditional Muhammad—the figure who lives in the minds of religiously informed Muslims who have studied the classical sources. For this group, the details matter, and they treasure what the tradition preserves.
The Muhammad of Legend
While the traditional Muhammad derives from ancient Islamic texts—however late and however contested—the legendary Muhammad is born of popular imagination and folk piety. This is the Muhammad held by many nominal or cultural Muslims: an idealized figure who is superlative in every conceivable quality. For these Muslims, Islam is often an inherited identity rather than a studied conviction. They are Muslim because they were born into it, not because they have engaged the primary sources.
The legendary Muhammad is a mosaic assembled from three overlapping layers: selective ideas drawn from the Quran, widely circulated oral traditions, and a generous infusion of mystical and mythological elements. He is, in this portrait, the finest human being who ever lived. He lives still; he hears prayers; he visits homes; he heals the sick. Some venerate him to the point of worship, attributing to him powers that, strictly speaking, Islamic theology reserves for Allah alone. Many more educated Muslims—those who know the traditional sources—consider many elements of this popular Muhammad to be heretical and even blasphemous. Culturally, this legendary Muhammad must love dogs if a cultural Muslim loves dogs, despite the fact that Muhammad’s traditions explicitly state that he despised dogs.
From a critical standpoint, neither the traditional nor the legendary Muhammad necessarily represents the historical man. The legendary Muhammad clearly dwells in the realm of folk devotion. The traditional Muhammad, for his part, originates from sources composed centuries after the events they describe and bears the marks of medieval authors who were as much constructing an image as recording a reality. Muslim historians clearly did not record history—they authored it. So that leaves us with the Muhammad of history, to which we now turn.
The Muhammad of History
Did a man named Muhammad actually live in seventh-century Arabia and preach a religious message? Yes—all reasonable evidence points in that direction. We may call him the historical Muhammad. We can learn about him not from Muslim sources which were written centuries after the events they describe, but from independent, non-Muslim accounts—written by contemporaries or near-contemporaries who lived near Arabia and were aware of him. Most of these outside observers were Christians, and most of them described him unfavorably.
2. Robert G. Hoyland, “The Earliest Christian Writings on Muḥammad: An Appraisal,” in The Biography of Muḥammad: The Issue of Sources, ed. Harald Motzki (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 276–295.
3. For more details and examples than those mentioned here, see my book, Ayman S. Ibrahim, Concise Guide to the Life of Muhammad (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2022), 35–41, 109–15; also Ayman S. Ibrahim, Concise Guide to the Quran (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020), 17–20.
4. Robert G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam (Princeton, NJ: Darwin, 1997), 55. Hoyland’s book, a collection of non-Muslim primary sources written between 620 and 780 in the Middle East, is of great importance. He translated these sources into English from their original languages, which include Greek, Armenian, Latin, Coptic, and others. Undoubtedly, this time period is significant to our understanding of Islam’s emergence.
5. Hoyland, Seeing Islam, 55.
6. See Stephen J. Shoemaker, The Death of a Prophet: The End of Muhammad’s Life and the Beginnings of Islam (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 1–17, see especially 2–3.
7. Hoyland, Seeing Islam, 120.
Some of these non-Muslims depicted Muhammad as a preacher without giving any specifics about his message; others spoke of him as a trader, a shepherd, a warlord who initiated fights, a conquering king, a lawgiver, or a false prophet.2 In particular, Christians who resided near Arabia—some of them eyewitnesses of Muhammad—attempted to understand who the man really was; thus, by relying on their testimonies, we may reconstruct a better picture of the presumed prophet of Islam.3
A seventh-century Greek document known as the Doctrina Jacobi nuper Baptizati refers to “the prophet who has appeared with the [Arabs],” identifying him critically: “He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword.”4 Scholars date this text to July 634.5 If Muhammad died in 632, as his traditions claim, this reference was written a mere two years later. If, as some historians argue, his death should be placed closer to 634–635, the chronological proximity is even more striking.6
While the Doctrina Jacobi does not specifically name Muhammad, a Syriac document from the same year (634) does. Scholars consider it the earliest explicit non-Muslim reference to Muhammad by name. Written by a Syriac priest named Thomas the Presbyter and dated precisely to Friday, February 4, 634, it records: “There was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muḥammad. . . . The Romans fled. . . . Some 4,000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews, and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region.”7 Here, a priest in what is modern-day Syria was aware of a man named Muhammad who commanded Arab warriors and unleashed them on villages. The account lends credibility to the Greek source: both are dated to 634, both come from different geographic regions, and both describe the same phenomenon—an armed leader appearing among the Arabs.
Sophronius, the patriarch of Jerusalem from 634 to 638, adds further testimony. In 636 or 637, he described the Arabs’ campaigns of destruction across Palestine—raiding cities, burning villages, setting churches on fire, and desecrating monasteries.8 For Sophronius, these warriors were “the vengeful and God-hating” Arabs “who insult the cross, Jesus and the name of God, and whose leader is the devil.”9 For Sophronius and some of his Christian contemporaries, the warriors had a leader—equated to the devil—who led God-hating Arabs to attack Christians and insult their God and Jesus. Though he does not name Muhammad in these passages, a Syriac source from 637 does: “Arab troops decisively defeated Byzantine forces,” it reports, and “many villages were destroyed through the killing by [the Arabs of] Muḥammad.”10
8. Hoyland, Seeing Islam, 72–73.
9. Hoyland, Seeing Islam, 72–73.
10. Michael Philip Penn, When Christians First Met Muslims: A Sourcebook of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2015), 22–24. See also Hoyland, Seeing Islam, 116–17.
Taken together, these contemporary non-Muslim sources allow us to sketch a historically grounded portrait of Muhammad. He was a real man in seventh-century Arabia. He led Arab military forces. He attacked Christian communities and others. He proclaimed a message that his Christian contemporaries understood as hostile to God, to Jesus, and to the cross. These sources have the advantage of chronological proximity; their weakness is their brevity. Muslim sources, by contrast, are voluminous and detailed, but they are late and freighted with theological interest.
The Prophet and the Book
In the end, there are three Muhammads: the traditional, the legendary, and the historical. In practice, everyday Muslims make no such distinction. For them, there is only one Muhammad—beloved, revered, and beyond question. He is Allah’s final prophet and the deliverer of the Quran, which Muslims hold to be Allah’s perfectly preserved word, uncorrupted—unlike, they maintain, the Jewish and Christian scriptures.
This belief has practical consequences worth understanding. Muslims do not think of Muhammad as the author of the Quran; he was its recipient. Allah dictated his words to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel, producing the Quran. Out of this conviction flows a deep and pervasive reverence: Muslims commonly kiss the Quran and touch it to their foreheads; they never place it on the floor. Whenever Muhammad’s name is spoken, Muslims add the phrase “peace be upon him” as an expression of honor. These two foundations—the Book and the Prophet—are treated as essentially sacred and beyond critique.
Muslims also hold that Muhammad, as Allah’s final messenger, was sinless and incapable of error. This belief in prophetic infallibility is why many Muslims are genuinely scandalized by the Jewish and Christian teaching that David committed adultery. For Muslims, prophets simply do not sin. It follows, then, that subjecting Muhammad to critical scrutiny is—for most Muslims—not merely offensive but theologically incoherent. He proclaimed a perfect message and lived it perfectly. To question this is not scholarship; it is blasphemy. Throughout history, those who have dared to raise such questions have faced serious consequences.
Nevertheless, Christians have engaged Muslims on exactly these questions since the earliest days of Islam. Christian thinkers—sometimes in the presence of powerful Muslim rulers—questioned Muhammad’s character, his claims, and his teaching.11 This engagement has never fully ceased.
11. See Ayman S. Ibrahim and Clint Hackenburg, In Search of the True Religion: Monk Jurjī and Muslim Jurists Debating Faith and Practice (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2022).
Three Ways to Engage Muslims
Muslims are present in our cities and neighborhoods in growing numbers, and the opportunity for gospel witness is real. Even the sensitive subject of Muhammad is not off-limits—it simply requires wisdom. Muslims today are questioning their faith at an unprecedented rate, in part because information once accessible only to specialists is now available to anyone with a smartphone. Here are three principles to guide your conversations.
First, do the work of learning. The more you know about Muhammad and the Quran, the more effective and credible you will be in conversation. Ignorance of basics is a significant handicap. Study Muhammad and his message through reliable Christian resources. This will equip you to ask good questions and give thoughtful answers as you share the gospel.12
12. On Muslim evangelism, see A.S. Ibrahim, Reaching Your Muslim Neighbor with the Gospel (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022).
Second, love Muslims, but do not feel obligated to honor their prophet. Every Muslim is a human being made in the image of God and worthy of genuine love and respect. That said, no Christian is required to respect Islam as an ideology, or to revere Muhammad, particularly given that his life and teachings directly contradict Christian truth. You need not use the traditional honorific title after his name, nor adopt any posture of religious deference toward him, in order to build a meaningful relationship with a Muslim. Simply treat Muslims with dignity and warmth—and do not be intimidated. Christians have substantive, historically grounded answers and should speak with confidence. Muslims, in general, respect directness and assurance.
Third, be strategic about when you raise Muhammad. Especially early in a relationship, speak of him simply as “your prophet” without judgment. In fact, in the early stages of a friendship, it is often wiser to focus on Christ rather than on Muhammad at all. If a Muslim asks your opinion of Muhammad, a gracious and honest reply might be: “To be honest, my friend, what matters most to me is not what I think of Muhammad—it’s what I know of Christ. And I want you to see his love and his offer of salvation.” If pressed further, you might say: “I have read quite a bit about Muhammad because I know how important he is to you, and you are important to me. I respect you. But I do not believe in him as you do—if I did, I would be a Muslim.” As a friendship deepens, the time will come for more direct and searching questions.
Our ultimate goal in these conversations is not to dismantle Muhammad, but to exalt Christ. Speak of Jesus. Open the Bible. Muslims are our neighbors—nearer than we sometimes realize—and the gospel of hope is exactly what they need.
