Exposing Islam

Was Muhammad a Real Prophet or a Political Puppet?

Imagine a prophet so powerful that his words shape laws, wars, and even how people eat or dress—but no one mentions his detailed life for over a century after he dies. That’s the puzzle of Muhammad, the Islamic prophet (sinless, guided by angel Gabriel, Qur’an’s deliverer, Mecca’s sanctifier). A bold idea says he wasn’t a historical figure with all those traits, but a name used by rulers, especially the Abbasid dynasty (750–1258 CE), to justify their power. They turned Muhammad into a puppet, speaking their laws and policies as if they came from him. If true, this breaks Islam’s foundation—Qur’an, Mecca, Muhammad—like a wobbly stool collapsing. Let’s check the evidence, using only non-Islamic records from 600–800 CE, to see if Muhammad was real or a political invention.

Who Was Supposed to Be Muhammad?

Islamic tradition paints Muhammad as:

God’s Final Prophet: Guided by Gabriel to share the last message (Qur’an 33:40, 2:97).
Perfect Example: Flawless, a model for all (33:21).
Qur’an’s Source: Brought a divine book (15:9).
Mecca’s Leader: Set up its holy Kaaba and rituals (2:125–129).
Life Guide: His sayings (hadiths) ruled laws, wars, and daily habits.

The claim says this Muhammad—let’s call him “A”—wasn’t detailed in early records. Instead, rulers later used his name to back their own rules, making him a figurehead for their empire.

Step 1: Where’s Muhammad Before 750 CE?

If Muhammad was such a big deal, we’d expect people back then—Greeks, Persians, or locals—to write about him, his sayings, or his life. What do we find?

No Stories: A Greek text from 634 CE mentions an Arab “prophet” preaching one God, but no name “Muhammad,” no perfect character, no holy book, no Mecca. An Armenian history (660 CE) names “Mahmet,” a preacher, but skips any detailed life, laws, or rituals.
No Sayings: No one quotes Muhammad’s words (hadiths) about prayers, taxes, or anything else.
No Rituals: No records show him setting rules for worship or daily life.
Bare Qur’an: Early Qur’an fragments (like Sana’a, 650–700 CE) are just basic letters—no marks to clarify words, no stories of Muhammad’s deeds.
Dome of the Rock (691 CE): Says “Muhammad is the messenger,” but nothing about his life or miracles.

This quietness is odd. A prophet reshaping Arabia should leave a mark—yet there’s nothing solid before 750 CE.

Step 2: Muhammad Becomes a Political Star

After 750 CE, when the Abbasids take over, Muhammad’s name starts popping up more—but as a tool for rulers:

Before 750 CE, coins (pre-692 CE) had crosses, not prophets. By 692–696 CE, they say “Muhammad is the messenger,” but don’t detail his life.
After 750 CE, a Greek historian (810 CE) calls “Mahomet” an Arab leader, but shares no sayings or laws tied to him.
No outsider mentions stories of Muhammad justifying rulers, like “obey the caliph” or “rule stays with one tribe.”

The idea is that Abbasids spread stories (hadiths) saying Muhammad backed their power—making it sinful to disagree. Early records don’t show this, suggesting it’s a later trick.

Step 3: Laws in Muhammad’s Name

Islam’s laws (Sharia) cover taxes, marriage, and punishments, supposedly from Muhammad. But:

Before 750 CE, no Greek, Armenian, or coin mentions laws tied to Muhammad—no taxes, no marriage rules.
After 750 CE, outsiders (like that 810 CE historian) still don’t describe a legal system called Sharia.
No carvings or artifacts show Muhammad’s laws early on.

This makes it seem like rulers later said, “Muhammad wanted this tax,” to make their rules sound holy, even if they made them up.

Step 4: Shutting Down Free Thinkers

Some folks, like the Mu’tazilites, wanted to use reason for laws, not just Muhammad’s supposed words. The claim says Abbasids stopped them to keep Muhammad’s name supreme:

Before 750 CE, no records mention these thinkers or fights over ideas.
After 750 CE, a few sources hint at religious disputes, but don’t name groups like Mu’tazilites clearly.
Without strong proof, it’s possible Abbasids pushed one story—Muhammad’s—and called others wrong, but we can’t say for sure.

This part’s fuzzy, but it fits the idea of controlling beliefs.

Step 5: Fake Chains of Stories

To make Muhammad’s sayings (hadiths) trustworthy, later scholars said they came through a chain—like “Ali heard Muhammad say this.” The claim calls this a hoax:

Before 750 CE, no Greek or Armenian text mentions chains or hadiths.
After 750 CE, outsiders don’t talk about these chains either.
No early artifact lists a chain back to Muhammad.

If these chains were real, we’d see them early. Their absence suggests they were made up to sell new stories as old truths.

Step 6: Muhammad as the Ultimate Guide

By the 800s, Islamic tradition says Muhammad’s life set rules for everything—toilets, business, war. But:

Before 750 CE, no one describes Muhammad’s habits or rules for daily life.
The 634 CE Greek text and 660 CE Armenian history say nothing about him as a lifestyle model.
Even coins and the Dome (691 CE) skip personal details.

This total control—Muhammad ruling every choice—looks like a later invention to lock people into one way of living, no questions asked.

Step 7: Missing Early, Everywhere Later

The contrast is clear:

Early (600–750 CE): No life story, no rituals, no Muhammad as judge or king in Greek, Armenian, or local records.
Later (post-750 CE): Islamic stories (too late to use here) paint Muhammad as everything—leader, lawmaker, role model.

This gap screams that Muhammad’s big role was built by rulers, not remembered from his time.

The Big Picture: A Puppet Prophet?

The evidence—or lack of it—backs the claim. Before 750 CE, there’s no trace of Muhammad as a sinless prophet ruling laws, wars, or daily life. No hadiths, no life story, no rituals show up in Greek texts, coins, or carvings. After 750 CE, his name grows, but still vague in outsider records, suggesting rulers like the Abbasids used “Muhammad” to push their own rules. They made him a puppet, speaking their policies to make them sound divine.

That Stool Keeps Falling

Islam’s supposed to rest on three legs: Qur’an, Mecca, Muhammad. Earlier, we saw no early proof for Muhammad’s traits or Mecca’s holiness. Now, Muhammad’s role as a lawgiver looks like a later invention, and the Qur’an was too vague to guide alone. With no legs holding up—especially Muhammad as a historical prophet—the whole system crashes, just like the original claim said.

Why This Hooks You

This isn’t about knocking faith—it’s about digging for truth. If rulers shaped Muhammad’s story to control people, it shows how power can twist history. It’s like finding out a hero was half-made-up to serve a king’s agenda—fascinating and a bit wild.