Muhammad in the Qur’an: Textual, Linguistic, and Historical Perspectives

​​

This essay examines the figure of Muḥammad in the Qur’an through a critical, text-historical, and linguistic lens.

It integrates archaeological, manuscript, and philological evidence to evaluate the identity and role of “Muḥammad” (مُحَمَّد) and its cognate Aḥmad (أَحْمَد) within the Qur’anic corpus. Through comparison with early Islamic inscriptions, non-Islamic sources, and the literary structure of the Qur’an itself, it explores the fact that “Muḥammad” originated as an epithet rather than a personal name and assesses whether the term may have originally referred to Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ).

The analysis further considers how the distinction between “name” and “title” functions within the Qur’anic address formulae and what this reveals about the historical emergence of the Islamic Prophet in later tradition.

 

I. Introduction

The Qur’an, as the earliest and most authoritative Islamic text, offers remarkably sparse personal information about the figure known as Muḥammad. Unlike the Torah’s Moses or the Gospels’ Jesus, the Qur’an provides no clear biography, lineage, geography, or contemporaneous context for its prophet.

This textual silence stands in sharp contrast to the detailed sīra and ḥadīth literature composed over a century later.

 

The central question, therefore, is not merely who Muḥammad was, but what the Qur’an meant by “Muḥammad.” Whether the term denoted a historical person, an honorific epithet, or a liturgical title remains debated among scholars of early Islam.

 

The following research synthesises linguistic analysis, textual-critical observation, and archaeological data to reconstruct the earliest discernible meaning of “Muḥammad” within the Qur’anic framework.

 

II. The Name and Its Occurrences

The personal name Muḥammad appears only four times in the Qur’an:

1. Āl ʿImrān (Quran: chapter 3, verse 144) – “Muḥammad is no more than a messenger; many were the messengers who passed away before him.”

2. Al-Aḥzāb (Quran: chapter 33, verse 40) – “Muḥammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of God and the Seal of the Prophets.”

3. Muḥammad (Quran: chapter 47, verse 2) – “…those who believe and do righteous deeds and believe in what has been sent down upon Muḥammad…”

4. Al-Fatḥ (Quran: chapter 48, verse 29) – “Muḥammad is the Messenger of God; and those who are with him are strong against the disbelievers…”

A fifth, related name—Aḥmad—appears in Al-Ṣaff (Quran: chapter 61, verse 6) in the mouth of Jesus:

 

“Jesus, son of Mary, said, ‘O Children of Israel, I am the Messenger of God to you, confirming the Torah before me and giving glad tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name will be Aḥmad.’”

Notably, all five instances occur in third-person reference. The Qur’an never addresses Muḥammad directly by name. Instead, when the divine voice speaks to him, it uses titles such as al-nabī (“the Prophet”) or al-rasūl (“the Messenger”), a distinction of major literary and theological importance.

 

III. Linguistic and Etymological Analysis

The term Muḥammad (مُحَمَّد) derives from the triliteral Arabic root ḥ-m-d, meaning “to praise” or “to glorify.” Grammatically, it is the passive participle, meaning “the one who is praised.”

 

Hence:

• Muḥammad = “the praised one” or “the one worthy of praise.”

• Aḥmad = “more praiseworthy” or “most praised.”

 

This form distinguishes Muḥammad from proper names of Semitic origin, such as Mūsā (Moses), ʿĪsā (Jesus), or Ibrāhīm (Abraham). The structure and semantics of Muḥammad suggest an epithet or title rather than a personal name.

 

Early Arab-Christian or Judeo-Christian communities may have employed it liturgically to describe a prophetic or messianic figure, particularly one understood as “the praised” servant of God.

 

In Syriac, a major liturgical and theological language of Late Antiquity, Jesus was known as M’shiḥa (Messiah), often glossed as “the Anointed” or “the Exalted.” This overlap of meaning between M’shiḥa and Muḥammad has led some scholars, such as Christoph Luxenberg and Fred Donner, to propose that “Muḥammad” in early usage denoted a title applied to Jesus, rather than to a new Arabian prophet.

 

IV. Literary Pattern: Name versus Title

An essential literary distinction emerges in the Qur’an:

• The name Muḥammad is always used in the third person, referring to the Prophet in a communal or declarative context.

• The titles “O Prophet” (yā ayyuhā al-nabī) and “O Messenger” (yā ayyuhā al-rasūl) occur in second-person address, when the divine voice communicates directly.

 

Occurrences of “O Prophet”

The vocative yā ayyuhā al-nabī appears ten times (e.g., Quran: 8:64–70; 9:73; 33:1, 28, 45, 59; 60:12; 65:1). These verses deliver personal and legal instructions, military exhortations, moral commands, and domestic regulations.

Yet, critically, none use the name Muḥammad in direct address.

 

Occurrences of “O Messenger”

The phrase "yā ayyuhā al-rasūl" appears in the Quran, in chapter 5, verses 41 and 67, commanding him to convey the revelation faithfully and confront disbelief. As with O Prophet, the term functions as a title of office, not a personal identifier.

 

This structural pattern, titles for divine address, and name for third-person reference, suggest deliberate compositional design.

The Qur’an reserves “Muḥammad” for communal acknowledgment, while divine exhortation operates through formal titles. Such literary restraint implies that the name may have carried honorific or liturgical significance distinct from biographical identity.

 

V. Absence of Biographical Context

A striking feature of the Qur’an is its lack of concrete biographical information about Muḥammad.

 

There are no references to:

• His birthplace (Mecca is never clearly identified as his home),

• His tribe (Quraysh appears only in a brief, unrelated surah),

• His family (aside from disputed references to “wives” or “household”),

• His physical description, or

• His chronological lifespan.

 

This is unlike the Hebrew Bible or the Gospels, which provide extensive narrative frameworks.

 

The Qur’anic Muḥammad is a rhetorical and theological figure, not a historical protagonist.

The Qur’an’s audience appears already familiar with a prophetic archetype, one who proclaims monotheism, faces rejection, and serves as a divine intermediary, but the text never situates him geographically or historically.

 

This absence may indicate either deliberate universalisation or that the earliest Qur’anic layers were composed within a community not yet centred on a distinct Arabian prophet.

 

VI. Early Historical and Archaeological Evidence

1. Inscriptions and Coins

Archaeological and numismatic data support the hypothesis of an evolving prophet concept:

• Coins from the first half-century after the supposed lifetime of Muḥammad (c. 630–690 CE) do not mention his name. Early Islamic coinage under the first caliphs bears only pious formulae like bism Allāh (“in the name of God”) or lā ilāha illā Allāh (“there is no god but God”).

• The earliest known inscription containing the name Muḥammad is on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem (691–692 CE), commissioned by Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik. This text pairs Muḥammad with ʿĪsā ibn Maryam (Jesus, son of Mary), depicting both as messengers and servants of God. The inscription thus reflects a transitional theology, blending Christian and emergent Islamic motifs.

2. Papyri and Textual References

Contemporary papyri from Egypt (c. 640–680 CE) occasionally mention “the Prophet” (al-nabī), but the language closely parallels Christian messianic rhetoric, referring to divine guidance and eschatological expectation rather than to a distinct founder of a new faith.

3. Non-Islamic Testimonies

Early external sources reinforce this ambiguity:

• The Doctrina Jacobi (634 CE) refers to a “prophet” arising among the Saracens, but identifies him vaguely and attributes to him Jewish messianic traits.

• Sebeos, an Armenian bishop (c. 660 CE), describes an Arab leader allied with Jews in an apocalyptic campaign to reclaim Jerusalem. This image aligns with a political-messianic warlord, not yet the spiritual Prophet of later Islam.

 

These testimonies, along with the absence of contemporary Meccan evidence, suggest that the Muḥammad figure of tradition was retrospectively historicised, a theological construct later expanded into biography for imperial and sectarian consolidation.

 

VII. Hypotheses on the Identity of “Muḥammad”

1. The Title Hypothesis: Muḥammad as an Epithet for Jesus

Several scholars argue that “Muḥammad” was originally a Christological epithet meaning “the praised one,” applied to Jesus within early Arabic-speaking Christian circles. Qur’an: chapter 61, verse 6, wherein Jesus foretells “Aḥmad,” strengthens this link. This verse parallels John: chapter 14, verse 16’s promise of the coming Paraclete, often interpreted in Syriac Christianity as the Holy Spirit or the glorified Christ himself.

Under this hypothesis, the earliest community to use the term Muḥammad may have been a Judaeo-Christian sect, venerating Jesus as the eschatological prophet and conqueror expected at the end of days.

Over time, as this movement spread among Arab tribes, Muḥammad may have been reinterpreted as a new prophetic figure distinct from Jesus.

2. The Warlord Hypothesis: Muḥammad as a Historical Leader

Alternative theories posit that “Muḥammad” refers to an actual military leader active in the 630s CE. Sources such as Sebeos and Theophanes describe an Arab or Ishmaelite leader guiding raids against Byzantium.

Yet, these accounts lack internal consistency and geographical specificity. No inscription, coin, or contemporary document clearly identifies such a man by the name Muḥammad or locates him in Mecca.

If such a leader existed, his identity may have later merged with the theological epithet “Muḥammad,” producing the composite figure found in Islamic tradition.

3. The Political-Construct Hypothesis: Muḥammad as a State Symbol

The first extensive biography of Muḥammad, Sīrat Rasūl Allāh by Ibn Isḥāq, was written more than a century after his death (mid-8th century CE). By that time, the Islamic empire required a unifying prophetic narrative to legitimate Umayyad and later Abbasid rule.

 

Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik’s promotion of the Prophet’s name in monumental inscriptions, Qur’anic canonisation, and coinage coincides with the formation of a centralised Islamic identity.

 

The figure of Muḥammad thus functioned as a foundational mythic symbol, anchoring theological authority and imperial cohesion.

 

VIII. Textual Integrity and Manuscript Witnesses

Early Qur’anic manuscripts, such as the Ṣanʿāʾ palimpsest, Codex Parisino-Petropolitanus, and the Birmingham fragments, contain the same occurrences of Muḥammad and Aḥmad found in today’s standard text. No variant readings omit or add these names.

This suggests that, regardless of evolving interpretation, the textual layer mentioning Muḥammad was already fixed by the time these manuscripts were produced (mid-7th to early 8th century CE).

 

The problem, therefore, lies not in textual corruption but in semantic evolution, the re-reading of an epithet as a historical proper name.

 

IX. Comparative Theological Implications

The Qur’anic pattern of titles parallels Biblical and Syriac convention. Prophets such as Moses and Elijah are frequently addressed by name (“O Moses…”), whereas Jesus, in liturgical texts, is addressed by titles, Lord, Son, Messiah. The Qur’an’s choice to address its central figure as “Prophet” and “Messenger” aligns more closely with Christological than prophetic traditions.

Furthermore, the absence of “O Muḥammad” and the presence of communal references (“Muḥammad is the Messenger of God”) mirrors early Christian creedal formulas such as “Jesus is the Christ.” These were confessional statements of faith, not narrative biographical remarks.

 

Thus, the Qur’an’s internal language may reflect a creedal-liturgy stage of early Islam, before the emergence of narrative biography. The Muḥammad of these texts functions as the praised, divinely appointed intermediary, a role equally compatible with a glorified Christ or a paradigmatic Prophet.

 

X. Historical Development of the Prophetic Persona

Between the mid-7th and early 8th centuries, evidence shows a progressive historicisation of the Prophet figure:

1. Qur’anic Layer (c. 650 CE): Muḥammad as epithet or anonymous prophet, lacking biographical markers.

2. Inscriptions (c. 690 CE): Muḥammad as declared Messenger of God alongside Jesus, indicating theological expansion.

3. Tradition-Building (c. 720–750 CE): Compilation of ḥadīth and sīra literature providing detailed life narrative, moral example, and Arabian setting.

4. Imperial Orthodoxy (after 750 CE): Full consolidation of the Meccan Prophet Muhammad as the founder of Islam, distinct from prior Abrahamic and Christian frameworks.

 

This trajectory mirrors the process of mythic crystallisation known from other religious traditions, where symbolic or composite figures become historicised to legitimise emerging institutions.

 

XI. Synthesis and Evaluation

When the linguistic, textual, and archaeological evidence are combined, several conclusions emerge:

1. The name Muḥammad likely originated as an epithet meaning “the praised one,” possibly applied to Jesus or a generic prophetic archetype.

2. The Qur’an’s absence of biography and consistent use of titles over names suggest a theological rather than personal portrayal.

3. The earliest external evidence for a distinct Prophet Muhammad appears decades after the Qur’an’s composition, coinciding with state formation under ʿAbd al-Malik.

4. The figure of Muhammad as an Arabian prophet may thus represent a later reinterpretation of an earlier, more fluid and Christologically-influenced concept of divine messengerhood.

 

XII. Conclusion

The Qur’anic Muḥammad is a figure of profound ambiguity. Linguistically, the name denotes “the praised one,” not inherently a proper noun. Textually, he is never addressed by name, only by title. Historically, no verifiable evidence identifies a Meccan prophet named Muḥammad before the late 7th century. Archaeologically, the earliest appearances of the name coincide with the political and theological consolidation of Islam under the Umayyads.

 

Taken together, these observations suggest that “Muḥammad” in the Qur’an may have originated as a title, perhaps even one applied to Yeshua (Jesus), later reinterpreted as the name of a distinct human prophet.

The Qur’anic text, early inscriptions, and later traditions collectively chart the transformation of this epithet into the foundational figure of Islam.

While definitive conclusions remain elusive, the evidence invites a re-examination of the early Islamic narrative, emphasising that the historical development of “the Prophet Muḥammad” was not a single event but a gradual theological construction, crystallised through text, inscription, and imperial ideology.

 

The Qur’an, in its earliest strata, preserves the trace of that transformation, from praised one to Prophet, from title to man.

​

Bibliography

Ahmed, Shahab. What Is Islam? The Importance of Being Islamic. Princeton University Press, 2015.

Crone, Patricia, and Michael Cook. Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. Cambridge University Press, 1977.

Crone, Patricia. Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam. Princeton University Press, 1987.

Donner, Fred M. Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam. Harvard University Press, 2010.

Donner, Fred M. “The Early Islamic Conquests.” Princeton Studies on the Near East. Princeton University Press, 1981.

Dye, Guillaume. “Muhammad and the Qur’an.” In The Qur’an in Context: Historical and Literary Investigations into the Qur’anic Milieu, edited by Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai, and Michael Marx, 351–395. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Gilliot, Claude. “Reconsidering the Authorship of the Qur’an: Is the Qur’an Partly the Work of a Jewish–Christian Sect?” Journal of Qur’anic Studies 12, no. 1 (2010): 1–45.

Hawting, G. R. The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History. Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Luxenberg, Christoph. Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache. Berlin: Das Arabische Buch, 2000.

Neuwirth, Angelika. The Qur’an and Late Antiquity: A Shared Heritage. Oxford University Press, 2019.

O’Leary, De Lacy. How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs. London: Routledge, 1949.

Puin, Gerd R. “Observations on Early Qur’an Manuscripts in Ṣanʿāʾ.” In The Qur’an as Text, edited by Stefan Wild, 107–111. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Reynolds, Gabriel Said, ed. The Qur’an in Its Historical Context. Routledge, 2008.

Sebeos. The History of Heraclius. Translated by R. W. Thomson. Liverpool University Press, 1999.

Sinai, Nicolai. The Qur’an: A Historical-Critical Introduction. Edinburgh University Press, 2017.

Shoemaker, Stephen J. The Death of a Prophet: The End of Muhammad’s Life and the Beginnings of Islam. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012.

Wansbrough, John. Qur’anic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation. Oxford University Press, 1977.

Wansbrough, John. The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History. Oxford University Press, 1978.