“Muhammad” as a Title for Jesus?

Azahari Hassim

📋 “Muhammad” as a Title for Jesus?

A Full Explanation of Jay Smith’s Argument

Introduction

In recent years, Christian polemicist and historian Jay Smith—a prominent figure in London’s Hyde Park debates—has advanced a controversial re-reading of early Islamic origins. One of his most provocative claims is that the term “Muhammad” (MHMD), as it appears in early Arabic inscriptions and coinage, did not originally refer to a historical Arabian prophet, but rather functioned as a title for Jesus used by Syriac-speaking Christian communities in the 6th–7th centuries.
This reinterpretation forms part of Smith’s broader revisionist model that challenges the traditional narrative of Islam’s emergence in 7th-century Arabia.

This article explains Smith’s reasoning, the linguistic and historical evidence he proposes, and the Christian tradition he believes produced this title.

⸻

1. Syriac Christianity as the Alleged Source of “Muhammad”

According to Jay Smith, the key to understanding the early appearances of the name MHMD is the influence of Syriac-speaking Christian sects.
He argues that:

1.1. Syriac Christians used titles rather than personal names in liturgical texts

Smith points out that Syriac hymnography and homilies frequently use descriptive epithets for Jesus, including:

• Mshīḥā — “the Messiah”
• Mār(y)a — “the Lord”
• Raḥmānā — “the Merciful”
• Mḥīmmādā / Mḥamdā — “the Praised One”

This last term—rooted in the Semitic tri-consonantal cluster ḥ-m-d (to praise, to commend)—becomes the central pillar of his argument.

1.2. “Mḥmd” was allegedly a Christological title

Smith contends that in some Syriac poetic and liturgical traditions, Jesus was poetically described as mḥmd—“the praised one.”
Thus, the MHMD appearing in early inscriptions could, in his view, reasonably refer to Jesus Christ, not to a human founder of Islam.

1.3. Syriac Christians shaped early Arab religious vocabulary

Smith claims that Arab tribes living in the Levant, northern Arabia, and Mesopotamia—before Islam—were heavily influenced by:

• Syriac Orthodox (Jacobite) Christians
• Nestorian Christians
• Aramaic-speaking monastics and missionaries

Thus, the earliest Arabic religious inscriptions may reflect Christian theological language, not Islamic identity.

⸻

2. Early Coins and Inscriptions: Reading MHMD as Jesus

Jay Smith frequently cites 7th-century archaeological data—coins, inscriptions, and manuscripts—to support his claim.

2.1. The earliest MHMD references do not resemble later Islamic theology

On coins from the late 7th century (especially during the reign of Abd al-Malik), the inscription:

• MHMD appears alongside Christian symbols, such as
• a cross
• Christological phrases

According to Smith, this demonstrates the following:

The earliest Muslims were still using Christian iconography and language; therefore, “Muhammad” must have been a title within this Christianized framework.

2.2. The absence of prophetic biography

Smith argues that inscriptions mentioning MHMD contain no indication of:

• a birthplace in Mecca
• a prophetic mission
• a Quran
• companions
• battles
• hadith
• prophetic sayings

Thus, he concludes that MHMD was not originally a historical prophet, but a venerated figure already known in Christian tradition.

2.3. MHMD in the Dome of the Rock inscription (691 CE)

The Dome of the Rock contains the phrase:

• “Muhammad is the servant of God and His Messenger.”

Smith argues that this phrase resembles Christian formulations about Jesus—particularly the biblical phrase “Jesus, the servant of God”—and therefore could originally have signified Jesus, before being reinterpreted as a reference to an Arabian prophet.

This is a highly contested claim, but central to his reasoning.

⸻

3. Which Christian Tradition Produced This Title?

Jay Smith’s position is clear:

He attributes the “Muhammad-as-Title-for-Jesus” interpretation to:

3.1. Syriac Orthodox (Jacobite) Christianity

• Based in Syria and Mesopotamia
• Known for poetic, honorific titles for Christ
• Used Semitic linguistic roots like ḥ-m-d in Christological praise

3.2. Other Eastern Christian sects

Smith sometimes expands this to:

• Nestorian Arabs
• Syriac-speaking monastic communities
• Arabized Christian tribes

These groups, he argues, created an environment in which a title such as “the praised one” (mḥmd) could easily be applied to Jesus.

⸻

4. How, According to Smith, the Title Became a Personal Name

Jay Smith argues that early Arab rulers—particularly those forging a new political-religious identity after the fall of Byzantine influence—misappropriated or reinterpreted the Syriac epithet.

4.1. A title becomes a name

He claims that as Arabic replaced Syriac as the dominant liturgical and administrative language, the term:
• mḥmd → “Muhammad”

shifted from a title meaning “praised one”
to a personal name belonging to a newly constructed prophet-figure.

4.2. The creation of a prophetic biography

Smith asserts that the sīrah (prophetic biography) and hadith literature—compiled much later—retroactively built a life story around this name, transforming a Christological epithet into a new religious founder.

⸻

5. Scholarly Response

Most historians, linguists, and Islamic scholars—both Western and Muslim—reject Smith’s view, arguing that:

• “Muhammad” behaves grammatically as a proper name in early Arabic sentences
• Coins and inscriptions reflect a transitional Islamic theology, not Christian language
• Syriac texts using the root ḥ-m-d do not equate this term with a personal identity for Jesus
• Smith’s method selectively reads evidence

Nonetheless, his theory remains influential in certain polemical circles and continues to generate debate online.

⸻

Conclusion

Jay Smith’s argument that “Muhammad” was originally a title for Jesus arises from his broader revisionist project that reexamines Islam’s earliest decades. He locates this idea in Syriac-speaking Christian traditions, particularly Jacobite Christianity, which he suggests used poetic praise terms such as mḥmd for Jesus.
From this foundation, he argues that early Arab rulers and later Islamic writers misinterpreted and transformed this epithet into the personal name “Muhammad,” eventually constructing a prophetic biography around it.

Though not supported by mainstream scholarship, Smith’s thesis represents a distinctive attempt to reinterpret early Islamic materials through the lens of late antique Syriac Christianity.

✨ Messianic Expectations and Prophethood: A Qur’anic Perspective on Muhammad and the Jews ✨

The reasoning behind the claim that the Quran indirectly refers to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as the awaited Jewish Messiah—despite the fact that the Quran never explicitly calls him “the Messiah”—relies on a combination of historical context 🏺, Qur’anic exegesis (tafsir) 📖, and theological interpretation 🧠.

Let’s break this down carefully:

⸻

1️⃣ Understanding the Term “Messiah” in Islam vs. Judaism

• ✡️ In Judaism, the “Messiah” (Mashiach) is traditionally understood as a future leader from the line of David, who will restore Israel, defeat its enemies ⚔️, and establish God’s kingdom on earth 👑.
• ☪️ In Islam, the title “al-Masih” (the Messiah) is explicitly used in the Quran only for Jesus (‘Isa) (e.g., Qur’an 3:45, 4:157, 5:75), not Muhammad ﷺ.
• 📌 So, by terminology alone, Muhammad ﷺ is not called “the Messiah” in the Quran.

⸻

2️⃣ Surah 2:89 – Context and Interpretation

“And when there came to them a Book from Allah confirming what was with them—although before they used to pray for victory over the disbelievers—but when there came to them that which they recognized, they disbelieved in it…”
(Qur’an 2:89)

🕰️ Historical Background

• 🏘️ This verse refers to the Jewish tribes in Medina (e.g., Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir).
• 📜 Prior to Muhammad’s arrival, these tribes were awaiting a redeemer figure—a prophet or messianic leader—foretold in their scriptures.
• 🙏 They used to pray for victory over the pagan Arabs, invoking the aid of this coming prophet.
• ❌ However, when Muhammad ﷺ arrived—not from among the Israelites, but as an Arab—they rejected him, even though, as the Quran says, “they recognized him.”

🧩 Interpretation

• 📖 Muslim scholars interpret this as meaning the Jews had knowledge from their scriptures (especially the Torah and oral traditions) of a coming prophet.
• 🌟 This expected figure—a prophet or redeemer who would fulfill a divine mission—bears some resemblance to the Jewish concept of the Messiah.
• 🔍 Therefore, while Muhammad ﷺ does not bear the title “Messiah”, some view him as functionally fulfilling aspects of that role, especially in light of certain messianic expectations.

⸻

3️⃣ The Dead Sea Scrolls and Multiple Messianic Expectations

📜 Significantly, the Dead Sea Scrolls—a collection of Jewish texts from the Second Temple period discovered near Qumran—reveal that some Jewish sects expected not one, but multiple messianic figures:

• 👑 A royal Messiah (a kingly descendant of David),
• 🕯️ A priestly Messiah (often linked to the line of Aaron or the Zadokite priesthood),
• 📘 And a prophetic Messiah (or “Messianic Prophet”), sometimes connected with a figure like Moses or a new prophet sent by God.

This tripartite messianic expectation shows that not all Jews expected only a Davidic king. Some anticipated a prophet—possibly like Deuteronomy 18:18’s “Prophet like Moses.”

🧭 This prophetic figure matches more closely with Muhammad’s role in Islam: a law-bringer, warner, and guide, speaking God’s words as a final messenger. Thus, from the viewpoint of Muslim interpreters, Muhammad ﷺ may correspond to the “Messianic Prophet” foreseen in certain Jewish traditions, especially in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

⸻

4️⃣ Why Muhammad Is Not Called “The Messiah” in the Quran

• 🕊️ The Quran exclusively applies the title “al-Masih” to Jesus (‘Isa).
• ⏳ From the Islamic perspective, Jesus is the Messiah sent to the Children of Israel and will return at the end of time.
• 🌍 Muhammad ﷺ, on the other hand, is referred to as the “Seal of the Prophets” (Qur’an 33:40)—the final messenger to all of humanity, not a Messiah figure in title.

⸻

5️⃣ So Why the Indirect Connection?

Those who argue that Surah 2:89 suggests Muhammad ﷺ fulfilled messianic expectations draw on the following points:

• ⏰ The Jews were awaiting a promised figure—a prophet or redeemer described in their scriptures.
• 👁️ The verse claims they “recognized him”, suggesting that Muhammad ﷺ matched certain known characteristics.
• 🧬 Ethnic or tribal bias (he being Arab, not Israelite) led to his rejection.
• 🔄 Therefore, Muhammad ﷺ functionally fulfilled one type of Jewish messianic expectation, especially that of the prophetic Messiah as seen in some sectarian texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

⸻

6️⃣ Classical and Modern Tafsir Views

• 📚 Ibn Kathir, Al-Tabari, and other classical commentators explain Surah 2:89 as referring to Jewish scriptural knowledge of a coming prophet.
• 📖 Some link this to Deuteronomy 18:18, where God promises to raise a prophet like Moses from among the “brethren” of the Israelites.
• 🧠 While these interpretations emphasize Muhammad ﷺ as a foretold prophet, they do not typically identify him as the Messiah.

⸻

🏁 Conclusion

• ❌ The Quran does not call Muhammad ﷺ the Messiah.
• ☪️ In Islamic theology, the Messiah is Jesus (‘Isa).
• 📜 However, Surah 2:89 indicates that the Jews had prior knowledge of a coming prophet—and Muhammad ﷺ fulfilled that expectation.
• 🧩 The Dead Sea Scrolls’ vision of multiple messianic figures, including a prophetic Messiah, helps explain how Muhammad ﷺ could be seen as fulfilling part of Jewish messianic hope—though not in title.
• 🔎 Hence, the claim that the Quran “indirectly refers” to Muhammad ﷺ as a messianic figure is not a matter of explicit wording, but of historical and interpretive convergence.

Search

Search