New Podcast Let Us Reason - A Christian/Muslim Dialogue · Al Fadi

LUR - 12-20-25 - EP4

·25 min·2 clips

The earliest manuscript of John of Nicaea's quote is from 1602—a thousand years too late to prove Muhammad existed.

This episode of Let Us Reason continues host Al Fadi and scholar Dr. J. Smith's series examining non-Islamic evidence for the Prophet Muhammad's existence. They analyze specific historical texts often cited to support the traditional 7th-century Islamic narrative. The discussion focuses on three primary sources: a reference attributed to the Coptic bishop John of Nicaea and a more substantial treatise by John of Damascus. Dr. Smith presents the case that the John of Nicaea quote is a much later fabrication, with its earliest extant manuscript dating from 1602. He argues the text's anachronistic use of terms like "Muslim" and "Islam" and its inclusion of full diacritical marks for "Muhammad" reveal it as a redaction. The analysis then shifts to John of Damascus's 8th-century work, "The Heresy of the Ishmaelites," which explicitly names a "false prophet" called Muhammad. Dr. Smith notes this text references specific teachings, such as the denial of Jesus's crucifixion and doctrines about Mary, which align with verses in the modern Quran. He highlights that John describes multiple separate writings, like the "Book of the Women" and "Book of the Camel of God," rather than a single, unified Quran. A surprising claim is that early Umayyad coins, like those from Caliph Mu'awiya in 663, used the term "M-H-M-D" (Mahmed) in a Christian Trinitarian context, referring to Jesus. Dr. Smith suggests the figure of Muhammad was initially part of a Christian heresy among "Ishmaelites" in the Levant, not a distinct religion originating in Arabia. He posits that the canonical Quran and the standardized biography of the Prophet were consolidated later, possibly during the Abbasid period. The tone is educational and debate-oriented, with the host playing devil's advocate to anticipate counter-arguments. Listeners interested in historical-critical approaches to early Islamic origins and comparative theology would find this episode compelling. Those committed to traditional Islamic historiography or seeking a faith-affirming narrative would likely find its arguments unconvincing.

As heard by us

A forceful apologetics debate over Muhammad, the Quran, and the historical frame around both.

This episode keeps its focus on whether the standard Islamic timeline for Muhammad can survive the historical and textual objections Al Fadi and Dr. J. Smith raise.

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

Press play for a text-driven challenge to Islam's origin story.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from New Podcast Let Us Reason - A Christian/Muslim Dialogue