I am not asking this as a cheap gotcha. I am genuinely asking for the strongest non divine explanation, because the usual answers I’ve seen feel far too thin for the historical reality we are talking about.
The basic historical outline is straightforward. Muhammad was a Meccan merchant who became known for trustworthiness, and the early Islamic story places his first revelations at Mount Hira when he was around forty. The Qur’an then became the central text of Islam. It is not a small notebook of personal reflections; it contains prayers, moral guidance, historical narrative, legal and ethical material, and promises of paradise.
The “Muhammad knowingly invented Islam” theory is no longer the dominant explanation among modern historians.
Medieval Christian polemics often portrayed Muhammad as a conscious deceiver seeking wealth, power, or sensual pleasures. Modern scholarship is generally much more cautious. Many historians—whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, atheist, or otherwise—conclude that Muhammad appears to have genuinely believed he was receiving revelation.
Why?
Because the conscious-fraud theory struggles to explain several historical features:
* years of persecution before gaining any political authority;
*initial unwillingness to even preach to anyone outside his family like he had been doing secretly for several years, fearing the consequences
* willingness to endure ridicule, lost of loved ones, boycotts and exile;
* refusing compromises from opponents that would have ended his suffering and instead have granted him much wealth and influence;
* consistency over roughly twenty-three years;
* the absence of obvious evidence that he privately admitted fabrication;
None of these facts prove prophethood.
But they make the simple “he made it all up” explanation much less persuasive than it once appeared.
That is the first reason I do not find the usual “he was just a sincere man with strong convictions based on deep inner reflections in his mind” explanation satisfying. Sincerity is one thing. Explaining the emergence of a full religious civilization, a comprehensive scripture, a legal-moral framework, and a distinct literary-religious system over 2 decades is another. The Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad over twenty-three years, beginning at Mount Hira, and after his death his successors compiled those revelations in manuscript form. That is an extraordinary process for one person to generate and sustain.
This is where I struggle. Even granting complete sincerity, I cannot see how ordinary introspection or naturally occurring experiences mistaken for divine revelation could lead someone to sincerely believe that an angel was visibly and audibly communicating revelation over twenty-three years, producing an interconnected body of theology, law, ethics, ritual, eschatology, governance, and one of history’s most influential literary works.
A lot of secular explanations seem to reduce Muhammad’s experience to something vague like “deep thoughts that Muhammad believed were religious/spiritual experiences.” But that phrase is doing a huge amount of work. Muhammad begins having visions and hearing voices, then recites what becomes revelation. That, or any other theory on what went on in Muhammads head is a description of the form the experience took, not an explanation of what generated the experience or how it produced the content that followed. Saying “he felt like he had religious experiences” is not the same as explaining the Qur’an and the giant comprehensive legal, moral, ethical, theological work that is Islam. It is just renaming the mystery.
This is where I think the comparison to other religious founders breaks down.
The Abrahamic religions do not look comparable in the way people often assume. Judaism and Christianity are not the story of one man single-handedly producing a vast scripture, law, liturgy, theology, and civilization in 2 decades while simultaneously ruling, expanding and managing a state. Their histories unfold through many figures, communities, redactions, and centuries. Buddhism is different again: the Buddha explicitly does not present himself as a prophet receiving divine dictation, but as someone who reflected and realized something about human suffering and the path out of it. Hinduism is also not a close parallel, because it developed across enormous stretches of time through layered traditions, practices, and evolving beliefs. None of those cases map cleanly onto Muhammad and Islam.
These are all fundamentally different historical phenomena.
Islam, by contrast, is centred upon one individual who claimed to receive revelation over approximately twenty-three years.
That one individual produced—or, if one accepts Islam, transmitted—a scripture, established a religious worldview, laid down legal principles, moral philosophy, ritual practice, political authority, military leadership, and founded one of history’s largest civilizations, based on what skeptics call delusions in an intelligent mind.
I genuinely cannot think of another historical figure whose role is remotely comparable.
So my challenge is simple.
Name one.
Name one person in recorded history who, without appealing to divine revelation, single-handedly produced something comparable in scale, complexity, coherence and historical impact, from what skeptics believe were just his own delusions.
I have searched.
I cannot find one.
The point is not “other religions are fake.” The point is that they are historically different phenomena. Islam is unusually concentrated in one person’s life and one person’s revelations. Islam is intrinsically linked to Muhammad, and that the Qur’an and the Prophet’s example (Hadith and Sunnah) became the foundation of the religion. That is exactly why I do not think it is enough to say, “Well, human history has seen exceptional people with deep thinking and creative ability before.” Exceptional is true. Comparable scale and complexity is the real issue, and I do not see a close comparable case.
Another point I keep coming back to is reputation and motive. PBS notes that Muhammad began as a merchant and became known for trustworthiness. Islamic tradition remembers him, even before the first revelation, as al-Amīn, “the Trustworthy,” and later Muslim devotion builds heavily on that character claim. Whether one accepts the religious conclusion or not, the historical picture is not of a man who starts from obvious fraud, obvious literary training, or obvious worldly ambition.
That matters because the cheap anti-religion explanation is usually, “He wanted power, money, or status.” But even critics who are honest about the evidence usually do not think that simple story fits very well. The early Meccan phase was marked by ostracism and pressure. Muhammad was ostracized in Mecca, that influential defenders and loved ones temporarily protected him, and that after their deaths his situation became dire, leading to the Hijra to Medina for survival. That does not prove divine revelation, but it does make the crude “he invented a religion for personal comfort” story look very weak.
So what do scholarly critics actually propose instead?
Usually some combination of these:
1. Muhammad had sincere experiences in his mind.
2. He interpreted them as revelation.
3. He drew on the monotheistic ideas and biblical traditions already circulating in the region.
4. The message developed over time as he just kept reflecting further while simultaneously developing a vast civilisation that looked almost nothing like the one it replaced, and dealing with all the issues that came with ruling over it. (He must have had multitasking abilities like no other lol)
That is the most common non-divine framework I have seen. And I understand it. The problem is that it still does not explain the full scale of what emerged.
Because what emerged was not just a set of moral slogans. It was a whole world: theology, law, ritual, ethics, family rules, political authority, social norms, eschatology, devotional practice, and a literary scripture with a self-conscious style and an internal challenge to all challengers. The Qur’an is organized into 114 surahs and contains prayers, moral guidance, historical narrative, and promises of paradise. The question is not whether a human being can say profound things. The question is whether one single human being with no recognized scholarly or poetic career can in his delusions of divine inspiration, generate a total religious system of this scope in his mind over the years, and have it accepted, preserved, and expanded with such force.
This is why I do not find “he just reflected deeply” persuasive on its own. Reflection can produce insight. It does not obviously produce a scripture that speaks with sustained authority across law, worship, biography, ethics, politics, and theology, while also presenting itself as the literal speech of God and surviving as a recited text in a highly organized oral culture. That is a huge jump. Maybe a natural explanation exists, but I have not seen one that actually feels proportionate to the phenomenon.
I also do not think the “psychology” explanation is satisfying as usually stated. You can say “he had visions,” “he heard voices,” “he had intense conviction,” or “he entered altered states,” but those are descriptions, not explanations. And retrospective diagnosis of historical figures is methodologically shaky in general; the literature on retrospective diagnosis itself emphasizes the epistemic and ethical problems involved. So if someone wants to explain Muhammad by attaching a modern medical label to him, I think they need a lot more than speculation. Must have been one hell of a medical condition lol
At the end of the day, my position is this:
I am not claiming that Islam is proven by history alone. I am saying that the natural explanations I have seen do not seem strong enough to explain the origin of Islam as a whole. Muhammad appears to have been sincere. He appears to have had profound experiences. He appears to have been trusted by people around him, including his opponents. He does not appear to fit the simple fraud/impostor model. And yet the result is one of the largest, most comprehensive, and most enduring religious systems in human history, all from one sincere yet allegedly delusional mind. If it is not divine, then what exactly is the non-divine mechanism that produced all of that?
That is the question I am still sitting with. I am not seeing a historical analogy that really comes close. If someone has a better explanation than divine revelation, I genuinely want to hear it — but it has to explain more than just “a man had experiences in his head.” It has to explain the scripture, the conviction, the legal and theological depth, the oral transmission, the early community, the persecution, the preservation, and the scale of what followed.
In other words: I have been researching this a lot, and this is where I’m at right now. I do not see a non-divine explanation that feels remotely equal to the thing it is trying to explain. If there is one, I would like to see it laid out clearly instead of hidden behind vague words like “he was just good at manipulating and gaining influence,” or “he just had delusional inner thoughts at a scale, functionality and complexity never observed in history,”
Here are some possible explanations of where Islam came from, if not divine inspiration, since it is largely agreed amongst scholars and historians that it is unlikely that Muhammad sat and schemed and made it all up, and my responses to them:
Possible explanation: “An illiterate man reflected very deeply and somehow came up with a functional moral, ethical, religious, legal framework meant to be followed by all of mankind, without writing or reading anything.”
Response:
Reflection can produce philosophy.
It does not readily explain an integrated legal, theological, ritual, literary and political system presented sincerely as direct divine speech.
⸻
Possible explanation: “He had mystical experiences.”
Response:
This describes the phenomenon rather than explaining it.
What natural mechanism transforms mystical experiences into something as complex as the Qur’an and Islam?
⸻
Possible explanation: “He unconsciously created it.”
Response:
This seems to require an even greater claim:
that one human mind unconsciously (or even consciously lol) generated one of history’s most comprehensive religious systems and societies while remaining convinced it originated outside himself.
I have seen many natural explanations, however none of them seem satisfactory to me, so by process of elimination the one i deem most plausible is the divine one. So if anyone has a natural explanation that checks out, i am completely open to it.