This contribution is a response to Tilman Nagel's essay “ ‘Authentizität’ in der Leben-Mohammed-Forschung” [‘Authenticity’ in the research on the Life of Mohammed] in which the author again presents the main theses argued in his monograph Mohammed. Leben und Legende and responds to criticism. Whereas his critics agree with Nagel that complete ‘authenticity’ is unattainable in principle, yet an asymptotic approximation of Mohammed as a figure is indeed possible, the way to attain such an approximation remains a matter of dispute. Contrary to Nagel, the proponents of the so-called isnad-cum-matn analysis hold this method, which offers the possibility to date ḥadīṯs (traditions) and reconstruct texts in circulation in the 1st cent. H., for one of the most successful towards achieving this goal. Another successful procedure of proven value is the evaluation and appraisal of the corpus of traditions traced back to ʿUrwa b. az-Zubayr (d. c. 712), one of the earliest and most important collectors of historical material in Islam. Proponents of both of these procedures do not apply the term ‘authentic’, as asserted by Nagel, in the sense of ‘what exactly happened’, but rather use this term if the transmitters of a tradition are historical figures and when the process of transmission is proven to have ensued as indicated in the chain of transmission.