This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. It may contain original research. Tagged since June 2010. Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since February 2010.

Criticism of Muhammad has existed since the 7th century, when Muhammad was decried by his non-Muslim Arab contemporaries for preaching monotheism. During the Middle Ages he was frequently seen in European and other non-Muslim polemics as a Christian heretic, and/or possessed by demons. In modern times, criticism has also dealt with his sincerity in claiming to be a prophet, his ownership of slaves, his morality and his marriages.

Critics[link]

Muhammed and the Monk Sergius (Bahira). This 1508 engraving by the Dutch artist Lucas van Leyden shows a legend that circulated in Europe. In early Christian criticism, it was claimed that Bahira was a heretical monk whose errant views inspired the Qur'an.^[1]

Jewish criticism[link]

In the Middle Ages, it was common for Jewish writers to describe Muhammad as ha-meshuggah ("The Madman"), a term of contempt frequently used in the Bible for those who believe themselves to be prophets.^[2]

Christian criticism[link]

Martin Luther[link]

Martin Luther referred to Muhammad as "a devil and first-born child of Satan".^[3]

20th-century[link]

In the early 20th century Western scholarly views of Muhammad changed, including critical views. In the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia Gabriel Oussani states that Muhammad was inspired by an "imperfect understanding" of Judaism and Christianity, but that the views of Luther and those who call Muhammad a "wicked impostor", a "dastardly liar" and a "willful deceiver" are an "indiscriminate abuse" and are "unsupported by facts: Instead, 19th-century Western scholars such as Sprenger, Noldeke, Weil, Muir, Koelle, Grimme and Margoliouth give us a more unbiased estimate of Muhammad's life and character, and substantially agree as to his motives, prophetic call, personal qualifications, and sincerity."^[3] Muir, Marcus Dods and others have suggested that Muhammad was at first sincere, but later became deceptive. Koelle finds "the key to the first period of Muhammad's life in Khadija, his first wife," after whose death he became prey to his "evil passions."^[3] Samuel Marinus Zwemer, a Christian missionary, criticised the life of Muhammad by the standards of the Old and New Testaments, by the pagan morality of his Arab compatriots, and last, by the new law which he brought.^[4] Quoting Johnstone, Zwemer concludes by claiming that his harsh judgment rests on evidence which "comes all from the lips and the pens of his [i.e. Muhammad's] own devoted adherents."^[3][5]

Regensburg address[link]

The Regensburg address is a lecture delivered on 12 September 2006, by Pope Benedict XVI at the University of Regensburg in Germany. The Pope had previously served as professor of theology at the university, and his lecture was entitled "Faith, Reason and the University – Memories and Reflections". The lecture contained in the quotation by the Pope of the following passage:^[6]

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached

The passage originally appeared in the “Dialogue Held With A Certain Persian, the Worthy Mouterizes, in Anakara of Galatia”, written in 1391 as an expression of the views of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, one of the last Christian rulers before the Fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Ottoman Empire, on such issues as forced conversion, holy war, and the relationship between faith and reason.

Hindu criticism[link]

Nineteenth century[link]

In his 1875 work Satyarth Prakash, Dayanand Saraswati, the founder of Arya Samaj, quoted and interpreted several verses of the Koran and described Muhammad as "pugnacious", an "imposter", and one who held out "a bait to men and women, in the name of God, to compass his own selfish needs."^[7] Swami Vivekananda wrote in his 1896 book Raja Yoga that though Muhammad was inspired, "he was not a trained Yogi, nor did he know the reason of what he was doing." Vivekananda wrote that great evil has been done through Muhammad's fanaticism with "whole countries destroyed" and "millions upon millions of people killed."^[8]

1920s caricatures[link]

In the 1920s, three caricatures published by Hindus attacked Muhammad and his sex life – the book Vichitra Jivan (meaning Strange Life) by Pandit Kalicharan Sharma in 1923, the pamphlet Rangila Rasul (meaning The Colourful Prophet) by an anonymous author going by the pseudonym of Pandit Chamupati in 1924, and the essay Sair-i-Dozakh (meaning The Trip to Hell) by Devi Sharan Sharma in 1927.^[9][10] In Vichitra Jivan, Sharma wrote that Muhammad fell victim to many evils, all his marriages were extraordinary and improper, and that he suffered from epilepsy.^[9] Sharma wrote that "According to Muhammad, loot and arson is the highest act of the religious life, and this religious aggression will go on until the end of time. A paradise where there will be lovely young women is the reward for spreading Islam in this way."^[9] In the final chapters of the book, Sharma examined in detail the "marvelous powers" of Muhammad, the "products of his body", and every feature of his "marital and sexual relations", and ended the book by saying that such a person could not have been a divine messenger.^[9] Rangila Rasul had a surface appearance of a lyrical and laudatory work on Muhammad and his teachings, for example it began with a poem which went "The bird serves the flowers in the garden; I'll serve my Rangila Rasul," and called Muhammad "a widely experienced" person who was best symbolized by his many wives, in contrast with the life-long celibacy of Hindu saints.^[10] The Sair-i-Dozakh was a take on the Isra and Mi'raj, Muhammad's journey to heaven and hell according to Islamic traditions. Described as a "brutal satire" by Gene Thursby, it described a dream purportedly experienced by the author in which he mounts a mysterious animal and sees various Hindu and Sikh deities and Gurus in the realm of salvation.^[9] This is followed by a trip to hell in which he sees suffering figures with disguised epithets like Mahamand (Muhammad), Asha (Aisha), Jannabi (Zaynab bint Jahsh) and Mirtunja (Ali). The figures confess to the author their many sins, and beg him to intercede for them. The author justifies the punishment of Mahamand and Aisha and condemns them for eternal suffering, before waking up from his dream.^[9]

Modern criticism[link]

Jai Maharaj, sponsor of the Satyameva Jayate website, wrote that Muhammad was "in fact a terrorist, criminal and murderer whose entire life was based on victimizing innocents and indulging in mindless violence, carnage and massacre." Maharaj chronicled what he called were Muhammad's "criminal acts in the form of battles and murders", including the killing of four merchants during the sacred month of Rajab, the killing of 70 merchants and 900 men from Mecca, the killing of the poets 'Asma' bint Marwan and Abu 'Afak, and the initial motivation to kill followed by eventual expelling of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qaynuqa.^[11]

Voltaire[link]

Mahomet (French: Le fanatisme, ou Mahomet le Prophete, literally Fanaticism, or Mahomet the Prophet) is a five-act tragedy written in 1736 by French playwright and philosopher Voltaire. It made its debut performance in Lille on 25 April 1741. The play is a study of religious fanaticism and self-serving manipulation based on an episode in the traditional biography of Muhammad in which he orders the murder of his critics. Voltaire described the play as "written in opposition to the founder of a false and barbarous sect to whom could I with more propriety inscribe a satire on the cruelty and errors of a false prophet".^[12]

Contemporary Western criticisms[link]

In the 20th century other figures remained more critical. In 2002, Evangelical Christian leader Jerry Falwell called Muhammad "a terrorist," though he later apologized for the comment, saying that he had made a mistake when responding to a "controversial and loaded question."^[13] Contemporary critics have criticized Muhammad for preaching beliefs that are incompatible with democracy; Dutch feminist writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali has called him a "tyrant"^[14] and a "pervert".^[15] Netherlands Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders calls Muhammad a "mass murderer and a pedophile".^[16] American historian Daniel Pipes sees Muhammad as a politician, stating that "because Muhammad created a new community, the religion that was its raison d'être had to meet the political needs of its adherents."^[17]

Points of contention[link]

Muhammad's marriages[link]

One of the popular historical criticisms of Muhammad in the West has been his polygynous marriages.^[18][19] According to American historian John Esposito. the Semitic cultures in general permitted polygamy (for example, the practice could be found in biblical and postbiblical Judaism); it was particularly a common practice among Arabs, especially among nobles and leaders.^[18] Muslims have often pointed out that Muhammad married Khadija (a widow whose age is estimated to have been 40), when he was 25 years old, and remained monogamous to her for more than 24 years until she died.^[18] However, the anonymous author of Rangila Rasul, writing under the pseudonym Chamupati, wrote in response to this contention that had Muhammad considered Khadija to be his mother rather than making her his wife, it would have been according to the Arya scriptures.^[20] Esposito holds that most of Muhammad's 11 marriages had political and social motives. It was customary for Arab chiefs to use marriage for cementing political alliances. Some of his marriages were to widows of those who had fallen in battle and were in need of protection. Remarriage was difficult for widows in a society that emphasized virgin marriages.^[18]

Aisha[link]

From the 20th century onwards, a common point of contention has been Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, who was six or seven when betrothed to Muhammad,^[21] and nine, or according to al-Tabari, ten, when the marriage was consummated.^{[21][22][23][24][25]} American historian Denise Spellberg states that "these specific references to the bride's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity."^[21]

Critics such as Baptist pastor Jerry Vines and Netherlands Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders have cited the age of Aisha to denounce Muhammad for having had sex with a 9 year old, referring to Muhammad as a pedophile.^[16][26][27] Chamupati wrote that Aisha was of the age of Muhammad’s granddaughter, and a better way for Muhammad to make Abu Bakr (Aisha'a father) a relative was to adopt Aisha as his own daughter and marry her off.^[20]

Colin Turner, a professor of Islamic studies,^[28] states that since such marriages between an older man and a young girl were customary among the Bedouins, Muhammad's marriage would not have been considered improper by his contemporaries.^[29]

Zaynab bint Jahsh[link]

"Western criticism" has focused especially on the marriage of Muhammad to Zaynab bint Jahsh, the divorced wife of Zayd ibn Harithah, an ex-slave whom Muhammad had adopted as his son.^[30] The story goes that ^[31] "One day Muhammad went out looking for Zayd. There was a covering of haircloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber, undressed, and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet. After that Allah made her unattractive to Zayd.'"

Islamic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Ali says in his translation of The Quran that, "Zayd's marriage with the Prophet's cousin Zaynab daughter of Jahsh did not turn out happy. Zaynab the high-born looked down upon Zayd the freedman who had been a slave. And he was not comely to look at. Both were good people in their own way, and both loved the Prophet, but there was mutual incompatibility and this is fatal to married life. But marriages are made on earth, not in heaven, and it is no part of Allah's Plan to torture people in a bond which should be a source of happiness but actually is a source of misery." (commentary of 33:37)

Those who have been "wives of your sons proceeding from your loins" are within the Prohibited Degrees of marriage; 4:23: but this does not apply to "adopted" sons.

He further said that, "If a man called another's son "his son", it might create complications with natural and normal relationships if taken too literally. It is pointed out that it is only a facon de parler in men's mouths, and should not be taken literally. The truth is the truth and cannot be altered by men's adopting "sons"." (Commentary of 33:4)

"Adoption" in the technical sense is not allowed in Muslim Law.

He made it very clear in his commentary of 33:28 earlier that, "All the Consorts in their high position had to work and assist as Mothers of the Ummah (believers) . Theirs were not idle lives, like those of Odalisques, either for their own pleasure or the pleasure of their husband. They are told here that they had no place in the sacred Household if they merely wished for ease or worldly glitter. If such were the case, they could be divorced and amply provided for."

Jewish tribes of Medina[link]

Ibn Ishaq collected a narration stating that Muhammad approved the beheading of some 600-900 individuals from the Banu Qurayza who surrendered unconditionally after a siege that lasted 26 days.^[32] Detail from miniature painting The Prophet, Ali, and the Companions at the Massacre of the Prisoners of the Jewish Tribe of Beni Qurayzah, illustration of a 19th century text by Muhammad Rafi Bazil.

Muhammad has been often criticized outside of the Islamic world for his treatment of the Jewish tribes of Medina.^[18] Moroccan author Abdelhamid Assassi writes: "At first, Muhammad used to pray in the direction of Jerusalem, in order to seek the sympathy and support of the Jews in the Peninsula, who carried great economic and social weight. Then he traded the Jews' direction of prayer for that of the pagans, in order to rally the Arab tribes to his preaching. For this reason he later took revenge on the Jews by expelling them, slaughtering them, robbing them, and taking their women as wives."^{[33][unreliable source?]}

This does not seem to agree with most records of the change in direction. Fazlur Rahman rejects what he sees as exaggeration of the role of Medinan Jews on the development of Islam. He states that the original change of the direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca certainly did not happen on Muhammad's arrival to Medina so that it could be interpreted as an attempt to entice the Jews. Rahman argues that the change most likely occurred when Muslims, as a result of persecution, were not allowed to go to the Kaaba for worship: The reason indicated in the Qur'an was to emphasize the distinction between Muslims and Pagans. If the idea was to keep Jerusalem as the qibla permanently, Rahman says, Jerusalem could have been religiously disassociated from the Jewish claims (similar to what the Qur'an did with respect to religious figures such as Moses and Abraham).^[34]

Muhammad is also criticised for the mass killing of the men of the Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe of Medina. The tribe was accused of having engaged in treasonous agreements with the enemies besieging Medina in the Battle of the Trench in 627.^[35][36] Ibn Ishaq writes that Muhammad approved the beheading of some 600-900 individuals who surrendered unconditionally after a siege that lasted several weeks.^[32] (Also see Bukhari 5:59:362) (Yusuf Ali notes that the Qur'an discusses this battle in verses ^{[Quran 33:10]}).^[37] They were buried in a mass grave in the Medina market place. The women and children were sold into slavery.

According to Norman Stillman, the incident cannot be judged by present-day moral standards. Citing Deut. 20:13-14 as an example, Stillman states that the slaughter of adult males and the enslavement of women and children - though no doubt causing bitter suffering - was common practice throughout the ancient world.^[38] According to Rudi Paret, adverse public opinion was more a point of concern to Muhammad when he had some date palms cut down during a siege, than after this incident.^[39] Esposito also argues that in Muhammad's time, traitors were executed and points to similar situations in the Bible.^[40] Esposito says that Muhammad's motivation was political rather than racial or theological; he was trying to establish Muslim dominance and rule in Arabia.^[18]

A few Muslim scholars, such as W. N. Arafat and Barakat Ahmad, have disputed the historicity of the incident.^[41] Ahmad, argues that only the leading members of the tribe were killed.^[42] Arafat argued that Ibn Ishaq gathered information from descendants of the Qurayza Jews, who exaggerated the details of the incident.^[43][44] However Watt finds Arafat's arguments "not entirely convincing."^[45]

Ownership of slaves[link]

Rodney Stark argues that "the fundamental problem facing Muslim theologians vis-à-vis the morality of slavery is that Muhammad bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves", though he states that Muhammad did advise that slaves be treated well: "Feed them what you eat yourself and clothe them with what you wear...They are God's people like unto you and be kind unto them". In addition, Stark contrasts Islam with Christianity, implying that Christian theologians wouldn't have been able to "work their way around the biblical acceptance of slavery" if Jesus had owned slaves like Muhammad did.^[46]

Some Western thinkers and Christian evangelicals^[who?] criticize Muhammad for having had a child (Ibrahim, who died in infancy) by a slave girl called Maria or Mariyah, one of his concubines who was a present from the Christian Byzantine ruler of Egypt. However, some Muslims^[who?] regard her as one of his wives and therefore name her a "Mother of the believers".^[47]

Muhammad made it legal for his men to marry their slaves and the women they captured in war, giving them full marriage rights.^[48][49] This practice is referred to in the Quran as ma malakat aymanukum ("what your right hands possess"), and has also been a subject of criticism.^{[citation needed]}

Psychological and medical condition[link]

Muhammad is reported to have had mysterious seizures at the moments of inspiration. Welch, a scholar of Islamic studies, in the Encyclopedia of Islam states that the graphic descriptions of Muhammad's condition at these moments may be regarded as genuine, since they are unlikely to have been invented by later Muslims. According to Welch, these seizures should have been the most convincing evidence for the superhuman origin of Muhammad's inspirations for people around him. Others adopted alternative explanations for these seizures and claimed that he was possessed, a soothsayer, or a magician. Welch states it remains uncertain whether Muhammad had such experiences before he began to see himself as a prophet and if so how long did he have such experiences.^[50]

According to Temkin, the first attribution of epileptic seizures to Muhammad comes from the 8th century Byzantine historian Theophanes who wrote that Muhammad’s wife "was very much grieved that she, being of noble descent, was tied to such a man, who was not only poor but epileptic as well."^[51] In the Middle Ages, the general perception of those who suffered epilepsy was an unclean and incurable wretch who might be possessed by the Devil. The political hostility between Islam and Christianity contributed to the continuation of the accusation of epilepsy throughout the Middle Ages.^[51] The Christian minister Archdeacon Humphrey Prideaux gave the following description of Muhammad's visions:^[51]

He pretended to receive all his revelations from the Angel Gabriel, and that he was sent from God of purpose to deliver them unto him. And whereas he was subject to the falling-sickness, whenever the fit was upon him, he pretended it to be a Trance, and that the Angel Gabriel comes from God with some Revelations unto him.

Some modern Western orientalists also have a skeptical view of Muhammad's seizures. Prideaux, Frank R. Freemon says, thinks Muhammad had "conscious control over the course of the spells and can pretend to be in a religious trance. He sees epilepsy as related to malingering."^[51] During the nineteenth century, as Islam was no longer a political or military threat to Western society, and perceptions of epilepsy changed, the theological and moral associations with epilepsy was removed; epilepsy was now viewed as a medical disorder.^[51] Nineteenth century orientalist, D. S. Margoliouth claims that Muhammad suffered from epilepsy and even occasionally faked it for effect.^[52] Sprenger attributes Muhammad's revelations to epileptic fits or a "paroxysm of cataleptic insanity."^[3] The most famous epileptic of the 19th century, Fyodor Dostoyevsky (d.1881) wrote that epileptic attacks have an inspirational quality; he said they are “a supreme exaltation of emotional subjectivity” in which time stands still. Dostoyevsky claimed that his own attacks were similar to those of Muhammad: "Probably it was of such an instant, that the epileptic Mahomet was speaking when he said that he had visited all the dwelling places of Allah within a shorter time than it took for his pitcher full of water to empty itself."^[51] In an essay that discusses views of Muhammad's psychology, Franz Bul (1903) is said to have observed that "hysterical natures find unusual difficulty and often complete inability to distinguish the false from the true", and to have thought this to be "the safest way to interpret the strange inconsistencies in the life of the Prophet." In the same essay Duncan Black Macdonald (1911) is credited with the opinion that "fruitful investigation of the Prophet's life (should) proceed upon the assumption that he was fundamentally a pathological case."^[53]

Modern Western scholars of Islam have rejected the diagnosis of epilepsy.^[51] Tor Andrae rejects the idea that the inspired state is pathological attributing it to a scientifically superficial and hasty theory arguing that those who consider Muhammad epileptic should consider all types of semi-conscious and trance-like states, occasional loss of consciousness, and similar conditions as epileptic attacks. Andrae writes that "[i]f epilepsy is to denote only those severe attacks which involve serious consequences for the physical and mental health, then the statement that Mohammad suffered from epilepsy must be emphatically rejected." Caesar Farah suggests that "[t]hese insinuations resulted from the 19th-century infatuation with scientifically superficial theories of medical psychology."^[54] Noth, in the Encyclopedia of Islam, states that such accusations were a typical feature of medieval European Christian polemic.^[55] Maxime Rodinson says that it is most probable that Muhammad's conditions was basically of the same kind as that found in many mystics rather than epilepsy.^[56] Fazlur Rahman refutes epileptic fits for the following reasons: Muhammad's condition begins with his career at the age of 40; according to the tradition seizures are invariably associated with the revelation and never occur by itself. Lastly, a sophisticated society like the Meccan or Medinese would have identified epilepsy clearly and definitely.^[57] William Montgomery Watt also disagrees with the epilepsy diagnosis, saying that "there are no real grounds for such a view." Elaborating, he says that "epilepsy leads to physical and mental degeneration, and there are no signs of that in Muhammad." He then goes further and states that Muhammad was psychologically sound in general: "he (Muhammad) was clearly in full possession of his faculties to the very end of his life." Watt concludes by stating "It is incredible that a person subject to epilepsy, or hysteria, or even ungovernable fits of emotion, could have been the active leader of military expeditions, or the cool far-seeing guide of a city-state and a growing religious community; but all this we know Muhammad to have been."^[58]

Frank R. Freemon (1976) thinks that the above reasons given by modern biographers of Muhammad in rejection of epilepsy come from the widespread misconceptions about the various types of epilepsy.^[51] In his differential diagnosis, Freemon rejects schizophrenic hallucinations,^[59] drug-induced mental changes such as might occur after eating plants containing hallucinogenic materials,^[60] transient ischemic attacks,^[61] hypoglycemia,^[62] labyrinthitis, Ménière’s disease, or other inner ear maladies.^[63] At the end, Freemon argues that if one were forced to make a diagnosis psychomotor seizures of temporal lobe epilepsy would be the most tenable one, although our lack of scientific as well as historical knowledge makes unequivocal decision impossible. Freemon cites evidences supporting and opposing this diagnosis.^[64] In the end, Freemon points out that a medical diagnosis should not ignore Muhammad’s moral message because it is just as likely, perhaps more likely, for God communicate with a person in an abnormal state of mind.^[65] From a Muslim point of view, Freemon says, Muhammed's mental state at the time of revelation was unique and is not therefore amenable to medical or scientific discourse.^[51] In reaction to Freemon's article, GM. S. Megahed, a Muslim neurologist criticized the article arguing that there are no scientific explanations for many religious phenomena, and that if Muhammad's message is a result of psychomotor seizures, then on the same basis Moses' and Jesus' message would be the result of psychomotor seizures. In response, Freemon attributed such negative reactions to his article to the general misconceptions about epilepsy as a demeaning condition. Freemon said that he did plan to write an article on the inspirational spells of St. Paul, but the existence of such misconceptions caused him to cancel it.^[66]

Personal motives[link]

19th century and early 20th century[link]

William Muir, like many other 19th century scholars divides Muhammad's life into two periods — Meccan and Medinan. He asserts that "in the Meccan period of [Muhammad's] life there certainly can be traced no personal ends or unworthy motives," painting him as a man of good faith and a genuine reformer. However, that all changed after the Hijra, according to Muir. "There [in Medina] temporal power, aggrandisement, and self-gratification mingled rapidly with the grand object of the Prophet's life, and they were sought and attained by just the same instrumentality." From that point on, he accuses Muhammad of manufacturing "messages from heaven" in order to justify a lust for women and reprisals against enemies, among other sins.^[67] D. S. Margoliouth, another 19th century scholar, sees Muhammad as a charlatan who beguiled his followers with techniques like those used by fraudulent mediums today. He has expressed a view that Muhammad faked his religious sincerity, playing the part of a messenger from God like a man in a play, adjusting his performances to create an illusion of spirituality.^[68] Margoliouth is especially critical of the character of Muhammad as revealed in Ibn Ishaq's famous biography, which he holds as especially telling because Muslims cannot dismiss it as the writings of an enemy:

In order to gain his ends he (Muhammad) recoils from no expedient, and he approves of similar unscrupulousness on the part of his adherents, when exercised in his interest. He profits utmost from the chivalry of the Meccans, but rarely requites it with the like... For whatever he does he is prepared to plead the express authorization of the deity. It is, however, impossible to find any doctrine which he is not prepared to abandon in order to secure a political end.^[69]

Late 20th century[link]

According to Watt and Richard Bell, recent writers have generally dismissed the idea that Muhammad deliberately deceived his followers, arguing that Muhammad “was absolutely sincere and acted in complete good faith”.^[70] Modern secular historians generally decline to address the question of whether the messages Muhammad reported being revealed to him were from "his unconscious, the collective unconscious functioning in him, or from some divine source", but they acknowledge that the material came from "beyond his conscious mind."^[71] Watt says that sincerity does not directly imply correctness: In contemporary terms, Muhammad might have mistaken for divine revelation his own unconscious.^[72] William Montgomery Watt states:

Only a profound belief in himself and his mission explains Muhammad's readiness to endure hardship and persecution during the Meccan period when from a secular point of view there was no prospect of success. Without sincerity how could he have won the allegiance and even devotion of men of strong and upright character like Abu-Bakr and 'Umar ? ... There is thus a strong case for holding that Muhammad was sincere. If in some respects he was mistaken, his mistakes were not due to deliberate lying or imposture^[73] ....the important point is that the message was not the product of Muhammad's conscious mind. He believed that he could easily distinguish between his own thinking and these revelations. His sincerity in this belief must be accepted by the modern historian, for this alone makes credible the development of a great religion. The further question, however, whether the messages came from Muhammad's unconscious, or the collective unconscious functioning in him, or from some divine source, is beyond the competence of the historian.^[74]

Rudi Paret agrees, writing that "Muhammad was not a deceiver,"^[75] and Welch also holds that "the really powerful factor in Muhammad’s life and the essential clue to his extraordinary success was his unshakable belief from beginning to end that he had been called by God. A conviction such as this, which, once firmly established, does not admit of the slightest doubt, exercises an incalculable influence on others. The certainty with which he came forward as the executor of God’s will gave his words and ordinances an authority that proved finally compelling."^[76]

Bernard Lewis, another modern historian, commenting on the common Western Medieval view of Muhammad as a self-seeking impostor, states that^[77]

The modern historian will not readily believe that so great and significant a movement was started by a self-seeking impostor. Nor will he be satisfied with a purely supernatural explanation, whether it postulates aid of divine of diabolical origin; rather, like Gibbon, will he seek 'with becoming submission, to ask not indeed what were the first, but what were the secondary causes of the rapid growth' of the new faith

Watt rejects the idea of Muhammad's moral failures from Meccan period to Medinian one and contends that such views has no solid grounds. He argues that "it is based on too facile a use of the principle that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Watt interprets incidents in the Medinan period in such a way that they mark "no failure in Muhammad to live to his ideals and no lapse from his moral principles."^[78]

See also[link]

Islam portal

• Criticism of Islam
• Depictions of Muhammad
• Historicity of Muhammad

References[link]

Prophet Muhammad Prophet, Messenger, Apostle, Witness, Bearer of Good Tidings, Warner, Reminder, Caller, Announcer.
Common calligraphic representation of Muhammad's name
Born	Muḥammad ibn `Abd Allāh c. (570-04-26)26 April 570 Mecca (Makkah), Arabia (now Saudi Arabia)
Died	8 June 632(632-06-08) (aged 62) Yathrib, Arabia (present-day Medina, Hejaz, Saudi Arabia)
Cause of death	Illness (high fever)
Resting place	Tomb under the Green Dome of Al-Masjid al-Nabawi in Medina, Hejaz, Saudi Arabia
Other names	See Names of Muhammad
Ethnicity	Arab
Religion	Islam
Spouse	Wives: Khadijah bint Khuwaylid (595-619) Sawda bint Zamʿa (619-632) Aisha bint Abi Bakr (619-632) Hafsa bint Umar (624-632) Zaynab bint Khuzayma (625-627) Hind bint Abi Umayya (629-632) Zaynab bint Jahsh (627-632) Juwayriya bint al-Harith (628-632) Ramlah bint Abi Sufyan (628-632) Rayhana bint Zayd (629-631) Safiyya bint Huyayy (629-632) Maymuna bint al-Harith (630-632) Maria al-Qibtiyya (630-632)
Children	Sons: al-Qasim, `Abd-Allah, Ibrahim Daughters: Zainab, Ruqayyah, Umm Kulthoom, Fatimah Zahra
Parents	Father: `Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-Muttalib Mother: Aminah bint Wahb
Relatives	Ahl al-Bayt
Further articles from Category:Muhammad Life In Mecca · Hijra · In Medina · Conquest of Mecca · Wives · Family tree Career Qur'an · Hadith · Early reforms under Islam · Diplomacy · Military · Persecution by Meccans · Migration to Abyssinia · Farewell pilgrimage Miracles Isra and Mi'raj · Relics · Splitting of the moon · Al-Masjid al-Nabawi Views by subject Jewish · Christian · Slavery Succession Farewell sermon · Saqifah · Pen and paper · Family · Companions · History Praise Durood · Na'at · Mawlid · Haḍra · Madih nabawi · Ya Muhammad Perspectives Islamic · Jewish · Bible · Medieval Christian · Historicity · Criticism · Prophetic biography · Depictions · Films · Depictions in film v t e

Muhammad (c. 26 April 570 – 8 June 632;^[1] also transliterated as Mohammad, Mohammed, or Muhammed; Arabic: محمد‎), full name: Muhammad Ibn `Abd Allāh Ibn `Abd al-Muttalib (Arabic: محمد بن عبدالله بن عبد المطلب ‎) was a leader from Mecca who unified the tribes of Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam. He is believed by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a messenger and prophet of God. Muslims believe that Islam was not his own invention but was revealed by God,^[2][3] and most consider him to be the last prophet of God^{[4][n 1]} Muslims thus consider him the restorer of an uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islām) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets.^[5][6][7]

Born in 570 CE in the Arabian city of Mecca,^[8][9] he was orphaned at an early age and brought up under the care of his uncle Abu Talib. He later worked mostly as a merchant, as well as a shepherd, and was first married by age 25.^[10] Being in the habit of periodically retreating to a cave in the surrounding mountains for several nights of meditation and prayer, he later reported that it was there, at age 40,^[8][11] that he received his first revelation from God. Three years after this event Muhammad started preaching these revelations publicly, proclaiming that "God is One", that complete "surrender" to Him (lit. islām) is the only way (dīn)^{[n 2]} acceptable to God, and that he himself was a prophet and messenger of God, in the same vein as other Islamic prophets.^[7][12][13]

Muhammad gained few followers early on,^[14] and was met with hostility from some Meccan tribes; he and his followers were treated harshly. To escape persecution, Muhammad sent some of his followers to Abyssinia^[15] before he and his remaining followers in Mecca migrated to Medina (then known as Yathrib) in the year 622.^[16] This event, the Hijra, marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar, which is also known as the Hijri Calendar. In Medina, Muhammad united the tribes under the Constitution of Medina,.^[16] After eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to 10,000, conquered Mecca. Muhammad destroyed the symbols of paganism in Mecca^[17] and then sent his followers out to destroy all of the remaining pagan temples throughout Eastern Arabia.^[18][19]

In 632, a few months after returning to Medina from The Farewell Pilgrimage, Muhammad fell ill and died. By the time of his death, most of the Arabian Peninsula had converted to Islam, and he had united the tribes of Arabia into a single Muslim religious polity.^[20][21]

The revelations (or Ayah, lit. "Signs [of God]")—which Muhammad reported receiving until his death—form the verses of the Quran, regarded by Muslims as the “Word of God” and around which the religion is based. Besides the Quran, Muhammad’s life (sira) and traditions (sunnah) are also upheld by Muslims. They discuss Muhammad and other prophets of Islam with reverence, adding the phrase peace be upon him whenever their names are mentioned.^[22] While conceptions of Muhammad in medieval Christendom and premodern times were largely negative, appraisals in modern history have been far less so.^[13][23]

Names and appellations in the Quran[link]

The name Muhammad written in Thuluth, a script variety of Islamic calligraphy.

The name Muhammad means "Praiseworthy" and occurs four times in the Quran.^[24] The Quran addresses Muhammad in the second person not by his name but by the appellations prophet, messenger, servant of God ('abd), announcer (bashir)^{[Quran 2:119]}, witness (shahid),^{[Quran 33:45]} bearer of good tidings (mubashshir), warner (nathir),^{[Quran 11:2]} reminder (mudhakkir),^{[Quran 88:21]} one who calls [unto God] (dā‘ī),^{[Quran 12:108]} light personified (noor)^{[Quran 05:15]}, and the light-giving lamp (siraj munir)^{[Quran 73:1]}. Muhammad is sometimes addressed by designations deriving from his state at the time of the address: thus he is referred to as the enwrapped (al-muzzammil) in Quran 73:1 and the shrouded (al-muddaththir) in Quran 74:1.^[25] In the Quran, believers are not to distinguish between the messengers of God and are to believe in all of them (Sura Al-Baqara 2:285). God has caused some messengers to excel above others 2:253 and in Sura Al-Ahzab 33:40 He singles out Muhammad as the "Seal of the Prophets".^[26] The Quran also refers to Muhammad as Aḥmad "more praiseworthy" (Arabic: أحمد‎, Sura As-Saff 61:6).

Sources for Muhammad's life[link]

Quran[link]

A folio from an early Quran, written in Kufic script (Abbasid period, 8th–9th century).

The Quran is the central religious text of Islam and Muslims believe that it represents the words of God revealed to Muhammad through the archangel Gabriel.^[27][28][29] Although it mentions Muhammad directly only four times,^[30] there are verses which can be interpreted as allusions to Muhammad's life.^{[13][n 3]} The Quran however provides little assistance for a chronological biography of Muhammad, and many of the utterances recorded in it lack historical context.^[31][32]

Early biographies[link]

Next in importance are historical works by writers of the 3rd and 4th centuries of the Muslim era.^[33] These include the traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad (the sira literature), which provide further information on Muhammad's life.^[34]

The earliest surviving written sira (biographies of Muhammad and quotes attributed to him) is Ibn Ishaq's Life of God's Messenger written ca. 767 (150 AH). The work is lost, but was used verbatim at great length by Ibn Hisham and Al-Tabari.^[35][36] Another early source is the history of Muhammad's campaigns by al-Waqidi (death 207 of Muslim era), and the work of his secretary Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi (death 230 of Muslim era).^[33]

Many scholars accept the accuracy of the earliest biographies, though their accuracy is unascertainable.^[35] Recent studies have led scholars to distinguish between the traditions touching legal matters and the purely historical ones. In the former sphere, traditions could have been subject to invention while in the latter sphere, aside from exceptional cases, the material may have been only subject to "tendential shaping".^[37]

Hadith[link]

In addition, the hadith collections are accounts of the verbal and physical traditions of Muhammad that date from several generations after his death.^[38]

Western academics view the hadith collections with caution as accurate historical sources.^[38] Scholars such as Madelung do not reject the narrations which have been compiled in later periods, but judge them in the context of history and on the basis of their compatibility with the events and figures.^[39]

Non-Arabic sources[link]

The earliest documented Christian knowledge of Muhammad stems from Byzantine sources. They indicate that both Jews and Christians saw Muhammad as a "false prophet". In the Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati of 634, Muhammad is portrayed as being "deceiving[,] for do prophets come with sword and chariot?, [...] you will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed."^[40] Another Greek source for Muhammad is the 9th-century writer Theophanes. The earliest Syriac source is the 7th-century writer John bar Penkaye.^[41]

Pre-Islamic Arabia[link]

Main tribes and settlements of Arabia in Muhammad's lifetime

The Arabian Peninsula was largely arid and volcanic, making agriculture difficult except near oases or springs. The landscape was thus dotted with towns and cities, two prominent ones being Mecca and Medina. Medina was a large flourishing agricultural settlement, while Mecca was an important financial center for many surrounding tribes.^[42] Communal life was essential for survival in the desert conditions, as people needed support against the harsh environment and lifestyle. Tribal grouping was encouraged by the need to act as a unit, this unity being based on the bond of kinship by blood.^[43] Indigenous Arabs were either nomadic or sedentary, the former constantly travelling from one place to another seeking water and pasture for their flocks, while the latter settled and focused on trade and agriculture. Nomadic survival was also dependent on raiding caravans or oases, the nomads not viewing this as a crime.^[44][45]

In pre-Islamic Arabia, gods or goddesses were viewed as protectors of individual tribes, their spirits being associated with sacred trees, stones, springs and wells. As well as being the site of an annual pilgrimage, the Kaaba shrine in Mecca housed 360 idol statues of tribal patron deities. Aside from these gods, the Arabs shared a common belief in a supreme deity called Allah^{[citation needed]} (literally "the god"), who was remote from their everyday concerns and thus not the object of cult or ritual.^{[citation needed]} Three goddesses were associated with Allah as his daughters: Allāt, Manāt and al-‘Uzzá. Monotheistic communities existed in Arabia, including Christians and Jews.^[46] Hanifs – native pre-Islamic Arab monotheists – are also sometimes listed alongside Jews and Christians in pre-Islamic Arabia, although their historicity is disputed amongst scholars.^[47][48] According to Muslim tradition, Muhammad himself was a Hanif and one of the descendants of Ishmael, son of Abraham.^[49]