Criticism of Muhammad

Criticism of Muhammad has existed since the 7th century, when he was attacked by his non-Muslim Arab contemporaries for preaching monotheism, his marriage and military expeditions. During the medieval ages, he was frequently demonized in European polemic. Criticism continues to present day, and modern points of criticism continue to address his marriages and military expeditions, as well as his relation to slavery.

Non-Muslim criticism of Muhammad

During the time of Muhammad and later in Middle Ages, Jewish writers commonly referred to Muhammad as ha-meshuggah ("the madman" or "possessed"), a title contemptuously used in the Hebrew Bible for impostors who think of themselves as prophets.

Christians were also often dismissive of Muhammad, many producing negative and inflammatory accounts of his life that were claimed to be deliberately "malicious". False reports on Muhammad's life and death includes reports circulated by Christian writers that Muhammad died while being drunk, or was killed by pigs. Such stories and opinions were circulated with the knowledge that Islam forbids both alcohol and pork. Such caricatures of Muhammad extended to works of literature and poetry. In Dante's Inferno, Muhammad and Ali are portrayed as being in Hell, subject to horrifying tortures and punishments for their sins of schism and sowing discord. In the Middle Ages Islam was widely believed to be a heresy of Christianity. In other works, he is described as a "renegade cardinal of the Catholic Church who decided to start his own false religion". A less belligerent depiction occurs in 13th century Estoire del Saint Grail, the first book in the vast Arthurian cycle, the Lancelot-Grail. Here, Muhammad is portrayed as a true prophet sent by God to bring Christianity to the pagan Middle East; however, his pride causes him to alter God's wishes and he deceives his followers, though his religion is viewed as vastly superior to paganism.

Martin Luther referred to Muhammad as "a devil and first-born child of Satan". Maracci, who translated the Qur'an into Latin in 1698, held that Muhammad and Islam were not very dissimilar to Luther and Protestantism. Gottfried Leibniz, while praising Muhammad and his followers for spreading monotheism and "abolishing heathen superstitions" in the remote lands where Christianity had not been carried, holds that belief in Muhammad, Zoroaster, Brahma, or 'Somonacodom' is not as worthy as belief in Moses and Jesus. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) states that Muhammad was inspired by an "imperfect understanding" of Judaism and Christianity.

Gabriel Oussani in Catholic Encyclopedia states that the views of Luther and those who call Muhammad a 'wicked impostor', 'dastardly liar' and a 'willful deceiver' are an "indiscriminate abuse" and are "unsupported by facts: Instead, nineteenth-century Western scholars such as Sprenger, Noldeke, Weil, Muir, Koelle, Grimme and Margoliouth give us a more correct and unbiased estimate of Muhammad's life and character, and substantially agree as to his motives, prophetic call, personal qualifications, and sincerity." 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."

Zwemer, a Christian missionary, criticised the life of Muhammad on various grounds; first by the standards of the Old and New Testaments, second by the pagan morality of his Arab compatriots, and last, by the new law which he brought. Zwemer suggests Muhammad defied Arab ethical traditions, and that he personally violated the strict sexual morality of his own moral system. 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."

William Montgomery Watt, a contemporary scholar says that there is no solid ground for the view of 19th century western scholars that Muhammad's character declined after Muhammad went to Medina. He argues that "in both Meccan and Medinan periods Muhammad's contemporaries looked on him as a good and upright man, and in the eyes of history he is a moral and social reformer." Contemporary critics such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali have criticized Muhammad for preaching beliefs that are incompatible with democracy, and Ali has called him a "tyrant". Daniel Pipes sees Muhammad as a politician, stating that "because Muhammad created a new community, the religion that was its raison d'etre had to meet the political needs of its adherents." Ibn Warraq, another critic, laments that "unfortunately, as he gained in confidence and increased his political and military power, so the story goes, Muhammad turned from being a persuader to being a legislator, warrior, and dictator."

Muhammad's marriages

See also: Muhammad's wives

The fact that the Quran exempts Muhammad from laws concerning polygamy and the like has been a source of controversy.

Many critics accuse Muhammad of being motivated by "womanly attractions". However, Muslims point out that Muhammad married Khadija (a widow whose age is estimated to be 40), when he was 23 years old. Haykal argues that at this age Muhammad was "at the height of his youth, the fullness of manhood, and the apex of power and handsomeness", yet he remained monogamously married to Khadija for more than 25 years.

Aisha

Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is particularly controversial, mainly because of her age during the marriage. The hadith collections of Bukhari (d. 870) and Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875) are in general regarded as the most authentic by Sunni Muslims. Both quote Aisha herself claiming she was six or seven at the time of her marriage and nine when the marriage was consummated. D A Spellberg states that in Ibn Sa'd, the age of Aisha at marriage varies between six and seven. She stayed in her parents' home till she had reached puberty at nine (or maybe ten according to Ibn Hisham) and then her marriage with Muhammad was consummated. Spellberg states that "all these references to the Aisha's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status, and, implicitly her virginity."

The age of Aisha is of particular concern to some non-Muslims, who denounce Muhammad for having sexual relations with a girl so young. Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali has called Muhammad a "pervert" for marrying a girl as young as six,. while American Baptist reverend Jerry Vines called him a "pedophile". Colin Turner, a professor of Persian language and Islamic history, however, states that Muhammad's marriage in its context was not in the least improper. Such marriages between an older man and a young girl were customary among Bedouins as they still are in many societies across the world. Coulin further writes that Arabs in the seventh century tended to reach adulthood at an earlier age than Westerners today.

There is considerable debate among Muslim scholars over Aisha's age at marriage. The Indian Muslim leader Maulana Muhammad Ali makes a detailed historical argument that Aisha could not have been more than nine or ten at the time of betrothal, and fifteen at marriage. Others fix her age at consummation as late as nineteen. American scholar Muqtedar Khan also concurs with Shanavas, who argues that there are different reports within the Islamic sources about the age of Aisha at the time of marriage. A majority of scholars accept the traditional account of Aisha being married at the age of nine. Some respond to criticism of the young marriage by arguing that she had reached puberty by then,. In an effort to show that Aisha's marriage was not unusual, defenders point out that early marriages were common in most cultures until fairly recent times. In medieval Britain, "Girlhood was brief. Women were marriageable at twelve and usually married by fourteen. Heiresses might be married in form as young as five and betrothed even younger..."

Safiyya bint Huyayy

Safiyya bint Huyayy was a Jewish woman from the Banu Nadir tribe who became Muhammad's eleventh wife when she was 17 years old. Modern scholars opine that Muhammad chose to marry Safiyya, as part of reconciliation with the Jewish tribe, and as a gesture of goodwill. Some think that Muhammad married Safiyya as part of a deal to conclude a peace treaty.

According to Ibn Ishaq, Kinana ibn al-Rabi was asked by Muhammad to reveal the location of some hidden treasure. When he refused, Muhammad ordered a man to torture Kinana, and the man "kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead." Kinana was then beheaded. Rodinson states that Muhammad took Safiyya into his bed the same day her husband was killed by Muhammad b. Maslamah.

Those few Western scholars who discuss the alleged torture of Kinana, like William Muir, do not question the validity of the story. Its validity is in fact rejected by Nomani. Nomani also states that Safiyya's husband was killed because he had previously murdered Mahmud b. Maslamah, Muhammad b. Maslamah's brother.

Violence

Ibn Ishaq writes that Muhammad approved the beheading of some 600-900 individuals from the Banu Qurayza who surrendered unconditionally after a siege that lasted several weeks. 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. 17 folio 108b. Manuscript now housed in the British Library.

There have been several incidents recorded in Islamic histories and hadith that have served as the basis for criticisms of Muhammad's alleged cruel and unforgiving behavior in war. Muhammad's dealings with his Jewish contemporaries has been an issue in particular. Moroccan liberal 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."

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 Kaaba to Jerusalem 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 Kaaba for worship: The reason, the Qur'an states, was to emphasize the distinction between Muslims and Pagans. If the idea was to keep the 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).

Ibn Ishaq (d. 761) relates that, while in a certain town, Muhammad gave license to his men to "kill any Jew who falls into your power." In short order, Muhayyisa ibn Mas'ud slayed a Jewish merchant named Ibn Sunayna. When Muhayyisa's brother Huwayyisa confronted him about the deed, he boasted that "had Muhammad commanded him to murder his (Muhayyisa's) brother, he would have done so." This display of faith caused Huwayyisa to convert to Islam on the spot, proclaiming that "any religion that can bring you to this is indeed wonderful!" (This story is partially corroborated in a hadith [2]).

Also, in answering criticisms of this type, some Muslim scholars argue that Muhammad's actions disqualify him as God's spokesman only if such actions also disqualify men like Joshua, or conversely compare Muhammad favorably with Old Testament figures like Joshua However, Joshua was chiefly a military leader, not a moral leader and definitely not the greatest prophet to be emulated like Moses in Judaism or Jesus in Christianity. Muhammad on the other hand is seen as the greatest prophet in Islam.

Muhammad is also criticised for the death of the men of 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. Ibn Ishaq writes that Muhammad approved the beheading of some 600-900 individuals who surrendered unconditionally after a siege that lasted several weeks. (Also see Bukhari Template:Bukhari-usc) (Yusuf Ali notes that the Qur'an discusses this battle in verses ^{[Quran 33:10]}). 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 bitter, was common practice throughout the ancient world. According to Rudi Paret, the 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. Esposito, aiming at understanding the incident in its historical context, also argues that in Muhammad's time traitors were executed and alleging similar situations in the Bible. Similarly, Nomani argues that Muhammad was simply acting in accordance with the Torah when dealing with the Jewish tribe. Furthermore, Nomani quotes the Jews who themselves declared their killing as a "divine command" and a "punishment".

A few Muslim scholars, such as W. N. Arafat and Barakat Ahmad, have disputed the historicity of the incident. Ahmad, argues that only the leaders of the tribe were killed. (see his thesis) Arafat argued that Ibn Ishaq gathered information from descendants of the Qurayza Jews, who embellished or manufactured the details of the incident. Watt finds Arafat's arguments "not entirely convincing."

Ownership of slaves

Main article: Muhammad's slaves

Some scholars criticise the Islamic world for allegedly having allowed slavery to persist for some time after it was abolished in the West. Rodney Stark points to the example set by Muhammad as a possible reason for this, saying that "the fundamental problem facing Muslim theologians vis-a-vis the morality of slavery is that Muhammad bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves." Although he does admit that Muhammad "advise(d) that slaves be treated well," he 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.

Muhammad is criticised for apparently having had a child by a slave girl called Maria or Mariyah, who was a present from the Byzantine ruler of Egypt. By some accounts Muhammad did not marry her because she would not convert to Islam, though other Islamic researchers claim that Muhammad was indeed married to Mariyah.

However, some defend Muhammad by highlighting his supposed fair treatment of slaves. For example, there was a slave called Zayd ibn Harithah, whom Muhammad freed and adopted. Zayd may have been the first male to convert to Islam, and later became a trusted companion to Muhammad. One early biography relates Muhammad as having said that "he (Zayd b. Harithah) was one of the dearest to me of all men." Additionally, some Muslims point to the following hadith as evidence that Muhammad saw all men as being equal under God:

(Narrated Abu Hurayrah:) The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: None of you must say: "My slave" (abdi) and "My slave-woman" (amati), and a slave must not say: "My lord" (rabbi or rabbati). The master (of a slave) should say: "My young man" (fataya) and "My young woman" (fatati), and a slave should say "My master" (sayyidi) and "My mistress" (sayyidati), for you are all Allah's slave and the Lord is Allah, Most High. (Abu Dawud 41:4957)

Psychology

Muhammad is reported to have mysterious seizures at the moments of inspiration. Welch, a scholar of Islamic studies, in 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. Muhammad's enemies however accused him as one possessed, a soothsayer, or a magician since these experiences made an impression similar to those soothsayer figures well known in ancient Arabia. 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.

Commenting on the seizures, critics have brought up what they see as evidence of psychological problems. Some specifically categorize his religious revelations as the product of these alleged problems. D. S. Margoliouth claims that there are confirmations that the 'strange fits' that allegedly beset Muhammad while he was receiving revelation were a sign of epilepsy, and were even occasionally faked for effect. Sprenger attributes Muhammad's revelations to epileptic fits or a "paroxysm of cataleptic insanity." In an essay that discusses views of Muhammad's psychology, Dr. Franz Bul 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 "the safest way to interpret the strange inconsistencies in the life of the Prophet." In the same essay Dr. D. B. Mcdonald 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."

A number of scholars have rejected the diagnosis of epilepsy. Academic scholar Tor 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." Noth, in the Encyclopedia of Islam, states that such accusations were a typical feature of medieval European Christian polemic.

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."

Gary Miller disputes claims that Muhammad was deluded. He states that if the Qur'an was originated from some psychological problems in Muhammed's mind, there would have been evidence of it in the Qur'an. Miller finds no such evidence, seeing it as a remarkably stable book that doesn't shows any sign of being affected by intense issues going on in Muhammad's mind such as the death of his wife and children and his fear of the initial revelations.

Medieval allegations of Satanic connection

Some Medieval ecclesiastical writers claimed that Muhammad was completely possessed by Satan, and that everything he said and did was Satan's work. Others hold that the incident of the so-called 'Satanic Verses' casts doubt on the reliability of Muhammad's revelations.

Gary Miller compares the claim that Qur'an was revealed by Satan to Muhammad with the story in New Testament in which Jews accused Jesus of being helped by Satan. He claims that this is the "quickest and cheapest excuse available." Pointing to verse ^{[Quran 16:98]}, He claims that a man could write "Before you read my book, ask God to save you from me" but Satan couldn't do this.

Yusuf Ali claims that the accusation that Muhammad was possessed was similar to the accusation levelled at Moses by the Pharaoh. This comes in a comment to a verse in the Qur'an that claims that the same charge was made against all of God's prior messengers (thus discounting its weight):

Similarly, no messenger came to the Peoples before them, but they said (of him) in like manner, "A sorcerer, or one possessed!" (^{[Quran 51:52]})

Personal motives

Non-Muslim views

Did Muhammad believe he was a prophet, or did he consider himself a fraud? Many critics express some doubt of Muhammad's sincerity.

19th century and early 20th century

In his 1841 essay "On Heroes And Hero Worship And The Heroic In History" Thomas Carlyle alleged that Muhammad was "an impostor, who to satisfy his ambition and his lust propagated religious teachings which he himself knew to be false." William Muir, a 19th century scholar, 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. 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. 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.

Late 20th century

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." According to Montgomery Watt, recent writers have generally dismissed notions of deceit, arguing that he was sincere and acted in good faith. Watt concludes that Muhammad himself did believe that he was receiving revelations. 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 ....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 sincerety 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 uncounsious, or the collective uncounscious functioning in him, or from some divine source, is beyond the competence of the historian.

Rudi Paret agrees, writing that "Muhammad was not a deceptor," 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."

Bernard Lewis, another modern historian, commenting on the common western Medieval view of Muhammad as a self-seeking impostor, states that

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."

Muslim arguments

The Islamic scholar Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi discussed and defended Muhammad in his book The Meaning Of Islam. He saw Muhammad as essentially an ordinary man before he began receiving his revelations at the age of forty, writing that "he was not known as a statesman, a preacher, or an orator... there was nothing so deeply striking and so radically extraordinary in him which could make men expect something great and revolutionary from him in the future." He then goes on to describe Muhammad's transformation from an "unlettered" tribesman into a widely-hailed poet and a matchless military leader and political reformer. According to Maududi, the only way to explain the rise of one such as Muhammad from the "all-pervading darkness of Arabia" is to conclude that he really was inspired by God.

Arguments from other Muslims, such as Gary Miller and Ahmed Deedat, include the following:

• Muhammad's confidence and his behavior when his life was threatened shows he really thought he was a prophet. (E.g. Paragraph 25 and 26 in The Amazing Quran.)
• Muhammad doesn't credit coincidences to himself. (For example Ahmed Deedat makes such an argument based on Muhammad al-Bukhari Template:Bukhari-usc)
• Gary Miller argues that the Qur'an offers a "test of falsification" for its authenticity, a test he believes is not offered by other religious scriptures or other religions in general. He also points out to Qur'an's practice of advising the reader to verify the authenticity of the statements made in the book.

Muslims have been quick to respond to the allegation that Muhammad invented the religion of Islam as a political tool to gain leadership amongst his people. Ahmed Deedat claims that the Qur'an makes it clear that Muhammad is nothing more than human, and that he himself is not to be worshipped. Deedat also points out verses in the Qur'an in which God chastizes Muhammad for slight mistakes. He mentions one in particular that reads: "[Muhammad] frowned, and turned away, because there came to him a blind man interrupting (his sermon). But what could tell the, that perchance he might grow (in spiritual understanding)?" and states that "Afterward, Muhammad would remember to greet that man with kind words."

Regarding disbelief of Muhammad's message early in his career, the commentator Yusuf Ali discusses verse ^{[Quran 18:6]}, stating that "(Muhammad) is here consoled (by Allah), and told that he was not to fret himself to death: he was nobly doing his duty."

References

See also

• Criticism of Jesus
• Criticism of Moses