Criticism of Muhammad
![]() | This article possibly contains original research. (October 2007) |
Template:Muslims and controversies
Part of a series on |
Muhammad |
---|
Criticism of Muhammad has existed since the 7th century, when he was attacked by his non-Muslim Arab contemporaries for preaching monotheism, his marriages and military expeditions. During the medieval ages, he was frequently demonized in European polemic. In modern times, the criticism deals with Muhammad's marriages, military expeditions, and his attitude towards slavery.
Non-Muslim criticism of Muhammad
During the time of Muhammad[1] 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.[2] 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).[3]
Christians were also often dismissive of Muhammad, many producing highly critical accounts of his life.[4] Some reports on Muhammad's life and death include claims 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".[5] 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.[6]
Martin Luther referred to Muhammad as "a devil and first-born child of Satan".[7] 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 Gautama Buddha is not as worthy as belief in Moses and Jesus.[8]
Gabriel Oussani in Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) states that Muhammad was inspired by an "imperfect understanding" of Judaism and Christianity.[7] Gabriel Oussani says 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."[7] 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."[7] 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.[9] 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."[10][7]
Contemporary Evangelical Christian leader Jerry Falwell had 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."[11] 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."[12] 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"[13] and a "pervert".[14] 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."[15]
Muhammad's marriages
One of the popular historical criticisms of Muhammad in west has been his polygynous marriages, John Esposito states.[16] The attitude of Western scholars on this issue has however considerably changed recently. [17] John Esposito states that the Semitic culture in general permitted polygyny (for example its practice could be found in biblical and postbiblical Judaism); it was particularly a common practice among Arabs especially among nobles and leaders. [16] Muslims have often pointed out that Muhammad married Khadija (a widow whose age is estimated to be 40), when he was 25 years old and he remained monogamously married to Khadija for more than 25 years until she died. He can not then expected to indulge in it at the age of fifty especially when he has become a preacher and creator of a spiritual system, Fazlur Rahman states. [17][16] Esposito holds that most of Muhammad's eleven marriages had political and social motives. It was customary for Arab chiefs to use marriage for cementing political alliances; and remarriage for widows was hard in a society that emphasized virgin marriages.[16]
Aisha
Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is particularly controversial, mainly because of her age during the marriage. D. A. Spellberg states that in Ibn Sa'd, the age of Aisha at marriage varies between six and seven.[18] Spellberg states that "these specific references to the bride's age reinforce A'isha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity. They also suggest the variability of A'isha's age in the historical record."[18] 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.[18][19]
The age of Aisha is of particular concern to some non-Muslims, who denounce Muhammad for having sexual relations with a girl so young. American Baptist reverend Jerry Vines called him a "demon-possessed pedophile". 'Faheem Rokadiya said: On the other hand, the Prophet, who is a messenger of Allah, and the Prophet of Islam, is based on the foundation that all people should be treated fairly. The Prophet was a kind, fair and noble man. A man who everybody could look up to out of respect, because he had respect for everything in the world. Why should we disrespect him like this, when he has done nothing wrong to us. Devil he is none- only his enemy.' [20][21] Jewish leaders and mainstream Protestant groups joined Muslims in denouncing the comments made by the reverend. Abraham Foxman from the Anti-Defamation League described Vines' comments as "deplorable", adding that they were "not surprising coming from the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention, which has a track record of denigrating and delegitimizing other religions."[21] Colin Turner, a professor of Persian language and Islamic history, states that Muhammad's marriage, in its historical context, would not have been considered 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.[22]
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.[23] Accordingly, after the Muslims conquered the Jewish fortress of Khaybar, the Muslims struck a deal with a Jewish leader named Kinana, the husband of Saffiya bint Huyyay. The deal stated that if anyone tried to hide any treasures, they would be killed. Kinana agreed to this, but a few days later, his treasures were found and he was beheaded by the Muslims since he agreed to it. Later on, Safiyya converted to Islam and chose to marry the Prophet Muhammad. She recounted that while she was sleeping in Khaybar before the Muslim conquest, she saw a bright shining moon coming from the direction of Madinah and landing in her lap in Khaybar. When she told her first husband, Kinana, about this, he beat her, saying, "This can only mean that you desire to marry that Prophet from Madinah." Her bruises were still visible after the capture of Khaybar.
Jewish tribes of Medina
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Banu_Qurayza.png/200px-Banu_Qurayza.png)
Muhammad has been often criticized in West for his treatment of the Jewish tribes of Medina, John Esposito states.[16]
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."[25] 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). [26]
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.[27][28] Ibn Ishaq writes that Muhammad approved the beheading of some 600-900 individuals who surrendered unconditionally after a siege that lasted several weeks.[24] (Also see Bukhari Template:Bukhari-usc) (Yusuf Ali notes that the Qur'an discusses this battle in verses [Quran 33:10]).[29] 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.[30] 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.[31] 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.[32] Esposito says that Muhammad's motivation was political rather than racial or theological; he was trying to establish Muslim dominance and rule in Arabia.[16]
A few Muslim scholars, such as W. N. Arafat and Barakat Ahmad, have disputed the historicity of the incident.[33] Ahmad, argues that only the leaders of the tribe were killed. (see his thesis)[34] Arafat argued that Ibn Ishaq gathered information from descendants of the Qurayza Jews, who embellished or manufactured the details of the incident.[35][36] Watt finds Arafat's arguments "not entirely convincing."[37]
Ownership of 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 argues that 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.[38]
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.[39]
However, some defend Muhammad by arguing he treated slaves fairly. 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."[40]
Psychological and medical condition
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. [41]
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."[42] 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.[42] In 1967, The Christian minister, Archdeacon Humphrey Prideux gave the following description of Muhammad's visions[42]:
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 was come from God with some Revelations unto him.
Prideux, 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."[42] During the nineteenth century, as Islam was no longer a political or military threat to Western society, and the views regarding epilepsy was changed, the theological and moral associations with epilepsy was removed; epilepsy was now viewed as a medical disorder. [42] Nineteenth century orientalist, D. S. Margoliouth claims that Muhammad suffered from epilepsy and even occasionally faked it for effect.[43] Sprenger attributes Muhammad's revelations to epileptic fits or a "paroxysm of cataleptic insanity."[7] The most famous epileptic of the 19th century, Fyodor Dostoevsky (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. Dostoevski 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."[42] 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 "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."[44]
Modern western scholars of Islam have rejected the diagnosis of epilepsy.[42] 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."[45] Noth, in the Encyclopedia of Islam, states that such accusations were a typical feature of medieval European Christian polemic.[46] 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.[47] 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. [48] 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." [49]
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.[42] In his differential diagnosis, Freemon rejects schizophrenic hallucinations, [50] drug-induced mental changes such as might occur after eating plants containing hallucinogenic materials [51], transient ischemic attacks [52], hypoglycemia [53], labyrinthitis, Ménière’s disease, or other inner ear maladies [54]. 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. [55] 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. [56] 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. [42] 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's and Jesus's 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 have the plan to write an article on the inspirational spells of St. Paul, but the existence of such misconceptions cancels his plan. [57]
Personal motives
Non-Muslim views
- 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."[12] 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.[58] 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.[59] 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.[60]
- Late 20th century
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”.[61] 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."[62] Watt says that sincerity does not directly imply correctness: In contemporary terms, Muhammad might have mistaken for divine revelation his own unconscious.[63] 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 [64] ....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.[65]
Rudi Paret agrees, writing that "Muhammad was not a deceptor,"[66] 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."[67]
Bernard Lewis, another modern historian, commenting on the common western Medieval view of Muhammad as a self-seeking impostor, states that [68]
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." [12]
Muslim arguments
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."[69]
References
- ^ [Quran 68:2]
- ^ Stillman, Norman (1979). The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book, p. 236, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. ISBN 0-8276-0116-6.
- ^ Yusuf Ali, "The Meaning of the Holy Quran", (11th Edition), p. 1364, Amana Publications, 1989, ISBN 0-915957-76-0
- ^ Ernst, Carl (2002). Rethinking Muhammad in the Contemporary World) p. 16
- ^ Ernst, Carl (2002). Rethinking Muhammad in the Contemporary World p. 16
- ^ Lacy, Norris J. (Ed.) (December 1, 1992). Lancelot-Grail: The Old French Arthurian Vulgate and Post-Vulgate in Translation, Volume 1 of 5. New York: Garland. ISBN 0-8240-7733-4.
- ^ a b c d e f Mohammed and Mohammedanism, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913
- ^ Theodicy, G. W. Leibniz, 1710
- ^ Zwemer suggests Muhammad defied Arab ethical traditions, and that he personally violated the strict sexual morality of his own moral system.
- ^ Zwemer, "Islam, a Challenge to Faith" (New York, 1907)
- ^ "Falwell Sorry For Bashing Muhammad". CBS News. October 14, 2002.
- ^ a b c Watt, W. Montgomery (1961). Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press. p. 229. ISBN 0-19-881078-4. Cite error: The named reference "Watt" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ Slaughter And 'Submission' - CBSnews.com
- ^ Der Speigel Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 'Everyone Is Afraid to Criticize Islam'
- ^ Pipes, Daniel (2002). In the Path of God : Islam and Political Power. Transaction Publishers. p. 43. ISBN 0-7658-0981-8.
- ^ a b c d e f John Esposito, Islam the straight path, Oxford University Press, p.17-18
- ^ a b Fazlur Rahman, Islam, p.28
- ^ a b c D. A. Spellberg, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: the Legacy of A'isha bint Abi Bakr, Columbia University Press, 1994, p. 40
- ^ Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, Harper San Francisco, 1992, page 157.
- ^ Anthony Browne, Film-maker is murdered for his art, Times Online, November 3, 2004
- ^ a b Cooperman, Alan (June 20, 2002). "Anti-Muslim Remarks Stir Tempest". The Washington Post.
- ^ C. (Colin) Turner, Islam: The Basics, Routledge Press, p.34-35
- ^ Safiyya bint Huyay, Fatima az-Zahra by Ahmad Thompson
- ^ a b Ibn Ishaq, A. Guillaume (translator), The Life of Muhammad, p. 464, 2002, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-636033-1
- ^ Translated by MEMRI.
- ^ Fazlur Rahman (1966), Islam, p.20
- ^ Bukhari Template:Bukhari-usc
- ^ Daniel W. Brown, A New Introduction to Islam, p. 81, 2003, Blackwell Publishers, ISBN 0-631-21604-9
- ^ Yusuf Ali, "The Meaning of the Holy Quran", (11th Edition), p. 1059, Amana Publications, 1989, ISBN 0-915957-76-0
- ^ Stillman(1974), p.16
- ^ Quoted in Stillman(1974), p.16
- ^ BBC Radio 4, Beyond Belief, Oct 2, 2006, Islam and the sword
- ^ Meri, p. 754.
- ^ Nemoy, Leon. Barakat Ahmad's "Muhammad and the Jews".The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Ser., Vol. 72, No. 4. (Apr., 1982), pp. 325. Nemoy is sourcing Ahmed's Muhammad and the Jews.
- ^ Walid N. Arafat (1976), JRAS, p. 100-107.
- ^ Barakat Ahmad, Muhammad and the Jews: A Re-examination, holds that only the leaders of the Qurayza were killed.
- ^ Watt, Encyclopaedia of Islam, "Kurayza, Banu".
- ^ Rodney Stark, "For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery", p. 388, 2003, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-11436-6
- ^ William Montgomery Watt, "Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman", p. 195, p. 226, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-881078-4
- ^ Karim D. Crow, "Facing One Qiblah: Legal and Doctrinal Aspects of Sunny and Shi'ah Muslims", 2005, p. 143, Ibex Publishers, ISBN 9971-77-552-2
- ^ Encyclopedia of Islam online, Muhammad article
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Frank R. Freemon, A Differential Diagnosis of the Inspirational Spells of Muhammad the Prophet of Islam, Journal of Epilepsia, 17 :4 23-427, 1976
- ^ Margoliouth, David Samuel (1905). Mohammed and the Rise of Islam. Putnam. p. 46.
- ^ Jeffery, Arthur (2000). The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. Prometheus Books. p. 346. ISBN 1-57392-787-2.
- ^ See:
- Caesar Farah, "Islam: Beliefs and Observances" (2003), Barron's Educational Series, ISBN 0764122266
- Tor Andrae, Mohammad: The Man and his Faith, trans. Theophil Menzel (New York: Harper Torch Book Series, 1960), p.51
- ^ Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam.
- ^ Maxime Rodinson, Muhammad: Prophet of Islam, p.56
- ^ Fazlur Rahman, Islam, University of Chicago Press, p.13
- ^ See:
- W.Montgomery Watt, Richard Bell. "Bell's Introduction to the Qur'an"(1995) Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 0748605975, pp 17-18;
- Watt, W. Montgomery (1961). Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press. p. 19. ISBN 0-19-881078-4.
- ^ Freemon starts his own differential diagnosis by arguing that "one must remember that Muhammad’s inspired followers lived closely with him in his early and unsuccessful ministry; these same individuals demonstrated brilliant leadership of the explosively expanding Islamic state after his death". He thus rejects schizophrenic hallucinations thesis arguing that the dull effect of the schizophrenic can hardly inspire the tenacious loyalty of the early followers. "It is also unlikely that a person with loose associations and other elements of schizophrenic thought disorder could guide the political and military fortunes of the early Islamic state."
- ^ Freemon does so for two reasons: It can not justify the rapid, almost paroxysmal onset of these spells. Furthermore, without personal conviction of the reality of his visions, Muhammad could not have convinced his astute followers.
- ^ According to Freemon, "Too many of these spells occurred over too long a period of time to suggest transient ischemic attacks, and no neurologic deficits outside the mental sphere were observed."
- ^ Freemon argues that long duration, absence of worsening, and paroxysmal onset make hypoglycemia unlikely
- ^ He argues that absence of vertigo rules out labyrinthitis, MeniBre’s disease, or other inner ear maladies.
- ^ Supporting this diagnosis, he cites Paroxysmal onset, failing to the ground with loss of conscious, autonomic dysfunction and hallucinatory imagery. On the evidences opposing the diagnosis he mentions the late age of onset, lack of recognition as seizures by his contemporaries, and lastly poetic, organized statements in immediate postictal period.
- ^ Freemon explain this by quoting William James"Just as our primary wide-awake consciousness throws open our senses to the touch of things material, so it is logically conceivable that if there be higher spiritual agencies that can directly touch us, the psychological condition of their doing so might be our possession of a subconscious region which alone should yield access to them. The hubbub of the waking life might close a door which in the dreamy subliminal might remain ajar or open."
- ^ Letters to the Editor, Journal of Epilepsia. 18(2), 1977.
- ^ Muir, William (1878). Life of Mahomet. Kessinger Publishing. p. 583. ISBN 0-7661-7741-6.
- ^ Margoliouth, David Samuel (1905). Mohammed and the Rise of Islam. Putnam. pp. 88, 89, 104–106.
- ^ Margoliouth, David Samuel (1926). Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (Volume 8). T&T Clark. p. 878. ISBN 0-567-09489-8.
- ^ Watt, Bell (1995) p. 18
- ^ The Cambridge History of Islam (1970), Cambridge University Press, p.30
- ^ Watt, Muhammad Prophet and Statesman, p.17
- ^ Watt, Montgomery, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press, 1961. From p. 232.
- ^ The Cambridge History of Islam (1970), Cambrdige University Press, p.30
- ^ Minou Reeves, Muhammad in Europe, New York University Press, p.6, 2000
- ^ Encyclopedia of Islam, Muhammad
- ^ The Arabs in History, Lewis, p.45-46
- ^ Ali, Abdullah Yusuf (2004). The Meaning Of The Holy Quran (11th Edition). Amana Publications. p. 708. ISBN 1-59008-025-4.
See also
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/38px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png)