Criticism of Muhammad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on the Islamic prophet Muhammad

Family tree Before Medina In Medina After the conquest Succession As a diplomat As a general As a husband As a reformer Towards animals Islamic view Mawlid In poetry Non-Islamic view Regarding historicity Criticism Depictions This box: view • talk • edit

This is a sub-article to Criticism of Islam and Non-Muslim view of Muhammad

Muslims consider Muhammad to be the final and greatest prophet, the messenger of the final revelation that he called the Qur’an. Muslims believe that Muhammad was righteous and holy. However, some scholars such as Koelle and Ibn Warraq, as well as other former Muslims such as Ali Sina, and some non-Muslims, see some of his actions as very immoral.^[1][2] Islamic scholars, such as William Montgomery Watt disagree, especially when a comparison is made between Muhammad and Biblical prophets. Watt, for example, argues that Muhammad should be judged by the standards of his own time and country rather than "by those of the most enlightened opinion in the West today." Muslims have also questioned the historical evidence for some of Muhammad's alleged immoral acts.

Contents 1 Non-Muslim perspectives on Muhammad 2 Personal motives 2.1 Non-Muslim views 2.2 Muslim arguments 3 Muhammad's marriages 3.1 Aisha 3.2 Zaynab bint Jahsh 4 Violence 5 Ownership of slaves 6 Psychology 7 Medieval allegations of Satanic connection 8 References

[edit] Non-Muslim perspectives on Muhammad

During the time of Muhammad^[3] 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.^[4]

Christians were also often dismissive of Muhammad, many producing negative and inflammatory accounts of his life that were deliberately "malicious".^[5] 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".^[6] Martin Luther referred to Muhammad as "a devil and first-born child of Satan".^[1] Maracci held that Muhammad and Islam were not very dissimilar to Luther and Protestantism.^[1] 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.^[7] The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) states that Muhammad was inspired by an "imperfect understanding" of Judaism and Christianity.^[1] Some contemporary evangelical Christian leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Jerry Vines have called Muhammad "a terrorist"^[8] and a "demon possessed pedophile who had twelve wives."^[9]

Gabriel Oussani in Catholic Encyclopedia states that the views of Luther and those who call Muhammad a 'wicked imposter', '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 Mohammed's life and character, and substantially agree as to his motives, prophetic call, personal qualifications, and sincerity."^[1] 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."^[1] William Montgomery Watt, on the other hand, has stated his belief that there are no solid grounds for the view 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."^[10]

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."^[11]

Watt believes that Muhammad had genuine religious experiences and really did receive something directly from God but does not believe that the Qur’an is infallibly true in the sense that all its commands are valid for all time.^[12] 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."^[13] 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."^[14] However, John Esposito sees Muhammad in a sympathetic light, as a reformer who did away with many of the terrible practices of the pagan Arabs. "Muhammad's prophetic call summoned the people to strive and struggle (jihad) to reform their communities and to live a good life based on religious belief and not loyalty to their tribe."^[15]

[edit] Personal motives

[edit] 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. The view of western scholars has changed over time. In the following we present the views of two renowned 19th century scholar followed by the views of Modern historians.

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.^[16] D. S. Margoliouth, another 19th century scholar, sees Muhammad as a charlatan who beguiled his followers with techniques like those used by 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.^[17] 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.[18]

Modern historians on the other hand have concluded that Muhammad was both devout and sincere in his claim of receiving revelation, "for this alone makes credible the development of a great religion." ^{[19] [20]} 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." ^[21]

William Montgomery Watt, a modern historian, argues that Muhammad really was inspired by God, and did not abuse his prophethood for personal gain:

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 Iying or imposture.[12]

Bernard Lewis, another modern historian, states that ^[22]

The modern historian will not readily believe that so great and significant a movement was started by a self-seeking imposter. 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

Montgomery 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," ^[10]

[edit] 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 do 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.^[23]

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.)^[24]
• Muhammad doesn't credit coincidences to himself. (For example Ahmed Deedat makes such an argument based on Muhammad al-Bukhari 2:18:153)^[25]
• 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.^[24]

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: "(The prophet) 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."^[26]

Regarding disbelief of Muhammad's message early in his career, the commentator Yusuf Ali discusses verse 18:6, stating that that "(Muhammad) is here consoled (by Allah), and told that he was not to fret himself to death: he was nobly doing his duty."^[27]

[edit] Muhammad's marriages

Main article: Muhammad's marriages

The fact that the Quran exempts Mohammed from laws concerning polyagmy, adultery, and the like has been a source of controversy.

[edit] Aisha

Main article: Aisha's age at marriage

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.^[28] 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^[29][28] Spellberg states that "all these references to the Aisha's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status, and, implicitly her virginity."^[28]

The age of Aisha is particularly concerning to non-Muslims, who denounce Muhammad for having sexual relations with a girl so young. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has called Muhammad a "pervert" for allegedly marrying a girl as young as six and Jerry Vines has called Muhammad a "pedophile"^[30][9]

There is considerable debate among Muslim scholars over Aisha's age at marriage. 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.^[31] Others fix her age at consummation as late as nineteen.^[32] 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.^[33][34] The majority of scholars accept the tradition that Aisha was married at the age of nine. Some respond to criticism of the young marriage by claiming that she had reached puberty by then.^[35] 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.^[36] 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..."^[37] There is even an account in Christian apocryphal writings that claims that Mary, mother of Jesus, was between the ages of twelve and fourteen at the time of her marriage to a ninety-year old Joseph, though many churches see these works as suspicious or unreliable for various reasons. ^[38]

[edit] Zaynab bint Jahsh

Muhammad has been criticized for marrying Zaynab bint-Jahsh, the divorced wife of his adopted son.^[39] Watt, however, holds that Muhammad didn't marry Zaynab for sexual desire, but that this marriage was mainly a "political act in which an undesirable practice of 'adoption' belonging to a lower moral level was ended".

[edit] Violence

Main article: Muhammad as a general

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.

Ibn Ishaq 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 slew 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!"^[40] (This story is partially corroborated in a hadith [5]).

Ibn Warraq believes this illustrates a "ruthless fanaticism into which the teaching of the Prophet was fast drifting."^[41] Scholar Daniel W. Brown concurs with this story, but does not pass judgment.^[42] In response, some Muslims question the reliability of the hadith in which the story appears (specifically, claiming that its isnad is weak). They also claim that Ibn Hisham, a disciple of Ibn Ishaq who edited his work, questioned Ishaq's timing of the incident, casting doubt on the story's accuracy as a whole.^[43] 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^[44][45]

Muhammad is also criticised for the alleged massacre of men from a tribe of Jews called the Banu Qurayza, in 627. These Jews, living inside the Medina, had apparently broken their covenant with Muhammad (possibly for the second time) and given aid to his enemies during the Battle of the Trench. In that battle, a large force formed by a coalition of Meccans and their allies besieged the significantly outnumbered Muslims in Medina.^[46][47] Ibn Ishaq writes that Muhammad approved the beheading of some 600-900 individuals who surrendered unconditionally after a siege that lasted several weeks, and also relates how Ka'b, the leader of the Qurayza, was convinced to turn against Muhammad via the exhortations of an enemy leader named Huyayy ibn Akhtab.^[48] (Also see Bukhari 5:59:362) (Yusuf Ali notes that the Qur'an discusses this battle in verses 33:10-27).^[49] The women and children were sold into slavery.

Some critics believe this event set a disturbing precedent in Islamic law that established the right of Muslim captors to show no mercy to captives of war.^{[citation needed]} However, supporters such as John L. Esposito claim that Muhammad was justified in his actions (or at least not at fault by the standards of that time) because the Qurayza Jews had, in fact, been negotiating with the Muslims' enemies.^[50] Still others don't attempt to justify the event, but instead question the validity of the story itself, noting that Ibn Ishaq supposedly gathered many details of the incident from descendents of the Qurayza Jews themselves. These Jews allegedly embellished or manufactured details of the incident by borrowing from histories of Jewish persecutions during Roman times.^[51]

Another controversial story is that of an attack on a Jewish settlement called Khaybar. After its last fort was taken by Muhammad and his men, the chief of the Jews, called 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, and Muhammad took his young wife Safiyya bint Huyayy ^[52]According to Al-Bukhari, Muslims wondered if she was to be a concubine or a wife to Muhammad, and speculated that if he ordered her to veil herself, she will be one of the "Mothers of the Believers" (one of his wives), but if he does not, then she would become a concubine of his. Muhammad threw his own mantle on her, and took her for wife.^[53] Some think that Muhammad married Safiyya as part of a deal to conclude a peace treaty.^[54] Muslim scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali holds that Muhammad married the widowed Safiyya, who had supposedly already fallen into his hands as a captive, as a gesture of goodwill.^[55]

Critics take these events, especially the story of the torture of Kinana, to be another blot on Muhammad's character.^[56] Those few Western scholars who discuss the alleged torture of Kinana, like William Muir, do not question the validity of the story.^[57] Muslims generally dispute this incident. Some claim that this was yet another story that Ibn Ishaq heard second-hand from Jewish sources, casting doubt on its authenticity.^[58] Others argue that Kinana was killed in battle and never taken captive.^[59]

[edit] 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 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.^[60]

Muhammad is criticised^[61] for apparently having had a child by a slave girl called Mariyah (who was a present from the ruler of Egypt). It was said that Muhammad did not marry her because she would not convert to Islam,^[62] though other Islamic reseachers claim that Muhammad was indeed married to Mariyah.^[63]

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."^[64] Additionally, some Muslims point to the following hadith as evidence that Muhammad saw all men as being equal under God:^[65]

(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)

[edit] Psychology

When discussing Muhammad's life, 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, a former clergyman of the Church of England, claims 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.^[66] Sprenger attributes Muhammad's revelations to epileptic fits or a "paroxysm of cataleptic insanity."^[1] 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."^[67]

William Montgomery Watt disagrees with this line of criticism, and provides a detailed response. First, he claims that Muhammad did not even have epilepsy, 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." Finally, he implies that these types of accusations aren't relevant to the question of the reality of Muhammad's revelations, which should be left to theologians to argue. "These physical accompaniments... can never either prove or disprove the truth of the content of the experiences."^[68]

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.^[24]

[edit] Medieval allegations of Satanic connection

Some Medieval ecclesiastical writers^[1] 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.^[69]

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 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.^[24]

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):^[70]

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

[edit] References

Prose contains specific citations in source text which may be viewed in edit mode.