Criticism of Muhammad

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) No issues specified. Please specify issues, or remove this template. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article is of a series on
Criticism of religion
By religion Baháˈí Faith Buddhism Christianity Catholic Jehovah's Witnesses Latter Day Saint movement Protestantism Seventh-day Adventist Unification movement Unification Church in Japan Westboro Baptist Church Hinduism Swaminarayan sect Islam Islamism Twelver Shia Islam Wahhabism Jainism Judaism Monotheism New religious movement Neopaganism Scientology Sikhism Yazdânism Zoroastrianism
By religious figure Aisha Charles Taze Russell Ellen White Jesus Moses Muhammad Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Saul
By text Bible Quran Hadith Mormon sacred texts Book of Mormon Talmud
Religious violence Buddhism Christianity Mormonism Judaism Islam Terrorism Christian Hindu Islamic Jewish Persecution Christian thought on persecution and tolerance War In Islam In Judaism Sectarian violence By country India Anti-Christian violence In Odisha Nigeria Pakistan
Bibliographies Christianity Islam Judaism Mormonism Scientology
Related topics Abuse Apostasy In Islam In Christianity Criticism of atheism Criticism of monotheism Sexuality Slavery Superstitions Muslim Jewish
v t e

Part of a series on
Muhammad
Life Mecca Hijrah Medina After Conquest of Mecca Farewell Pilgrimage (Farewell Sermon) Hadith Milestones and records
Career Military Diplomatic
Miracles Quran (First revelation) Isra and Mi'raj Splitting of the Moon
Views Jews Christians
Perspectives Islam Bible Judaism Medieval Christian Historicity Criticism
Succession Saqifah Ghadir Khumm Companions of Muhammad Hadith of the pen and paper Ahl al-Bayt
Praise Salawat Naat Mawlid
Related Al-Masjid an-Nabawi Possessions Relics Seal History of Islam
Islam portal Biography portal
v t e

Criticism of Muhammad has existed since the 7th century, when Muhammad was decried by his non-Muslim Arab contemporaries for preaching monotheism and his marriages. During the Middle Ages he was frequently demonized in European and other non-Muslim polemics. In modern times, criticism has also dealt with his sincerity in claiming to be a prophet^{[citation needed]}, and the laws he established^{[citation needed]}, such as those concerning slavery ^[1][2] and his discriminatory acts against women.^[3][4]

Criticism of Muhammad in recent times has often led to death threats to the critic by hardline Muslims like in the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and in the case of Asia Bibi who was convicted by Sharia court to death for blasphemy.^[5][6][7] Death penalty is sometimes given for apostasy, blasphemy and adultery under Islamic laws.^{[8] [9]}

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (January 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

During the time of Muhammad^[11] and later in the Middle Ages, Jewish writers commonly referred to Muhammad as ha-meshuggah ("the madman" or "possessed").^[12]

Christians were also often dismissive of Muhammad, with some producing highly critical accounts of his life.^[13] Some reports on Muhammad's life and death include claims circulated by Christian writers that Muhammad died drunk and was eaten by pigs.^{[14][dubious – discuss][verification needed]} 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 Christian heresy. In other works, he is described as a "renegade cardinal of the Catholic Church who decided to start his own false religion".^[15] A milder 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 leads him to alter God's wishes and he deceives his followers, though his religion is viewed as vastly superior to paganism.^[16]

Lutheran writers recorded both polemical and historical ideas about Muhammad. Martin Luther referred to Muhammad as "a devil and first-born child of Satan".^[17] Heinrich Knaust in 1542 wrote that Muhammad's parents gave birth to him on the outskirts of Mecca. After his father's death, he lived with his mother and grandfather. When he reached maturity, he saw that the people could not decide whether to follow Christianity, Judaism, or Arianism. So, remembering an astrological prophecy that he would begin a new religion, he pieced together parts of the Christian and Jewish Scriptures. These he had learned from an Egyptian monk and the heretic Sergius. His goal was to make a law that he could get both Christians and Jews to submit to.^[18]

Gottfried Leibniz, held that belief in Muhammad, Zoroaster, Brahma, or Gautama Buddha is not as worthy as belief in Moses and Jesus, yet praised Muhammad and his followers for spreading monotheism and "abolishing heathen superstitions" in the remote lands where Christianity had not been carried.^[19]

Mahomet (French: Le fanatisme, ou Mahomet le Prophete, literally Fanaticism, of 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".^[20]

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."^[17] 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."^[17] 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.^[21] 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."^[17][22]

Scholar William Montgomery Watt says that there is no solid ground for the view of 19th century western scholars that Muhammad's character declined after he went to Medina. Watt 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."^[23]

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."^[24] Contemporary critics have criticized Muhammad for preaching beliefs that are incompatible with democracy; Dutch feminist writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali has called him a "tyrant"^[25] and a "pervert".^[26] Netherlands Party of Freedom leader Geert Wilders calls Muhammad a "mass murderer and a pedophile".^[27] 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."^[28]

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:^[29]

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.

One of the popular historical criticisms of Muhammad in the West has been his polygynous marriages, according to American historian John Esposito.^[30][31] Esposito states that the Semitic culture 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.^[30] Muslims have often pointed out that Muhammad married Khadija (a widow whose age is estimated to have been 40 though most scholars believe her to have been about 29 based on the number of children she bore to Mohammed), when he was 25 years old, and remained monogamous to her for more than 25 years until she died. Critics have countered that Khadija was a rich widow, much older than Muhammad, who financed his religious group, and that being disloyal to her would have cost him dearly.^[30] 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, while it was difficult for widows to remarry in a society that forbade premarital sex.^[30]

From the 20th century onwards, a common point of contention has been Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, who was six or seven at the time of her marriage,^[32] and nine when the marriage was consummated.^{[23][32][33][34][35][36]} American historian Denise Spellberg states that "these specific references to the bride's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity."^[32]

The age of Aisha is cited by many critics who denounce Muhammad for having had sex with a 9 year old child.^[37] Baptist pastor Jerry Vines called him a "demon-possessed pedophile who had twelve wives - and his last one was a nine year old girl".^[38][39]

Colin Turner, a professor of Persian language and Islamic history^{[citation needed]}, states that since such marriages between an older man and a young girl were customary among Bedouins, Muhammad's marriage would not have been considered improper by his contemporaries.^[40]

However he makes no statement about consummating a marriage at such a young age.

"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.^[41] The story goes that ^[42] "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."

Muhammad has been often criticized outside of the Islamic world for his treatment of the Jewish tribes of Medina.^[30] 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."^[44]

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 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 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).^[45]

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.^[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.^[43] (Also see Bukhari 5:59:362) (Yusuf Ali notes that the Qur'an discusses this battle in verses ^{[Quran 33:10]}).^[48] 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.^[49] 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.^[50] Esposito also argues that in Muhammad's time traitors were executed and alleging similar situations in the Bible.^[51] Esposito says that Muhammad's motivation was political rather than racial or theological; he was trying to establish Muslim dominance and rule in Arabia.^[30]

A few Muslim scholars, such as W. N. Arafat and Barakat Ahmad, have disputed the historicity of the incident.^[52] Ahmad, argues that only the leading members of the tribe were killed.^[53] Arafat argued that Ibn Ishaq gathered information from descendants of the Qurayza Jews, who exaggerated the details of the incident.^[54][55] However Watt finds Arafat's arguments "not entirely convincing."^[56]

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.^[57]

Some western orientalists and Christian evangelicals^[who?] criticize Muhammad for apparently having had a child (Ibrahim, who died in infancy) by a slave girl called Maria or Mariyah, one of the Prophet's concubines who was a present from the Christian Byzantine ruler of Egypt. Some Muslims^[who?] regard her as a wife of the Prophet and therefore name her "Mother of the believers".^[58] Western orientalists^[who?] allege that Muhammad did not marry her because she would not convert to Islam.^{[citation needed]} However this is unconvincing, as in Islam a man can marry non-Muslim women, it is only Muslim women who are required to marry within Islam.^[59]

Muhammad made it legal for his men to have sex with their slave girls and with the girls that they captured in war (even if their husbands were still alive).^[60][61] It is referred to in the Qur'an as ma malakat aymanukum ("what your right hands possess"), and has been a target of criticism.^[who?]

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.^[62]

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."^[63] 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.^[63] The Christian minister Archdeacon Humphrey Prideaux gave the following description of Muhammad's visions:^[63]

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."^[63] 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.^[63] Nineteenth century orientalist, D. S. Margoliouth claims that Muhammad suffered from epilepsy and even occasionally faked it for effect.^[64] Sprenger attributes Muhammad's revelations to epileptic fits or a "paroxysm of cataleptic insanity."^[17] 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."^[63] 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."^[65]

Modern western scholars of Islam have rejected the diagnosis of epilepsy.^[63] 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."^[66] Noth, in the Encyclopedia of Islam, states that such accusations were a typical feature of medieval European Christian polemic.^[67] 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.^[68] 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.^[69] 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."^[70]

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.^[63] In his differential diagnosis, Freemon rejects schizophrenic hallucinations,^[71] drug-induced mental changes such as might occur after eating plants containing hallucinogenic materials,^[72] transient ischemic attacks,^[73] hypoglycemia,^[74] labyrinthitis, Ménière’s disease, or other inner ear maladies.^[75] 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.^[76] 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.^[77] 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.^[63] 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.^[78]

19th century and early 20th century

There are other scholars who wrote critically about Muhammad who were not motivated by their Christianity nor any other religious faith. 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.^[79] 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.^[80] 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.^[81]

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”.^[82] 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."^[83] Watt says that sincerity does not directly imply correctness: In contemporary terms, Muhammad might have mistaken for divine revelation his own unconscious.^[84] 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^[85] ....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.^[86]

Rudi Paret agrees, writing that "Muhammad was not a deceptor,"^[87] 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."^[88]

Bernard Lewis, another modern historian, commenting on the common western Medieval view of Muhammad as a self-seeking impostor, states that^[89]

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."^[23]

• Criticism of Islam