If Muslims have taught me one thing it’s that violence works. They make threats we submit. If we don’t they break things and kill people. The West is suicidal in the face of Islam. You’re children won’t need to go to college when Sharia law forbids it.

@RedFred
> There’s a famous example of shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre
> that exemplifies the limits of free speech. This deliberate
> provocation meets that standard, no?

Red Fred indeed.

A crowd in a theater that’s made to believe there’s a fire is acting sensibly when trying to get out as soon as possible; they don’t wan’t to die, which should be legitimate. A crowd whose religious beliefs get insulted by a movie they can chose to watch or not watch that goes on a rampage and kills people is not acting sensibly or legitimately, at least not by any moral standards that should matter in a civilised world. That’s particularly true when the movie was first shown on youtube in July and well-armed militants months later chose 9/11 as the date to incite yet one more spontaneous combustion of religious indignation cum murder of an US ambassador, US personal, and eleven Libyan guards. Pray tell, red Fred, why must noble savages kill their compatriots when their prophet gets insulted?

Anyway, appeasers see this differently, of course, and why shouldn’t they; thank God for free speech–though our host is not too hot for it, either, the problem here being a distasteful movie director, not pervert killers, shrewd technicians of terror, and an Islamic world that much prefers to play regressive blame games over getting its act together. No kudos this time. Mr. Cringely.

FYI: The DCMA also applies in Australia, thanks to the Free Trade Agreement under the Bush/Howard administrations. Methinks that $25,000 figure is either pre-DCMA or for something else entirely.

Sorry — got caught up in an orgasm of nationalism. None of the comments, including mine, addresses the points Cringely made.

Sorry to appease and run.

I’m very disappointed in you Bob.

It won’t happen. Because he is well aware that if he did that he’d immediately lose 1/3 of his supporters right off the top (and rightly so).

What I’d like to see – President Obama goes to the opening session of the UN (scheduled for 18 September 2012) and says something like this: “Dear Muslim World. KMBA! Our Constitution enshrines the freedom of the press, and of religion. That means that when some schmuck in California makes a movie that offends you, the United States of America can’t, and won’t, do anything to make you feel better. The United States of America can, and will, do quite a bit about people whose idea of protest is sacking diplomatic buildings and murdering our Ambassador and other diplomatic staff.”

I looked up the film on youtube and it reminded me very much of “Plan 9 from Outer Space”, the first film I ever walked out of. The dialog and production values for both were about on the same level.

It’s interesting how often people confuse observation with advocacy. Happened to me recently. It’s the old “don’t shoot the messenger” adage.

re: Update

Bob, when assessing the propriety of how you mentioned Muhammad’s name it shouldn’t matter to you, a non-Muslim US citizen, whether there are written or unwritten rules about that in the Quran, the hadiths, the prophet’s sayings, or anywhere else in the Islamic world. You’re getting this the exact wrong wrong way–and this has nothing to do with considerations regarding common courtesy or decency.

> According to the hadiths, deeds are judged based on a
> person’s intent

I studied Islamic sciences; this is plainly wrong, full stop. You don’t know what you’re talking about, for once. Particularly once a deed against the faith becomes known to the public, intent becomes negligible as a rule, secondary at best, at least on earth–there’s debate about the afterlife. As for conscience as a moral and legal phenomenon there’s a schism between Islam and other Abrahamic religions, except for the odd extreme Christian or Jewish sect. That has been different with Judaism a thousand years ago, but we’re in 2012. However, particularly since 9/11 there are plenty of people, including scholars, who will tell otherwise to anyone willing to believe what he knows he ought better to believe in order not to be cut off from polite discourse.

To question the religious beliefs of another is to JUDGE them. One of the central themes of many religions is NOT TO JUDGE others. We are asked to respect, love, and treat each other as equals.

Judging people is at the heart of discrimination, harassment, and other social problems. You don’t have to be religious to understand this is a fault of human nature and it is wrong.

What is happening right now is the FAILURE to practice one’s religious beliefs on both sides. For the world to become a better place we ALL must learn not to judge each other.

I disagree, there will not be a Presidential order for takedown. it’s a stupid bad production, made by a bomb-thrower who wanted to raise a riot, but there was no stampeding crowd in the US and thus the results are not governed by US law.

on the other hand, Mr. Thousand-Aliases has these Egyptian roots, and nobody’s news stories have yet ascertained (perhaps because of the 999 red herrings) whether or not said green-screen artist, con artist, meth cooker, and all-around shifty dude is an American or an alien under visa.

if domesticated citizenship applies, of course, he’s in violation of his probation, and his safe house will be well guarded at public expense.

if the guy’s a furriner (spit) then his international film festival is shortly to begin in the country of his birth. I’m sure he will attract a crowd.

I quite frankly am confused by all religions and how they behave. Can’t we just agree to disagree and just get along? Any faith who kills in the name of their deity(s) is not a faith but an extremist sect that must be dealt with like terrorists and get what’s coming to them (death). I can’t imagine any deity that would command the death of one of it’s creations because it has a “different” opinion. Which is why I dislike Muslim jihadists so much. Their mindset is all messed up. Just say, “they’re wrong” and leave it at that, no need to riot and kill people? That’s how you get your country baked in the heat of a thousand suns launched from submarines hundreds of miles away.

Why the hell is world peace so hard? We’re all human, most of us believe in some sort of deity. We all need a place to live, food to eat, air to breath, water for crops, energy for light at night, creature comforts, and gadgets. We need to pull it together or there will be no future for any faith. We ALL should be working together to solve world issues not getting into territorial/ideological pissing matches because someone has a “different” OPINION.

Saw an online photo of a boy (maybe 4 y.o.) in Sydney Australia holding up a sign:

“BEHEAD ALL THOSE WHO INSULT THE PROPHET”

At that moment I realized that if Barak HUSSEIN Obama issues a “presidential order” for the take-down of the “offending video,” …

Obama will have imposed SHARIA LAW on the United States Of America.

Kind of like asking Wikipedia to take down Maimonides’ “Epistle to Yemen” because he dares to call Muhammad a “Madman”. The only difference is that there’s no crafty Islamic pastor making a big deal of this (yet) for political gain at the price of the blood of other people:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Yemen/Complete

THE validity of the video has not been questioned. Only that it “Offended” Muslims.
I only ask that those who claim to follow ISLAM read their HISTORY which is backed by ISLAMIC scholars. Everything I saw in the video clips is backed by ISLAMIC HISTORY. A great source of research is the website www prophetOfDoom net

Listen and learn people.

HJRR

I’m amazed that anyone would get pissed off by such a crappy movie in the first place. Seriously, if you want to make me mad, you need to try harder than that.

I think the rioters were already rioters looking for an excuse.

Just to address some issues from other people’s commentary:

1. President Obama inherently has the authority to ask that a video be taken down, and to condemn it. Pretty much anyone can ask for, or condemn pretty much anything, and the President, like the rest of us, has 1st amendment rights. So for anyone who says, where does he get the authority to ask for the video to be taken down? Where does he get the authority to condemn the video? He gets this authority, the same as the rest of us, and the same as the maker of the video, from “Freedom of Speech”.

2. The video-maker was hauled in on a probation violation for his use of aliases. It is my understanding that his prior charges, for which he was released under the terms and conditions of probation, included fraud charges. It is more than reasonable to prohibit someone with fraud charges from using aliases without permission during probation. Anyone who thinks you can openly and publicly flaunt the terms and conditions of probation, even stupid ones, and not suffer any consequences needs a serious lesson on how the legal system works.

3. Persons serving out sentences for crimes inherently have lessened constitutional rights than people who are not. What rights should be voided and when is an issue that can, and probably should be openly debated. What is beyond debate, however, is that under our current system, people in prison have lost a degree of their right to be free, their right to be free from searches and siezures, and their rights to pursue happiness, peaceably assemble, and enjoy equal protection of a number of laws. People on parole or probation have sacrificed certain rights to be free from unlawful searches and siezures. Megan’s law offenders have sacrificed elements of their privacy rights permanently. Many felons have sacrificed their right to vote permanently. My point is that, when dealing with someone who is currently in the process of punishment/rehabilitation for a criminal offense, such as the maker of this film, one should be slower to jump to the conclusion that his rights were violated, and first examine what his rights were at the time. It is my understanding that, for better or worse, the producer had no right publish under an assumed name, at the time he did so.

4. The United States Government has no authority to require the removal of the video from publication. The government can pretty easily make content-neutral statutes and regulations that effect the time, place, and manner, in which speech can occur. They need only a rational basis. (This, for example, could successfully prevent protesting of any kind, within 500 yards of an ongoing funeral, or could prohibit any noise over a certain decibal level outside in a city after 10 P.M.) An attempt to ban the video, however, would be content-centric. This type of a prohibition would be subjected to strict scrutiny. This means any such effort could only potentially be upheld if it were narrowly tailored to fit a compelling government interest. There cannot be a compelling government interest in protecting a religion from ridicule, because of a constitutional ban on laws effecting the establishment of religion. This, in combination, acts to entirely prohibit the government from banning the video, now that it is released.

5. Private censorship will always exist. We are long from the time when private citizens dominated the public discourse. Now, corporations do so. Air time, or front page space, in any prominent publication is expensive. The costs of production are prohibitively expensive for most individuals. Admittedly, the internet has had some impact on this, but with the advent of search engine optimization, large corporations can still get the most visibility. Every prominent publication by a large corporation has a target audience, regardless of the media used. The publishers make money by sponsors who pay to have their ads seen by that audience. When the target audience gets offended enough by the content of a publication to become offended, or the content is offensive enough to cause boycotts of sponsors, or to hurt their perceived public image, sponsors are likely to pull advertisements. To prevent this from occurring, or stop the bleeding when it is occuring, many corporations censor the people to whom they give a microphone. There have been a number of comments that youtube pulling the video would be a violation of the 1st amendment. That is not the case. The government did not provide the platform, and the private entity that did can pull it out.

6. Companies with intellectual property issues need to be very careful. A number of points have been made concerning this. It is true that if a holder of a copyright allows their intellectual property to fall into the public domain and does not fiercly and actively defend it, they can lose their rights. Similarly true is that companies who keep a tight grip on what is posted do not have the same expansive safe-harbor provisions as those who simply let people post, and then obey DMCA notices they receive. It is false, however, to say that removing a single, highly controversial film would cause them any liability. The difference in the safe-harbor provisions relates to the control over the initial publishing of the content. Actually, to stay within the safe-harbor provisions, all publishers of content must have the ability to remove it after it is published. The first problem is that if it were removed someone would repost it. The constant vigilance that would be required to keep taking it down would require several employees, and change the nature of the service provided. It is much easier to wait for someone else to point out the exact page with the content to be removed in a DMCA notice, and then block only what is specified. Secondly, companies such as Google appropriately recognize that they are a giant forum for the free exchange of ideas and information. As such, they recognize a moral obligation to fight censorship, in the same manner as a reputable news organization would. Taking down the video, absent a legal obligation to do so, would fly in the face of this policy.

7. The countries in which riots occurred were not countries which are accustomed to the same freedoms which we enjoy. These countries would not have tolerated speech of the type that produced this video. In places where speech that is not sanctioned by the government never reaches the public discourse, it can be very difficult for people to understand that, where speech came from the United States, our entire government cannot rationally be called to account for it. If similar statements had come, for example, from within a country practicing strict sharia law, the speaker would have been executed. It is ironic that many of the countries that rioted have recently had revolutions over the intrusive nature of their governments and absence of freedoms, but it is also important to understand that
A) not everyone agreed with the revolutions,
B) not everyone was rebelling/protesting their governments for the same reason, and
C) even among those who did want increased freedoms, and less government intrusion, the vast majority have not experienced, and do not fully understand what the society they dream of is like.
D) most Americans take a free society like ours for granted, and can’t imagine the view point of people who grew up somewhere vastly different.

8. There is a difference between the protesters and the criminals. Alot of people got whipped into a frenzy and protested over a video. That is an exercise of free speech. You can disagree over whether they were right or wrong, but let them speak. Some individuals used these protests as cover for illegal terrorist acts, and they must be condemned, caught, and executed. Everyone who planned it, everyone who made it happen, everyone who tries it again. To the extent that the people who planned ithe attacks were able to whip the public in their area into a frenzy, (and there likely is some crossover there), that is unfortunate, but should make the organizing criminals easier to find, one would hope.

9. It is my humble opinion (and I recognize differences of opinion do exist on this), that public speakers should never censor their speech for fear of violence. The actions of the violent are the fault of the violent. If a speaker allows that violence to be successful in achieving censorship, that lends it credence and purpose. It is the duty of all responsible religions and philosophies to make clear that they do not condone the use of violence in response to words. If individual followers break this path, it is then their great shame, and personal responsibility.

I believe my conclusions were all arrived at logically, but if someone disagrees with me, I welcome your criticism. Perhaps it will help me learn something new.

PRINGLE KENNEDY

Pringle Kennedy has observed (Arabian Society at the Time of Muhammad, pp.8, 10, 18, 21):

Muhammad was, to use a striking expression, the man of the hour. In order to understand his wonderful success, one must study the conditions of his times. Five and half centuries and more had elapsed when he was born since Jesus had come into the world. At that time, the old religions of Greece and Rome, and of the hundred and one states along the Mediterranean, had lost their vitality. In their place, Caesarism had come as a living cult. The worship of the state as personified by the reigning Caesar, such was the religion of the Roman Empire. Other religions might exist, it was true; but they had to permit this new cult by the side of them and predominant over them. But Caesarism failed to satisfy. The Eastern religions and superstitions (Egyptian, Syrian, Persian) appealed to many in the Roman world and found numerous votaries. The fatal fault of many of these creeds was that in many respects they were so ignoble …

When Christianity conquered Caesarism at the commencement of the fourth century, it, in its turn, became Caesarised. No longer was it the pure creed which had been taught some three centuries before. It had become largely de spiritualised, ritualised, materialised …….

How, in a few years, all this was changed, how, by 650 AD a great part of this world became a different world from what it had been before, is one of the most remarkable chapters in human history …. This wonderful change followed, if it was not mainly caused by, the life of one man, the Prophet of Mecca ….

Whatever the opinion one may have of this extraordinary man, whether it be that of the devout Muslim who considers him the last and greatest herald of God’s word, or of the fanatical Christian of former days, who considered him an emissary of the Evil One, or of certain modern Orientalists, who look on him rather as a politician than a saint, as an organiser of Asia in general and Arabia in particular, against Europe, rather than as a religious reformer; there can be no difference as to the immensity of the effect which his life has had on the history of the world.

To those of us, to whom the man is everything, the milieu but little, he is the supreme instance of what can be done by one man. Even others, who hold that the conditions of time and place, the surroundings of every sort, the capacity of receptivity of the human mind, have, more than an individual effort, brought about the great steps in the world’s history, cannot well deny, that even if this step were to come, without Muhammad, it would have been indefinitely delayed.

MICHAEL H HART

He in his book The 100 has ranked the great men in history with respect to their influence on human history. He ranked the Holy Prophet Muhammmadsaw as the most influential man in the human history. He wrote the following about the Holy Prophet Muhammadsaw. The text has been quoted in its entirety, however in the few places where I differed strongly with his opinion, I have taken the liberty to insert my humble opinion within parenthesis to caution the reader.

My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.

Of humble origins, Muhammad founded and promulgated one of the world’s great religions, and became an immensely effective political leader. Today, thirteen centuries after his death, his influence is still powerful and pervasive.

The majority of the persons in this book had the advantage of being born and raised in centers of civilization, highly cultured or politically pivotal nations. Muhammad, however, was born in the year 570, in the city of Makkah, in southern Arabia, at that time a backward area of the world, far from the centers of trade, art, and learning. Orphaned at age six, he was reared in modest surroundings. Islamic tradition tells us that he was illiterate. His economic position improved when, at age twenty five, he married a wealthy widow. Nevertheless, as he approached forty, there was little outward indication that he was a remarkable person.

Most Arabs at that time were pagans, who believed in many gods. There were, however, in Makkah, a small number of Jews and Christians; it was from them no doubt that Muhammad first learned of a single, omnipotent God who ruled the entire universe. When he was forty years old, Muhammad became convinced that this one true God (Allah) was speaking to him, and had chosen him to spread the true faith.

For three years, Muhammad preached only to close friends and associates. Then, about 613, he began preaching in public. As he slowly gained converts, the Makkahn authorities came to consider him a dangerous nuisance. In 622, fearing for his safety, Muhammad fled to Madinah (a city some 200 miles north of Makkah), where he had been offered a position of considerable political power. This flight, called the Higra, was the turning point of the Prophet’s life. In Makkah, he had had few followers. In Madinah, he had many more, and he soon acquired an influence that made him a virtual dictator. During the next few years, while Muhammad’s following grew rapidly, a series of battles were fought between Madinah and Makkah. This war ended in 630 with Muhammad’s triumphant return to Makkah as conqueror. The remaining two and one half years of his life witnessed the rapid conversion of the Arab tribes to the new religion. When Muhammad died, in 632, he was the effective ruler of all of southern Arabia.

The Bedouin tribesmen of Arabia had a reputation as fierce warriors. But their number was small; and plagued by disunity and internecine warfare, they had been no match for the larger armies of the kingdoms in the settled agricultural areas to the north. However, unified by Muhammad for the first time in history, and inspired by their fervent belief in the one true God, these small Arab armies now embarked upon one of the most astonishing series of conquests in human history. (However, one should note that these were not offencive wars, limitation of time and space will not allow us to dwell onto a detailed analysis of these wars and conquests). To the northeast of Arabia lay the large Neo Persian Empire of the Sassanids; to the northwest lay the Byzantine, or Eastern Roman Empire, centered in Constantinople. Numerically, the Arabs were no match for their opponents. On the field of battle, though, the inspired Arabs rapidly conquered all of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine. By 642, Egypt had been wrested from the Byzantine Empire, while the Persian armies had been crushed at the key battles of Qadisiya in 637, and Nehavend in 642.

But even these enormous conquests — which were made under the leadership of Muhammad’s close friends and immediate successors, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar ibn al Khattab did not mark the end of the Arab advance. By 711, the Arab armies had swept completely across North Africa to the Atlantic Ocean. There they turned north and, crossing the Strait of Gibraltar, overwhelmed the Visigothic kingdom in Spain. For a while, it must have seemed that the Muslims would overwhelm all of Christian Europe. However, in 732, at the famous Battle of Tours, a Muslim army, which had advanced into the center of France, was at last defeated by the Franks. Nevertheless, in a scant century of fighting, these Bedouin tribesmen, inspired by the word of the Prophet, had carved out an empire stretching from the borders of India to the Atlantic Ocean — the largest empire that the world had yet seen. And everywhere that the armies conquered, large scale conversion to the new faith eventually followed.

Now, not all of these conquests proved permanent. The Persians, though they have remained faithful to the religion of the Prophet, have since regained their independence from the Arabs. And in Spain, more than seven centuries of warfare finally resulted in the Christians reconquering the entire peninsula. However, Mesopotamia and Egypt, the two cradles of ancient civilization, have remained Arab, as has the entire coast of North Africa. The new religion, of course, continued to spread, in the intervening centuries, far beyond the borders of the original Muslim conquests. Currently, it has tens of millions of adherents in Africa and Central Asia, and even more in Pakistan and northern India, and in Indonesia. In Indonesia, the new faith has been a unifying factor. In the Indian subcontinent, however, the conflict between Muslims and Hindus is still a major obstacle to unity.

How, then, is one to assess the overall impact of Muhammad on human history? Like all religions, Islam exerts an enormous influence upon the lives of its followers. It is for this reason that the founders of the world’s great religions all figure prominently in this book. Since there are roughly twice as many Christians as Muslims in the world, it may initially seem strange that Muhammad has been ranked higher than Jesus. There are two principal reasons for that decision First, Muhammad played a far more important role in the development of Islam than Jesus did in the development of Christianity. Although Jesus was responsible for the main ethical and moral precepts of Christianity (insofar as these differed from Judaism), St. Paul was the main developer of Christian theology, its principal proselytizer, and the author of a large portion of the New Testament.

Muhammad, however, was responsible for both the theology of Islam and its main ethical and moral principles. In addition, he played the key role in proselytizing the new faith, and in establishing the religious practices of lslam. Moreover, he is the author of the Muslim holy scriptures, the Quran, (however, the Muslims believe and try to prove that it is the literal word of God), a collection of certain of Muhammad’s insights that he believed had been directly revealed to him by Allah. Most of these utterances were copied more or less faithfully during Muhammad’s lifetime and were collected together in authoritative form not long after his death. The Quran, therefore, closely represents Muhammad’s ideas and teachings and to a considerable extent his exact words. No such detailed compilation of the teachings of Christ has survived. Since the Quran is at least as important to Muslims as the Bible is to Christians, the influence of Muhammad through the medium of the Quran has been enormous. It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad on Islam has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity. On the purely religious level, then, it seems likely that Muhammad has been as influential in human history as Jesus.

Furthermore, Muhammad (unlike Jesus) was a secular as well as a religious leader. In fact, as the driving force behind the Arab conquests, he may well rank as the most influential political leader of all time.

Of many important historical events, one might say that they were inevitable and would have occurred even without the particular political leader who guided them. For example, the South American colonies would probably have won their independence from Spain even if Simon Bolivar had never lived. But this cannot be said of the Arab conquests. Nothing similar had occurred before Muhammad, and there is no reason to believe that the conquests would have been achieved without him. The only comparable conquests in human history are those of the Mongols in the thirteenth century, which were primarily due to the influence of Genghis Khan. These conquests, however, though more extensive than those of the Arabs, did not prove permanent, and today the only areas occupied by the Mongols are those that they held prior to the time of Genghis Khan.

It is far different with the conquests of the Arabs. From Iraq to Morocco, there extends a whole chain of Arab nations united not merely by their faith in Islam, but also by their Arabic language, history, and culture. The centrality of the Quran in the Muslim religion and the fact that it is written in Arabic have probably prevented the Arab language from breaking up into mutually unintelligible dialects, which might otherwise have occurred in the intervening thirteen centuries. Differences and divisions between these Arab states exist, of course, and they are considerable, but the partial disunity should not blind us to the important elements of unity that have continued to exist. For instance, neither Iran nor Indonesia, both oil producing states and both Islamic in religion, joined in the oil embargo of the winter of 1973 74. It is no coincidence that all of the Arab states, and only the Arab states, participated in the embargo.

We see, then, that the Arab conquests of the seventh century have continued to play an important role in human history, down to the present day. It is this unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad to be considered the most influential single figure in human history.

SIR THOMAS CARLYLE

Talking about the fact that Hadhrat Muhammadsaw was illiterate he writes:

One other circumstance we must not forget: that he had no school learning; of the thing we call school-learning none at all. The art of writing was but just introduced into Arabia; it seems to be the true opinion that Muhammad never could write! Life in the Desert, with its experiences, was all his education. What of this infinite Universe he, from his dim place, with his own eyes and thoughts, could take in, so much and no more of it was he to know. Curious, if we will reflect on it, this of having no books. Except by what he could see for himself, or hear of by uncertain rumour of speech in the obscure Arabian Desert, he could know nothing. The wisdom that had been before him or at a distance from him in the world, was in a manner as good as not there for him. Of the great brother souls, flame beacons through so many lands and times, no one directly communicates with this great soul. He is alone there, deep down in the bosom of the Wilderness; has to grow up so, — alone with Nature and his own Thoughts.

Talking about his marriage he writes:

How he was placed with Kadijah, a rich Widow, as her steward, and travelled in her business, again to the Fairs of Syria; how he managed all, as one can well understand, with fidelity and adroitness; how her gratitude, her regard for him grew: the story of their marriage is altogether a graceful intelligible one, as told us by the Arab authors. He was twenty five; she forty, though still beautiful. He seems to have lived in a most affectionate, peaceable, wholesome way with this wedded benefactress; loving her truly, and her alone. It goes greatly against the impostor theory, the fact that he lived in this entirely unexceptionable, entirely quiet and commonplace way, till the heat of his years was done.

J. H. DENISON

J. H. Denison writes in his book, Emotions as the Basis of Civilisation, pp. 265 9:

In the fifth and sixth centuries, the civilised world stood on the verge of chaos. The old emotional cultures that had made civilisation possible, since they had given to man a sense of unity and of reverence for their rulers, had broken down, and nothing had been found adequate to take their place. ….. It seemed then that the great civilisation which had taken four thousand years to construct was on the verge of disintegration, and that mankind was likely to return to that condition of barbarism where every tribe and sect was against the next, and law and order were unknown ……. The new sanctions created by Christianity were creating divisions and destruction instead of unity and order …. Civilisation like a gigantic tree whose foliage had over reached the world ….. stood tottering ….. rotted to the core …. Was there any emotional culture that could be brought in to gather mankind once more to unity and to save civilisation? … It was among the Arabs that the man was born who was to unite the whole known world of the east and south.

S.P. SCOTT

S. P. Scott writes in, History of the Moorish Empire in Europe, p. 126:

If the object of religion be the inculcation of morals, the diminution of evil, the promotion of human happiness, the expansion of the human intellect, if the performance of good works will avail in the great day when mankind shall be summoned to its final reckoning it is neither irreverent nor unreasonable to admit that Muhammad was indeed an Apostle of God.

LAMARTINE

Lamartine a French historian, writes in his book, History of Turkey, p. 276:

Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may ask, is there any man greater than he?

I“f greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and outstanding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, and empires only. They founded, if any at all, no more than material power which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man merged not only armies, legislation, empires, peoples and dynasties but millions of men in one third of the inhabited world, and more than that, moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and the souls on the basis of a Book, every letter of which has become law. He created a spiritual nationality of every tongue and of every race.” (Historie de la Turqu,, Vol. 2, page 76-77)

SIR WILLIAM MUIR

The following description of his person and character is taken from Sir William Muir (Life of Muhammad, pp. 510-13):

His form, though little above mean height, was stately and commanding. The depth of feeling in his dark black eyes, and the winning expression of a face otherwise attractive, gained the confidence and love of strangers, even at first sight. His features often unbended into a smile full of grace and condescension. He was, says an admiring follower, the handsomest and bravest, the brightest faced and most generous of men. It was as though the sunlight beamed in his countenance. His gait has been likened to that of one descending a hill rapidly. When he made haste, it was with difficulty that one kept pace with him. He never turned, even if his mantle caught in a thorny bush; so that his attendants talked and laughed freely behind him secure of being unobserved.

Thorough and complete in all his actions, he took in hand no work without bringing it to a close. The same habit pervaded his manner in social intercourse. If he turned in a conversation towards a friend, he turned not partially, but with his full face and his whole body. In shaking hands, he was not the first to withdraw his own; nor was he the first to break off in converse with a stranger, nor to turn away his ear. A patriarchal simplicity pervaded his life. His custom was to do everything for himself. If he gave an alms he would place it with his own hands in that of the petitioner. He aided his wives in their household duties, mended his clothes, tied up the goats, and even cobbled his sandals. His ordinary dress was of plain white cotton stuff, made like his neighbours’. He never reclined at meals. Muhammad, with his wives, lived, as we have seen, in a row of low and homely cottages built of unbaked bricks, the apartments separated by walls of palm branches rudely daubed with mud, while curtains of leather, or of black haircloth, supplied the place of doors and windows. He was to all of easy access even as the river’s bank to him that draweth water from it. Embassies and deputations were received with the utmost courtesy and consideration. In the issue of rescripts bearing on their representations, or in other matters of state, Muhammad displayed all the qualifications of an able and experienced ruler. What renders this the more strange is that he was never known himself to write.

A remarkable feature was the urbanity and consideration with which Muhammad treated even the most insignificant of his followers. Modesty and kindliness, patience, self denial, and generosity, pervaded his conduct, and riveted the affections of all around him. He disliked to say No. If unable to answer a petitioner in the affirmative, he preferred silence. He was not known ever to refuse an invitation to the house even of the meanest, nor to decline a proffered present however small. He possessed the rare faculty of making each individual in a company think that he was the favoured guest. If he met anyone rejoicing at success he would seize him eagerly and cordially by the hand. With the bereaved and afflicted he sympathised tenderly. Gentle and unbending towards little children, he would not disdain to accost a group of them at play with the salutation of peace. He shared his food, even in times of scarcity, with others, and was sedulously solicitous for the personal comfort of everyone about him. A kindly and benevolent disposition pervaded all those illustrations of his character. Muhammad was a faithful friend. He loved Abu Bakr with the close affection of a brother; Ali, with the fond partiality of a father. Zaid, the freedman, was so strongly attached by the kindness of the Prophet, that he preferred to remain at Makkah rather than return home with his own father. ‘I will not leave thee,’ he said, clinging to his patron, ‘for thou hast been a father and mother to me.’ The friendship of Muhammad survived the death of Zaid, and his son Usama was treated by him with distinguished favour for the father’s sake. Uthman and Umar were also the objects of a special attachment; and the enthusiasm with which, at Hudaibiyya, the Prophet entered into the Pledge of the Tree and swore that he would defend his beleaguered son in law even to the death, was a signal proof of faithful friendship. Numerous other instances of Muhammad’s ardent and unwavering regard might be adduced. His affections were in no instance misplaced; they were ever reciprocated by a warm and self sacrificing love.

In the exercise of a power absolutely dictatorial, Muhammad was just and temperate. Nor was he wanting in moderation towards his enemies, when once they had cheerfully submitted to his claims. The long and obstinate struggle against his pretentions maintained by the inhabitants of Makkah might have induced its conqueror to mark his indignation in indelible traces of fire and blood. But Muhammad, excepting a few criminals, granted a universal pardon; and, nobly casting into oblivion the memory of the past, with all its mockery, its affronts and persecution, he treated even the foremost of his opponents with a gracious and even friendly consideration. Not less marked was the forbearance shown to Abdullah and the disaffected citizens of Madinah, who for so many years persistently thwarted his designs and resisted his authority, nor the clemency with which he received submiss ive advances of tribes that before had been the most hostile, even in the hour of victory.

Again he wrote:

It is strongly corroborative of Muhammad’s sincerity that the earliest converts to Islam were not only of upright character, but his own bosom friends and people of his own household who, intimately acquainted with his private life could not fail otherwise to have detected those discrepancies which even more or less exist between the profession of the hypocritical deceiver abroad and his actions at home”.

SIR JOHN GLUBB

Talking about the revelations and dreams of Hadhrat Muhammadsaw he writes:

Whatever opinion the reader may form when he reaches the end of this book, it is difficult to deny that the call of Muhammad seems to bear a striking resemblance to innumerable other accounts of similar visions, both in the Old and New Testaments, and in the experience of Christian saints, possibly also of Hindus and devotees of other religions. Such visions, moreover, have often marked the beginnings of lives of great sanctity and of heroic virtue.

To attribute such phenomena to self delusion scarcely seems an adequate explanation, for they have been experienced by many persons divided from one another by thousands of years of time and by thousands of miles of distance, who cannot conceivably have even heard of each other. Yet the accounts which they give of their visions seem to bear an extraordinary likeness to one another. It scarcely appears reasonable to suggest that all these visionaries “imagined” such strikingly similar experiences, although they were quite ignorant of each other’s existence.

Talking about the migration of the companions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him, to Abyssinia while the prophet himself was in Makkah, he writes:

The list seems to have included very nearly all the persons who had accepted Islam and the Messenger of God must have remained with a much reduced group of adherents, among the generally hostile inhabitants of Makkah, a situation which proves him to have possessed a considerable degree of moral courage and conviction.

Talking about Muhammad’s migration from Makkah to Madinah, when he had to escape like a fugitive whose life was in great danger, he writes:

When the fugitives had whispered goodbye to Abu Bakr’s son and daughter outside the cave on Mount Thaur and the camels had padded silently away into the darkness beneath the sharp Arabian stars, the curtain rose on one of the greatest dramas of human history. How little did Caesar or Chosroes, surrounded by their great armies and engaged in a long and bitter war for world supremacy (as they thought), realise that four ragged Arabs riding silently through the bare mountains of the Hejaz were about to inaugurate a movement which would put an end to both their great imperial dominions.

MONTGOMERY WATT

W. Montgomery Watt, the well known Orientalist, has said the following about his personality in general (Muhammad at Madinah pp 334-5):

We may distinguish three great gifts Muhammad had, each of which was indispensable to his total achievement. First, there is what may be called his gift as a seer. Through him or on the orthodox Muslim view, through the revelations made through him the Arab world was given an ideological framework within which the resolution of its social tensions became possible. The provision of such a framework involved both insight into the fundamental causes of the social malaise of the time, and the genius to express this insight in a form which would stir the hearer to the depths of his being. ………..

Secondly, there is Muhammad’s wisdom as a statesman. The conceptual structure found in the Quran was merely a framework. The framework had to support a building of concrete policies and concrete institutions. In the course of this book, much has been said of Muhammad’s far sighted political strategy and his social reforms. His wisdom in these matters is shown by the rapid expansion of a small state to a world empire, and by the adaption of his social institutions to many different environments and their continuance for thirteen centuries.

Thirdly, there is his skill and tact as an administrator and his wisdom in the choice of men to whom to delegate administrative details. Sound institutions and a sound policy will not go far if the execution of affairs is faulty and fumbling. When Muhammad died, the state he had founded was a going concern, able to withstand the shock of his removal and, once it had recovered from this shock, it expanded at prodigious speed.

The more one reflects on the history of Muhammad and of early Islam, the more one is amazed at the vastness of his achievement. Circumstances presented him with an opportunity such as few men have had, but the man was fully matched with the hour. Had it not been for his gifts as a seer, statesman, and administrator and, behind these, his trust in God and firm belief that God had sent him, a notable chapter in the history of mankind would have remained unwritten. It is my hope that this study of his life may contribute to a fresh appraisal and appreciation of one of the greatest of the sons of Adam.

Such is a testimony of a biographer who was not favorably disposed towards the Holy Prophet.

WILL DURANT

Talking about the immence influence of Muhammad on world history he wrote:

In the year 565 Justinian died, master of a great empire. Five years later Muhammad was born into a poor family in a country three quarters desert, sparsely peopled by nomad tribes whose total wealth could hardly have furnished the sanctuary of St. Sophia. No one in those years would have dreamed that within a century these nomads would conquer half of Byzantine Asia, all Persia and Egypt, most of North Africa, and be on their way to Spain. The explosion of the Arabian peninsula into the conquest and conversion of half the Mediterranean world is the most extraordinary phenomenon in medieval history.

ALFRED GUILLAME

He wrote the following in his book Islam in regards to the battles fought by the Prophet:

Muhammad accomplished his purpose in the course of three small engagements: the number of combatants in these never exceeded a few thousand, but in importance they rank among the world’s decisive battles.

REV. BOSWELL SMITH

“Head of the state as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one, but he was Pope without the Pope’s pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a body guard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man had the right to rule by a right divine, it was Muhammad for he had all the power without the instruments and without its supports. (Muhammad and Muhammadanism )

On the whole, the wonder is not how much but how little, under different circumstances, Muhammad differed from himself. In the shepherd of the desert, in the Syrian trader,in the solitary of Mount Hira, in the reformer in the minority of one, in the exile of Madinah, in the acknowledged conqueror, in the equal of the Persian Chosroes and the Greek Heraclius, we can still trace substantial unity. I doubt whether any other man whose external conditions changed so much, ever himself changed less to meet them.

KAREN ARMSTRONG

A modern research scholar of Islam Karen Armstrong, wrote in her book:

Muhammad had to start virtually from scratch and work his way towards the radical monotheistic spirituality of his own. When he began his mission, a dispassionate observer would not have given him a chance. The Arabs, he might have objected, were just not ready for monotheism: they were not sufficently developed for this sophisticated vision. In fact, to attempt to introduce it on a large scale in this violent, terrifying society could be extremely dangerous and Muhammad would be lucky to escape with his life.

Indeed, Muhammad was frequently in deadly peril and his survival was a near-miracle. But he did succeed. By the end of his life he had laid an axe to the root of the chronic cycle tribal violence that afflicted the region and paganism was no longer a going concern. The Arabs were ready to embark on a new phase of their history.
(Muhammad – A Biography of the Prophet page 53-54)

Finally it was the West, not Islam, which forbade the open discussion of religious matters. At the time of the Crusades, Europe seemed obsessed by a craving for intellectual conformity and punished its deviants with a zeal that has been unique in the history of religion. The witch-hunts of the inquisitors and the persecution of Protestants by the Catholics and vice versa were inspired by abtruse theoligical opinions which in both Judaism and Islam were seen as private and optional matters. Neither Judaism nor Islam share the Christian conception of heresy, which raises human ideas about the divine to an unacceptably high level and almost makes them a form of idolatry. The period of the Crusades, when the fictional Mahound was established, was also a time of the great strain and denial in Europe. This is graphically expressed in the phobia about Islam.
(Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, page 27).

MAJOR A. LEONARD
If ever any man on this earth has found God; if ever any man has devoted his life for the sake of God with a pure and holy zeal then, without doubt, and most certainly that man was the Holy Prophet of Arabia.
(Islam, its Moral and Spiritual Values, p. 9; 1909, London)

Pringle Kennedy has observed (Arabian Society at the Time of Muhammad, pp.8, 10, 18, 21):

Muhammad was, to use a striking expression, the man of the hour. In order to understand his wonderful success, one must study the conditions of his times. Five and half centuries and more had elapsed when he was born since Jesus had come into the world. At that time, the old religions of Greece and Rome, and of the hundred and one states along the Mediterranean, had lost their vitality. In their place, Caesarism had come as a living cult. The worship of the state as personified by the reigning Caesar, such was the religion of the Roman Empire. Other religions might exist, it was true; but they had to permit this new cult by the side of them and predominant over them. But Caesarism failed to satisfy. The Eastern religions and superstitions (Egyptian, Syrian, Persian) appealed to many in the Roman world and found numerous votaries. The fatal fault of many of these creeds was that in many respects they were so ignoble …

When Christianity conquered Caesarism at the commencement of the fourth century, it, in its turn, became Caesarised. No longer was it the pure creed which had been taught some three centuries before. It had become largely de spiritualised, ritualised, materialised …….

How, in a few years, all this was changed, how, by 650 AD a great part of this world became a different world from what it had been before, is one of the most remarkable chapters in human history …. This wonderful change followed, if it was not mainly caused by, the life of one man, the Prophet of Mecca ….

Whatever the opinion one may have of this extraordinary man, whether it be that of the devout Muslim who considers him the last and greatest herald of God’s word, or of the fanatical Christian of former days, who considered him an emissary of the Evil One, or of certain modern Orientalists, who look on him rather as a politician than a saint, as an organiser of Asia in general and Arabia in particular, against Europe, rather than as a religious reformer; there can be no difference as to the immensity of the effect which his life has had on the history of the world.

To those of us, to whom the man is everything, the milieu but little, he is the supreme instance of what can be done by one man. Even others, who hold that the conditions of time and place, the surroundings of every sort, the capacity of receptivity of the human mind, have, more than an individual effort, brought about the great steps in the world’s history, cannot well deny, that even if this step were to come, without Muhammad, it would have been indefinitely delayed.

MICHAEL H HART

He in his book The 100 has ranked the great men in history with respect to their influence on human history. He ranked the Holy Prophet Muhammmadsaw as the most influential man in the human history. He wrote the following about the Holy Prophet Muhammadsaw. The text has been quoted in its entirety, however in the few places where I differed strongly with his opinion, I have taken the liberty to insert my humble opinion within parenthesis to caution the reader.

My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.

Of humble origins, Muhammad founded and promulgated one of the world’s great religions, and became an immensely effective political leader. Today, thirteen centuries after his death, his influence is still powerful and pervasive.

The majority of the persons in this book had the advantage of being born and raised in centers of civilization, highly cultured or politically pivotal nations. Muhammad, however, was born in the year 570, in the city of Makkah, in southern Arabia, at that time a backward area of the world, far from the centers of trade, art, and learning. Orphaned at age six, he was reared in modest surroundings. Islamic tradition tells us that he was illiterate. His economic position improved when, at age twenty five, he married a wealthy widow. Nevertheless, as he approached forty, there was little outward indication that he was a remarkable person.

Most Arabs at that time were pagans, who believed in many gods. There were, however, in Makkah, a small number of Jews and Christians; it was from them no doubt that Muhammad first learned of a single, omnipotent God who ruled the entire universe. When he was forty years old, Muhammad became convinced that this one true God (Allah) was speaking to him, and had chosen him to spread the true faith.

For three years, Muhammad preached only to close friends and associates. Then, about 613, he began preaching in public. As he slowly gained converts, the Makkahn authorities came to consider him a dangerous nuisance. In 622, fearing for his safety, Muhammad fled to Madinah (a city some 200 miles north of Makkah), where he had been offered a position of considerable political power. This flight, called the Higra, was the turning point of the Prophet’s life. In Makkah, he had had few followers. In Madinah, he had many more, and he soon acquired an influence that made him a virtual dictator. During the next few years, while Muhammad’s following grew rapidly, a series of battles were fought between Madinah and Makkah. This war ended in 630 with Muhammad’s triumphant return to Makkah as conqueror. The remaining two and one half years of his life witnessed the rapid conversion of the Arab tribes to the new religion. When Muhammad died, in 632, he was the effective ruler of all of southern Arabia.

The Bedouin tribesmen of Arabia had a reputation as fierce warriors. But their number was small; and plagued by disunity and internecine warfare, they had been no match for the larger armies of the kingdoms in the settled agricultural areas to the north. However, unified by Muhammad for the first time in history, and inspired by their fervent belief in the one true God, these small Arab armies now embarked upon one of the most astonishing series of conquests in human history. (However, one should note that these were not offencive wars, limitation of time and space will not allow us to dwell onto a detailed analysis of these wars and conquests). To the northeast of Arabia lay the large Neo Persian Empire of the Sassanids; to the northwest lay the Byzantine, or Eastern Roman Empire, centered in Constantinople. Numerically, the Arabs were no match for their opponents. On the field of battle, though, the inspired Arabs rapidly conquered all of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine. By 642, Egypt had been wrested from the Byzantine Empire, while the Persian armies had been crushed at the key battles of Qadisiya in 637, and Nehavend in 642.

But even these enormous conquests — which were made under the leadership of Muhammad’s close friends and immediate successors, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar ibn al Khattab did not mark the end of the Arab advance. By 711, the Arab armies had swept completely across North Africa to the Atlantic Ocean. There they turned north and, crossing the Strait of Gibraltar, overwhelmed the Visigothic kingdom in Spain. For a while, it must have seemed that the Muslims would overwhelm all of Christian Europe. However, in 732, at the famous Battle of Tours, a Muslim army, which had advanced into the center of France, was at last defeated by the Franks. Nevertheless, in a scant century of fighting, these Bedouin tribesmen, inspired by the word of the Prophet, had carved out an empire stretching from the borders of India to the Atlantic Ocean — the largest empire that the world had yet seen. And everywhere that the armies conquered, large scale conversion to the new faith eventually followed.

Now, not all of these conquests proved permanent. The Persians, though they have remained faithful to the religion of the Prophet, have since regained their independence from the Arabs. And in Spain, more than seven centuries of warfare finally resulted in the Christians reconquering the entire peninsula. However, Mesopotamia and Egypt, the two cradles of ancient civilization, have remained Arab, as has the entire coast of North Africa. The new religion, of course, continued to spread, in the intervening centuries, far beyond the borders of the original Muslim conquests. Currently, it has tens of millions of adherents in Africa and Central Asia, and even more in Pakistan and northern India, and in Indonesia. In Indonesia, the new faith has been a unifying factor. In the Indian subcontinent, however, the conflict between Muslims and Hindus is still a major obstacle to unity.

How, then, is one to assess the overall impact of Muhammad on human history? Like all religions, Islam exerts an enormous influence upon the lives of its followers. It is for this reason that the founders of the world’s great religions all figure prominently in this book. Since there are roughly twice as many Christians as Muslims in the world, it may initially seem strange that Muhammad has been ranked higher than Jesus. There are two principal reasons for that decision First, Muhammad played a far more important role in the development of Islam than Jesus did in the development of Christianity. Although Jesus was responsible for the main ethical and moral precepts of Christianity (insofar as these differed from Judaism), St. Paul was the main developer of Christian theology, its principal proselytizer, and the author of a large portion of the New Testament.

Muhammad, however, was responsible for both the theology of Islam and its main ethical and moral principles. In addition, he played the key role in proselytizing the new faith, and in establishing the religious practices of lslam. Moreover, he is the author of the Muslim holy scriptures, the Quran, (however, the Muslims believe and try to prove that it is the literal word of God), a collection of certain of Muhammad’s insights that he believed had been directly revealed to him by Allah. Most of these utterances were copied more or less faithfully during Muhammad’s lifetime and were collected together in authoritative form not long after his death. The Quran, therefore, closely represents Muhammad’s ideas and teachings and to a considerable extent his exact words. No such detailed compilation of the teachings of Christ has survived. Since the Quran is at least as important to Muslims as the Bible is to Christians, the influence of Muhammad through the medium of the Quran has been enormous. It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad on Islam has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity. On the purely religious level, then, it seems likely that Muhammad has been as influential in human history as Jesus.

Furthermore, Muhammad (unlike Jesus) was a secular as well as a religious leader. In fact, as the driving force behind the Arab conquests, he may well rank as the most influential political leader of all time.

Of many important historical events, one might say that they were inevitable and would have occurred even without the particular political leader who guided them. For example, the South American colonies would probably have won their independence from Spain even if Simon Bolivar had never lived. But this cannot be said of the Arab conquests. Nothing similar had occurred before Muhammad, and there is no reason to believe that the conquests would have been achieved without him. The only comparable conquests in human history are those of the Mongols in the thirteenth century, which were primarily due to the influence of Genghis Khan. These conquests, however, though more extensive than those of the Arabs, did not prove permanent, and today the only areas occupied by the Mongols are those that they held prior to the time of Genghis Khan.

It is far different with the conquests of the Arabs. From Iraq to Morocco, there extends a whole chain of Arab nations united not merely by their faith in Islam, but also by their Arabic language, history, and culture. The centrality of the Quran in the Muslim religion and the fact that it is written in Arabic have probably prevented the Arab language from breaking up into mutually unintelligible dialects, which might otherwise have occurred in the intervening thirteen centuries. Differences and divisions between these Arab states exist, of course, and they are considerable, but the partial disunity should not blind us to the important elements of unity that have continued to exist. For instance, neither Iran nor Indonesia, both oil producing states and both Islamic in religion, joined in the oil embargo of the winter of 1973 74. It is no coincidence that all of the Arab states, and only the Arab states, participated in the embargo.

We see, then, that the Arab conquests of the seventh century have continued to play an important role in human history, down to the present day. It is this unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad to be considered the most influential single figure in human history.

SIR THOMAS CARLYLE

Talking about the fact that Hadhrat Muhammadsaw was illiterate he writes:

One other circumstance we must not forget: that he had no school learning; of the thing we call school-learning none at all. The art of writing was but just introduced into Arabia; it seems to be the true opinion that Muhammad never could write! Life in the Desert, with its experiences, was all his education. What of this infinite Universe he, from his dim place, with his own eyes and thoughts, could take in, so much and no more of it was he to know. Curious, if we will reflect on it, this of having no books. Except by what he could see for himself, or hear of by uncertain rumour of speech in the obscure Arabian Desert, he could know nothing. The wisdom that had been before him or at a distance from him in the world, was in a manner as good as not there for him. Of the great brother souls, flame beacons through so many lands and times, no one directly communicates with this great soul. He is alone there, deep down in the bosom of the Wilderness; has to grow up so, — alone with Nature and his own Thoughts.

Talking about his marriage he writes:

How he was placed with Kadijah, a rich Widow, as her steward, and travelled in her business, again to the Fairs of Syria; how he managed all, as one can well understand, with fidelity and adroitness; how her gratitude, her regard for him grew: the story of their marriage is altogether a graceful intelligible one, as told us by the Arab authors. He was twenty five; she forty, though still beautiful. He seems to have lived in a most affectionate, peaceable, wholesome way with this wedded benefactress; loving her truly, and her alone. It goes greatly against the impostor theory, the fact that he lived in this entirely unexceptionable, entirely quiet and commonplace way, till the heat of his years was done.

J. H. DENISON

J. H. Denison writes in his book, Emotions as the Basis of Civilisation, pp. 265 9:

In the fifth and sixth centuries, the civilised world stood on the verge of chaos. The old emotional cultures that had made civilisation possible, since they had given to man a sense of unity and of reverence for their rulers, had broken down, and nothing had been found adequate to take their place. ….. It seemed then that the great civilisation which had taken four thousand years to construct was on the verge of disintegration, and that mankind was likely to return to that condition of barbarism where every tribe and sect was against the next, and law and order were unknown ……. The new sanctions created by Christianity were creating divisions and destruction instead of unity and order …. Civilisation like a gigantic tree whose foliage had over reached the world ….. stood tottering ….. rotted to the core …. Was there any emotional culture that could be brought in to gather mankind once more to unity and to save civilisation? … It was among the Arabs that the man was born who was to unite the whole known world of the east and south.

S.P. SCOTT

S. P. Scott writes in, History of the Moorish Empire in Europe, p. 126:

If the object of religion be the inculcation of morals, the diminution of evil, the promotion of human happiness, the expansion of the human intellect, if the performance of good works will avail in the great day when mankind shall be summoned to its final reckoning it is neither irreverent nor unreasonable to admit that Muhammad was indeed an Apostle of God.

LAMARTINE

Lamartine a French historian, writes in his book, History of Turkey, p. 276:

Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may ask, is there any man greater than he?

I“f greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and outstanding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, and empires only. They founded, if any at all, no more than material power which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man merged not only armies, legislation, empires, peoples and dynasties but millions of men in one third of the inhabited world, and more than that, moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and the souls on the basis of a Book, every letter of which has become law. He created a spiritual nationality of every tongue and of every race.” (Historie de la Turqu,, Vol. 2, page 76-77)

SIR WILLIAM MUIR

The following description of his person and character is taken from Sir William Muir (Life of Muhammad, pp. 510-13):

His form, though little above mean height, was stately and commanding. The depth of feeling in his dark black eyes, and the winning expression of a face otherwise attractive, gained the confidence and love of strangers, even at first sight. His features often unbended into a smile full of grace and condescension. He was, says an admiring follower, the handsomest and bravest, the brightest faced and most generous of men. It was as though the sunlight beamed in his countenance. His gait has been likened to that of one descending a hill rapidly. When he made haste, it was with difficulty that one kept pace with him. He never turned, even if his mantle caught in a thorny bush; so that his attendants talked and laughed freely behind him secure of being unobserved.

Thorough and complete in all his actions, he took in hand no work without bringing it to a close. The same habit pervaded his manner in social intercourse. If he turned in a conversation towards a friend, he turned not partially, but with his full face and his whole body. In shaking hands, he was not the first to withdraw his own; nor was he the first to break off in converse with a stranger, nor to turn away his ear. A patriarchal simplicity pervaded his life. His custom was to do everything for himself. If he gave an alms he would place it with his own hands in that of the petitioner. He aided his wives in their household duties, mended his clothes, tied up the goats, and even cobbled his sandals. His ordinary dress was of plain white cotton stuff, made like his neighbours’. He never reclined at meals. Muhammad, with his wives, lived, as we have seen, in a row of low and homely cottages built of unbaked bricks, the apartments separated by walls of palm branches rudely daubed with mud, while curtains of leather, or of black haircloth, supplied the place of doors and windows. He was to all of easy access even as the river’s bank to him that draweth water from it. Embassies and deputations were received with the utmost courtesy and consideration. In the issue of rescripts bearing on their representations, or in other matters of state, Muhammad displayed all the qualifications of an able and experienced ruler. What renders this the more strange is that he was never known himself to write.

A remarkable feature was the urbanity and consideration with which Muhammad treated even the most insignificant of his followers. Modesty and kindliness, patience, self denial, and generosity, pervaded his conduct, and riveted the affections of all around him. He disliked to say No. If unable to answer a petitioner in the affirmative, he preferred silence. He was not known ever to refuse an invitation to the house even of the meanest, nor to decline a proffered present however small. He possessed the rare faculty of making each individual in a company think that he was the favoured guest. If he met anyone rejoicing at success he would seize him eagerly and cordially by the hand. With the bereaved and afflicted he sympathised tenderly. Gentle and unbending towards little children, he would not disdain to accost a group of them at play with the salutation of peace. He shared his food, even in times of scarcity, with others, and was sedulously solicitous for the personal comfort of everyone about him. A kindly and benevolent disposition pervaded all those illustrations of his character. Muhammad was a faithful friend. He loved Abu Bakr with the close affection of a brother; Ali, with the fond partiality of a father. Zaid, the freedman, was so strongly attached by the kindness of the Prophet, that he preferred to remain at Makkah rather than return home with his own father. ‘I will not leave thee,’ he said, clinging to his patron, ‘for thou hast been a father and mother to me.’ The friendship of Muhammad survived the death of Zaid, and his son Usama was treated by him with distinguished favour for the father’s sake. Uthman and Umar were also the objects of a special attachment; and the enthusiasm with which, at Hudaibiyya, the Prophet entered into the Pledge of the Tree and swore that he would defend his beleaguered son in law even to the death, was a signal proof of faithful friendship. Numerous other instances of Muhammad’s ardent and unwavering regard might be adduced. His affections were in no instance misplaced; they were ever reciprocated by a warm and self sacrificing love.

In the exercise of a power absolutely dictatorial, Muhammad was just and temperate. Nor was he wanting in moderation towards his enemies, when once they had cheerfully submitted to his claims. The long and obstinate struggle against his pretentions maintained by the inhabitants of Makkah might have induced its conqueror to mark his indignation in indelible traces of fire and blood. But Muhammad, excepting a few criminals, granted a universal pardon; and, nobly casting into oblivion the memory of the past, with all its mockery, its affronts and persecution, he treated even the foremost of his opponents with a gracious and even friendly consideration. Not less marked was the forbearance shown to Abdullah and the disaffected citizens of Madinah, who for so many years persistently thwarted his designs and resisted his authority, nor the clemency with which he received submiss ive advances of tribes that before had been the most hostile, even in the hour of victory.

Again he wrote:

It is strongly corroborative of Muhammad’s sincerity that the earliest converts to Islam were not only of upright character, but his own bosom friends and people of his own household who, intimately acquainted with his private life could not fail otherwise to have detected those discrepancies which even more or less exist between the profession of the hypocritical deceiver abroad and his actions at home”.

SIR JOHN GLUBB

Talking about the revelations and dreams of Hadhrat Muhammadsaw he writes:

Whatever opinion the reader may form when he reaches the end of this book, it is difficult to deny that the call of Muhammad seems to bear a striking resemblance to innumerable other accounts of similar visions, both in the Old and New Testaments, and in the experience of Christian saints, possibly also of Hindus and devotees of other religions. Such visions, moreover, have often marked the beginnings of lives of great sanctity and of heroic virtue.

To attribute such phenomena to self delusion scarcely seems an adequate explanation, for they have been experienced by many persons divided from one another by thousands of years of time and by thousands of miles of distance, who cannot conceivably have even heard of each other. Yet the accounts which they give of their visions seem to bear an extraordinary likeness to one another. It scarcely appears reasonable to suggest that all these visionaries “imagined” such strikingly similar experiences, although they were quite ignorant of each other’s existence.

Talking about the migration of the companions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him, to Abyssinia while the prophet himself was in Makkah, he writes:

The list seems to have included very nearly all the persons who had accepted Islam and the Messenger of God must have remained with a much reduced group of adherents, among the generally hostile inhabitants of Makkah, a situation which proves him to have possessed a considerable degree of moral courage and conviction.

Talking about Muhammad’s migration from Makkah to Madinah, when he had to escape like a fugitive whose life was in great danger, he writes:

When the fugitives had whispered goodbye to Abu Bakr’s son and daughter outside the cave on Mount Thaur and the camels had padded silently away into the darkness beneath the sharp Arabian stars, the curtain rose on one of the greatest dramas of human history. How little did Caesar or Chosroes, surrounded by their great armies and engaged in a long and bitter war for world supremacy (as they thought), realise that four ragged Arabs riding silently through the bare mountains of the Hejaz were about to inaugurate a movement which would put an end to both their great imperial dominions.

MONTGOMERY WATT

W. Montgomery Watt, the well known Orientalist, has said the following about his personality in general (Muhammad at Madinah pp 334-5):

We may distinguish three great gifts Muhammad had, each of which was indispensable to his total achievement. First, there is what may be called his gift as a seer. Through him or on the orthodox Muslim view, through the revelations made through him the Arab world was given an ideological framework within which the resolution of its social tensions became possible. The provision of such a framework involved both insight into the fundamental causes of the social malaise of the time, and the genius to express this insight in a form which would stir the hearer to the depths of his being. ………..

Secondly, there is Muhammad’s wisdom as a statesman. The conceptual structure found in the Quran was merely a framework. The framework had to support a building of concrete policies and concrete institutions. In the course of this book, much has been said of Muhammad’s far sighted political strategy and his social reforms. His wisdom in these matters is shown by the rapid expansion of a small state to a world empire, and by the adaption of his social institutions to many different environments and their continuance for thirteen centuries.

Thirdly, there is his skill and tact as an administrator and his wisdom in the choice of men to whom to delegate administrative details. Sound institutions and a sound policy will not go far if the execution of affairs is faulty and fumbling. When Muhammad died, the state he had founded was a going concern, able to withstand the shock of his removal and, once it had recovered from this shock, it expanded at prodigious speed.

The more one reflects on the history of Muhammad and of early Islam, the more one is amazed at the vastness of his achievement. Circumstances presented him with an opportunity such as few men have had, but the man was fully matched with the hour. Had it not been for his gifts as a seer, statesman, and administrator and, behind these, his trust in God and firm belief that God had sent him, a notable chapter in the history of mankind would have remained unwritten. It is my hope that this study of his life may contribute to a fresh appraisal and appreciation of one of the greatest of the sons of Adam.

Such is a testimony of a biographer who was not favorably disposed towards the Holy Prophet.

WILL DURANT

Talking about the immence influence of Muhammad on world history he wrote:

In the year 565 Justinian died, master of a great empire. Five years later Muhammad was born into a poor family in a country three quarters desert, sparsely peopled by nomad tribes whose total wealth could hardly have furnished the sanctuary of St. Sophia. No one in those years would have dreamed that within a century these nomads would conquer half of Byzantine Asia, all Persia and Egypt, most of North Africa, and be on their way to Spain. The explosion of the Arabian peninsula into the conquest and conversion of half the Mediterranean world is the most extraordinary phenomenon in medieval history.

ALFRED GUILLAME

He wrote the following in his book Islam in regards to the battles fought by the Prophet:

Muhammad accomplished his purpose in the course of three small engagements: the number of combatants in these never exceeded a few thousand, but in importance they rank among the world’s decisive battles.

REV. BOSWELL SMITH

“Head of the state as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one, but he was Pope without the Pope’s pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a body guard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man had the right to rule by a right divine, it was Muhammad for he had all the power without the instruments and without its supports. (Muhammad and Muhammadanism )

On the whole, the wonder is not how much but how little, under different circumstances, Muhammad differed from himself. In the shepherd of the desert, in the Syrian trader,in the solitary of Mount Hira, in the reformer in the minority of one, in the exile of Madinah, in the acknowledged conqueror, in the equal of the Persian Chosroes and the Greek Heraclius, we can still trace substantial unity. I doubt whether any other man whose external conditions changed so much, ever himself changed less to meet them.

KAREN ARMSTRONG

A modern research scholar of Islam Karen Armstrong, wrote in her book:

Muhammad had to start virtually from scratch and work his way towards the radical monotheistic spirituality of his own. When he began his mission, a dispassionate observer would not have given him a chance. The Arabs, he might have objected, were just not ready for monotheism: they were not sufficently developed for this sophisticated vision. In fact, to attempt to introduce it on a large scale in this violent, terrifying society could be extremely dangerous and Muhammad would be lucky to escape with his life.

Indeed, Muhammad was frequently in deadly peril and his survival was a near-miracle. But he did succeed. By the end of his life he had laid an axe to the root of the chronic cycle tribal violence that afflicted the region and paganism was no longer a going concern. The Arabs were ready to embark on a new phase of their history.
(Muhammad – A Biography of the Prophet page 53-54)

Finally it was the West, not Islam, which forbade the open discussion of religious matters. At the time of the Crusades, Europe seemed obsessed by a craving for intellectual conformity and punished its deviants with a zeal that has been unique in the history of religion. The witch-hunts of the inquisitors and the persecution of Protestants by the Catholics and vice versa were inspired by abtruse theoligical opinions which in both Judaism and Islam were seen as private and optional matters. Neither Judaism nor Islam share the Christian conception of heresy, which raises human ideas about the divine to an unacceptably high level and almost makes them a form of idolatry. The period of the Crusades, when the fictional Mahound was established, was also a time of the great strain and denial in Europe. This is graphically expressed in the phobia about Islam.
(Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, page 27).

MAJOR A. LEONARD
If ever any man on this earth has found God; if ever any man has devoted his life for the sake of God with a pure and holy zeal then, without doubt, and most certainly that man was the Holy Prophet of Arabia..