The Right Conservative News Sites | Right Side News

Continued.............

"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men. He is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets. Allah has knowledge of all things" (Q: 33.40). 

According to Islamic sources (Bukhari: 1.4.189; Muslim: 30.5790; Sunan of Abu Dawud 32:4071), Muhammad had a big mole on his back between the shoulders which was as big as a pigeon's egg. He claimed that the big mole is the proof of his Prophethood. There is no religious scripture which confirms that a mole between the shoulders is a sign of Prophethood. What he claimed to be a proof of Allah's seal was a physical deformity which anyone can have. There is no 'divinity' in this. It is simply beyond the capacity of a logical thinker how this is supposed to be one of the proofs that convince people of Muhammad's Prophethood!

Muhammad gave no solid proof of his Prophethood. He only claimed to the title of Prophet of Allah. Did he lie? Was he under delusion? The validity of Islam is closely dependent on the reliability of Muhammad. If there is no solid reason to conclude that Muhammad was the true messenger of God, we may reasonably suppose that Islam is false. If we can prove that Muhammad was untrustworthy, Islam self-destructs. The scholars, who are most familiar with Arabic sources and had clear understanding of the life and time of Muhammad; like Margoliouth, Hurgronge, Lammens, Caetani are the most decisive against Muhammad's Prophetic claim. The more we read their valuable research works, the more we find it difficult to disagree with them. How can we be sure that Muhammad did not lie? Muhammad declared that lying is acceptable if it is used to propagate the cause of Islam by killing the enemy. This particular statement should make us wonder how often Muhammad took advantage of this principle while claiming his title of a Prophet and preaching his message.

If we take Qur'an as a primary foundation of Muhammad's Prophethood, the doubt is still not dispelled at all. The next question is to ascertain how firm ground does it provide. There are serious doubts about the trustworthiness of Qur'an also. Like Muhammad's Prophetic claim, Qur'an itself is self-declarative. It describes itself by various generic terms, comments, explains, distinguishes, puts itself in contrast with other religious books and claims to be holy. The Qur'anic claims are great, but what is miserable is that, this supposed to be holy book fails to prove either Muhammad's Prophetic claim or its Divine origin.

Ultimately, it becomes a circular reasoning. Qur'an is God's words because Muhammad said so and Muhammad was God's messenger because Qur'an says so. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. We are not happy with this.

1.2: The Embarrassment of Satanic Verses

Traditional Islamic sources admit that Muhammad was at one time inspired by Satan to put some verses into the Qur'an.

When Muhammad first began preaching in Mecca he thought that the Meccans would accept his religion. But the Meccans were not receptive to him. This made Muhammad angry and he started taunting them for years by insulting their religion and Gods. Meccans refused all dealings with him and his followers. Eventually to appease the Meccans, Muhammad recited the following Qura'nic verses, 

"Have you then considered the al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the last ... these are the exalted Gharaniq (a high flying bird) whose intercession is approved" (Q: 53.19-20) 

Al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat were some of the local idols worshiped in Mecca. Previously Muhammad had spoken against them in his monotheist preaching but now he recited that their "intercession is approved". This made the Meccans very pleased and the boycott was lifted shortly.  

Soon Muhammad realized that by acknowledging the local idols al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat he had made a terrible blunder. He had undermined his own position that as the sole intermediary between Allah and the people and by doing so he made his new religion indistinguishable from pagan beliefs and hence redundant. So he retracted and said the two verses acknowledging pagan idols were satanic verses i.e., the verses inspired by Lucifer, the Biblical Satan. This is Muhammad's most embarrassing moment. 

Islam crumbled in the wake of the Prophet's satanic indulgence. Muhammad desperately tried to make amends for the satanic verses and recited the following verse. 

"Surely Allah does not forgive setting up partners with Him; and whoever associates anything with Allah, he indeed strays off into remote error. They call but upon female deities. They call but upon Satan, the persistent rebel!" (Q: 4.116) 

Subsequently, the relevant verses were also modified with the final form what is now in the modern Qur'an, 

"Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-'Uzza. And Manat, the third, the other? Are yours the males and His the females? That indeed were an unfair division!" (Q: 53:19-22). 

Many of the Muhammad's followers left him on this account realizing that Muhammad was making up the Qur'an (Sina, 2008, p. 16). Muhammad had to run away from Mecca in shame. The shame of defeat was so much that Muhammad and Abu Bakr had to flee through window. On their way out of town, both had to hide in a cave for fear the Meccans would find them (Winn, 2004. p. 587).

"When the Messenger decided upon departure, he went to Bakr and the two of them left by a window in the back of Abu's house and went to a cave in Thawr, a mountain below Mecca". (Ishaq: 223)

"The Messenger came back to Mecca and found that its people were more determined to oppose him and to abandon his religion, except for a few weak people who believed in him". (Tabari: VI. 118)

However, after this blunder Muhammad was more careful not to make the mistake again. He just hammered a nail into his own Prophetic coffin.

Muslims are very uncomfortable with the satanic verses episode and this had been the subject of endless and bitter controversy (Walker, 2002, p. 111). But if we have to believe the authentic Muslim sources there is no reason to reject this occurrence. This incident was recorded by devout Muslims like Al-Wikidi, Al-Zamakshari, Al-Baydawi, Al-Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, Ibn Sa'd and Bukhari. It is unthinkable that such a story would have been fabricated by all of them. While this event is well documented in Islamic sources, current day Islamic leaders rarely tell Muslims or the general public about it.

We can make three logical conclusions from this satanic verses incident.

Firstly, a Qur'anic verse can be modified or deleted at a later date.

Secondly, it casts a shadow over the veracity on Muhammad's entire claim to be a Prophet.

Finally, Satan proves that Qur'an is not a miracle. Qur'an challenges "bring a Sura like it". (Q: 2.23) and Satan took the challenge and did it.

Did Muhammad carefully planned a ploy to win the hearts of the Meccans, or was it his subconscious that had suggested to him a sure formula which provided a practical road to unanimity? I shall look for an answer in subsequent chapters.

1.3: The Traditional Sources

It seems much logical, and also agreeable to Muslims, to say that if we have solid reasons to believe that Muhammad was a reliable messenger of God, we may conclude that Islam is a true religion and, in case there are strong reasons to question Muhammad's trustworthiness, Islam self-destructs.

In the West, Muhammad's critics are quick to claim that he was either possessed by demons or suffering from mental illness or he was a conscious fraud. We have no concrete evidence to support one of these claims and discard others; but at least we all agree to the point that, there was certainly something wrong with Muhammad. The Western scholars judge the Prophet by the standards of human morality and conscious. But Muslims' thinking is different. From their point of view they have accepted Muhammad as a 'superior being' and 'the mercy of God among mankind' (Sina, 2008, p. 6).

Though Muslims dismiss all attacks on their faith as anti-Islamic polemic and a calculated and deliberate misrepresentation of their religion from Christian prejudice and Zionist-instigated ill will but the irony is that; even if we reject and leave aside all these Western scholars and depend only on authentic traditional sources for information, we still cannot find anything which suggests that Muhammad was a 'superior being' or 'the mercy of God among mankind' but we have thousands of accounts that do portray him a psychopath criminal.

But, are the traditional sources reliable?    

1.3.1: The Reliability of Traditional Sources

Our knowledge and understanding of early Islam and its founder mainly rests on the writings we call Sira, Al-Maghazi, Qur'an, Qur'anic exegesis (Tafsir), Tabari's history, and Shahi Hadith collections.

Sira means 'biography', and likewise Sirat Rasul Allah is the biography of Muhammad, the messenger of Allah written by Ibn Ishaq (CA 85/704 - 150/767(?)), which is the earliest life of Muhammad of which we have any trace. He was one of the main authorities on the life and times of the Prophet. Amongst the early Muslim critic, Ishaq had a very high reputation (e.g., Al-Zuhri spoke of him as 'the most knowledgeable man in Maghazi'). Ishaq's Sira or biography provides the sole account of Muhammad's life and the formation of Islam written within 200 years of his death. The work of Ibn Ishaq is very important for the researchers not only because it is the earliest biography, but also for the reason that Ibn Ishaq was a free thinker and he was free from any influences of later idealizing tendencies. While the character, message, and deeds portrayed within its pages are the direct opposite of Christ's and his disciples, the Sira's chronological presentation is similar in style to the Christian Gospels. His work contains too much information of a character that is devastatingly unfavorable to the Prophet. 

Al-Maghazi is the early Muslim military expeditions or raiding parties in which Muhammad took part in the Medinan period. But this term seems to have been more or less often used synonymously with term Sira.

The history of al-Tabari is a mine of information for historical and critical research by Western scholars. This Persian historian was a devout Muslim, a commentator of Qur'an and widely traveled. He had not only devoted much time to history but even mathematics and medicine. Tabari derived much of his material from oral traditions and literary sources like the works of Abu Miknaf, al-Wiqidi, Ibn Sa'd and of course Ibn Ishaq. 

Qur'an's claim to Divine origin rests on the Ahadith (plural of Hadith). The Hadith, or the book of tradition, are the records of what Muhammad did, what he enjoined, what was done in his presence and what he did not forbid. Hadith collections also include the authoritative sayings and doings of the companions of Muhammad. Muhammad was aware that people were taking note of all his casually uttered words and that stories of what he did were being passed around. He was aware of the dangers and warned against the practice because some of his casually uttered word may get included in Qur'an by mistake (Brahmachari, 1999, p. 131). But the trend once started could not be stopped and was accelerated after his death (Walker, 2002, p. 172) The Hadith contains material from pre-Islamic times also. Much was added to it after Muhammad's death with fresh material with the growth of Islamic empire.

It is true that much of the Ahadith was fabricated before Imam Bukhari made his compilation. As example, Ibn Abi-I-Awja (executed 772 CE for apostasy) confessed before his death that he had fabricated more than four thousand Ahadith, in which he forbade Muslims what was in fact permitted and vice versa and he made Muslims to break the fast when they should have been fasting (Warraq, 2003, p. 45). Awja's case is just one example. There are instances where many Ahadith were invented to serve the political purposes of the Umayyad, the Abbasids and later dynasties of Caliphs and handing down of the traditions went downwards to the level of a business enterprise (Goldziher, 1971, p. 169) as a means of livelihood. A large amount of non-Islamic material was drawn into by the compilers which even included sayings of Buddhist wisdom, Roman stories and verses from the Zoroastrians, Jewish and Christian scriptures and even Greek philosophy (Gibb, 1969, p. 51). Soon the number of Ahadith already in circulation and still being invented became unimaginable. As one Muslim authority wrote, 'in nothing do we see pious man more given to falsehood than in the traditions' (Nicholson, 1969, p.145). So it was urgently necessary to compile an authentic collection. The best-known and most authoritative compilation is by Bukhari. It is said that Bukhari had examined a total of 6,00,000 traditions. He preserved some 7,000 (including traditions), which means he rejected some 593,000 as inauthentic (Crone, 1987, p. 33). But since many of them were repeated, there remained only about 2760 in total. Second only to Bukhari's collection is the work of Muslim Ibn al-Hajaj, which contains three thousand traditions. These compilations are believed to be Sahih Hadith (authentic traditions).

With much disappointment to the Muslims, the above five oldest and most trusted Islamic sources don't portray Muhammad a 'superior being' or any kind of 'the mercy of God among mankind'. The sources reveal that he was a thief, a liar, an assassin, a pedophile, a shameless womanizer, a promiscuous husband, a rapist, a mass murderer, a desert pirate, a warmonger but a spineless coward, and a calculating and ruthless tyrant. It's certainly not the character profile of the founder of a true religion.

Moreover, there is no reason to believe that these authentic collections of Bukhari were later additions by religious rivalries. Bukhari was a devout Muslim and his sincerity was beyond doubt. Other traditional books were written by pious Muslims, the copies are preserved and certainly it would not be the characteristic of believers to portray their Prophet as a villain. After all Muhammad had promised them Paradise in exchange of their acceptance of Muhammad as a Prophet. How they can malign him?

Similarly the trustworthiness of Christian sources cannot be doubted either. By the time Muhammad received his first revelation early in the seventh century; Christianity was already an established religion and had been in law of the exclusive faith of the Roman Empire, the superpower of the Mediterranean for some two centuries. Christianity also had been planted from Ethiopia to Ireland and Morocco to Georgia and in Mesopotamia, i.e., modern Iraq (Fletcher, 2003, pp. 4, 6). The multiplicity and diversity of the Christian texts stands as a proof of an intellectual life of Christendom within the Roman world. In fact this was a new era when this faith was slowly coming out of the religious orthodoxy. As the grip of the Orthodox Church was relaxed, there was a wave of theological deviants and the contemporaneous Christians evaluated Muhammad and his sect as yet another such group which had gone astray. It was unthinkable to them that Islam might be 'a new religion' in the strict sense of the term.    

The Islamic leadership remained on friendly terms with the Christian populations of the land they conquered. Qur'an (29:45) requires Muslims should respect the Ahl al-Kitab, the people of the book, that is to say the Christians and Jews. Hence we hardly have any doubt on the authenticity of early Christian sources. It was too late for the Christian to realize the fact about Islam.

1.4: Discrediting Muhammad using Traditional Sources

The original book of Ibn Ishaq is lost to history and all we know of it is what is quoted from it by the later writers, particularly Ibn Hisham and al-Tabari. These quotations are fortunately quite reliable. Ibn Hisham edited and abridged Ibn Ishaq's work about sixty-five years later. In his edition, Hisham (Guillaume, 1955, p. 691) wrote,

"I am omitting things which Ishaq recorded in this book. I have omitted things which are disgraceful to discuss and matters which would distress certain people."

This particular comment of Hisham speaks volumes. Today we need to know, what were those 'disgraceful to discuss' discussions Hisham omitted from Ishaq's original works and what were those 'matters which would distress certain people'. We understand Hisham's position. He was actually compromising with the truth to save his life, which was dependant upon not offending the cleric-kings during his time. But he was honest enough to admit that he had compromised with the truth.

However, a few modern historians have attempted to recover the lost portion of Ishaq's work. They applied the Biblical criteria of 'Form and Redaction criticism' (Form criticism is an analysis of literary documents, particularly the Bible, to discover earlier oral traditions as example, stories, legends, myths, etc upon which they were based. Redaction Criticism is concerned with when and by what process (of collecting and editing) did a particular section or book of the Bible reach its final literary form) to the basis historical assemblage of Ishaq. To quote Margoliouth (cited Warraq, 2000, p. 340),

"The character attributed to Muhammad in the biography of Ibn Ishaq is exceedingly unfavorable... 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. At different points in his career he abandons the unity of God and his claim to the title of a Prophet. This is a disagreeable picture for the founder of a religion and it cannot be pleaded that it is a picture drawn by an enemy."

The Pagan Meccans were wise enough not to believe Muhammad's gigantic claim because they had seen many such imposters. There are more than a dozen verses which confirm that Muhammad and the 'voice' he had heard were ridiculed by the pagans. They thought that Muhammad was fabricating verses or in the parlance of those days, he was demon-possessed. The contemporaries or Muhammad called him 'majnoon' (Lunatic, crazy, possessed by jinn) (Sina, 2008. p. 6) or a soothsayer 'kahin'. This is very explicit in the ten Qur'anic verses 15.6, 23.70-72, 34.8, 34.45/46, 37.35/36, 44.13/14, 52.29, 68.2, 68.51 and 81.22. In a few instances, there are verses 21:5, 36:69, 37:36/35, 52:30 where an alternative explanation was given that Muhammad was an ambitious but fanciful poet who had merely invented it all.

To defend himself Muhammad added several references to Biblical Prophets likewise accused of ghost-possession, as example earlier Prophets in general (Q: 51.52), Noah (Q: 23.25), Moses (Q: 26.26/27, Q: 51.39). Let it be on record that the Bible nowhere mentions such an allegation against Noah, Moses or most other Prophets. The one exception is Hosea, a Prophet apparently unknown to Muhammad: "They call the man of the spirit a madman: so great is their guilt that their resistance is likewise great" (Hosea: 9.7). Undoubtedly, Muhammad, whose knowledge of the Bible was only sketchy, was merely projecting his own plight onto Noah and Moses.  

Muhammad's argument was very silly and stands on a slippery ground. His reason was something like this, - 'I am a Prophet but am not acknowledged by my narrow-minded contemporaries, just as the ancient genuine Prophets were not given due recognition either at first instance. Hence I am also a genuine Prophet'. Muhammad lost many of his followers on this account.

Bukhari (9:87:111) recorded that Muhammad's Prophetic mission was confirmed by cousin of Khadija, a Christian convert from Judaism named Waraqa Bin Naufal. After few days of confirming Muhammad's Prophethood, Waraqa died mysteriously. The fact that Waraqa was a Christian had been a source of embarrassment to the Muslims. Hence they often deny it to get rid of this shame. Some overenthusiastic Muslim sources say that, by recognizing Prophet, Waraqa converted to Islam. However, some modern scholars contend that Waraqa actually rejected Muhammad and the text of Ibn Hisham's version of the Sira was later corrupted (Spencer, 2006, p. 53). There is no account in voluminous Hadith that Waraqa converted to Islam and the details of his mysterious death. From the Hadith collections we can find minutest details of Muhammad's activities and the events of early Muslim communities. The conversion of a Christian priest who was a cousin of Muhammad and his wife would have been a momentous event. Waraqa was the most revered holy man in Mecca. Why the cause of his death was not recorded in the Hadith? Today the mainstream Islam accepts that Waraqa recognized Muhammad's Prophetic status, but this is baseless. Nowhere is it recorded that Waraqa's appreciation was witnessed by anyone.

Though it appears shocking, but I believe that Waraqa was murdered by Muhammad. This is a possibility which we cannot ignore. After Muhammad and Khadija had used him, he became a liability-someone who could and would profess that Muhammad's claims were untrue. Once Waraqa was dead, Muhammad felt free to concoct any lies and attribute them to him and the deception continued unabated.

Strange but true that, even there is mention in Hadith (Bukhari 4. 56.814) that Muhammad was once challenged by a Christian convert who reverted back to Christianity by seeing that Muhammad was actually faking the Qur'anic revelations and declared, "Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him". There was a similar type of observation by one of the Muhammad's scribes; Abdullah Ibn Abi Sarh, who used to write down Allah's revelations. When Abdullah suggested some changes to Muhammad's dictation, Muhammad readily agreed with Abdullah. This led Abdullah to suspect Muhammad's claim of reception of messages from God, apostatized and left Medina for Mecca. He then proclaimed that he (Abdullah) too could easily write the Qur'anic verses by being inspired by Allah (Caner & Caner, 2002, p. 45).

In the Christian view, the gospel concerning Christ was final. Bible exclusively cautioned that any other teaching is false even if an angel from heaven (here meaning Gabriel) came down to preach it, was not to be accepted (Gal.1:8). Christ specifically spoke of false Prophets yet to come, and warned that if people report that such a one in the desert - 'do not go there' (Matt. 24:26). But in spite of this clear warning in the Bible; many early Christians did not recognize this false Prophet. Muhammad and his sect were most believably understood as yet another wave of theological deviants of Christendom who had gone astray.

When Muhammad advised a small group of his followers to flee Mecca, the Christian king of Abyssinia received them and gave them refuge. In biographies of Muhammad, there are many references of a Christian monk named Bahira who is said to have recognized in Muhammad the signs of a Prophet. The idea that Islam might be 'a new religion' was in the strict sense of the term was unthinkable to the Christians. When Jerusalem was surrendered to Muslims in 638, Sophronius (Patriarch of Jerusalem), who had negotiated the surrender of the city to the Muslims, explained the invasion of Palestine as Divine punishment for the sins of the Christians. The notion was that the Muslims were the instruments of the God's wrath (Fletcher, 2003, p. 16). But slowly the early Christians recognized Muhammad as a man of blood and his followers as irredeemably violent.

Throughout the medieval period, all of the characteristics of Muhammad that confirmed his authority in the eyes of Muslims were reversed by Christian authors and turned into defects. When Christians recognized Islam as a rival religion to Christianity, they simply refused the notion of a new Prophet after Christ (Ernst, 2005, p. 14). The traditional doctrine that Muhammad was illiterate, which to Muslims was proof of Divine origin of Qur'an, indicated to the Christians that he must have been a fraud. When challenged by the Meccans to produce miracles, Muhammad said that Qur'an was his only miracle. While Muslims viewed this as proof of the spirituality of his mission, Christian antagonists considered this lack of miracles as clear evidence that Muhammad was a fake.

In 850, a monk called Perfectus went shopping in the capital of Muslim state of al-Andalus. Here he was stopped by a group of Arabs who asked him whether Jesus or Muhammad was the greater Prophet. There was a trick in the question because it was a capital offence in the Islamic empire to insult Muhammad and Perfectus knew it very well. So at first he responded cautiously. He gave an exact account of the Christian faith respecting the Divinity of Christ. But suddenly he snapped and burst into a passionate stream of abuse, calling Muhammad a charlatan, a sexual pervert and the antichrist himself and a false Prophet spoken of in the Gospel (Foxe, 1827, p. 76-7). Perfectus was thrown into the prison but later released because the judge realized that he was provoked by the Muslims. However after few days of his release, the Muslims' pranks provoked him once more and Perfectus cracked a second time and insulted Muhammad in such crude terms that he was again taken and later on executed (Armstrong, 2006, p. 22).

Few days later, another Christian monk by the name Ishaq appeared before the same judge and attacked Muhammad and his religion with many crude and disgusting words. His insulting words to Muhammad and Islam were so strong that the Judge, thinking him drunk or deranged, slapped him to bring him to his senses. But Ishaq persisted in his abuse and the Judge ordered his execution also. A few days after Ishaq's execution, six monks from the same monastery arrived and delivered yet another venomous attack on Muhammad. There were executed too. That summer, about fifty Christian monks died this way (Armstrong, 2006, p. 23). 

But those Christian monks had all the right to call Muhammad a fake. They were well educated, wise and they had studied Muhammad and his religion thoroughly. The two biggest Christian criticisms of Muhammad were undoubtedly in relation to his military activities, marriages and sexual perversions. For Christians, the celibacy and nonviolent approach of Jesus were generally seen as indispensable characteristics of true spirituality. The cruelty of Muhammad and his sexual perversion were taken as clear proof that Muhammad could not be on the same exalted level as Jesus. The early Christian critics of Muhammad generally described him as motivated by a combination of political ambition and sensual lust. But the success of Islam raised a disturbing theological question: How had God allowed this impious faith to prosper? Could it be that God had deserted His own people?         

The earliest reference to Muhammad in Christian literature is found in the writings of seventh century. The Armenian 'Chronicle of Sebeos' says the Muhammad was an 'Ishmaelite', who claimed to be a Prophet. In the coming years many Biblical scholars realized that though Islam and Christianity has many similarities, like, praying, fasting, giving alms, pilgrimage etc, but actually Islam is against Christianity. During the middle ages of Christian Europe, Christians had a very strong negative feeling against Muslims. As example, Bede, a monk and Biblical scholar described Qur'an as 'a parody of sacred scripture of Christianity [i.e. Bible]' and Muhammad as a pseudo-Prophet, who and his followers has made war on Christians and seized their Holy places. In a work of Biblical commentary completed in 716, Bede described Muslims as 'enemies of the Church' (Fletcher, 2003, p. 19). 

Like Bede, another prolific writer of theology was John of Damascus. He hailed from an ethnic Arab family and whose three generations had served Muslim rulers. He was one of the earliest Christian writers to concern himself at any length and in a systematic way with Islam. John was the first scholar who had explained the Biblical deviation of the Ishmaelites. He went on to castigate Muhammad as a false Prophet who cribbed part of his teaching from the Old and New Testaments and also from the sayings of a heretic Christian monk, Bahira. According to John, Muhammad wrote down 'some ridiculous compositions in a book of his' (Chase, 1958, p. 153), which he claimed had been sent down to him from heaven. Somewhere around 745, John composed a play, 'Dialogue between a Saracen and a Christian'. This dialog envisages a situation in which a Muslim puts awkward questions to a Christian on such matters as the nature of Christ, creation, free will and many others. The Christian parries these questions so skillfully that at the end of the play it is mentioned 'the Saracen went his way surprised and bewildered, having nothing more to say' (Seale, 1978 p. 70). John also quoted at length but selectively from Qur'an and mocked the faith of the Ishmaelites. 

During late eighth or early ninth century, a short work was composed probably in southern Spain by an anonymous writer which is known as 'Ystoria de Mahomet' where Muhammad was called as 'a son of Darkness' who stole some Christian teaching and claimed to be a Prophet. He put together an absurd farrago of doctrine delivered to him by a vulture claiming to be the angel Gabriel. He incited his followers to war. He was a slave to lust, which he justified by laws for which he falsely claimed Divine inspiration. He foretold his resurrection after his death but in the event his body was fittingly devoured by dogs (cited Wolf, 1990, p. 97-9). Like the John of Damascus, this anonymous author was very knowledgeable of Islam. He was well-versed with the Qur'an and often gave fairly recondite references from this book.   

In a Christian work named 'Doctrina Jacobi Nuper Baptizati' (The teaching of Jacob the newly-baptized) a tract of anti-Jewish literature written in dialog form composed probably in Palestine round about the time of the surrender of Jerusalem. At one point the following words were attributed to one of the speakers, 'Abraham' a Palestinian Jews (Fletcher, 2003, pp. 16-7),

"A false Prophet has appeared among the Saracens... They say that the Prophet has appeared coming with the Saracens, and is proclaiming the advent of the anointed one who is to come. I, Abraham referred to the matter to an old man very well-versed with the scriptures. I asked him: 'What is your view; master and teacher, of the Prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?' He replied groaning mightily: 'He is an impostor. Do the Prophets come with sword and chariot? Truly these happenings today are works of disorder... But you go off, Master Abraham, and find out about the Prophet who has appeared.' So I, Abraham, made enquiries, and was told by those who had met him: 'There is no truth to be found in the so-called Prophet, only bloodshed; for he says he has the keys of Paradise, which is incredible'."  

Muhammad's Prophetic life can be divided into two distinctive periods, the Meccan period and Medinan period. During the first period i.e., Meccan period, Muhammad was a simple preacher and warner. But his preaching was clearly, from the worldly point of view, an utter failure and as a result of thirteen years of propaganda he had won no more than a handful of converts. But the scene completely changed at Medina where he gained in power and his message lost the beauty. Here he was what one might simply call a robber chief. After conquering Mecca, he entered as a political leader rather than a religious leader, and was recognized by Meccans as such. So Muhammad was changing his color like a lizard as situation dictated. Throughout his Prophetic mission, he dealt with Jews and Christians keeping strict political aims in view. At the initial stage, Islam was an absurd truth claim like a practical joke, but when Muhammad was able to draw the sword and successfully used it, the whole thing became serious. So while estimating the significance of Muhammad, we should not judge him solely as a mystic or religious reformer, though he may have the elements of both, but rather as a ruthless politician and opportunist pressed with peculiar political problems amongst barbarous people and at a critical moment of history.

Therefore the picture that emerges of the Prophet in the above traditional accounts is not at all favorable to Muhammad. The Muslims cannot complain that this representation of their beloved Prophet was drawn by an enemy. The early Arabs did not believe in his Prophetic claim and there is sufficient proof that Muhammad was taken aback when those intellectuals of Mecca pointed to the weaknesses of the Qur'an. They fell heavily on Muhammad and pressed him hard demanding answers and explanations to the irrationalities they spotted in the Qur'an, but Muhammad and Allah stood there wordless and powerless like two 'Divine fools'.

By seeing the irrationalities, there was apostasy in large scale during Muhammad's time and after his death. Many early Muslims were just opportunists and not at all religious. They joined Muhammad only for booty and captured women for sex. Those tribal Arabs lacked any deep religious sense. They only wanted worldly successes. Many confessed their belief but had no inclination towards Islam and its dogma and ritual. It is estimated that at the death of Muhammad the number who really converted to Muhammad' doctrine did not exceed a thousand (Warraq, 2003, p. 41). Present day cultists perform much better than Muhammad in gaining followers.

The Qur'an itself confirms that there were Arab skeptics in Mecca who did not accept the 'fables' recounted by Muhammad.  They doubted the 'Divine' origin of the revelations and certainly, they had every right to do so. They even accused him of plagiarizing the pagan Arab poets. Some verses of the Qur'an were attributed to al-Qays (a.k.a Imra'ul Qays) a famous pre-Islamic Arabian poet (Warraq, 2003, p. 41). Muhammad had plagiarized several poems from the work of this poet and added them to his Qur'an. It was the custom of the poets' and the orators to hang up the composition of their literary work upon the Ka'aba. One day, Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad was repeating two passages from Sabaa Mu'allaqat. Suddenly she met the daughter of Imra'ul Qays, who cried out,

"O that's what your father had taken from one of my father's poems and calls it something that has come down to him out of heaven" (Warraq, 1998, p. 235-6).

Even today this story is told amongst Arabs. The Qur'anic plagiarism is so prominent that Muslims cannot deny this. But how can they explain this incident? Did the poems of Imra'ul Qays were also divinely inspired like Qur'an? 

1.5: Discrediting Muhammad using the Modern-day Sources

The prime target of Western censor has been the founder of Islam himself. Though Michael Hart in his book, 'The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History' places Muhammad at the very top of the list (cited Sina, 2008, p. 5), he did not mention if the influence was positive or negative, as Walker (2002, p. 312) lamented,

"[there is] no great figure in history, who is so poorly appreciated and no great religious leader so maligned in Western writings as Muhammad".

And as Ernst (2005, p. 11) concluded, "It is safe to say that no religion has such a negative image in Western eyes as Islam".

It is useless to engage in competition between religious stereotypes but one can certainly see Gandhi and his advocacy of nonviolence as a positive image of Hinduism and Dalai Lama with his amazing positive and widespread recognition as a representative of Buddhism and likewise, Mother Teresa or Pope of Christianity. In this respect, Islam certainly lacks any such influential figure though Muslims are the majority population in some fifty countries. Muslims from all over the world are feared as terrorists in the Western world, which is neither a propaganda nor misunderstanding. It is simply the truth. And, as Shaikh (1995, p. 4) commented, "The greatness of the leader depends upon the quality of his follower", surely this poor image of Muslims does not reflect well on Muhammad.     

In 1843, a work on the life of Muhammad was published by Gustav Weil. This work was based on historical analysis and the author put forward the idea that Muhammad was suffering from epilepsy. Weil's conclusion was supported by Sprenger. According to Sprenger, Muhammad was also a psychopath (Schimmel, 1985, p. 248). Another author, Franz Buhl described that, in his Medinan phase, Muhammad revealed the unattractive side of his character: cruelty, slyness, dishonesty, untrustworthiness; someone whose leading principle was 'the end justifies the means' (Warraq, 1995, p. 86, 89).

Muir's work on Muhammad was based on original Muslim sources and published between 1856 and '61. Muir was specialized in debating Muslim clerics and entertained the suggestion that Muhammad was inspired by the devil. He also adopted the more scientific criticism (originally advanced by the German physician Aloys Sprenger) that Muhammad's Prophetic experiences were due to epilepsy (Ernst, 2005, p. 22). However another two scholars, Margoliouth and Macdonald believed (cited Walker, 2002, p. 315) that Muhammad's seizures were artificially produced and those acts were merely a device by which he secured sanction for his revelations.

In his work Muir had passed a judgment on Muhammad's character that was repeated over and over again by subsequent scholars. According to him, Muhammad though religiously motivated during Meccan period but showed his 'feet of clay' during Medinan period where he was corrupted by power and worldly ambitions (cited Warraq, 1995, p. 87). The inconsistencies in Muhammad's character was specifically pointed out by Muir,

"He [Muhammad] justified himself by 'revelations' releasing himself in some cases from social proprieties and the commonest obligations of self restraint".

It is of course shocking that Muhammad transformed to a bandit chieftain, who was unwilling to earn an honest living, after he gained power at Medina, as Caetani (cited Warraq, 1995, p. 88) observed,

"If Muhammad deviated from the path of his early years, that should cause no surprise; he was man as much as, and in like manner as, his contemporaries, he was a member of a still half-savage society deprived of any true culture, and guided solely by instincts and natural gifts which were decked out by badly understood and half-digested religious doctrines of Judaism and Christianity."

Jeffrey (cited Warraq, 2000, p. 347) concluded that Margoliouth had done the most brilliant study of the life of Muhammad that has yet appeared. According to Margoliouth, Muhammad was a patriot, keenly alive to the opportunities of his time. Islam was created as a method to unite the Arabs and make them a strong military force. In this process the religious appeal played an important part but there was also a complete absence of moral scruple. On the success of Muhammad, Margoliouth commented that Muhammad' success was dearly not due to the objective truth of the Qur'an but to his skill as organizer and military leader. Muhammad was thoroughly familiar with the shortcomings of the Arabs and utilized them to the utmost advantage and he was able to seize opportunities and distrusted loyalty when not backed by interest.

Hume referred to Muhammad as a 'pretended Prophet' and wrote, "[The Qur'an is a] wild and absurd performance." Also Hobbes concluded, "... [Muhammad] to set up his new religion, pretended to have conferences with the Holy Ghost in form of a dove. " Also, Gibbon (1941, p. 240) concluded that Muhammad's claim that he was the apostle of God was 'a necessary fiction'. Will Durant, the famous historian and philosopher had the same opinion. According to Durant, Muhammad was a conscious fraud. He (1950; p. 176) concluded, "Muhammad felt that no moral code would win obedience adequate to the order and vigor of a society unless men believed the code to have come from God." Carlyle wrote, "His Qur'an has become a stupid piece of prolix absurdity; we do not believe like him that God wrote that" (Warraq, 1995. p. 10, 24).

Becker, another prominent critic of Islam commented (1909, p. 29) that the companions of Muhammad had very little interest in religion and most of them were utterly ignorant about the fundamental; tenets of the religion preached by Muhammad. For these early Muslims, as Becker commented,

 "... the new religion was nothing more than a party cry of unifying power, though there is no reason to suppose that it was not a real moral force in the life of Muhammad and his immediate contemporaries".

It is true that Muhammad's companions lacked religious values. A Hadith from Bukhari gives us a clue, how Muslims during the time of Muhammad use to keep their mosques.

Narrated Hamza bin 'Abdullah: My father said."During the lifetime of Allah's Apostle, the dogs used to urinate, and pass through the mosques (come and go), nevertheless they never used to sprinkle water on it (urine of the dog) (Bukhari: 1.4.174).

Elsewhere Becker (cited Warraq, 2000, p. 554) commented,

"... bursting of the Arabs beyond their native peninsula was, like earlier irruptions in which the religious element was totally lacking due to economic necessities".

According to Shaikh (1995, p. 24), Muhammad had a strong dominance urge. He was not only a Prophet but also the builder of an Arab empire and this was an integral part of his supposed to be Prophethood. Islam was built around the sanctity and significance of his own person which he had achieved by various means. Islam is an Arab national movement and Muhammad was possibly the greatest national leader born anywhere on earth.

Shaikh completely discredits Muhammad as a messenger of God. According to him, Qur'an is highly contradictory. Therefore instead of leading, it misleads the people. Prophethood has nothing to do with guidance; it is simply a political doctrine. "God's messenger is God's servant by name only. In practice he is God's superior... Islam is less a religion and more an Arab national movement" (1995, p. 12).

Rodinson, the latest biographer of Muhammad does not believe in Muhammad's Prophetic claim. According to him, Muhammad really did experience sensory phenomena translated into words and phrases which he interpreted as messages from God and subsequently he developed an idea of receiving those messages in a particular way. These experiences were his hallucinations. Muhammad was sincere but sincerity is not a proof. At Medina this inspired visionary transformed into an imposter. Rodinson (1980, p. 218) wrote, "[Muhammad was] driven by necessity to produce a convenient revelation at the appropriate moment and at no other, in the way the mediums have been known to resort to fraud in similar cases".

Before last century, there was hardly any Hindu evaluation neither of Muhammad and his Qur'an, nor even of Islamic doctrine in general. The first detailed criticism of Islam, the Prophet and in particular of the Qur'an was done by Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the founder of the Vedic reform movement Arya Samaj in 1875. Dayananda was a freethinker. In his literary work, he mainly focused on the Qur'anic contradictions, irrational beliefs and inhumane injunctions in the Islamic scriptures. Dayananda (cited Smith, 2009) wrote,

"Having thus given a cursory view of the Qur'an I lay it before the sensible persons, with the purpose that they should know what kind of book the Qur'an is. If they ask me, I have no hesitation to say that it cannot be work either of God or of a learned man, nor it can be a book of knowledge"

"The Qur'an is the result of ignorance, the source of animalization of human being, a fruitful cause of destroying peace, an incentive to war, a propagator of hostility amongst men and a promoter of suffering in society."

Dayananda had equally criticized the negative side of Hinduism also as example untouchability, cast system etc. Later Arya Samaj criticism of the Prophet typically focused on his dictatorial and immoral personal behavior. Like 'Rangila Rasul' (Literally, the playboy Prophet) written by Rajpal which highlighted Muhammad's abnormal sexual preferences. Rajpal was later stabbed to death by Muslims. Christian critics, no matter how fiercely criticize Muhammad, usually appreciate at least Prophet's belief in monotheism, which never impressed these Hindu authors.

Swami Vivekananda, a prominent Hindu monk and social reformer was another original thinker who had questioned the nature of Muhammad's leadership with the nature of his Prophethood. According to him, Muhammad had to be ruthless in imposing adherence to his belief in his own Divine mission because this belief could not stand on its own, based as it was on a delusion.

Vivekananda offered one hypothesis of what had happened to Muhammad so as to make him believe in his own selection as God's sole living spokesman. Muhammad, as Vivekananda believed, used to practice Yoga - an ancient form of Hindu-Buddhist meditation (Vivekananda, 1947, p. 184). Gisbertus Voetius, a 17th-century Dutch Calvinist theologian cherished the same view of Vivekananda. Voetius believed that Muhammad suffered from mental disturbance which was a result of his improper meditative experiments. The Hindu yoga manuals emphatically warn against wrongly practicing the techniques of Hatha Yoga. The practices of Yoga produce excellent result if used properly and under efficient guidance and certain precautions. But if these protective measures are neglected then it may cause brain damage. As example, Pranayama (breath control or control of the vital energies), if practiced improperly, can impair the nerve systems. The very foundation of a healthy body and sound mind is shaken causing much harm to the person (Iyengar, 1976, p. 434; Swami Vishnu-Devananda, 1987). This may cause hallucination. The learner, in a state of hallucination, may experience some mystic phenomena, which he may think as 'certain states of consciousness' or some kind of 'enlightenment'. But in reality these are serious delusions - both auditory and visual. The most typical among these is megalomania; witness the self-importance of the religious gurus and messiahs in the modern cult scene. Similarly, Kundalini Yoga is also very ill-reputed. If practiced in proper manner, the person can attain such a state, when he can even manipulate the 'force' or 'energy' of the universe in his favor. In Kundalini yoga, the person deliberately induces a psychotic state on himself, but for an unstable person this may easily lead to real psychosis. Hindu Yogis and Masters had warned the learners repeatedly on this topic.

In a speech given at London on 17th November, 1896, Vivekananda said,

"One religion may ordain something very hideous.  For instance, the Mohammedan (Islam) religion allows Mohammedans to kill all who are not of their religion. It is clearly stated in the Koran, "Kill the infidels if they do not become Mohammedans." They must be put to fire and sword.  Now if we tell a Mohammedan that this is wrong, he will naturally ask, "How do you know that? How do you know it is not good? My book says it is."

In another speech given in the Universalist Church, Pasadena, California, USA, on 28th January, 1890; Vivekananda said,

"In this line the Mohammedans were the best off; every step forward was made with the word the Koran in the one hand and the sword in the other" Take the Koran, or you must die; there is no alternative"

The world famous historian, author, researcher and an expert of Islamic history of India, Sir Jadunath Sarkar (1858-1932) was very outspoken in his criticism of Islam. Sarkar mainly focused on the intolerant attitude of this religion which he condemns strongly. According to him (1972, p. 163, 164, 169),

"A Muslim does not need to grow a rich growth in spirituality. All he needs to do is to slay a certain class of his fellow-beings [infidels] or plunder their lands and wealth and this act itself will raise his soul to heaven. A religion where followers are taught to regard robbery and murder as religious duty, is incompatible with the progress of mankind or with the peace of the world"

"The toleration of any sect outside the fold of orthodox Islam is no better than compounding with sin and the worst form of sin [according to Islam] is polytheism, the belief that the one true God has partners in the form of other deities. Such a belief is the rankest ingratitude to Him who gives us our daily bread"

The great humanist and famous legendary Bengali novelist Sharat Chandra Chattopadhyay believed that Hindu-Muslim unity is impossible because of two reasons. First, Muslims lack culture from birth whereas the Hindus born with culture. Second, Muslims' full solidarity is for Arab. Though they live in India but they don't feel any responsibility for India. Gandhi dreamt for Hindu-Muslim unity, but he failed miserably. Muslims will never identify themselves with India. Chattopadhyay (cited in 'Sarat Rachanabali'. Vol. 3, p. 475) wrote,

"In fact if the Muslims say "We want unity with the Hindus", it can't be anything but a deception. One would say that the Muslims invaded India just to plunder, not to set up a kingdom.  But they were not satisfied with loot only; they demolished Hindu temples, broke the idols and raped Hindu women. In fact they never spared to do the maximum harm and insult to other's religion and humanity"

"When the Muslims will come down from their high horse of religion, probably then they will realize a human being cannot be proud with the fundamentalism of his religion, and this is nothing but unparallel barbarism. But the Muslims are yet to go a long way before they realize it. But their eyes will never open unless the whole world together teaches the Muslims a good lesson"

Ambedkar (1940, part 3, ch. 7) had the same view of Chattopadhyay, as he wrote,

"From a spiritual point of view, Hindus and Muslims are not merely two classes or two sects such as Protestants and Catholics or Shaivas and Vaishnavas. They are two distinct species. For them Divinity is divided and with the division of Divinity their humanity is divided and with the division of humanity they must remain divided" 

Another well-respected historian, P. N Oak, mainly focused on Islamic extremism. Oak compared the butchery of innocent Hindus by the Muslim raiders with Hitler's persecution of the Jews (1996, p. 12). According to Oak (1996, P. 389),

"[The history of Islam is] a millennium long devil dance of murder, massacre, rape and plunder, trickery, treachery, tyranny and torture across the world by Islam from the day of its inception". 

In recent years, another two Hindu scholars Ram Swarup and Sita Ram Goel have further developed Swami Vivekananda's position on the subject of Muhammad's Prophethood. According to them, the pagan Arabs had every right to reject Muhammad's claims. The pagan Arabs recognized Muhammad as a fake and his Prophetic claim was nothing but a deluded consciousness, which then propagated on a war footing. The history will not forgive them for one mistake - the mistake of being defeated. Actually they failed to understand the deceitful ways of Muhammad and could not match his mailed fist in the final round. It was neither the first nor the last time that a democratic society succumbed in the face of determined gangsterism. We have seen how Stalin, Hitler and Mao Tse-tung succeeded in our own times.

Ram Swarup appropriately commented that Muslims need sword to sell their God because their God failed in spirituality. He (1992) wrote,

"The need of the time is to examine the whole concept and assumptions of revelatory religions, such as of a particular community being "chosen" as the swordsmen or salesmen of god. When a Divine message commands, kill the idolaters wherever you find them, we must give a close look not only to the message but also to the messenger and his source of inspiration."

About Muhammad's distorted morality and Muslims' mentality, Ram Swarup (1984, ch. 1, Introduction) wrote,

"To rob a whole people is piety, but to remove a paltry something from a looted treasure is moral depravity of a magnitude that deserves eternal fire.  Men driven by ordinary temptations indulge only in petty crimes and small lapses, but committing real enormities needs the aid of an ideology, a revelation, a God-ordained mission"

"... the believers are conditioned to look at the whole thing through the eyes of faith. An infidel in his fundamental 'misguidance' may find the Prophet rather sensual and cruel-and certainly many of the things he did do not conform to ordinary ideas of morality. But the believers look at the whole thing differently. To them morality derives from the Prophet's actions; the moral is whatever he did. Morality does not determine the Prophet's actions, but his actions determine and define morality. Muhammad's acts were not ordinary acts; they were Allah's own acts."

A book was published during June 1990, 'Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them (A Preliminary Survey)' which is a collection of articles by collection of articles written by Arun Shourie, Harsh Narain, Jay Dubashi, Ram Swarup and Sita Ram Goel. It is perhaps the first attempt on the part of some prominent scholars to dig from the graveyard of history the identity of some 2000 temples of India destroyed by the Muslim invaders and rulers. The book is not an exercise in rewriting history, but is an effort to present the facts and give a clear view of the truth hitherto unknown. Not only were the temples destroyed but even their material was used in constructing mosques at those places. This was plainly done to hurt the sentiments of the Hindus. The volume 2 of the same book was published during March 1993, which contained many further proofs exclusively to Islamic evidence, historical as well theological.

Arun Shourie pointed out many unscientific verses of the Qur'an and criticized its author for his ignorance. Instead of accepting the mistakes about unscientific Qur'anic cosmology, the Islamists try to cover it by silly explanations which further make them a laughing stock. These silly explanations to protect Qur'an from a Divine downfall do not bring prestige either to Qur'an or Muhammad or Allah. Shourie (2002, p. 468) wrote,

"Instead of studying the heaven and earth, we are taught how perverse and distorted interpretations can be put on everything. And how what is being done amounts to calumny upon the Holy Book because what is being proposed is nothing but adding clauses to the Word of God".

Shourie also widely criticized Islam for the ill-treatment of women and deep hatred for the infidels, the cruel Sharia law and the authorities of Mullahs in issuing fatwa. According to Shourie, Qur'an should be banned (2008, p. 435). Solomon Rushdie's book was banned because 'it would hart the feelings of certain group of people'; then under he same reason, Qur'an should be banned because it offends the feelings of the whole non-Muslim world. Shourie quoted many militant and unethical verses of the Qur'an and also many sayings of Muhammad as recorded in Ahadith to support his argument.

In India, whenever a book is published critical to Muhammad, Qur'an or Islam, Muslims demand to ban the book. They usually take shelter under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) and Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code for preventing every public discussion of their creed in general and of their Prophet in particular. On top of this, the Muslim clerics issue death sentences against people who have said anything against their religion. But, two heroic sons of India, Himangshu Kishore Chakraborty and Chandmal Chopra both from Calcutta turned the table against the Indian Muslims.

On July 20, 1984, Chakraborty wrote to the Secretary, Department of Home Government of West Bengal, demanding the ban of the Qur'an. He wrote again on August 14, 1984, but received no response. Chakraborty thereafter met Chopra, who also wrote to the Department of Home Government of West Bengal on March 16, 1985. But Chopra's letter wasn't answered also. Chopra therefore filed a writ Petition at the Calcutta High Court on 29 March 1985 stating that publication of the Qur'an attracts Sections 153A and 295A of the I.P.C and Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code because it "incites violence, disturbs public tranquility, promotes, on ground of religion, feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities, and insults other religions or religious beliefs of other communities in India" (Goel, 1987, ch. 1). The details of these lawsuits are recorded in the book 'Calcutta Qur'an Petition' by Sita Ram Goel.

Khushwant Singh, a prominent Indian novelist and journalist wrote,

"The most successful lecherous man who used religion for his personal gain is Prophet Mohammed. Islam is a cult with it's complete irrational belief in Allah created by Muhammad who was a liar, thief, murderer and rapist till his last breath"

Another most recent critic of Islam is Dr. Radhasyam Brahmachari. He is outspoken and seems not believing in political correctness. Brahmachari (2009) wrote,

"In fact, in the language of the Quran, Allah is a cruel tyrant, a barbaric commander of mass-murder and violence. Allah commands the Islamic Umma, the biggest criminal gang on earth, to establish himself as the sole God of the world (not of the universe) through armed jihad, involving terror and bloodshed"

Another recent Hindu critic of Muhammad, by the pseudonym Insan Bangall, mainly focused on the self-contradictory nature of Qur'an though has had criticized many other aspects of Islam. He is a powerful writer and a first rated thinker. He has an in-depth knowledge of various scriptures of Islam and his faculty of logical reasoning is too strong. He had quoted verses from Qur'an and also from the sayings of Hadith and with sharp logic proved that Allah is more than one in number, Allah often self-contradicts, Qur'an contains many words of Muhammad and Allah wrote the Qur'an only for Arabs (2007, p. 64, 44, 80, 65). It is unfortunate that this gifted author wrote only one book in Bengali. His small book of 192 pages is enough to expose Islam completely.

Unlike Western scholars, in India criticism of Islam is relatively less. Several books criticizing Islam and its role in Indian history have been banned only because the politicians do not want to lose the Muslim vote-bank. In spite of this the debate on Islam is going in full force on only on the net but also in printed form.

In sum, what historians throughout the world are unable to find even in this twenty-first century, is a name more hateful than Muhammad. As Muir wrote (1992, p. 522),

"The sword of Mohammad and the Koran are the most stubborn enemies of civilization, liberty and truth which the world has yet known"

From the very beginning of Muhammad's mission, neither Muhammad nor Islam had any shortage of critics. From the point of view of historical truth only the scholar has the right to criticize, but from ethical or social point view the right of criticism belongs to everyone. Even the most sympathetic scholars seem to have genuine problem with writing about Muhammad as a Prophet under Divine guidance and the Qur'an as the authentic word of a God. Muhammad performed so poorly as a Prophet of Allah that he even discredited himself by his own word and actions as we are going to see next.

1.6: Discrediting Muhammad by His Own Words and Conduct

It is strange but true that after a logical analysis it is possible to discredit Muhammad by using his own words and actions. His life was full of contradictions. There is a vast difference between 'Muhammad of faith' and 'Muhammad of fact'. Often he did not practice what he preached. Qur'an originally treated Muhammad as a humble messenger of Allah, gradually this relationship developed into duality and ultimately Muhammad appeared as God's superior. This is the time when the whole Divine drama of Muhammad is exposed and the stupid Prophet of Islam hammers a nail in his own Prophetic coffin. In context of the satanic verses, Tabari and Ibn Sa'd recorded these disgraceful words of Muhammad,

"I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken" (Tabari: 6.111).

"I ascribed to Allah, what He had not said". (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, vol. 1)

This single confession of Muhammad is enough to disqualify him of his Prophetic claim. Muhammad said that he was deceived by Satan and a revelation from Allah confirmed it. But how can we be sure that the second revelation was also not from Satan? The guaranty of 'genuineness' of one revelation cannot be another revelation. It's beyond any logic. If Muhammad could be deceived by Satan once, how could he know on all the other occasions that he hadn't been deceived?  How can we ignore the possibility that Gabriel was actually the Satan himself in disguise and hence the whole Qur'an is satanic?

Allah challenged in the Qur'an,

"And if you are in doubt concerning that We have sent down on Our servant, then bring a Sura like it". (Q: 2.23)

Satan took Allah's challenge and easily produced 'a Sura like this'. Muslims believe that Qur'an is miraculous in beauty and no one can make anything to compare to it because it is Divine. Satan produced the verses and Muhammad spoke those words from Satan but everyone including Muhammad himself thought these verses were part of the Qur'an. Surely those satanic verses sound exactly like those of the Qur'an. If they did not sound like the Qur'an then surely Muhammad, his followers and the Quraysh would never have accepted them? 

There is another way of looking at the above Divine confusion. Allah wrote in Qur'an,

"Perfect are the Words of thy Lord in Truth and justice. No man can change His words. He is All-Hearing, The All-knowing." (Q: 6.115).

Qur'an also confirms that, the Bible i.e. the Old Testament and the New Testament, or in the Islamic language, Taurat, Zabur and Anjeel are the words of God. Therefore, they cannot be tampered with, and one can rely upon the truthfulness of the stories that have been narrated therein. Now based on the Qur'anic sanction that we can rely upon the truthfulness of the Bible, we find that,

"But the Prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My [God] name which I have not commanded him to speak . . . that Prophet shall die." (Deuteronomy18:20).

So from the above statement from Bible, either Muhammad was a false Prophet or Qur'an is false. In any case the loser is Muhammad. From the above verses, it is confirmed that Qur'an was corrupted. But then Qur'an (6:115) also says that no man can change God's words. So Qur'an itself confirms that Qur'an is falsified. There is another point to note. Muhammad really had a very painful death. He died as a result of eating poison- mixed food that he didn't know about. If he was a real Prophet, Allah would have warned him in advance by a timely revelation.

"The Prophet in his ailment used to say, 'Aisha! I feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaybar. My aorta is being cut from that poison.'" (Bukhari: 5.59.713)

"Aisha said, 'Allah's Apostle in his fatal illness, used to ask, 'Where will I be tomorrow? Where will I be tomorrow?''" (Bukhari: 5.59.731)

"I used to hear the Prophet say that no Prophet dies until he is given the option to select either the worldly life or the life of the Hereafter." (Bukhari: 5.59.719)

According to Qur'an Muhammad was only a man sent to warn the Meccans and a messenger to convey a Divine message to them.

"Say: 'I do not have the power to acquire benefits or to avert harm from myself, except by the Will of Allah. Had I possessed knowledge of the unseen, I would have availed myself of much that is good, and no harm would have touched me. But I am only a Warner and a bearer of glad tidings for a nation who believe" (Q: 7.188). 

"Say: 'I am only a human like you..." (Q: 18.110)

Qur'an also says,

"Allah is the absolute, Owner of praise" (Q: 2.267).

But another verse just goes in opposite direction, where Muhammad reverses his role completely and, as a result, Allah and His angels become Muhammad's worshippers. Qur'an says,

"Lo! Allah and His angels pray peace to Prophet (Muhammad).O ye who believe also shower praises on him and salute him with a worthy salutation" (Q: 33.56)

This is the height of Qur'anic stupidity. Why Allah needs to pray peace to Muhammad if Muhammad is only a humble messenger? If Allah is the only God then He is praying to whom? If Allah is the only Owner of praises, then why Qur'an also instructs Muslims to salute Muhammad? This is absolutely ridiculous. In all other religions, it is man who worships God but in Islam, it is God who worships man (Muhammad). Then, who is the real God of Muslims - Allah or Muhammad? Muslim's five times prayers are actually meant for whom - Allah or Muhammad?

Allah specifically told Muslims not to worship anyone except Allah.

"Verily, I am Allah. No god may be worshiped but I" (Q: 20:14).

But during Muhammad's lifetime, his followers use to worship him. Bukhari recorded,

"Abu Bakr said, 'To proceed, if you used to worship Muhammad, then Muhammad is dead, but if anyone of you used to worship Allah, then Allah is alive and shall never die.'" (Bukhari: 5.59.733)

The above statement of Abu Bakr confirms the fact that at least some Muslims use to worship Muhammad as a living God and Muhammad did not object to it.

There is another point which needs attention. According to Qur'an (2.267), Allah is supposed to be the absolute, Owner of praise. Associating someone else with Allah is the most dreadful sin in Islam, which is known as 'Shirk', in the strict Qur'anic terminology. Qur'an says,

"Allah does not forgive (the sin of inventing an) association with Him, but He forgives other sins) to whomsoever He will. He who associates with Allah has invented a great sin" (Q: 4.48).  

"Allah forgives not that anyone should be associated with Him (Allah); less than that He forgives to whomsoever He will. Whoso associates with Allah anything, has gone astray into manifest error." (Q: 4.115).

But Muhammad had committed this unforgivable sin. 'Shahada' which is the basic confession for every Muslim, includes the name of Muhammad with that of Allah in the same sentence. This is how praising Muhammad is an integral part of the daily prayers of the Muslims.

"La ilaha illa Allah wa-Muhammad rasul Allah". (There is no god but God and Muhammad is the Prophet of God.)

This is a serious blasphemy. Since the earth is divided into several time zones, and every moment somewhere on the earth, there is some Muslim praying to Allah facing Mecca, so this unpardonable sin is being committed by the Muslims in turn ever since the birth of Islam. What an irony, Muhammad committed this offensive sin for the first time and, since that time Muslims are doing it again and again, but till date, no one amongst them ever noticed it. We wonder why Allah is still silent.

Muhammad repeatedly instructed Muslims not to disobey Allah's instruction as recorded in Qur'an, but did he always obey Allah's instruction?  In many instances Muhammad had neglected Allah's instructions. Few examples are as follows. 

Any sexual activity during daytime is forbidden by Allah (Q: 2.187) during the fasting days. But Muhammad did not listen to Allah. Bukhari (1.6.319) recorded that Muhammad slept with Umm Salama during her period, kissed her while fasting and used to take bath from the same pot after having sex under a woolen sheet. Also he used to kiss and embrace (his wives) while he was fasting (Bukhari: 3.31.149). Sucking was the favorite sexual activity of Muhammad. As recorded in Sunaan Abu Dawud (13.2380), Muhammad used to kiss and suck Aisha's tongue while they were fasting. Muhammad was much above fifty when youngest wife Aisha was about nine years old. How disgusting it is to note that a man of above fifty was in an abnormal sexual habit of sucking the tongue of a nine year old child, who was of his granddaughter's age.    

Muhammad also violated Qur'anic rules on dower (mehr) and the time of waiting (idda) in marrying a divorced/widowed woman. In Sharia law (Islamic law), the payment of mehr is compulsory in marriage and widows to wait four months and ten days for re-marriage. Qur'an says,

"Give women their dowries freely, but if they are pleased to offer you any of it, consume it good and smooth" (Q: 4.4).

"And those of you who die and leave wives behind such wives shall wait by themselves for four months and ten (nights). When they have reached the end of their waiting period, there shall be no offense for you in whatever they choose for themselves kindly. Allah is

Aware of what you do" (Q: 2.234).

According to Bukhari (5.59.523, 524); after attacking Khaybar, Muhammad took as a captive a very beautiful teenage-girl named, Safiyyah and married her without paying any dowry (mehr) and thus violated Allah's instruction. To hide his treachery, Muhammad claimed that marrying Safiyyah was in itself a respect for her, her dowry was her manumission from being a sex-slave to Muhammad (Muslim: 8.3326). Before falling into the hands of this perverted man, Safiyyah was the legal wife of a Jewish man. Muhammad had killed Safiyyah's husband and her father after subjecting them to brutal torture, and finally beheading them. When Muhammad had satisfied his last for blood on the same night he killed her closest relatives, he took Safiyyah into his tent to have sex with her.

Muhammad was supposed to wait for four months and ten days before he could even touch her but he did not do that. From Muhammad's action it is very clear that, he was in a hurry to enjoy the new captive girl on the same day she became a widow by Muhammad himself. He was so lustful that he never bothered to obey Allah's instruction. A Hadith from Bukhari (4.52.143) says that Muhammad married Safiyyah because she was beautiful and gave a grand feast at the wedding; then he had sex with her.  

Allah put a restriction on the number of wives.

"If you fear that you cannot act justly towards the orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you; two, three, four of them" (Q: 4.3).

Muhammad did not follow Allah's restriction on him on the number of his wives. Some Islamic sources confirm that he married at least twenty-two times. After the shameful marriage of Muhammad with Zaynab, the wife of his adopted son, Zayd, Allah gave a restriction that he could not collect any more wives.

"It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens)" (Q: 33.52).

But Muhammad did not follow Allah's instruction and married at least thirteen times after this.     

Muhammad also violated the Qur'anic law on the punishment of sex offenders. In Islamic society pre-marital and extra-marital sex are two most serious offences. According to Qur'an,

"You shall lash the fornicatress and the fornicator each with a hundred lashes. In the religion of Allah, let no tenderness for them seize you if you believe in Allah and the Last Day; and let their punishment be witnessed by a party of believers" (Q: 24.2). 

But Muhammad did not apply this Qur'anic rule, when one of his friends admitted having committed a punishable offence (sexual) because the person prayed with him (Bukhari, 8.82.812). Just for praying to Allah, his punishment was forgiven. But if Muhammad was a humble messenger of Allah how he can override his God by violating the relevant Qur'anic injunction?

A Hadith demonstrates Muhammad's sexual attitude towards single women, divorced or widowed, rich or poor, which clearly violates the Qur'an.

"A dignified woman, Jauniyaa (a princess) was brought to Muhammad to have sex with him but she was reluctant to give herself to him; Muhammad was angry and raised his hand to beat her..." (Bukhari: 7.63.182)

A man and a woman who are not close relatives (that is, those men and women who could be married to each other, those who are not in the prohibited class for marriage purposes) cannot, under any circumstances, be alone together. This moral guardianship is endorsed in these verses of the Qur'an,

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do" (Q: 24.30). 

Muhammad violated the above Qur'anic code of conduct. Muhammad had an adulterous relation with his first cousin-sister, Umm Hani bint Abu Talib, who was a married woman. He used to sleep in her house, when no one was around. Once Muhammad was sleeping at Ka'ba but at nightfall, when all were asleep, he stealthily went to Umm Hani's house and spent the night with her. When the people did not find him at Ka'ba, they went looking for him and when he was discovered in the house of Umm Hani, he was embarrassed, so was Umm Hani. To hide the truth, he concocted the story of his night journey to Jerusalem and Paradise from Umm Hani's house (more correctly, from her bed), which many Muslims found too incredible to believe and left Islam. When this adulterous affair was leaked out, Muhammad had to leave Mecca and settle in Medina. Afterwards, when Muhammad became militarily strong and conquered Mecca, he went to Umm Hani's house and openly stayed there overnight. If Muhammad was only a messenger of Allah, why hundred lashes were not given to him every time he crossed the limit?

Muhammad violated the Qur'anic rule on sex with menstruating women. According to Qur'an; menstruation is an injury and Muslims are prohibited to have sex during a woman's period. After the period is over man can have sex in any manner, at any time and at any place.

"They ask you about menstruation. Say: 'It is an injury. Stay away from women during their menstrual periods and do not approach them until they are cleansed. When they have cleansed themselves, then come to them from where Allah has commanded you" (Q: 2.222).

But Muhammad was so lustful that he did not spare his wives when they were in heavy menstruation. He used to order Aisha, his nine year old wife to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) fondled her in bath, even when she was in her periods (menses) (Bukhari, 1.6.298). Often Muhammad used to put his cheek and chest in between the naked thighs of a menstruating Aisha... (Sunaan Abu Dawud: 1.0270). Though caressing and foreplay do not necessarily constitute actual coition, but we should not forget the fact that these lustful activities are just the beginning of further sexual gratification.

Qur'an (2.187, 2.197) prohibits having sex with women when in ihram (purity state spent inside a mosque) or when performing Hajj. This is supported by a Hadith as well,

"A pilgrim must not marry and give someone in marriage in the sacred state (while wearing ihram)..." (Sunaan Abu Dawud: 2.10.1837).

Muhammad violated this Qur'anic rule. Once when he went to Mecca to perform the Hajj and a proposal of marriage was offered to him, he quickly accepted the offer and married the woman even though he was in sacred state wearing irham.

"Ibn 'Abbas said: The Prophet married Maimunah while he was in the sacred state (wearing ihram)." (Sunaan Abu Dawud: 2.10.1840) 

From the above examples, it is very clear that, Muhammad did not have much regard for the Qur'an or even to his own words when it came to marrying women and having forceful sex with them.

Fasting is an important religious practice for Muslims which is actually a pagan tradition. Muhammad reintroduced fasting during the month of Ramadan. But this practice was for common Muslims and Muhammad exempted himself from fasting. Muhammad found it difficult to abstain from food and water from dawn to dusk, so he himself ate whenever he pleased. On this (cited in Sina, 2008, p. 99), Ibn Sa'd writes,

"The Messenger of Allah used to say 'We the Prophets are required to eat our morning food later than others and hurry in breaking our fast in the evening.'"

These are just a few examples of how Muhammad did anything he liked and made his Allah approve whatever he did. Muhammad placed himself above the law. Often he broke moral and ethical codes whenever it suited him and then made his Allah reveal a verse to confirm that whatever he had done was all right. In the same way he disobeyed Allah and did whatever he liked. The nine year old child-bride of Muhammad had noticed it and perhaps sarcastically or innocently, told him,

"Narrated Aisha: ... I said (to the Prophet),' I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires'." (Bukhari: 6.60.311). 

It is expected that a Prophet, who claimed to be God's messenger on earth should demonstrate the wisdom and infallibility of the Divine Law through his own action. But since Muhammad had not done it deliberately; it implies that he is neither a representative of God nor the model of action, for being above Allah's Law. Also, if Allah gives his Prophet dispensation from his own law, then Allah's law is no more than a joke because if his chosen Prophet himself cannot carry it out, then how can Allah expect the ordinary believers to obey His commandments? 

Qur'an is a mockery of Divine Law and Muhammad's own action proves it. Qur'an is not the Divine Code as it claimed to be. Instead, it is Muhammad's own composition, and thus, he can treat himself as he wishes and Allah is only a supposition to serve his purpose.

So, if Qur'an is truly God's words, then by disobeying God, Muhammad surely goes to hell and Muslims are also destined to hell and if Qur'an is false, then Muhammad's Prophethood stands on what ground? In any case Muhammad is the loser.

Muhammad seemed to have not much faith on Allah during battles with the enemies. In none of the wars he waged, he did put his own life in danger. He encouraged martyrdom amongst his followers and told them not to fear death but the precautions he used to take were most unprophetlike. He often stood behind the fighting Muslims wearing two coats of chain-link mail (flexible armor of interlinked rings), one on top of another. By this way, the double armoring would make him too heavy and his movements used to be difficult. He could not even stand in this condition, let alone walking. While in this awkward position, he used to shout towards the front and loudly encourage his men to show bravery and not to fear death, promising them high-bosomed virgins, unlimited wine and delicious food in Paradise. Sometimes he use to grab a handful of sand and throw it in the air in the direction of the enemy cursing them in the name of Allah while maintaining a safe distance from them (Sina, 2008, pp. 99, 100). This is the best he had ever contributed in a war with nonbelievers.

But while collecting the booty or captured women for sex, he is well ahead of everyone. Muhammad convinced the believers that use of booty from the spoils of war are lawful and good and he used to collect one fifth of the booty in Allah's name.

"Know that one fifth of what you acquire as booty is for Allah and His Apostle" (Bukhari: 1.2.50).

"Allah divided the booty stolen from the first caravan after he made spoils permissible. He gave four-fifths to those He had allowed to take it and one-fifth to His Apostle." (Ishaq: 288) 

Muhammad was a booty-lover. He was like a parasitic vampire who lived on other's blood. What Muhammad wanted to mean by the statement 'booty is for Allah and His Apostle'? Did Muhammad throw booty in the direction of the Ka'ba and ask Allah to grab whatever he wanted and Allah came out hurriedly with a gunny to collect his share and again hurriedly go inside the Ka'ba and wait for the next arrival of booty? Or was this all a trick and Muhammad got benefited out of this trick?

All faithful Muslims offer their prayers five times a day to acknowledge and adore Allah facing in the same direction. In Islam, this direction is called as 'Qibla', i.e. the direction of worshipping God. Bukhari (6.60.20) says that every nation has its Qibla. The sacredness of this direction is confirmed in the following three Qur'anic verses. 

"Everyone has a direction towards which one turns, therefore, emulate one another in good deeds. Wherever you are, Allah will bring all of you together; Allah has power over all things" (Q: 2.148)

"From whatever place you come forth, turn your face during Salah towards the Sacred Mosque; this is in fact a commandment from your Lord. Allah is not unaware of what you do" (Q: 2.149) 

"Whatever place you come forth, turn your face during Salah towards the Sacred Mosque; and wherever you are, face towards it, so that people will not have any argument against you, except those among them who are wrongdoers" (Q: 2.150). 

But in spite of the Allah's guidance, once Muhammad had declared Jerusalem, the most sacred Jewish City, as the Qibla for the Arab Muslims. This way he had violated Qur'an. Muhammad had done so purely from political purpose. He thought the Jews will accept him as Prophet. But the Jews refused to embrace Islam, which turned Muhammad against them. So after treating Jerusalem as Qibla for about sixteen months he changed it for Ka'ba, a sanctuary of Mecca his own hometown.

If Qibla is so sacred, why Muhammad had changed it to Jerusalem and again back to Mecca? Is there any doubt that the change of Qibla from Ka'ba to Jerusalem and again back to Ka'ba was not God's will but a selfish desire of Muhammad?

Muhammad did not believe in the sacredness of Qibla. Following Ahadith prove it.  

"Narrated Abu Aiyub Al-Ansari: Allah's Apostle said, "If anyone of you goes to an open space for answering the call of nature he should neither face nor turn his back towards the Qibla; he should either face the east or the West" (Bukhari: 1.4.146).

"Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: People say, "Whenever you sit for answering the call of nature, you should not face the Qibla or Baitul-Maqdis (Jerusalem)." I told them. "Once I went up the roof of our house and I saw Allah's Apostle answering the call of nature while sitting on two bricks facing Baitul-Maqdis (Jerusalem") (Bukhari: 1.4.147).

"Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: I went up to the roof of Hafsa's house for some job and I saw Allah's Apostle answering the call of nature facing Sham (Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon regarded as one country) with his back towards the Qibla" (Bukhari: 1.4.150)

"Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: Once I went up the roof of our house and saw Allah's Apostle answering the call of nature while sitting over two bricks facing Baitul-Maqdis (Jerusalem)" (Bukhari: 1.4.151)

From the above narrations, it is very clear that Muhammad had no respect either for Ka'ba or Jerusalem. He had instructed his followers to respect Qibla by not facing or turning back towards this holy direction while answering the call of nature, which Allah instructed in his Qur'an. But Muhammad did not bother to follow it.

All the above points lead to one logical conclusion. The 'Allah' of Islam is not real. Muhammad had played false with his followers. Allah was the 'puppet' of Muhammad. He had spoken what Muhammad wished. Allah does not have a separate personality. If Muhammad would have been a true Prophet and Allah was a real God, then Muhammad would not have the courage to slight Allah. His own action proves that Allah is a myth -- conscious or subconscious fabrication of Muhammad.

Muhammad saw the Arabs as either good fighters in his cause, useless hypocrites, or enemy infidels. For recognizing the hypocrites we have to look at the Hadith. Bukhari recorded,

"Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "The signs of a hypocrite are three: -1. Whenever he speaks, he tells a lie. -2. Whenever he promises, he always breaks it (his promise). -3. If you trust him, he proves to be dishonest" (Bukhari : 1.2.32).

Whenever Muhammad disliked anyone, he often used to call them with the title 'Hypocrite'. Hypocrisy is the worst form of unbelief, and it carries a terrible punishment under the Islamic law. But, what about Muhammad himself? According to his own definition he was the biggest hypocrite as we are going to prove now.

Telling lie to kill the enemies and to advance the cause of Islam is divinely allowed in Islam. This is called 'Taqiyya' (holy deception). Under Taqiyya, a Muslim is allowed to lie and say anything to deceive the non-Muslims. In the spirit of Taqiyya, Muslims can lie the way we breathe. They even fool each other. Taqiyya was originally a Shiaa practice. The Shiaas used to protect their faith from Sunnis by practicing Taqiyya (Miller, 1997, p. 433). But now the whole Muslim world practices it. For all religions except Islam; religion and deception are not intermixable, In Islam, deception and religion mutually support one another. Muhammad even allowed his followers to abuse his verbally to win the trust of their victims in order to assassinate them. In the following Hadith (cited Sina, 2008, p. 57) we can see,

"Hajaj Ibn 'Aalat told: 'O Prophet of Allah: I have in Mecca some excess wealth and some relatives, and I would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you [to fool the non-Muslims]?' The Prophet excused him and said: 'Say whatever you have to say'".

On several occasions Muhammad had broken his promise. Following Hadith recorded Muhammad's words,

"Allah willing, if ever I take an oath to do something, and later on I find that it is more beneficial to do something different, I will do the thing which is better, and give expiation for my oath". (Bukhari: 4.53.361).

After the death of Khadija and Abu Talib, Muhammad thought that it might be risky for him to stay at Mecca. Luck favored him and in the summer of 621, he gained the trust of twelve visitors from the oasis settlement of Medina. They revealed themselves as Muslims and promised Muhammad to propagate his message at Medina. Next summer another seventy-five people from Medina came to Muhammad, professing Islam, and pledging to Muhammad to defend him.  Al-Bara, a Medina convert told Muhammad, "By Him who sent you with the truth, we will protect you. We give our allegiance and we are man of war possessing arms which have been passed on from father to son" (Khan, 2009, p. 20). If the people of Medina had not given shelter to Muhammad, certainly his Divine mission wound has been a total failure.

But what Muhammad gave them in return? He raised a band of hooligans from the converts (known as Ansars) and started attacking the rich Meccan caravans. Abu Afak, a 120 year old man recognized Muhammad as a fake Prophet. He lamented that his people became followers of Muhammad who had caused them to surrender their intelligence and become hostile to one another. Hearing this, Muhammad got him assassinated. A Jewish mother by the name Asma bint Marwan, was so outraged that she composed a poem cursing the men of Medina for letting a stranger divide them and for allowing him to assassinate a venerable old man. Muhammad got her assassinated also.

In March 628, Muhammad signed an agreement with the Meccans which demanded a cessation of hostility from both sides for a ten year period. In Islamic history, this is known as 'the treaty of Hudaybiya'. But it took very little time for Muhammad to breach this treaty. Within just two years time of signing the treaty of Hudaybiya, Muhammad's army became strong enough to defeat the Quraysh. In January 630, he marched towards Mecca with an army of ten thousand fighting men. 

Simply speaking, the Medinese trusted Muhammad but Muhammad proved to be disloyal. The Quraysh trusted Muhammad but Muhammad proved to be treacherous. These are just two examples of Muhammad's dishonesty. Enough had been recorded about the treachery of Muhammad. The history of Islam is full of treachery and deceit. As Sina (2008, p. 101) lamented,

"From incest to polygamy, from rape to pedophilia, from assassination to genocide, the Prophet of Allah did them all and encouraged his followers to do the same."

So according to Muhammad's own definition, he was the biggest hypocrite of Islam. Is there still anything left in favor of Muhammad's Prophetic claim which cannot be refuted? He was a charlatan in Divine robe to deceive people.

1.7: The Message of Prophet Muhammad

Every established religion has a certain core message. Before I talk about Allah's message to mankind through Muhammad, let me examine what are the messages of other world religions.

Jainism is the only religion which has the principle of 'Kathora Ahimsa' (strict nonviolence) as its central doctrine. Hinduism talks about "Sarva dharma sambhava" (equal respect for all religions). Hinduism is also known as 'Sanatana Dharma' and the five principal virtues prescribed by all schools of Sanatana Dharma are, non-violence, truthfulness, non-stealing, chastity and non-covetousness.  Buddhism speaks about toleration, kindness, humbleness, peace and 'Pancha Sila'(the five rules of morality -- Killing any living being, Stealing, Adultery, Lying, Drinking intoxicating drinks). Sikhism advises us to restrain from 'Punj Chor'(five cardinal vices - Ego, Lust, Greed, Attachment, Anger) which should be fought with the weapons of wisdom and knowledge,

Christianity teaches us love, brotherhood and forgiveness. According to Scripture all the teachings of Christianity are based on four essentials: Humility or faith and trust in God,   Communication with God through prayer and self-denial, Observance of The Law which is written in Scripture and in the hearts of those who love the truth, and, The offering of sacrifice to God and partaking of the sacrificial offering. Jews believe that God appointed them to be his chosen people in order to set an example of holiness and ethical behavior to the world and peace is seen as something that comes from God and that will only be fully realized when there is justice and harmony not just between peoples, but within individual communities.

But the instructions of Allah and Muhammad's worldview were totally different from the other religions. Muhammad's bizarre beliefs, incredible teachings, self-elevation and immense hate are well-reflected in his Qur'an. In sum; a religion like Islam is a curse upon mankind. The Prophet of Islam did not come to the world to bring something good like other religious teachers. He came to this world to preach hatred, brutality and slaughter. The forgiving and merciful Allah instructed in Qur'an,

"The Prophet said, 'Hear me. By Him who holds Muhammad's life in his hand, I will bring you slaughter.'" (Ishaq: 130; Tabari:  VI.101)

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful" (Q: 9.5).

The only message of Prophet Muhammad to the world was "I will bring you slaughter" and he had performed extremely well as he had promised.

In Islam; love, brotherhood and forgiveness are insignificant matters almost like a religious taboo. More important issues are death and destruction of the infidels, who because of their nonbelieving status do not consider Muhammad as a messenger of God. As Voltaire (cited Walker, 2002, p. 313) concluded,

"There is nothing new in the religion of Islam except the claim that Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah. All else is borrowed".

Sina is also too outspoken in this topic, as he (2008, p. 16) wrote,

"After 23 years of preaching, the core message of Muhammad remained the same. Islam's main message is that Muhammad is a messenger and that people must obey him. Beyond that, there is no other message. Failure to recognize him as such entails punishment, both in this world and the next. Monotheism, which is now the main argument of Islam, was not originally part of the message of Muhammad".

Allah wrote in the Qur'an,

"If you (the believers) obey him (the Prophet Muhammad) you will be guided." (Q: 24. 54)

"And obey Allah and the messenger, that ye may find mercy" (Q: 3.132).

" ... If you love Allah, and follow me (Muhammad), God will love you, and forgive you your sins." (Q: 3.31)

"We (Allah) sent not ever any Messenger, but that he should be obeyed, by the leave of God."

(Q: 4.65)

Muhammad masterfully exploited the concept of Prophethood with Qur'an as the only proof of his Prophetic authority. Theoretically through Qur'anic revelations, the God of Islam wants to guide the human to save them from hell and in return for the favor, He demands absolute submission that the humans should only worship Allah and live by Allah's laws without ever questioning their purpose, validity and relevance. But there is a 'catch' in this argument. Only a belief in Allah is not sufficient, they have to believe Muhammad as the only messenger of Allah.

Since Allah cannot be seen or contacted by anyone other than Muhammad, the words of Muhammad begin to rank as the words of Allah and as time passes Allah receded into the background and the Muhammad, who (apparently) claimed to be Allah's most humble servant, now rises as the dominant force in the God-Prophet relationship. At this time, Muhammad holds the keys of Paradise. Therefore, a person must believe in Muhammad to qualify for Paradise and the person who believes in Allah alone, cannot rank as a believer. He is an infidel and must go to hell, no matter how righteous he may be. This is the true nature and purpose of Muhammad's claim of Prophethood. He wanted to elevate himself.

So theoretically Muslims 'surrender to Allah' but in practice they 'surrender to Muhammad'. Here lies the importance of Islam's Divine message - "Muhammad is a messenger and people must obey him". And for those people who fail to obey him, there is Muhammad's stern warning -- "I will bring you slaughter". The main theme of Islam is only this and nothing beyond than this. Spiritual and moral upbringing of the soul is of no importance.

The end result of Muhammad's evil message is disastrous to both Muslims and non-Muslims. Muhammad had permanently divided mankind into two groups - the Muslims are Allah's party and the non-Muslims are Satan's party. Allah hates non-Muslims and wants their death and destruction. Since the true Muslims must follow this poisonous teaching of Muhammad, a two-nation theory arises immediately. As Shaikh (1998, p. 161) lamented,

"The only relationship between Muslims and a non-Muslim is that of ill-will, hatred and animosity".

Today an Islamic nation does not require any particular reason to attack a non-Islamic nation. According to Qur'an, all religions except Islam are false. This way Allah is the enemy of all the non-Muslims. It is by itself a heinous crime not to acknowledge Muhammad as the last Prophet of Allah. Muslims are brain-washed to such an extent that they are unable to recognize any moral, cultural and family bounds. The following Qur'anic verses prove my point.

"Believers, do not take your fathers or your brothers for a guide if they love disbelief rather than belief. Whosoever of you takes them for guides are the harmdoers" (Q: 9.23).

"Say: 'If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your tribes, the property you have acquired, the merchandise you fear will not be sold, and the homes you love, are dearer to you than Allah, His Messenger and the struggling for His Way, then wait until Allah shall bring His command. Allah does not guide the evildoers" (Q: 9.24). 

Muhammad's demand to be recognized as a Prophet was so strong that in the above two verses Allah tells the believers to treat their own parents, children and relatives as enemies if they do not believe in Islam. Preaching intolerance, lack of concern and thanklessness towards one's own parents immediately disqualify Muhammad as a Prophet and proves without doubt that he was a fake and brought no Divine message from God.

1.8: Muhammad's Miracles 

According to Islamic traditional sources Muhammad had performed many miracles. He could multiply bread (Bukhari: 5.59.428), produce water for an army for ablution from a small pot (Bukhari: 1.4.170, 1.4.194, 1.7.340, 4.56.779, Muslim: 30.5656-9), multiplied dates (Bukhari: 4.56.780), split the moon in two parts (Bukhari: 4.56.831, 4.56.832, 5.58.208, 5.58.209, 6.60.388-91). Once he invoked Allah to bless the inhabitants of Medina with rain, and following this there was rain for seven days until the valleys flooded (Bukhari. 8.73.115). He visited the towns of Jinns and some Jinns converted to Islam (Muslim: 26. 5559). Once he stuck a huge solid rock and the rock became like sand (Bukhari: 5.59.427). Once he fought with a big demon and subdued him (Bukhari: 1.9.450). When companions of Muhammad departed from him on a dark night, they were led by two lights like lamps (Allah's magic light) lighting the way in front of them till they reached their houses (Bukhari: 1.9.454, 4.56.833) and the list goes on.

The moon-splitting miracle is amazing. When Muhammad called Meccans to accept him as a Prophet, the Meccans requested him to show them a miracle. Therefore he showed them the splitting of the moon. When the moon was split, a piece of the moon went towards the mountain. Afterwards this part remained over the mountain, and the other part went beyond the mountain. The two parts of the moon remained apart during the whole lifetime of the Prophet.

The miracle of the cave is another wonder of Allah which is related to the concerning in hiding in the cave of Thawr. The miracle is that none of these things were there when the Prophet and his companion entered the cave, and that thereafter, the spider hurried to weave its cobwebs, the two pigeons to build their nest and to lay their eggs, and the tree to grow its branches around the door. Many biographers of Muhammad like Ibn Hisham and Haykal exclude the story. In the same connection, the following verses of the Qur'an were revealed.

"If you [the people] do not help Muhammad, then know that God Will. For God helped him when the unbelievers drove him out, and he and his companion hid in the cave. At that time, the Prophet said to his companion, 'Grieve not for God is with us.' It was then that God sent down his peace upon him and assisted him with hosts invisible that the word of God might be supreme and that of the unbelievers might be repudiated. God is almighty and all wise." (Q: 9.40)

"When the unbelievers plotted to imprison you, to kill you or to banish you, God planned on your behalf, and He is the best of planners" (Q: 8.30).

Then, there is a sword miracle also. It is recorded in Sahih Muslim (30.5665) that once when Muhammad was sleeping under a tree, someone took hold of his sword to attack him. Muhammad woke up and found him standing upon his head and he had hardly become alert (and saw) that the sword was in his hand. The man said, "Who can protect you from me?" Muhammad said, "Allah". The attacker remained standstill and the sword refused to obey him.

Muhammad's alleged night journey to heaven (Mi'raj in Arabic) is equally fascinating like moon-split. One night while Muhammad was sleeping, the Gabriel woke him up. There was a white animal, half mule, half donkey, with wings on its sides with which it propelled its feet, putting down each forefoot at the limit of its sight. By seeing an opportunity Muhammad jumped on it. Gabriel, Muhammad and this funny looking Divine creature, called al-Buraq cruised to heaven by way of Jerusalem. At the Temple in Jerusalem, Muhammad found Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, along with a company of Prophets. Muhammad acted as their imam in prayer. Gabriel took Muhammad up to each of the heavens till the seventh heaven. Muhammad received royal treatment in each of the heavens because he was the messenger of Allah. The night journey is firmly embedded in the Islamic consciousness to such a degree that it serves as the foundation of Islamic claim to Jerusalem as one of the holy cities of Islam.

In various Muslim traditional sources (cited Shaikh, 1999, p. 13, 14; Schimmel, 1985, p. 150-51; Andrae, 1955, p. 35, Dasti, 1985, p. 2; Mahmud, 1978, p. 39) there are many amazing claims about Muhammad, which are  as follows,

1. Muhammad claimed that he was created from a Divine light. Allah first created the light of Muhammad, out of which He then proceeded to create everything which constitutes this world.

2. When Muhammad was born, the whole house was filled with light, the stars in the sky bowed to such an extent as if they are about to fall on the earth, the angels started singing, the idols everywhere fell on their faces, and fire-worshippers in Persia and India noticed that their temple-hearth which had been lit for a thousand years, turned ice-cold, a lake of Persia was flooded which caused the palace of Khosroes (the king of Persia) to crack.

3. Muhammad was born circumcised and detached from the umbilical cord and there was no pollution on his body at the time of birth as is the case with every human baby.

4. Muhammad was a Prophet when the body and soul of Adam were still in the making.   

The only purpose of the above stunning claims is to prove that Muhammad was a chosen Prophet of Allah before his birth and he was born guided. In fact his Prophethood was established even before Adam was created. God made an agreement with all the future Prophets and under this agreement all the future Prophets accepted and acknowledged Muhammad as the final Prophet and also told their follower to believe in him. It is said that when Amina (Muhammad's mother) was pregnant with Muhammad, she heard a voice tell her, "You are pregnant with the lord of this people, and when he is born, say 'I put him in the care of the One from the evil of every envier', then call him Muhammad". Sometimes Amina would see a light shining from her belly by which she could make out the castles of Syria (Aslan, 2006, 19). 

No doubt, the above miracle claims are great if looked through the spectacle of blind faith. Blind faith or blind belief is something felt by the mind, which distinguishes the judgment from the frictions of the imagination (Hume, 1992, p. 42). 

But let us see, how they look like through the spectacle of science, reason and logic.

1.8.1: Refuting the Claims of Muhammad's Miracles.

All these miracles were attributed to Muhammad so as to make him look saintly. These are all fabrications by his sycophant followers. There are many miracles which were claimed by Muhammad himself, which no one but he could verify and many contemporary Muslims doubted them because some of these miracles are so ridiculous that they are hardly more than childish jokes and Muhammad proved himself to be a laughing stock.

It is recorded in Qur'an that the pagan Meccans repeatedly asked Muhammad to perform a miracle so that they could believe him.

"They say: 'We will not believe in you until you make a spring gush from the earth for us, or, until you own a garden of palms and vines and cause rivers to gush forth with abundant water in them; or, until you cause the sky to fall upon us in pieces, as you have claimed, or, as a surety bring Allah with the angels in front; or, until you possess an ornate house of gold, or ascend into the heavens; and we will not believe in your ascension until you have brought down for us a book which we can read" (Q: 17.90-93).

So Allah performed a miracle for him, which was witnessed by Meccans. After all Allah's miracles are not jokes. With Allah's Divine help Muhammad performed the following miracle. We don't know how many Meccans were really impressed by this miracle.

According to an old tradition (cited Walker, 2002, p. 220), when the Meccans demanded Muhammad to prove his Divine mission by making a mountain move, Muhammad replied that only Allah has the power to do that. However by repeated demands from Meccans, Muhammad Thought of giving it a try. Turning to the direction of Mount Safa, Muhammad commanded it to come to him but with much embarrassment to Muhammad, nothing happened. Then Muhammad exclaimed,

"Allah is compassionate! Had it come it would have caused an earthquake or fallen upon us to our destruction. I will therefore go to the mountain instead, and thank God for his mercy!!!"

Surprisingly, when Muslims read this story with the spectacle of faith, they see a miracle in it.

Then again some Meccans asked Muhammad to send Gabriel or some other angel to them so that they can believe Muhammad: "O Muhammad, if an angel had been sent with thee to speak to men about thee and to be seen with thee." By seeing Muhammad in trouble, Allah came for his rescue and replied in a revelation (Q: 6.9) that in order to send an angel, he would have had to make him appear as a man and that would have left the nonbelievers back where they have started (Spencer, 2006, p. 75). Allah also consoled Muhammad telling him that before him many other Prophets were mocked.

"They say: "Why is not an angel sent down to him?" If we did send down an angel, the matter would be settled at once, and no respite would be granted them." (Q: 6.8).

"If We had made him an angel, We would have given him the resemblance of a man, and would have as such confused them with that in which they are already confused" (Q: 6.9).

"Other Messengers have been mocked before you. But those who scoffed at them were encompassed by that they had mocked" (Q: 6.10).

"Messengers before thee, indeed, were mocked, but that whereat they mocked surrounded those who scoffed at them (Q: 21.41).

The Meccans again wanted to know why there was no miracle if Allah was so powerful. Muhammad was comparing himself to Moses and Jesus. Both of them were visited by angels and did miracles. Why Muhammad could not? The Meccans disputed his claims and mocked him mercilessly saying his religion was a forgery, a counterfeit as recorded in Qur'an,

"Or do they say: 'He has forged it? ' Say (to them): 'Then produce ten forged chapters like it. Call, if you are able, upon other than Allah, if what you say is true" (Q: 11.13)

Throughout the pages of the Qur'an at least twenty times, his clan accused him of being the only Prophet who couldn't do a miracle. Muhammad's inefficiency in producing even a single miracle is well recorded by his biographer, Muhammad Husayn Haykal. In this biography, 'The Life of Muhammad' published originally 1933; Haykal (1976, chapter 5) wrote that Abu Lahab and Abu Sufyan, two noblemen of Quraysh repeatedly asked Muhammad to perform some miracles. They asked,

"Why don't you change Mount Safa and Mount Marwah into gold? Why don't you cause the book of which you speak so much to fall down from heaven already written? Why don't you cause Gabriel to appear to all of us and speak to us as he spoke to you? Why don't you resurrect the dead and remove these mountains which bound and enclose the city of Makkah? Why don't you cause a water fountain to spring whose water is sweeter than that of Zamzam, knowing how badly your town needs the additional water supply?"

They challenged him to do as much as Moses or Jesus had done. The unbelievers did not stop at these demands for miracles. In ridicule, the Meccans asked, "Why doesn't your God inform you of the market prices of the future in order to help you and us in the trade of the morrow?" All these questions and demands were answered once and for all by revelation. God commanded Muhammad,

"Say: 'I have no power whatever to bring advantage or avoid disadvantage. What God wills, that will happen. If it were given me to tell the future I would have used such knowledge to my own advantage. But I am only a man sent to warn you, and a messenger to convey a Divine message that you may believe." (Q: 7.188).

The fact is that Muhammad never wanted to be a miracle worker simply because he could not perform miracle. But he claimed the title of Prophet and accepted the fact that, as Bukhari (6.61.504) recorded; every Prophet before him was given miracles because of which people believed them.

The pagan Meccans could not be blamed for troubling Muhammad for demanding at least one miracle. From other parts of Arabia, there were many charlatans who claimed to be God's messenger. They had at their disposal magic tricks which they presented as proof of their Divine mission. One of them was Musaylima who had a sizable following from his own tribe. He used to run up and down the country, showing a flask with a narrow neck, in which he had inserted an egg which he had learnt from a Persian juggler. This was his miracle. He also recited rhymed sentences that he passed of as verses of a second Qur'an (Warraq, 2000, pp. 145-6). This proves how much it was necessary for a man to make some tricks as miracle to promote himself to the rank of a Prophet.  

The claims in traditional Islamic sources that Muhammad was a chosen Prophet of Allah before his birth and hence he was born guided were fake publicities. The fact is that Muhammad had been fathered by an idolater and his mother was a pagan woman. Muhammad received his first revelation when he was meditating in a desert cave called Hira at the age of forty. Till that time he knew nothing about Qur'an. If he was born guided why he wasted forty years of life and thus knowingly neglected Allah's command?

In fact, Muhammad was not much religious before he claimed the title of a Prophet. Before he immigrated to Medina, he did not even know that Jews and Christians have serious theological differences (Armstrong, 2006, p. 15). He assumed that Jews and Christians belong to a single faith.

Obviously, Muhammad had a religion till the age of forty and this could not be anything but the faith of his forefather. If he was born-guided, how Allah allowed it? After all Allah is supposed to be all-knowing.

A Hadith from Sahih Muslim is as below,

"Jabir b. Samura reported Allah's Messenger as saying, 'I recognize the stone in Mecca which used to pay me salutations before my advent as a Prophet and I recognize that even now'" (Muslim: 30. 5654).

From the above Hadith, it is obvious that Muhammad used to visit the Ka'ba, before his Prophethood, when 360 statues were worshiped by different Arab tribes. So, if for worshiping the statues, the nonbelievers are roasting in hell, Muhammad is also roasting in hell with them.

Similarly; the angels started singing and the idols everywhere fell on their faces, and fires of all fire-worshippers in Persia and India became cold, a lake flooded which caused a palace to crack at the berth of Muhammad are very childlike claims. No historian had ever recorded the songs sung by angels or idols fall or fire became cold. If something extraordinary had happened, we knew about them in history books. Also, if Muhammad was really such a great miracle worker, why he could not perform a single miracle in front of the Meccans?

Muslims' claim that Muhammad was born detached from the umbilical cord cannot be true. Umbilical cord is the only source of supplying nourishment and an unborn baby cannot stay alive in the womb without being attached to it. If this fable was true, Muhammad would have lived without food and water after birth, but he did need food and water like everybody else. The story of pregnant Amina is equally nonsense. If she had really witnessed any such Divine occurrence, she would have taken much care of Muhammad by herself instead of giving him to a nurse Halima.   

In sum; there was not a single miracle to prove Muhammad's claim of Prophethood. There were no healings, walking on water, parting seas, raising folks from the dead or feeding multitudes. There are no fulfilled Prophecies, like the exacting and detailed predictions that Biblical Prophets routinely made to demonstrate their Divine authority. But the most troubling part about our absolute reliance on Muhammad's testimony that he and his Qur'an were divinely inspired is that Muhammad's character was as deficient, and his life was as despicable, as anyone who has ever lived.

These miracles attributed to Muhammad are later additions. The traditions concerning Muhammad were written down in Baghdad not before centuries following Muhammad's death. Till that time, they were oral traditions which rested entirely in the memory of those who have handed them down. Many myths were invented and added to these oral traditions in an attempt to make Muhammad appear Messianic. The Muslim scholars who fabricated those miracles had well-defined agendas and they had a practical and selfish reason to do so. By the time Muhammad started preaching, Christianity was a well-established religion. The very idea that Islam might be a 'new religion' was unthinkable to Christians and they took Muslims as theological deviants (Fletcher, pp. 17-8). But with time, Islam appeared as a religious rivalry to Christianity. So the Muslim scholars tried their best to make Muhammad look as godly as that of Jesus, otherwise they would be out of business.

As a result, since the Gospels proclaimed that Christ was the light of the world, so Muslims contrived Allah first created the light of Muhammad, out of which Allah then proceeded to create everything which constitutes this world. They even demanded that Muhammad's body emitted luminous waves rendering him visible in thickest darkness. One night this miraculous light enabled Aisha to find a needle she has lost. Also, Muhammad produced no shadow (Warraq, 2000, p. 171). Similarly, the story of pregnant Amina is remarkably similar to the Christian story of Mary, who, when pregnant with Jesus, heard the angel of the Lord declare, "You will be with child and will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High." (Luke: 1:31-32). Similarly, the story of Bahira (Bahira, a Christian monk, is said to have recognized in Muhammad the signs of a Prophet) was borrowed from Jewish scriptures. It resembles the Jewish story of Samuel (1 Samuel 16:1-13). Believing in fictitious and historically worthless tales is worse than unknowing the truth.

There was another reason, those miracles were fabricated. Since everything associated with Muhammad was demonic rather than Divine and Qur'an could not stand by its own merit, Muslim scholars choose to deceive others by fraudulent means to keep the falsehood of Islam 'alive' and steady going. The bread and butter of the Muslim scholars and clerics come from the business of Islam. So Islam should survive. At least, those lies, though ridiculous and childish, provided their Prophet with some impression of credibility which was sufficient to attract the feebleminded people.

These Muslim scholars pass the story on to next generation and thereafter. Soon it takes on a life of its own and becomes more colorful with time and enters the realm of folklore, myth, and legend. Ultimately it is accepted by the mainstream Muslims as authentic. Today, the legend of Muhammad appears like a ridiculous collection of absurd fables, and in the worst style. According to Kennedy (2007, p. 22); these fables are so contradictory and inconsistent that we cannot be certain for anything, even the very existence of Muhammad was questioned.

According to Qur'an, the only miracle associated with Muhammad was the revelation of the Qur'anic Suras themselves. But the satanic verses incident even refuted this Qur'anic claim as already discussed earlier. Qur'an is the only religious book which is expected to be read and recite in Arabic only. It's not necessary to understand the meaning of a single word. In Qur'an there is a large number of contradictions and inaccuracies, and grammatical, historical, scientific, numerical and ethical errors. This book is haphazardly written. There is no chronology, no chapters of definite subject/matters. Often the verses are unrelated to other. No chapter deals with a particular subject matter. A whole chapter is a mixture of many subjects at random. It is utter stupidity to believe that this book is from God.

Similarly, If Muhammad had been involved in a miracle, or could do one, all he would have had to do to silence his critics was to explain the ones that had taken place, or simply summon his God's power to perform one. But no! He failed miserably.       

1.9: Conclusion

Walker (2002, p. 311) lamented that there is not only a lack of understanding between Islam and the West but also a lack of a desire to understand. But Walker does not tell us this 'lack of understanding' and 'a lack of a desire to understand' is on whose part. Are Muslims misunderstanding the Western critics or it is the Western critics who are at fault. If Western critics say, Islam is an alien, aggressive and fanatical faith, should we accuse those critics for their 'lack of understanding' and 'a lack of a desire to understand'?

Or, should we appreciate these critics for their 'correct' understanding?

If we want to study Christianity, we cannot do it without learning about Jesus Christ, Similarly we cannot think about studying Buddhism by ignoring Lord Buddha and Jainism without Mahavira Jain. Likewise, if we want to understand Islam, we have to read about Muhammad. 

The greatness of the leader depends upon the quality of the followers. A poisonous tree produces poisonous fruits. A psychopath murderer cannot teach 'nonviolence' like Gandhi. Our experience shows, a Christian or Buddhist or Hindu, with deep and sincere religious devotion; can become one Mother Teresa, Dalai Lama or Gandhi. But in Islam, we see leaders like, Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, Mullah Omar etc. We cannot say Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa or Gandhi is more religious and more sincere than Osama Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad or Mullah Omar. The argument is about something else - what are the teachings (and demands) of that religious group and the founder of that group?

Let's compare few words of Muhammad, Allah and Qur'an with that of other religious leaders/ doctrines.

"Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", (Luke: 23:34)

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out," (Q: 2.191)

"If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also"(Matthey: 5.39)

"I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers;"(Q:8.12)

"For he who insults you (Muhammad) will be cut off" (Q: 108.3).

"Love your enemies and pray those who persecute you" (Matthew: 5.44)

"Let your mind be filled with love. Your pain shall be sent far away, and peace shall come to your home" (Siri Guru Granth Sahib)

"Lust, anger, and greed are the three gates of hell leading to the downfall (or bondage) of the individual. Therefore, one must (learn to) give up these three." (Bhagvada-Gita: 16.21)

"Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not." (Q: 8.60)

"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost' (Q: 3.85)

"A person who has given up all desires for sense gratification, who lives free from desires, who has given up all sense of proprietorship and is devoid of false ego-he alone can attain real peace." (Bhagvada-Gita: 2.71)

"And know that whatever ye take as spoils of war, lo! a fifth thereof is for Allah, and for the messenger and for the kinsman (who hath need)"(Q: 8.41)

"You shall find peace, doing seva (selfless service)" (Siri Guru Granth Sahib)

"The Supreme Lord said: Fearlessness, purity of the inner psyche, perseverance in the yog of Self-knowledge, charity, sense-restraint, sacrifice, study of the scriptures, austerity, honesty; nonviolence, truthfulness, absence of anger, renunciation, calmness, abstinence from malicious talk, compassion for all creatures, freedom from greed, gentleness, modesty, absence of fickleness, splendor, forgiveness, fortitude, cleanliness, absence of malice, and absence of pride --- these are the (twenty-six) qualities of those endowed with Divine virtues" (Bhagvada-Gita: 16.1-3)

"In the midst of this world, do seva, and you shall be given a place of honor in the Court of the Lord" (Siri Guru Granth Sahib)

"How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them"(Q: 7.4)

"You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty. (Bhagvada-Gita: 2.47)

Does there still exist a 'lack of understanding' and 'a lack of a desire to understand'? Today, instead of talking about Islamic terrorism, should we be more concerned about Buddhist terrorism or Jain terrorism? Taslima Nashrin's and Solomon Rushdie's books were banned because 'it would hart the feelings of certain group of people'. Is there a 'lack of understanding' if we say Qur'an should be banned because it offends the feelings of the whole non-Muslim world?

Practically everything associated with Muhammad was decidedly unprophetlike. Whereas all other religious leaders preached love and brotherhood, talked about life, freedom & purification of soul and spiritual upbringing; Muhammad focused on hate, violence, and punishment. In his religion, war was elevated as a supreme religious duty. He approved plunder, incest, pedophilia, thievery, lying, assassination, genocide, and rape in the name of God.

Paradise is no way better than a brothel and hell is a torture chamber. Muhammad was so spiritually deprived that he could not see anything beyond earthly pleasures even after death; leave aside any moral upbringing and purification of the soul. It is really surprising that today more than a billion Muslims put their blind trust on this seventh century criminal, whose life was an example of what not to do, rather than how to behave.

His God is an ungodly God. This God is so ridiculous that he is ready to bribe man with the paradisiacal luxuries, and if man does not fall for it, He frightens human beings with the most sadistic torture of hell. Yet this stupid God, Allah calls himself independent, absolute and disinterested. Such a God is nothing but a clever myth invented by Muhammad. With this invention, Muhammad declared Allah as a real Master and himself as his humble servant. This way he fooled the people by personalizing his authority in the name of God and imposed his dictatorship on them. In theory, Muslims are following Allah's guidance, but in practice, they are offering their blind obedience to Muhammad. With all these revelations Allah slowly moved away into the background, leaving the front seat to Muhammad.

The authority of the Qur'an is unquestionable and it leads to hell. Allah is very specific on this matter. Qur'an says,

"O believers! Do not ask questions about things that if revealed to you, may cause you trouble. But if you ask a question about something when the Qur'an is being revealed, it will be made known to you. Allah has forgiven you what you did to date, Allah is Forgiving, Forbearing" (Q: 5.101).

"Some people before you did ask such questions and later lost their faith because of those very things" (Q: 5.102)

The following Hadith confirms Allah's warning

"I heard the Prophet say, 'Allah has hated you for asking too many questions.'" (Bukhari: 2.24.555)

They above two verses prove that Allah is an imaginary God. Why Muslims are not allowed to ask questions about the Qur'anic revelations. The answer is simple. If Muslims start asking questions, the imposture of Muhammad will be exposed and Islam will fall. As Sina (2008, p. 6) lamented,

"Muslims are genuinely incapable of questioning Islam. They dismiss every doubt and consider things that are incomprehensible as "test" of God. To pass that test and to prove their faith, all they have to do is believe in every nonsense and absurdity unquestioningly."

By revealing those two verses in the guise of Allah, Muhammad had banished reasoning from the kingdom of faith, making fanaticism the foundation of his doctrine. Anyone who questioned Muhammad's authority had been mercilessly killed.

Truth and logic are two biggest enemies of Islam. As Toland (cited Gunny, 1996. p. 168) wrote, 'He [Muhammad] clearly saw that the spirit of inquiry would not favor him. This is how Islam maintained itself.' Muhammad recommended blind faith without question and absolute obedience, because of his inability to teach the faith intelligibly. Dasti (cited Warraq, 1995. p.4) mentioned, "Belief can blunt human reason and common sense."

This is how the Prophet of Islam succeeded and his religion survived for more than fourteen centuries. He had done whatever he liked in the name of Allah because all his actions counted as the Divine will. He claimed that he had no choice but to act accordingly. Thus, whatever may happen to the others, Muhammad always remained blameless. But at the same time he was never capable to prove his claim of Prophethood but still was not ready to give up his claim. There are more than sufficient proofs that he was a false Prophet but there is not a single proof of his Prophethood.

Muhammad's strong dominance urge motivated him to rise above his fellow-beings. He sought distinction by imposing his will on others. A book like Qur'an was essential for him to achieve his goal. The psychologists say that the most effective way of securing dominance is by arousing someone's fear. The second one is favor. Whatever man does, he does out of fear or to gain favor. Muhammad very skillfully exploited man's psychological mechanism, which consists of fear and favor. In Islam the very idea of heaven and hell is based on this. Qur'an repeatedly told Muslims to fear God.

While other religions like; Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism took a straight path, Islam proliferated in a wrong direction. This is because the defining core belief of Islam is wrong. It is nothing but the paranoid delusion and hallucination of an ordinary early-medieval unlettered Arab businessman. Putting such vain self-delusion on a par with the profound insights of a Christ, a Shankaracharya, a Buddha, a Confucius, a Mahavira Jain, a Laozi or a Socrates, is plainly absurd.

The words like 'lack of understanding' and 'a lack of a desire to understand' are simply eyewash. The basic truth is that in Islam everything is fake. The God is a fake, the Prophet is a fake and God's message is also a fake. The critics of Islam know it very well.

 End of Chapter 1