• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in the Eyes of Non-Muslims

tariqkhwaja

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

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

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

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

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

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard
That is the view of 1 man, a very learned man at that.

To the rest of us, we compare Muhammed to Jesus as we know he brough unity to many people. I can assure you that not many people would see Muhammed like that, because we simply do not know what he was like, and do not trust the Quran as evidence. May i ask when that statement was written??
 

gnostic

The Lost One
If you really want to know what non-Muslims see about Muhammad, then you should ask real non-Muslim people today, not someone about a century-and-half ago.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
gnostic said:
If you really want to know what non-Muslims see about Muhammad, then you should ask real non-Muslim people today, not someone about a century-and-half ago.

That also goes for Jesus, Moses and other prophets. You should ask real non-Christians and non-Jews, if you really want to what they think about these biblical figures.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
tariqkhwaja's quote from William Muir said:
In the exercise of a power absolutely dictatorial, Muhammad was just and temperate. Nor was he wanting in moderation towards his enemies, when once they had cheerfully submitted to his claims.

Tell that to the number of Jewish men he had executed and the women and children he sold in slavery, how moderate and just he was.
 

Jeremy Mason

Well-Known Member
Tell that to the number of Jewish men he had executed and the women and children he sold in slavery, how moderate and just he was.

Don't forget the non-Jewish people who received the same treatment. Your either with them or against them.
 

tariqkhwaja

Jihad Against Terrorism
I know it is the view of a learned man. But what I am attempting to show is the views of learned men who had nothing to gain from praising Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and everything to gain from falsely accusing him of a thousand things in those times but didn't.

And yes, credence to their honesty. But more credence to the character of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) who forced praised even out of his enemies during his time and after he passed away.

By the way, gnostic, these claims are made based not on the Quran but on the several Hadith of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) (i.e. what people reported about him). The accuracy of these reports is verified by the fact that different chains of narrations often report the same thing. I do not know how many eye-witnesses are needed to convict someone of murder but I think so many eye-witness accounts related through several chains prove that many of those relations about Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) were correct.

Now as far as Jewish execution (fact) and slavery selling (also fact) is concerned I can get to that to two seperate threads.

But I am glad you ask these questions because it gives me a chance to clarify the taints that are being put on the name of our Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
 

gnostic

The Lost One
tariqkhwaja said:
And yes, credence to their honesty. But more credence to the character of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) who forced praised even out of his enemies during his time and after he passed away.

Is that how you see us, tariqkhwaja? Do you view us as the "enemy", just because we are non-Muslims?

I would think that a person who give or not give dues, don't make people enemies. I may not agree with your view nor some of the teachings of Islam, but for me, it doesn't make us enemies.

I have written things about Christianity and Judaism that would opposed the views of Christians and Jews, but I don't see them as my enemies. I quarrelled with my sister, because her view don't match mine, but it doesn't make us enemies. I would continue have different view to many other people, but different views don't make enemies.

The word "enemy" is a strong word, which I don't use lightly.

Was this Sir William Muir an enemy? I would think not. He was not enemy when he gives credit to Muhammad, so I find it strange that you would use such word.

Do you not have different view from other Muslims? If so, does that make them your enemies?
 

tariqkhwaja

Jihad Against Terrorism
Is that how you see us, tariqkhwaja? Do you view us as the "enemy", just because we are non-Muslims?

I would think that a person who give or not give dues, don't make people enemies. I may not agree with your view nor some of the teachings of Islam, but for me, it doesn't make us enemies.

I have written things about Christianity and Judaism that would opposed the views of Christians and Jews, but I don't see them as my enemies. I quarrelled with my sister, because her view don't match mine, but it doesn't make us enemies. I would continue have different view to many other people, but different views don't make enemies.

The word "enemy" is a strong word, which I don't use lightly.

Was this Sir William Muir an enemy? I would think not. He was not enemy when he gives credit to Muhammad, so I find it strange that you would use such word.

Do you not have different view from other Muslims? If so, does that make them your enemies?
wha?

No I was not referring to Sir Muir. But during his time forces extremely hostile to him and after his time many forces that remain hostile to this day did not fail to acknowledge his honesty, integrity, credibility, etc. This much they were all forced to concede.
 

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
That is the view of 1 man, a very learned man at that.

ofcourse that is the view of a learned man, because people like you ( no offence or dissrespect) have no idea who Muhammed (saws) is or was. it is very easy to say something that is a lie than that which is true.

you first of all do not have the slightest clue of what sort of a person Muhammed (saws) was. when you know about his life, when you accept his good deeds and not only the "bad" ones (which you have heard from non muslims who do not believe his message and try to shame him) then be my guest to speak about him.

that educated man which has said that about Muhammed (saws) is the one you need to trust and not those others, he too is a non muslim, so what makes him different from you and other non muslims? he has studied about Muhammeds life and then he judged him, unlike you and other non muslims who find it easier to criticise our prophet.
 

kai

ragamuffin
ofcourse that is the view of a learned man, because people like you ( no offence or dissrespect) have no idea who Muhammed (saws) is or was. it is very easy to say something that is a lie than that which is true.

you first of all do not have the slightest clue of what sort of a person Muhammed (saws) was. when you know about his life, when you accept his good deeds and not only the "bad" ones (which you have heard from non muslims who do not believe his message and try to shame him) then be my guest to speak about him.

that educated man which has said that about Muhammed (saws) is the one you need to trust and not those others, he too is a non muslim, so what makes him different from you and other non muslims? he has studied about Muhammeds life and then he judged him, unlike you and other non muslims who find it easier to criticise our prophet.




with respect Tariq i think that you have had no personal interaction with the person known as Muhammed ,you are only going by what you have read and been told.

If you are to pick a historical person to enquire about ,its advisable to remain openminded because your source may be biased, so its best to get contemporary sources and form a judgement from several angles.

A religious figure is even more difficult to "get to Know" because his/her followers are very likely the only source of information and are likey to "over egg the pudding"
 

gnostic

The Lost One
kai said:
with respect Tariq i think that you have had no personal interaction with the person known as Muhammed ,you are only going by what you have read and been told.

If you are to pick a historical person to enquire about ,its advisable to remain openminded because your source may be biased, so its best to get contemporary sources and form a judgement from several angles.

A religious figure is even more difficult to "get to Know" because his/her followers are very likely the only source of information and are likey to "over egg the pudding"

That's what I have been trying to say to the Muslim members here, in my thread Banu Quryza. I don't think any Muslim can understand that, that the Muslim sources may be biased, and embellished, in order to make him bigger than life.

With Muhammad, they are trying to him, combined of many biblical figures - Abraham, Ishmael, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah and Jesus - all rolled into one. This is what I have trouble believing him to be a real prophet.

And there is the embellishment going on here, where they quote from the Tanakh and Bible, said to prophesies his coming -

  • Deuteronomy 18, about the new prophet;
  • Isaiah (can't remember the chapter, but it is about Servant);
  • Gospel of John (again, I don't remember the chapter, but its about the Comforter or Helper).
They find a small passage here and there, and say that it means their prophet, without consideration of the context of the entire passages, just to justify and enforce Muhammad's existence as a prophet.

What would be far more believable, if he was just a prophet without any relation to the biblical characters, starting afresh, with simply new messages. Instead, we have a religion that rehashed the works and teachings of Moses and Jesus, and often referrals to the Bible in the Qur'an. And yet at the same time, Muslims put down these other Abrahamic religions (Judaism and Christianity), and say that they are wrong, bible and Torah are corrupted, and Islam is the only true religion and Muhammad is the last prophet, etc.

It is what I term, a mishmash religion.

Muhammad seemed to be a prophet who is trying to "out-do" all other prophets.
 
Last edited:

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
with respect Tariq i think that you have had no personal interaction with the person known as Muhammed ,you are only going by what you have read and been told.

first of all i think you read to fast or you just right the first name that comes to mind, i'm eselam not tariq.

ok if i'm going by what other people are saying so are you, did you ever meet the prophet to say the things you have, to accuse him of being a false prophet and all the other stuff, no you have never met him, i haven't either but because i believe in him and his message i feel as though i know him, do you think that people would wright lies when they say something good about someone, i mean lets start talking about george bush is ther any good to be said about him?? i certainly don't think so and there is nothing you can say either.

and for me just as any other muslim we have the word of the Kur'an, the word of Allah that speaks about about our prophet Muhammed (saws) i do not need someone else to tell me about him (ofcourse i do but whats in the Kur'an is still enough). and do you think that i would tell people what a good man george bush is, when clearly he isn't. why are you and other non muslims convinced that Muhammed (saws) is a lie, what information do you have that i don't
 
Last edited:

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard
ofcourse that is the view of a learned man, because people like you ( no offence or dissrespect) have no idea who Muhammed (saws) is or was. it is very easy to say something that is a lie than that which is true.

you first of all do not have the slightest clue of what sort of a person Muhammed (saws) was. when you know about his life, when you accept his good deeds and not only the "bad" ones (which you have heard from non muslims who do not believe his message and try to shame him) then be my guest to speak about him.

that educated man which has said that about Muhammed (saws) is the one you need to trust and not those others, he too is a non muslim, so what makes him different from you and other non muslims? he has studied about Muhammeds life and then he judged him, unlike you and other non muslims who find it easier to criticise our prophet.

What's funny is neither do you. All you know is from what you read by Muslims or muslim sympathisers. You wouldn't know if he was a saint or an absolute w**ker (forgive language) but you know what i mean right?

Who in their right mind would write mean stuff about Mohammed? Anyone stupid enough to do so would find themselves 6 feet under very quickly.

What i find amusing is nothing exists to portray mohammed as anything but a divine saint who everyone loved. Why? Because like i say anything against his resulted in death and anything against him would also paint a "less than divine" picture of him. So i'm realistic about this. No one who reads about Mohammed will ever find a bad word. The same goes for jesus.
 

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
What's funny is neither do you. All you know is from what you read by Muslims or muslim sympathisers. You wouldn't know if he was a saint or an absolute w**ker (forgive language) but you know what i mean right?

no, i do not know what you mean.

i do not know what the word saint means but he deffinately was a prophet, a messenger of our creator. now you even say that the man who has written good things about the prophet, is a maniac or something and he too is/was a non muslim. so i can honestly say to you that you do not care if Muhammed (saws) truly is a prophet, no matter who says so, you have a non muslim describing him and yet you say he is lying, why would he, you call him a sympathiser as well, what would it take for you to believe that Muhammed (saws) truely is a prophet.
i know for sure it won't take a muslim, and clearly it won't even take a non muslim. so what will?????????

Who in their right mind would write mean stuff about Mohammed? Anyone stupid enough to do so would find themselves 6 feet under very quickly.

so now you accuse the islamic prophet of being a murderor. is that what you are saying.
let me ask you this: you are in a right state of mind,right, and yet you say mean things about him, am i soposed to believe what you say, when you prove your self wrong with your own words.

What i find amusing is nothing exists to portray mohammed as anything but a divine saint who everyone loved. Why? Because like i say anything against his resulted in death and anything against him would also paint a "less than divine" picture of him. So i'm realistic about this. No one who reads about Mohammed will ever find a bad word. The same goes for jesus
.

the reason why no one won't ever find a bad word is because Muhammed (saws) was not just a person like you or me (he never sined or dissobeyed). there were no mistakes. he never was unjust to people, he was always merciful to non believers, he never held a grudge against anyone, he never betrayed anyone, he never killed for no reason, he only killed in wars (thats the only place where men are allowed to kill). what else do you want. so isn't that a reason to accept him, i mean if there are no bad things about him then why make it your mission to find something, does it seem to good to be true or something, why not just accept him.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
eselam said:
ok if i'm going by what other people are saying so are you, did you ever meet the prophet to say the things you have, to accuse him of being a false prophet and all the other stuff, no you have never met him, i haven't either but because i believe in him and his message i feel as though i know him, do you think that people would wright lies when they say something good about someone, i mean lets start talking about george bush is ther any good to be said about him?? i certainly don't think so and there is nothing you can say either.

If you've read Kai's comment properly, he didn't say Muhammad is a false prophet. Kai is just not awe by his aura. He just doesn't believe everything he read.

Nor do I, for that matter.

Think about it.

What we know about Muhammad, only comes from the scriptures and the sources - biographers and historians - but they are all Muslims.

The same is with Jesus. There are only his disciples, who are said to have witnessed what Jesus did, but no non-Christian sources.

The works would only tends to be biased, and for certain embellished to make him greater than what he is.

I don't know what Muhammad, and can only judged by his sources. But since the only sources about him, come from only one group, you can't expect people to read about him and not think that it is biased.

Look. I can give you an example, where more than one source are needed.

Take Julius Caesar for instance. He wrote memoirs of his wars, 1st against the Gauls (and some German tribes), and then against his Roman enemies in a civil war. For sure, Caesar would be biased, and may have embellished his deeds. But there's a difference between Caesar and Muhammad. With Caesar, there are other sources. Some writings also view him as a hero, but others have view him as tyrant. Granted some sources are Romans (there are also number of Greek sources too), but not all Romans like him.

By using all these sources together about Caesar, perhaps we can figure out the real man, behind the pro-Caesar and anti-Caesar.

We can't do this, in Muhammad's case. There are no contemporary non-Muslim sources, where we can find the real Muhammad. All we have is an enlarged Muhammad, larger than life.

That's why someone like Kai or me, is skeptical about the writing of Muhammad's life.
 
Last edited:
Top