Tribute to Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and Quran by non-Muslim writers

Authors

I invite all Muslims and fair minded Christians and others to make it an international repository about all the positive things and tribute that non-Muslims writers have offered about Islam, its prophet and its scripture.

The Holy Prophet Muhammad had to engage in defensive warfare, but was very mindful of casualties on both sides. The total casualties in all the wars that he engaged in were no more than 500. Here I present to you two quotes about what the non-Muslims had to say about his entry into Makkah as an absolute ruler, after being persecuted for thirteen years and battled against for another eight years. Reverend Benjamin Bosworth Smith (1784-1884) was an American Protestant Episcopal bishop, he wrote:

Now would have been the moment to gratify his ambition, to satiate his lust, to get his revenge. Read the account of Muhammad’s entry into Mecca along with the account of Marius Sulla as he entered Rome, one would be in a position to recognize the magnanimity and moderation of the Prophet of Arabia. There were no proscription lists, no plunder, no wanton revenge. From a helpless orphan to the ruler of a big country was a great transition; yet the Holy Prophet retained the nobility of his character under all circumstances. (R. Bosworth Smith (Muhammad and Muhammadism)

Stanley Lane-Poole (18 December 1854 – 29 December 1931) was a British orientalist and archaeologist, he wrote:

But what is this? Is there no blood in the streets? Where are the bodies of the thousands that have been butchered? Facts are hard things; and it is a fact that the day of Muhammad’s greatest triumph over his enemies was also the day of his grandest victory over himself. He freely forgave the Kureysh all the years of sorrow and cruel scorn they had inflicted on him; he gave an amnesty to the whole population of Makkah. Four criminals whom justice condemned, made up Muhammad’s proscription list; no house was robbed, no woman insulted. It was thus that Muhammad entered again his native city. Through all the annals of conquest, there is no triumphant entry like unto this one. (Lane Poole, quoted in Introduction to Higgins’ Apology for Mohammad pp ixxi)


“If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and outstanding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad?”  (Alphonse de Lamartine)

Samuel Parsons Scott, a lawyer and writer from Hillsboro Ohio,  writes in History of the Moorish Empire in Europe (Vol I), attributing all the success of Europe to the prophet Muhammad:

Unlike most theological systems to which men, in all ages, have rendered their obedient and pious homage, no mystery obscures the origin and foundation of Islam. The purity and simplicity of its principles have undergone no change. Its history has been preserved by the diligence of innumerable writers. The life and characteristics of its Prophet, even to the smallest detail, are accessible to the curiosity of every enterprising scholar.

The austere character of a faith which, at its inception, exacts a rigid compliance with the minutest formalities of its ritual, naturally becomes relaxed and modified after that system has attained to worldly importance and imperial authority; or, in the language of one of the greatest of modern writers, ‘a dominant religion is never ascetic.’ It is strange that Islam, which, in this respect, as in many others, has conformed to the general law of humanity, and now acknowledges tenets and allows practices that would have struck the subjects of Abu-Bekr and Omar with amazement, has been able to preserve in such perfection the observance of its ceremonial; especially when it had no organized sacerdotal power to sustain it. The absence of an ecclesiastical order which could dictate the policy of the throne, and humble the pride of the ermine and purple with the dust in the presence of some audacious zealot, also left untrammelled the way for scientific investigation and research, and, more than all else, contributed to dispel the darkness of mediaeval times. The doctrine of toleration enunciated by Mohammed gave no encouragement to that system of repression whose activity has exhausted every means of checking the growth of philosophical knowledge, by imposing the most direful spiritual and temporal penalties upon every teacher who ventures to publicly explain its principles; and it is a matter of far deeper import to the civilization of the twentieth century, than is implied by the mere performance of an act of devotion, when the Temple of Mecca—the seat of a time-honored faith, from whose shrine emanated the spirit of learning that redeemed degraded Europe—is saluted five times every day by the reverent homage of concentric circles of believers, one hundred and fifty million in number, from Tangier to Pekin, from the borders of Siberia to the Equinoctial Line.

We may well consider with admiration the rapid progress and enduring effects of this extraordinary religion which everywhere brought order, wealth, and happiness in its train; which, in destroying the deities of the Kaaba, swept away the traditions of thirty centuries; which adopted those pagan rites that it could not abolish; which seized and retained the birthplace of Christianity; which dispersed over so wide a territory alike the theocracy of the Jews and the ritual of Rome; which drove the Magi from the blazing altars of Persia; which usurped the throne and sceptre of the Byzantine Church; which supplanted the fetichism of the African desert; which trampled upon the mysteries of Isis, Osiris, and Horus, and revealed to the wondering Egyptians the secret of the Most High God; which invaded the Councils of Catholicism, and suggested a fundamental article of its belief; which fashioned the graceful arches of our most famous cathedrals; which placed its seal upon the earth in the measurement of a degree, and inscribed its characters in living light amidst the glittering constellations of the heavens; which has left its traces in the most familiar terms of the languages of Europe; which affords daily proof of its beneficent offices in the garments that we wear, in the books that we read, in the grains of our harvests, in the fruits of our orchards, in the flowers of our gardens; and which gave rise to successive dynasties of sovereigns, whose supreme ambition seemed to be to exalt the character of their subjects, to transmit unimpaired to posterity the inestimable treasures of knowledge, and to extend and perpetuate the intellectual empire of man. These signal and unparallelled results were effected by the inflexible constancy, the lofty genius, the political sagacity, of an Arabian shepherd, deficient in the very rudiments of learning, reared among a barbarous people divided into tribes whose mutual hostility had been intensified by centuries of warfare, who had no organized system of government, who considered the mechanical and mercantile arts degrading, who recognized no law but that of force, and knew no gods but a herd of grotesque and monstrous idols. Robbery was their profession, murder their pastime. Except within the precincts of their camp, no friend, unless connected by the sacred ties of blood, was secure. They devoured the flesh of enemies slain in battle. Deceit always excepted, cruelty was their most prominent national characteristic. Their offensive arrogance, relentless enmity, and obstinate tenacity of purpose were, in a direct ratio to their ignorance and their brutalizing superstition, confirmed by the prodigies, the omens, and the legends of ages.

To undertake the radical amelioration of such political and social conditions was a task of appalling, of apparently insuperable difficulty. Its fortunate accomplishment may not indicate the active interposition of Divine authority. The glories which invest the history of Islam may be entirely derived from the valor, the virtue, the intelligence, the genius, of man. If this be conceded, the largest measure of credit is due to him who conceived its plan, promoted its impulse, and formulated the rules which insured its success. In any event, if the object of religion be the inculcation of morals, the diminution of evil, the promotion of human happiness, the expansion of the human intellect; if the performance of good works will avail in that great day when mankind shall be summoned to its final reckoning, it is neither irreverent nor unreasonable to admit that Mohammed was indeed an Apostle of God.”[1]

Samuel Parsons Scott’s book is available in Google books and Barnes and Noble eBooks.  He understood part of the charm of the Prophet’s character when he wrote:

“The glories which invest the history of Islam may be entirely derived from the valor, the virtue, the intelligence, the genius, of one man. If this be conceded, the largest measure of credit is due to him who conceived its plan, promoted its impulse, and formulated the rules which insured its success. In any event, if the object of religion be the inculcation of morals, the diminution of evil, the promotion of human happiness, the expansion of the human intellect, if the performance of good works will avail in the great day when mankind shall be summoned to its final reckoning it is neither irreverent nor unreasonable to admit that Muhammad was indeed an Apostle of God.”[2]

What Samuel Parsons Scott missed, Reverend Professor Montgomery Watt a biographer of the Prophet Muhammad grasped or was it a Freudian slip? He high lighted above all virtues the Prophet’s trust in God:

“The more one reflects on the history of Muhammad and of early Islam, the more one is amazed at the vastness of his achievement. Circumstances presented him with an opportunity such as few men have had, but the man was fully matched with the hour. Had it not been for his gifts as a seer, statesman, and administrator and, behind these, his trust in God and firm belief that God had sent him, a notable chapter in the history of mankind would have remained unwritten.”[4]

Court of the Lions Alhambra (Spain)
A good place for the non-Muslims to start learning about the Holy Prophet Muhammad is a movie named the Message: Mohammed: Messenger of God
(1976) Rated PG.The back cover states, “After seeing a vision of the Angel Gabriel, Mohammad calls to the people of Mecca to cast aside the 300 idols of Kaaba and worship only one God. Starring Anthony Quinn and Irene Papas, this breathtaking historical epic about the birth of the Islamic faith took six years to prepare and more than a year to film. It received an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Score.”
Some other video clips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqzoF_zMX_A&feature=rec-LGOUT-exp_fresh+div-1r-7-HM

The comments below have an extensive collection, paying tribute to the Holy Prophet Muhammad and the Holy Quran.  I invite others to feel free to add to this collection.

References

  1. Samuel Parsons Scott. History of the Moorish Empire in Europe. Published by J B Lippincot Company in 1904. p. 124-127.
  2. S. P. Scott writes in, History of the Moorish Empire in Europe. Published by J B Lippincot Company in 1904. p. 126.
  3. S. P. Scott writes in, History of the Moorish Empire in Europe. Published by J B Lippincot Company in 1904. p. 126.
  4. William Montgomery Watt. Muhammad: prophet and statesman. Oxford University Press, 1974. Page 237.

23 Comments

Comments RSS
  1. Zia H. Shah

    Mahatma Gandhi

    Speaking on the character of Muhammad, Mahatma Gandhi says in (Young India):

    “I wanted to know the best of one who holds today’s undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind. … I became more than convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to this friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the 2nd volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of the great life.”

  2. Zia H. Shah

    Fall of Mecca in 630 AD in the eyes of the Orientalists
    Now he was tired. He needed rest. In a few days he had become one of the most powerful rulers in Arabia. He was pope, he was caesar. Before the year was over, he would be the only ruler who counted, the founder of a nation, of an empire, of a faith. But this did not elate him as much as the thought that the Kaaba, the center of the world, was now cleaned of its infamous idols. If he died that night, he would consider the most important part of his mission accomplished.
    Mohammed did not die that night. He had still a little while to live, but the climax of his career was that golden evening when everything he had striven for was his.
    It is rare to find men fulfilling all their ambitions during their lives. It is even rarer to find those few who do, not losing their sense of values. On this January evening of 630 A.C. and in the eighth year of the Hijra, Mohammed slept on his mat in the same way as he had slept when he traveled commercially for the house of Khadija bint Khuwailid.

    (RVC Bodley. The Messenger. Double Day and Company Inc, 1946. Page 299.)

    Now would have been the moment to gratify his ambition, to satiate his lust, to get his revenge. Read the account of Muhammad’s entry into Mecca along with the account of Marius Sulla as he entered Rome, one would be in a position to recognize the magnanimity and moderation of the Prophet of Arabia.There were no proscription lists, no plunder, no wanton revenge. From a helpless orphan to the ruler of a big country was a great transition; yet the Holy Prophet retained the nobility of his chracter under all circumstances.

    (R. Bosworth Smith, Muhammad and Muhammadism.)

    But what is this? Is there no blood in the streets? Where are the bodies of the thousands that have been butchered? Facts are hard things; and it is a fact that the day of Muhammad’s greatest triumph over his enemies was also the day of his grandest victory over himself. He freely forgave the Kureysh all the years of sorrow and cruel scorn they had inflicted on him; he gave an amnesty to the whole populatlon of Makkah. Four criminals whom justice condemned, made up Muhammad’s proscription list; no house was robbed, no woman insulted. It was thus that Muhammad entered again his native city. Through all the annals of conquest, there is no triumphant entry like unto this one.

    (Lane Poole, quoted in Introduction to Higgins’ Apology for Mohammad pp ixxi.)

  3. Zia H. Shah

    Narrowness of Muhammad’s means at Medina
    According to Sir William Muir:

    A long chapter is devoted to this subject, containing many such traditions as the following. Fatima once brought Mahomet a piece of bread; it was the first that had passed his lips for three days. Ayesha tells us that for months together Mahomet did not get a full meal. “Months used to pass;” she says again, “and no fire would be lighted in Mahomet’s house either for baking bread or cooking meat.’ How then did ye live? By the two black things اسوادان dates and water, and by what the citizens used to send unto us: the Lord requite them ! such of them as had milch cattle would send us a little milk. The Prophet never enjoyed the luxury of two kinds of food the same day; if he had flesh there was nothing else ; and so if he had dates ; so likewise if he had bread. We possessed no sieves, but used to bruise the grain and blow off the husks. One night Abu Bakr sent Mahomet the leg of a kid. Ayesha held it while the Prophet cut off a piece for himself in the dark ; and in his turn the Prophet held it while Ayesha cut off a piece. ‘What,’ exclaimed the listeners, ‘and ye ate without a lamp!’ ‘Yea,’ replied Ayesha, ‘had we possessed oil for a lamp, think ye not that we should have used it for our food?'”

    Abu Hureira explains the scarcity thus. “It arose;” he says, “from the great number of Mahomet s visitors and guests; for he never sat down to food but there were some followers with him. Even the conquest of Kheibar did not put an end to the scarcity. Because Medina has an intractable soil, which is ordinarily cultivated for dates only, the staple food of its in habitants. There did not exist in the country means of support sufficient for the greatly increased population. Its fruits were the common products of the soil, which want little water; and such water as was needed the people used to carry on their backs, for in these days they had few camels.”

    William Muir Esq. Life of Mahomet. Smith Elder and Co., London 1861. Volume IV. Page 329.

  4. Zia H. Shah

    Humility of the Prophet Muhammad
    According to Sir William Muir:

    His humility was shewn by his riding upon asses, accepting the invitation even of slaves, and when mounted, by his taking another behind him. He would say, ‘I sit at meals as a servant doeth, and I eat like a servant: for I really am a servant;’ and he would sit as one that was always ready to rise. He discouraged (supererogatory) fasting, and works of mortification. When seated with his followers, he would remain long silent at a time. In the Mosque at Medina, they used to repeat pieces of poetry, and tell stories regarding the incidents that occurred in the days of ignorance, and laugh; and Mahomet, listening to them, would smile at what they said.

    Mahomet hated nothing more than lying, and whenever he knew that any of his followers had erred in this respect, he would hold himself aloof from them until he was assured of their repentance.

    http://www.archive.org/details/thelifeofmahomet04muiruoft

    William Muir Esq. Life of Mahomet. Smith Elder and Co., London 1861. Volume IV. Page 326.

  5. Zia H. Shah

    The Holy Quran as the Miracle of the Holy Prophet
    Laura Vaccia Vaglieri, professor at the University of Naples, has this to say, about the Quran:

    “For the book, besides its perfection in form and method, proved itself beyond irritation even in its substance. In it, among other things, we read a forecast of future events, and a description of events which had taken place centuries before but were generally ignored. There are frequent references to the laws of nature, to various sciences, both religious and secular. We find there vast stores of knowledge which are beyond the capacity of the most intelligent of men, the greatest of philosophers and the ablest of politicians. For all these reasons the Quran could not be the work of an uneducated man, who had spent all his life in the midst of an unrefined society far away from men of learning and religion, a man who always insisted that he was but a man just like any others, and, as such, unable to perform miracles unless he had the help of Almighty God. The Quran could have its source only in Him Whose knowledge comprehends everything in heaven and earth.”

    http://knol.google.com/k/zia-shah/the-holy-quran-as-the-miracle-of-the/1qhnnhcumbuyp/55#

  6. Zia H. Shah

    James A. Michener
    James A. Michener wrote:

    “Muhammad, the inspired man who founded Islam, was born about AD
    570 into an Arabian tribe that worshipped idols. Orphaned at birth, he was
    always particularly solicitous of the poor and needy, the widow and the
    orphan, the slave and the downtrodden. At twenty he was already a
    successful businessman, and soon became director of camel caravans for a
    wealthy widow. When he reached twenty-five his employer, recognizing
    his meet, proposed marriage. Even though she was fifteen years older, he
    married her, and as long as she lived, remained a devoted husband. Like
    almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad fought shy of serving
    as the transmitter of God’s word, sensing his own inadequacy. But the
    angel commanded ‘Read.’ So far as we know, Muhammad was unable to
    read or write, but he began to dictate those inspired words which would
    soon revolutionize a large segment of the earth: ‘There is one God.’ In all things Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son
    Ibrahim died, an eclipse occurred, and rumors of God’s personal
    condolence quickly arose. Whereupon Muhammad is said to have
    announced, ‘An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to
    attribute such things to the death or birth of a human-being.’ At
    Muhammad’s own death an attempt was made to deify him, but the man
    who was to become his administrative successor killed the hysteria with
    one of the noblest speeches in religious history: ‘If there are any among
    you who worshipped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you worshipped, He lives forever.'”

    (“Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,” By James A. Michener, Reader’s
    Digest (American), May 1955, pp. 68-70)

  7. Zia H. Shah

    Ruth Cranston
    Ruth Cranston wrote:

    “Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) never instigated fighting and bloodshed. Every battle he fought was in rebuttal. He fought in order to survive…and he fought with the weapons and in fashion of his time… Certainly no ‘Christian’ nation of 140,000,000 people who today dispatch (this is a book written in 1949) 120,000 helpless civilians with a single bomb can look askance at a leader who at his worst killed a bare five or six hundred. The slayings of the Prophet of Arabia in the benighted and bloodthirsty age of the seventh century look positively puerile compared with our own in this ‘advanced’ and enlightened twentieth. Not to mention the mass slaughter by the Christians during the Inquisition and the Crusades – when, Christian warriors proudly recorded, they ‘waded ankle-deep in the gore of the Muslim infidels.'”

    (Ruth Cranston ‘World Faith’. Page 155. Ayer Publishing. (1949).

    Ruth Cranston says:

    I was blessed with a father and mother whose lives were shining lessons in character and goodness. As a child, I heard the Bible read daily. But the doctrines of the church were confusing and never very real to me. I had not worked out a personal belief or philosophy of my own, when trouble struck—as it did early, and hard.

    Casting about for something solid to hang on to in that difficult time, I began studying the great spiritual systems of the world for myself. Not the present day doctrines, but the original teachings of the founders of religion: the world’s great prophets and seers. I was struck with two things: First, the simplicity of the teachings of the great masters of religion. Second, the similarities in their teachings and the repetition of certain fundamental principles, which appeared again and again.

    I heard them from the Hindu pundits at Benares, and from the yellow-robed high priests at the Buddhist college in Ceylon, at the family shrine of a humble hill-town weaver in south India, and in the magnificent Temple of Confucius in Peking. The same truths. And how long they had endured, through ages and centuries, while all else changed. But they remained. Why? Surely they must hold something very close to reality.

    As I listened and pondered and steeped my mind in these great truths of all time, my own problems here in this present time cleared up. I began to see my way, and a possible philosophy for a person of this modern day and age filtering through the simple statements of Jesus and Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed, and Moses. I began to feel firm ground under my feet. They taught the unity of all life; the interdependence of all men; love and service to fellow man; help, not exploitation, of the weak and backward. They taught nonviolence and non-injury. They all taught purity of life and of motive, simplicity of life too, and that true riches are within. They taught the worth of individual man and the ability of every man to rise to higher states of development than we are now experiencing. They taught the immortality of the soul and the building of the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth.

    http://thisibelieve.org/essay/16467/

  8. Zia H. Shah

    Edward Gibbon
    Edward Gibbon Wrote:

    “His beneficial or pernicious influence on the public happiness is the last consideration in the character of Muhammad. The most bitter or most bigoted of his Christian or Jewish foes will surely allow that he assumed a false commission to inculcate a salutary doctrine, less perfect only than their own. He piously supposed, as the basis of his religion, the truth and sanctity of their prior revolutions, the virtues and miracles of their founders. The idols of Arabia were broken before the throne of God; the blood of human victims was expiated by prayer, and fasting, and alms, the laudable or innocent arts of devotion;… he breathed among the faithful a spirit of charity and friendship; recommended the practice of the social virtues; and checked, by his laws and precepts, the thirst of revenge, and the oppression of widows and orphans. The hostile tribes were united in faith and obedience, and the valour which had been idly spent in domestic quarrels was vigorously directed against a foreign enemy.”

    (Edward Gibbon ‘The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’. Vol. V. Page 231. Penguins Classics (1st published 1788, this edition 1996)

    Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) Considered the greatest British historian of his time.
    “His (i.e., Muhammad’s) memory was capacious and retentive, his wit easy and social, his imagination sublime, his judgment clear, rapid and decisive. He possessed the courage of both thought and action.”[History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, London, 1838, vol.5, p.335]

  9. Zia H. Shah

    George Bernard Shaw
    George Bernard Shaw wrote:

    “I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because
    of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion whieh appears to me to
    possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him – the wonderful man – and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.”

    (George Bernard Shaw ‘The Genuine Islam’. Vol. 1 No.8 (1936)

    There are several addiotional excerpts at the following link:

    http://alislam.org/library/links/eyes.html

  10. Zia H. Shah

    Thomas Carlyle
    The whole of Thomas Carlyle’s chapter on Muhammad, may peace be upon him, is worth reading several times. Thomas Carlyle wrote:

    “Our current hypothesis about Muhammad, that he was a scheming Impostor, a Falsehood incarnate, that his religion is a mere mass of quackery and fatuity, begins really to be now untenable to anyone. The lies, which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man, are disgraceful to ourselves only… It is really time to dismiss all that. The word this man spoke has been the life–guidance now of a hundred and eighty millions of men these twelve hundred years. These hundred and eighty millions were made by God as well as we. A greater number of God’s creatures believe in Muhammad’s (peace and blessing of Allah be on him) word at this hour, than in any other word whatever. Are we to suppose that it was a miserable piece of spiritual legerdemain, this which so many creatures of the Almighty have lived by and died by? I, for my part, cannot form any such supposition”.

    (Thomas Carlyle ‘On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History’.
    Pages 43 &44. U of Nebraska Press (1966)

  11. Zia H. Shah

    W. Montgomery Watt
    W. Montgomery Watt wrote:

    His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement, all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.

    (Mohammad At Mecca, By W. Montgomery Watt, Oxford, 1953, p. 52)

  12. Zia H. Shah

    Annie Besant

    Annie Besant (1847-1933) was a British theosophist and nationalist leader in India. President of the Indian National Congress in 1917. She Wrote:

    “It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and eharacter of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.”

    (The Life and Teachings of Muhammad, By Annie Besant, Madras, 1932,P.4)

  13. Zia H. Shah

    Dr. Keith Moore and embryology in the Holy Quran
    Dr. Keith Moore was a former President of the Canadian Association of Anatomists, and of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists. He was honoured by the Canadian Association of Anatomists with the prestigious J.C.B. Grant Award and in 1994 he received the Honoured Member Award of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists ‘for outstanding contributions to the field of clinical anatomy.’ He writes:

    “For the past three years, I have worked with the Embryology Committee of King cAbdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, helping them to interpret the many statements in the Qur’an and Sunnah referring to human reproduction and prenatal development. At first I was astonished by the accuracy of the statements that were recorded in the 7th century AD, before the science of embryology was established. Although I was aware of the glorious history of Muslim scientists in the 10th century AD, and some of their contributions to Medicine, I knew nothing about the religious facts and beliefs contained in the Qur’an and Sunnah.”

    At a conference in Cairo he presented a research paper and stated:

    “It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Qur’an about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, or Allah, because most of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God, or Allah.”

    Professor Moore also stated:

    “Because the staging of human embryos is complex, owing to the continuous process of change during development, it is proposed that a new system of classification could be developed using the terms mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah. The proposed system is simple, comprehensive, and conforms with present embryological knowledge.

    “The intensive studies of the Qur’an and Hadith in the last four years have revealed a system of classifying human embryos that is amazing since it was recorded in the seventh century A.D… the descriptions in the Qur’an cannot be based on scientific knowledge in the seventh century.”

    BIBLIOGRAPHY
    1. al-Zindani, Abdul-Majeed A, This is the Truth (video tape). Scientific Signs of the Qur’an and Sunnah containing interviews with various scientists. Available in Arabic, English, French, Urdu and Turkish. A full English transcript of this video with illustrations is also available: Al-Rehaili, Abdullah M., This is the Truth, Muslim World League, Makkah al-Mukarrammah, 1995. Also available on the web at: This Is The Truth!

    2. Moore, Keith L. and al-Zindani, Abdul-Majeed A., The Developing Human with Islamic Additions, Third Edition, W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, 1982, with Dar Al-Qiblah for Islamic Literature, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 1983, page viiic. Limited Edition.
    3. Moore, Keith L., al-Zindani, Abdul-Majeed A., Ahmed Mustafa A, The Qur’an and Modern Science – Correlation Studies, Islamic Academy for Scientific Research, Makkah, Saudi Arabia. Reprinted by World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), USA., 1990, ISBN 0-9627236-0-6. Collection of papers presented at a symposium sponsored by the Muslim Students Association, University of Illinois, May 1990.
    4. Moore, Keith L.; Johnson, E. Marshall; Persaud, T.V.N.; Goeringer, Gerald C.; Zindani, Abdul-Majeed A.; and Ahmed Mustafa A, Human Development as Described in the Qur’an and Sunnah, Commission on Scientific Signs of the Qur’an and Sunnah, Muslim World League, Makkah Al-Mukarramah, Saudi Arabia, 1992, ISBN 0-9627236-1-4. Collection of papers that were originally presented in the First International Conference on Scientific Signs of the Qur’an and Sunnah, held in Islamabad, Pakistan, 1987, and after some modifications and development, presented in their present form in Dakar, Sengal in July 1991.

  14. Zia H. Shah

    The beauty of the Quran in the eyes of John Davenport
    John Davenport wrote in an Apology to Mohammed and the Koran:

    “Among many excellences of which the Koran may justly boast are two eminently conspicuous; the one being the tone and awe and reverence which it always observes when speaking of, or referring to, the Deity, to whom it never attributes human frailties and passions; the other the total absence throughout it of all impure, immoral and indecent ideas, expressions, narratives, etc., blemishes, which it is much to be regretted, are of too frequent occurrences in the Jewish Scriptures. So exempt, indeed, is the Koran from these undeniable defects, that it needs not the slightest castigation, and may be read, from beginning to end, without causing a blush to suffuse the cheek of modesty itself.”

    (John Davenport. An apology for Mohammed and the Koran, Published in 1869. Pages 80. The book is available on archive.org and in eBook format on Barnes and Noble website)

  15. Zia H. Shah

    German philosopher Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and the Holy Quran
    To communicate the beauty of the Holy Quran to the non-believers let me quote from the experience of German philosopher Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. He said, “As often as we approach the Quran, it always proves repulsive anew; gradually, however, it attracts, it astonishes, and, in the end forces admiration.”

    (It is quoted in several books. For example: RVC Bodley. The Messenger. Double Day and Company Inc, 1946. Page 237. And: John Davenport. An apology for Mohammed and the Koran, Published in 1869. Pages 67. The book is available on archive.org)

    As the Non-Muslim readers give up their preconceived notions and begin to understand the book better, they may certainly relive Goethe’s experience. A
    French surgeon Maurice Bucaille certainly did. After an extensive review of what the Quran had to say about the issues pertaining to science, he wrote in the Bible, the Quran and the Science, “In view of the state of knowledge in Muhammad’s day, it is inconceivable that many of the statements in the Quran which are connected with science could have been the work of a man. It is, moreover, perfectly legitimate, not only to regard the Quran as the expression of a Revelation, but also to award it a very special place on account of the guarantee of authenticity it provides.”

  16. Zia H. Shah

    Prophet Muhammad’s companions and their achievements are a testimony to his character and Prophethood
    Sir Godfrey Higgins (1772 – 1833), was an archaeologist, Freemason and Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, humanist, social reformer, and author of various now-esoteric and rare books.

    He made a very profound argument in favor of the truth and integrity of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw), based on the earliest converts to Islam. The essence of his argument is, ‘It has been said, that no great man was ever great in the presence of his valet or his wife. Was Mohamed an exception to this rule?’

    He wrote:

    “It is not surprising that his wife Cadigha should be the first of his proselytes, if he were sincere in his professions, but very much the contrary, if he were an impostor. He must have played his part very well for fifteen years together to have deceived her;1 for it is admitted, that she was a believer, and not in the pretended plot, or a hypocrite. After Cadigha, his slave Zayd became his second proselyte, who was soon after followed by Ali, the son of Abu Taleb, his uncle. Dean Prideaux says, ‘His fourth disciple was Abu Beker, who, being one of the richest men of Mecca, and a person of great wisdom and experience, brought with him no small help and reputation to his cause; and his example was soon followed by five others, Othrnan Ebn Affan, Zobair Ebn’ol Awam, Saad Ebn Abu Waccas, Abdorrahman Ebn Auf, and Abu Obeida Ebn’ol Jerah, who were afterwards the principal generals of his armies, and the chief instruments under him, by whose help he established both his empire and his imposture together in those parts of the world.’” — Prideaux’s Life of Mahomet, p. 12, 8vo. ed.”
    … Notwithstanding many striking traits of resemblance may be perceived between circumstances in the early histories of Jesus and of Mohamed, yet there are many others in which they as decidedly differ. The twelve first proselytes of Jesus are allowed to have been uneducated men,2 in the most humble situations of life. On the contrary, it appears that, with the exception of his slave, the first of Mohamed’s proselytes were persons of high respectability; and their splendid actions as Caliphs and leaders of the Mohamedan armies, prove them to have possessed first-rate talents, and not to have been men likely to be easily deceived. In the humble characters of the first disciples of Jesus, Mr. Mosheim professes to see much glory to the Christian cause. I am obliged to confess, if I must speak the truth, that, on the contrary, it would have been full as satisfactory to me to have seen among its earliest professors men possessing such characters as those of the Antonines, of Locke, or of Newton. But this only proves how differently the same object appears to different persons.”

    1 “It has been said, that no great man was ever great in the presence of his valet or his wife. Was Mohamed an exception to this rule?”

    2 “Unlearned, men of mean capacities or understandings, they have been called by some of the early Christian writers, whence, probably, by no very great perversion of language, our term idiot has been derived. See the controversy respecting this word betwixt Priestley and Horsley.”

    [Godfrey Higgins Esq, An apology for the life and character of the prophet Mohamed or the illustrious. Year of publication 1829. Pages 9-11. Printed by G. Smallfield, Hackney. The book is available on the Archive.org]

    John Davenport makes a same point in a different language:

    “It is strongly corroborative of Mohammed’s sincerity that the earliest converts to Islam were his bosom friends and the people of his household, who, all intimately acquainted with his private life, could not fail otherwise to have detected those discrepancies which more or less invariably exist between the pretentions of the hypocritical deceiver and his actions at home.” [John Davenport, An apology for Mohammed and the Koran, page 17, Publication year 1869.]

  17. Zia H. Shah

    A Christian historian accepting that the Prophet Muhammad was the Paraclete or the Comforter
    John Davenport writes:

    “The Christians insensibly forgot the example of their founder. The piety of Moses and of Christ rejoiced in the assurance of a future prophet more illustrious than themselves; and the Evangelist’s promise of the Paraclete or Holy Ghost, the Comforter, was prefigured in the name, and accomplished in the person, of the greatest and the last of God’s prophets.”

    (John Davenport. An apology for Mohammed and the Koran, Published in 1869. Pages 74. The book is available on archive.org and in eBook format on Barnes and Noble website)

  18. Zia H. Shah

    The Prophet Muhammad was not self indulgent or an opportunist
    John Davenport writes:

    “About this period of Mohammed’s history, an event occurred which, in the opinion of every candid and impartial mind, exonerates him from all the imputations of imposture with which he is assailed. His only son, Ibrahim, whom he had by Mariyeh. … It was, indeed, an agonizing loss for the father thus to see extinguished in him the only one who could transmit to posterity so illustrious a name. An eclipse of the sun occurring precisely at the very hour of the youth’s decease, the common people saw in this prodigy a sure token that the heavens themselves shared the general grief; but so far from encouraging his superstitious feeling on the part of his ignorant followers—so far from listening to the voice of flattery—Mohammed called the people together and said to them, ‘Fellow citizens, the sun and he stars are the works of God’s hands, but they are neither eclipsed nor effaced to announce the birth or the death of mortals.”

    (John Davenport. An apology for Mohammed and the Koran, Published in 1869. Pages 47-48. The book is available on archive.org)

    On the title page of this book John Davenport quotes Thomas Carlyle, the father of rationality about Islam in Europe. Carlyle wrote, “I confess I can make nothing of the critics in these times, who would accuse Mohammed of deceit prepense; of conscious deceit generally, or, perhaps, at all; still more, of living in a mere element of conscious deceit, and writing this Koran as a forger and a juggler would have done. Every candid eye, I think, will read the Koran far otherwise than so.” Carlyle’s Works, Vol VI, p.214.

  19. Zia H. Shah

    The Holy Prophet Mohammad in Hindu scriptures
    The Holy Prophet Mohammad in Hindu scriptures:

    A spiritual reformer will come from a foreign land (outside Bharat) with his disciples (companions). His name will be Mahamad (Muhammad). He will dwell in a desert.
    (Bhavisyath Purana 3:5-8)

    &

    His followers will perform circumcision. They will not keep their hair in the form of Choti as the Brahmans do. They will keep beard. They will bring about a revolution. They will call with a loud voice (i.e., instead of using a bell to call the people for prayer, they will call people to prayer in a loud voice by ‘Azan’). They will eat meat of animals other than that of swine. They will attain purity through Jihad (fighting in the cause of Allah). Their civilization will be called Muslay (Muslim).
    (Bhavishyat Puran Vol. 3 verse:3)

    The whole article can be read here at http://www.alislam.org/library/links/in_vedas.html

  20. Zia H. Shah

    Alphonse de Lamartine about the Prophet Muhammad
    “Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas,” so said Alphonse de Lamartine a French historian, who was also Foreign Minister of France in 1848, “the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may ask, is there any man greater than he?” He continued, “If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and outstanding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms and empires only. They founded, if any at all, no more than material power which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man merged not only armies, legislation, empires, peoples and dynasties but millions of men in one third of the inhabited world, and more than that, moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and the souls on the basis of a Book, every letter of which has become law. He created a spiritual nationality of every tongue and of every race.” (Historie de la Turqu, Vol. II. http://www.archive.org)

  21. Zia H. Shah

    Is it possible to know the Prophet Mohammed and yet deny his Prophethood?
    It is not possible to be aware of the achievements of the Holy Prophet Mohammed and be rational and yet deny his Prophethood! John Davenport writes in 1869:

    “Is it possible to conceive, we may ask, that the man who effected such great and lasting reforms in his own country by substituting the worship of the one only true God for the gross and debasing idolatry in which his countrymen had been plunged for ages; who abolished infanticide, prohibited the use of spirituous liquors and games of chance (those sources of moral depravity), who restricted within comparatively narrow limits the unrestrained polygamy which he found in existence and practice—can we, we repeat, conceive so great and zealous a reformer to have been a mere impostor, or that his whole career was one of sheer hypocrisy? Can we imagine that his divine mission was a mere invention of his own of whose falsehood he was conscious throughout? No, sorely, nothing but a consciousness of really righteous intentions could have carried Mohammed so steadily and constantly without ever flinching or wavering, without ever betraying himself to his most intimate connections and companions, from his first revelation to Khadijah to his last agony in the arms of Ayesha.

    Surely a good and sincere man, full of confidence in his Creator, who makes an immense reform both in faith and practice, is truly a direct instrument in the hands of God, and may be said to have a commission from Him. Why may not Mohammed be recognized, no less than other faithful, though imperfect servants of God, as truly a servant of God, serving him faithfully though imperfectly? Why may it not be believed that he was, in his own age and country, a preacher of truth and righteousness, sent to teach his own people the unity and righteousness of God, to give them civil and moral precepts suited to their condition.

    Mohammed, then, was doubtless fully convinced of his own mission, as well as that in the name of God, and in the character of his Apostle he wrought a great, albeit perhaps an imperfect reform, in his own country. Nor was his belief in his own mission ill founded. Through mockery and persecution the Prophet kept unflinchingly his path; no threats, no injuries hinder him from still preaching to his people the unity and the righteousness of God, and exhorting to a far better and purer morality than had ever up to his time been set before them. He claimed no temporal power, no spiritual domination; he asked but for simple toleration, free permission to win men by persuasion into the way of truth. He required that men should do justice and love mercy, and walk humbly before their God, and, as the sanction of all, he taught that there will be a resurrection of the dead as well of the just and the unjust.”

    (John Davenport. An apology for Mohammed and the Koran. 1869. Pages 139-141. The book is available on Archive.org)

    We the Muslims believe that the Holy Prophet Muhammad served his Creator perfectly, other than that John Davenport’s testimony is fully in line with a devout believer.

  22. Zia H. Shah

    The Prophet Muhammad and the Christian monks of Mount Sinai
    The Holy Prophet Muhammad was the greatest pioneer of religious freedom and tolerance. When I say it, I literally mean it, for it would take history more than 1000 years to produce anything, remotely equal to the covenant that he gave to the Christian monks of Mount Sinai and to the Christians in general, in generosity and tolerance. By the grace of Allah I have found the complete record of the Covenant in Christian sources:

    “In proof of the correctness of the view thus taken by the historian of the tolerant character of Mohammed, the following public document is here inserted, being extracted from a work entitled ‘A Description of the East and other Countries,’ by Richard Pococke, Bishop of Meath, and published in 1743, vol. i. p. 268. The high character of its author for piety, integrity and learning is a sufficient voucher for the authenticity of the document which is as follows :— The Patent of Mohammed, which he granted to the Monks of Mount Sinai, and to Christians in general. “As God is great and governeth, from whom all the prophets are come, for there remaineth no record of injustice against God; through the gifts that are given unto men, Mohammed, the son of Abdallah, the Apostle of God, and careful guardian of the whole world, has written the present instrument, to all those that are his national people, and of his religion, as a secure and positive promise to be accomplished to the Christian nation and relations of the Nazareen, whosoever they may be, whether they be the noble or the vulgar, the honourable or otherwise, saying thus: I. Whosoever of my nation shall presume to break my promise and oath which is contained in this present agreement, destroys the promise of God, acts contrary to the oath and will be a resister of the faith (which God forbid!) for he becometh worthy of the curse, whether he be the king himself or a poor man, or what person soever he may be. II. That whenever any of the monks in his travels shall happen to settle on any mountain, hill, village, or in any other habitable place, on the sea or in deserts, or in any convent, church, or house of prayer, I shall be in the midst of them, as the preserver and protector of them, their goods and effects, with my soul, aid and protection, jointly with all my national people, because they are a part of my own people, and an honour to me. III. Moreover, I command all officers not to require any poll tax of them or any other tribute, because they shall not be forced or compelled to anything of this kind. IV. None shall presume to change their judges or governors, but they shall remain in their office without being deposed. V. No one shall molest them when they are travelling on the road. VI. Whatever churches they are possessed of, no one is to deprive them of them. VII. Whosoever shall annul any of these my decrees, let him know positively that he annuls the ordinance of God. VIII. Moreover, neither their judges, governors, monks, servants, disciples, or any others depending on them, shall pay any poll tax or be molested on that account, because I am their protector, wheresoever they shall be, either by land or sea, east or west, north or south; because both they and all that belong to them are included in this my promissory oath and patent. IX. And of those that live quietly and solitary upon the mountains, they shall exact neither poll tax nor tithes from their incomes, neither shall any Mussulman partake of what they have, for they labour only to maintain themselves. X. Whenever the crop of the earth shall be plentiful in its due time, the inhabitants shall be obliged, out of every bushel, to give them a certain measure.”

    For further details go to:

    (John Davenport. An apology for Mohammed and the Koran. 1869. Pages 147-151. The book is available on Archive.org)

  23. I will immediately seize your rss as I can not find your email subscription link or newsletter service. Do you have any? Please permit me understand so that I may just subscribe. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: