How Influential was Muhammad?

Ever since Michael Hart ranked Muhammad as the most influential figure in his 1978’s book, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, he has been over quoted. It doesn’t matter that Mr. Hart is an astrophysicist, not a historian; or that he is a racist who hates Muslim immigrants in the West, his ranking is the needed horse and Muslim apologists must ride it to death.

Interestingly, they substitute the term “influential” with “greatest” when quoting Hart. Never mind, these guys are experts at polishing brass into silver. Did they check up the meaning of “influential” before canonizing Mr Hart as a crypto-Muslim historian?

The word “influential” means: “exerting or possessing influence” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary)

“having a lot of influence on someone or something” (Cambridge English Learners Dictionary)

“someone or something that has an impact on or shapes how people act or how things occur” (The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language)

That a person is “influential” doesn’t mean he is “great.” A person can be negatively or positively influential. Hitler was ranked the most influential by TIME magazine, that doesn’t make him great.

Aleister Crowley was ranked the most influential man of the 20th century, but he was a rabid Satanist. Osama Bin Laden was ranked by St. Petersburg Times as the most influential man of the decade. Does that make him a saint? No.

Granted, Muhammad was influential, but was his influence a positive or a negative one? That is the real question. To answer this, one needs to look at the regions most influenced by him. This is what this piece intends to do.

1. Studies have shown that Muslim majority countries like Pakistan or Jordan are less economically stable than minority Muslim countries like India or Israel. In the UK, Muslims have the highest drop out rate and lack of qualifications of any religion. They also have the highest male and female unemployment rate. In Ireland, Muslims have the highest unemployment rate.

In Belgium, Moroccans and Turks have a 5 times higher unemployment rate of the native population. In Australia, Muslims have twice the unemployment rate of non-Muslims and 40% of their children live below the poverty line. The typical Muslim cry, “racism,” won’t cut it since Islam is not a race.

When Mitt Romney said in 2012 that the GDP differences between Israel and Palestine reflects a contrast of values, it blew the cap off the heads of the Palestinians who roared back that the GDP gap was due to oppression, checkpoints and blockades. If this was true, why then was Israel’s GDP at the time higher than oil-rich Saudi Arabia by 13 places? There are no Israeli check points in Saudi Arabia, yet in spite of being an oil-rich country, it was behind Israel.

In Israel, while 56% Jewish women and 52% Christian women are in the workforce, only 19% of Muslim women and 59% Muslim men are officially part of the workforce. This probably accounts for an average Israeli family earning double the income of the average Arab family. This is not racism, this is Islamism.

When Muslim fail in the West bank, they blame Israeli check point. When they fail in Australia or Europe, they blame racism. But when they fail in Somalia and Saudi Arabia, who is to blame? The point is this: responsibility is a missing element in Islam. This religion inculcates irresponsibility into its victims. Muslims are not taught to take responsibility for their actions but to shift blame.

Blaming one’s failures on someone else is a slavish mentality. It shows itself each time there is a Muslim terrorist attack and Muslims quickly rush to position themselves as victims rather than dealing with the violence in their midst; it’s a cheaper way to live. They got it from Muhammad and it has affected their economic life as well.

2. The Quran says: “No misfortune can happen on earth or in your souls but is recorded in decree before We [Allah] bring it into existence…” (57:22). In fact, “no soul can believe [in Islam] except by the permission of Allah” (10:100).

This fatalistic principle is adhered to mostly by the Asharites and Hanibal Muslims. An opposite school of thought – the Maturidis and Mutazilites – cite Quranic verses about free will of man rather than blaming Allah for every misfortune. Notwithstanding, the fatalistic ideology is more entrenched in Islamic thinking.

When a crane collapsed and killed 118 and injured 400 Muslim pilgrims in September 2015, the first response was: “It was an act of God.” When 1,420 people died in a stampede due to poor ventilation in 1990, the Saudi king at the time, Fahd bin Abdulaziz, said “It was God’s will, which is above everything … It was fate.”

When Muslims slaughtered Christians in Northern Nigeria in 1991, the president of the country then (Ibrahim Babangida) said “It has been ordained by God that these things will happen.”

This narrative is repeated every time there is an epidemic, a terrorist attack, a collapsed building or natural disaster where human lives are lost. Muslims just shrug their shoulders and say their line: “It is Allah’s will” and go back to their beds.

This explains why even with the oil money, most Islamic nations have no welfare or social safety net for the poor, the handicapped or the elderly. If you have an accident and can’t work again, it’s Allah’s will, pick up a pan and become a street beggar. If a woman’s husband dies or divorces her, Allahu akbar! If she is pretty or young enough, she could still get taken by some rich old man, otherwise, pan handling and suicide are the options left.

In a map showing top ten richest Islamic nations, not one of them gives foreign aid to disaster-stricken countries. It’s understandable. Why muster charity for others when Allah has decreed their misfortunes?

“In these codes” writes Mustafa Akyol, in the New York Times “human free will is easily sacrificed to fatalism, science and reason are trivialized, and philosophy is frowned upon. Consequently, ‘God’s will’ becomes an easy cover for intellectual laziness, lack of planning and irresponsibility.”

3. Muhammad’s low view of women echoes all through Islam. He said: “Bad omen is in the women, the house and the horse… after me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women” (Bukhari 7:30). Speaking to a group of women, he said “I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you” (2:541).

Hence, the more Islamic a region is, the more women are abused and relegated to the backroom. In Mauritania, more than 1,800 domestic violence against women have been reported. In Gaza, 51% women suffered the same in 2011 alone.

In Algeria, Yemen, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, there are no laws against marital rape. In Palestinian territories, only 17% of women are employed despite a literacy rate of 93%. In the UAE, 14% of women are in the total work force.

A UNICEF report shows that 12.1 million women are subjected to female genital mutilation in Sudan. In Syria, over 4,000 cases of rape and sexual mutilation have been reported. In Lebanon, there are no laws against sexual harassment of women. Northern Nigeria has the highest rates of child marriage (rape) in the world. Is this a blessing to the human race or a curse?

In Saudi Arabia – the cradle of Islam – women can’t drive a car because it would “undermine social values.” It wasn’t until late 2014 that the ban on women voting or holding a public office was lifted by their king. Yet, Saudi women can’t open a bank account, leave their homes or even travel without a male guardian (mahram).

Once, a teenager who was gang raped was punished more than her rapists because she didn’t have a mahram with her. Saudi women can’t wear make-ups, go for a swim or try on clothes when shopping (The Week UK, Dec., 14, 2015).

Saudi banks, offices and universities have different entrances for men and women. Yes, men and women who mix in public will face criminal charges. Their public transportation, parks, beaches and amusement parks also have separate places for both genders.

Muslims tell us they need to hide their women behind a dark screen because they are “precious,” but we all know the moral economy behind such injunctions – asymmetrical gender relations – a culture that punishes women harder and gives men a pass when it comes to sex.

4. Islamic ideology is a travesty of justice, intelligence and civilization. Little wonder majority Muslim countries have less than 600 universities for 1.4 billion people. The United States has 5,785. While the US has over 1.1 million scientists, the Muslim world has produced only 300,000 that can be called “scientists.”

In the last 105 years, 1.4 billion Muslims have produced only 8 Nobel Laureates. One of them, Naguid Mahfuz, had his novel banned in Egypt and was stabbed by another Muslim for “heresy.”

It’s a known fact that Muslims have a high rate of illiteracy, perhaps a consequence of following an illiterate hero. No, this is not the fault of the Jews or America, it is Islam. It keeps people ignorant, unproductive and lazy. It fills the minds of intelligent youths with fiqh, Sharia, the arts of defecation, copulation and urination until their mind regresses into 7th century ideologies.

Sura 5:41 says “As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hand: a punishment by way of example from Allah…”

The Encyclopedia of Islam informs us that amputating the hands of thieves was introduced into Arabia by a pagan named Walib bin Mughirah. Ancient societies maimed criminals as punishment because they didn’t have prisons or reform schools where criminals could be kept or modified to become useful to the society.

Allah’s law of amputating hands has outlived its usefulness since people are no longer stigmatised for having a cut hand, since some health or accident problems could warrant amputation. Muhammad and his Allah couldn’t see beyond their time.

Also, there are different forms of theft today – with the pen and the Internet – which are hard to detect. How can amputating hands deal with these? In fact, a person without limbs can still steal whether by aiding and abetting theft or organizing a gang of thieves with his speech.

Amputation changes nothing because stealing comes from the heart (Mark 7:21-23). When a person is regenerated and becomes “a new creature” in Christ, rather than stealing, he would find fulfillment in “working with his hands” and giving to others (2 Cor 5:7, Eph 4:28). That Muhammad couldn’t deal with sin in a relevant or wise way proves that he was negatively influential to mankind.

The Quran tells us: “Travel in the land and see the end of those who rejected the Truth [Islam]” (16:11). Yes, today we see the lands of these rejecters flourishing in milk and honey while the lands of the accepters are lined with starving beggars, torn apart by wars and have become faeces-strewed deserts.

We see Muslims fleeing the hardships and backwaters in their own lands to study, shop and seek medical care in kafirland – and also to indulge their baser instincts in the pubs and strip clubs.

Muhammad’s influence on mankind has been more devastating than the influence of AIDS, Cholera, Nazism or any other biological and social plagues. The extent to which a region holds to his teachings is the extent to which human lives are cheap, dictatorship thrives, barbarity lives, women are abused and violence is prevalent.

These are the bad fruitage Jesus warned us to look out for. We therefore reject Muhammad and his Islam (Matthew 5:18).


A Dialogue on Muhammad and the Veil

This is a condensed exchange I had with a Muslim lady on Facebook. I must commend Miriam’s politeness all through the dialogue (believe me, politeness is a rare trait in Islam).

Miriam: Please try to learn more about Islam and you’ll see life from another point of view and you will never regret it. I will like to discuss this issue with you.

Victor: I have studied about Islam from the Quran, hadiths and sira. Here is an example of my findings.

Miriam: [She sent two videos, one was a poetry exalting Muhammad and the other was an Islamic lecture trying to tailor Muhammad with Jesus Christ]. If you have anything else that makes islam illogical for you please tell me and I’ll try and help you understand.

Victor: There is nothing in these videos that refute the charges laid forth – from the hadiths – against Muhammad. It’s interesting how you guys throw your hadiths under the bus whenever it presents Muhammad in a bad light. These apologists (and Muslims in general) launched out with a blind assumption that Muhammad is a prophet of God, but that argument won’t fly.

Miriam: Muhammad is a prophet and he is even mentioned in the Bible. [She sent another link in which the writer attempts to “find” Muhammad in the Bible].

Victor: There are 6 differences between Muhammad and Old Testament (OT) prophets

1. In the OT, the prophets always called the Israelites back to the Law and the covenant which God had revealed at that period of God’s dealings with mankind. On the other hand, Muhammad didn’t call people to either the Old or New Testaments, but rather tried to replace them with his own false revelations. He only appealed to the older revelations whenever he wanted to legitimise his own.

2. The OT prophets didn’t take vengeance on people. Read about prophets Amos, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zechariah or Jonah etc, and you would see that they gave prophetic utterances of what Yahweh would do to bring destruction on the wicked. They
did not for once take up a sword to impose their beliefs on unbelievers like Muhammad did. Prophet Jeremiah didn’t launch any jihad against the Babylonians or Egyptians. Prophet Ezekiel didn’t launch a jihad against Tyre or its evil king, neither did Jonah wage war against the Ninevites.

3. Many of these OT prophets were hated, slandered and even killed for declaring the words of God, yet they didn’t attempt to defend themselves. This is unlike Muhammad who first began insulting the Meccans and when they reacted, he lied that they were planning to kill him. Yet this same Muhammad didn’t tolerate any criticism against his person later. His murders were all directed against his critics or non-Muslims.

4. The OT prophets had signs and supernatural feats as confirmation. Muhammad had none. All the so-called “miracles” manufactured for him in the hadiths are spurious, because he admitted he had no miracle except his recitations. Even when one takes his recitations (Quran) and weighs them against history, science, logic and the Bible, they are found to be terribly wanting. His “miracles” were as bogus as his prophethood.

5. While the prophets in the Bible preached historically accurate facts and gave valid prophecies, Muhammad’s recitations are full of myths, folklore and unhistorical claims e.g Jesus spoke in a cradle, youths slept in a cave for 309 years, Jesus’ escape of the cross, talking ants, Allah’s she-camel, the myths of Dhul Qarnain and the gates of Magog. Most of these myths were borrowed from the Talmud, apocrypha legends, Zoroastrian beliefs and pagan myths. These are not credible by any means. God does not inspire lies and fictions.

6. The Biblical prophets all taught the same message about the Fatherhood of God, atonement for sin, mankind being made in God’s likeness (e.g Gen 1:26), and other key doctrines. Their messages run with consistency that even the Tree of Life lost in Genesis is restored in Revelation. On the other hand, Muhammad’s messages (in the Quran) not only contradicted theirs but also itself and suffers from such a huge amount of abrogation to the extent that Islam without the hadiths and sira is incoherent.

Miriam: About hijab, have you forgotten that Mary (Jesus’ mother) also wore a hijab?

Victor: Unless you lived in first century Israel and had access to Mary’s wardrobe, you can’t appeal to her mode of dressing. And unless you want to prove to me that those thousands of paintings made by artists’ impressions of what Mary should look like are really those of Mary. The fact is, there NO pictures of Mary. Even if we go by 1st century dressing (based on archaeology), your appeal is weak and falsely equivocal, because Christians are not under any obligation to dress like 1st century Jews as Muslims are obligated to follow 7th century Arabian customs as divine.

Miriam: Please open your mind and think logically. The hijab is a “protection.” [She sent a picture of a wrapped and unwrapped lollipop side by side representing hijab and no hijab].

Victor: Protection from what? From men’s looks? Zakir Naik said Muslim women are safer as wrapped candies unlike the “infidel” ladies who are like unwrapped candies. Even as a young man, I find this analogy so dumb and offensive. Why would any mature and responsible man liken women to lollipop? And you promote this nonsense that insults your gender?

An unshrouded woman is not naked. Muslim ladies have been so programmed to see themselves as walking-talking genitals rather than humans; they feel every man who sees them without a veil wants to have sex with them. Only a sick man wants to “gobble up” every unshrouded lady. There are some uncivilized communities today where people go about almost naked, yet they don’t have as many cases of sexual assaults as cultures dressed up like astronauts. Muhammad used the hijab to keep his beautiful wives and sex slaves from being taken by his younger Muslim disciples. Any jealous, insecure old man dating a young beautiful woman would do the same.

Miriam: Men, whether they confess it or not, are slaves of lust and desire. Hijab protects women from such men; it symbolizes that she has been sanctified to one man only and is off-limit to all others. 1. Hijab contributes to the stability and preservation of marriage and family by eliminating the chances of extramarital affairs. 2. It compels men to focus on the real personality of the woman and de -emphasizes her physical beauty. It puts the woman in control of strangers’ reaction to her.

Victor– “Men… are slaves of lust and desire.”

This description specifically refers to Muslim men. And we see a typical example of this in Muhammad. He lusted after Zainab; snatched her from her husband. He lusted after Juwayriya; bought her from the slave market. Lusted after Safiya and took her from Dhiya like a piece of cake. Lusted after little Aisha, took away her toys and gave her another kind of “toy” to play with. Most of his verses pander to his baser lust (and those of his followers); even his laws have the underlying idea of women as objects of lust who should be tucked away from men. Almost every law of islam was made up to favour men above women – from inheritance to marriage to spirituality to heavenly pleasures (but never mind, all Muslim men are slaves of lust and thanks to islam for empowering lustful men).

“Hijab protects women from such men”

If it didn’t prevent Muhammad from raping Mariyah who was veiled, then it’s useless to hold that view. It even falls short of reality. A survey by the Egyptian centre for women’s rights has shown that 83% of 2,000 Egyptian women have been victims of sexual harassment and 70% of these women were wearing a headscarf. The same study shows that two- thirds of the Egyptian men surveyed admit to abusing a woman at one time or the other. So Muhammad’s stereotype of Muslim men as raging sex-starved bulls holds true after all.

“she is sanctified to one man only and is off-limit to all others.”

Says who? Why can’t a Muslim man also be sanctified to one woman too since women also seduce, entice and even lust after men? Some bunch of black robes do not change the human heart. The Bible says lusts come from the heart and that is where a real change should start from (Mk. 7:23). Unfortunately, Islam is not about changing people’s hearts, it’s about modifying the outward look while the inward festers.

“it compels men to focus on the real personality of the woman and de-emphasizes her physical beauty”

Did it compel Muhammad to focus on women’s inner personalities? Did it de-emphasize his lust after beautiful women? Your arguments make your prophet come out more randy. It was Umar ibn Khattab who saw Muhammad’s wife (Sawda) relieving herself in public and then suggested the idea of veils to Muhammad [Bukhari 1:41:148]. Umar was the one feasting his eyes on a married woman’s behind because he had lust in his heart. Why should women be caged in black blankets because of that? If the hijab is not rooted in gender discrimination, why can’t handsome, muscular Muslim men also cover up in veils, after all women lust after them?

“It puts the woman in control of strangers’ reaction to her”

Really? So how are Muslimas in control of strangers when Islam mandates them to stay at home or retreat to the backyard when a male visitor is in? Or how do Muslim women who are forbidden to look men in the eyes, sit with men and wrapped up in a burqa control strangers who can’t even identify them? Please cut the joke.


Miriam: Even if the prophet’s marriage with women was motivated by pleasure, his motive was not motivated by pleasure because his wives were either divorced, widowed or had husbands before him.

Victor: What could have motivated a man in his 50s to marry a girl at the age of 6 – a girl not capable of consenting to a mutual act of love – if not sick pleasure? All his marriages were based on lust. In fact, with the exception of Sawda and Hafsa, the women he married were beautiful. It was for their beauty and political connections (so-called). Read this piece. Muhammad himself said “I like not from worldly life but perfumes and women” (Kitab al-Tabaqat 1:469). He wasn’t just a philanderer, he was also sex pervert. His “heavenly playboy mansion” paradise is a proof of that.

Miriam: If he loved really sex as you said, during his 25 years in Makkah, he was married to Khadija who was older than him. Why didn’t he marry anyone else since polygamy was so familiar at that time? Why did he also refuse the Quraish’s offer to marry their women? If I was a playboy, I would want to have sex with all the girls offered to me.

Victor : Those lightweight defenses have been addressed in the previous link, read it up. It was during his early mission that the Quraish proposed some offers to him:

“…if you want sovereignty, we will make you king, and if this ghost which comes to you which you see, is such that you cannot get rid of him, we will find a physician for you and exhaust our means in getting you cured for often a familiar spirit gets possession of a man until he can be cured of it.” (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, p 132)

It’s doubtful the Quraish offered their daughters to a man they were convinced was demon possessed (or insane). Even Muhammad wouldn’t have accepted such an offer since he still had his “sugar momma” for sex and cash at that time. But the moment Khadija died, he could no longer zip it up. His real nature then manifested. Your attempts to sanitize Muhammad is a travesty of truth.