Criticism of Muhammad
The first to criticize the Islamic prophet Muhammad were his non-Muslim Arab contemporaries, who decried him for preaching monotheism, and the Jewish tribes of Arabia, for what they claimed were unwarranted appropriation of Biblical narratives and figures and vituperation of the Jewish faith. For these reasons, medieval Jewish writers commonly referred to him by the derogatory nickname ha-Meshuggah.
During the Middle Ages, various Western and Byzantine Christian polemicists considered Muhammad to be a false prophet, the Antichrist, a heretic, Satan possessed by demons, a sexual deviant, a polygamist, and a charlatan. Thomas Aquinas criticized Muhammad's handling of doctrinal matters and promises of what Aquinas described as "carnal pleasure" in the afterlife.
Modern criticism by some Western scholars has raised questions about Muhammad’s prophetic claims, personal conduct, marriages, slave ownership, and mental state. Criticism has also focused on his treatment of enemy captives, particularly the case of mass killing of men of the Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina. Muslim scholars often respond by emphasizing the historical context of 7th-century Arabia and Muhammad’s role in promoting justice and social reform. Some historians say the punishment of the Banu Qurayza reflected the norms of the time and was ordered by Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, though others question Muhammad’s role or the scale of the event.
Points of contention
Ownership of slaves
According to sociologist Rodney Stark, "the fundamental problem facing Muslim theologians vis-à-vis the morality of slavery" is that Muhammad himself engaged in activities such as purchasing, selling, and owning slaves, and that his followers saw him as the perfect example to emulate. Stark contrasts Islam with Christianity, writing that Christian theologians wouldn't have been able to "work their way around the biblical acceptance of slavery" if Jesus had owned slaves, as Muhammad did.Forough Jahanbaksh notes that Muhammad never preached the abolition of slavery as a doctrine, although he did moderate the age-old institution of slavery, which was also accepted and endorsed by the other monotheistic religions, Christianity and Judaism, and was a well-established custom of the pre-Islamic world. According to Murray Gordon, Muhammad saw it "as part of the natural order of things". While Muhammad did improve the condition of slaves, and exhorted his followers to treat them with kindness and compassion, and encouraged freeing of slaves, he still did not completely abolish the practice.
His decrees greatly limited those who could be enslaved and under what circumstances, allowed slaves to achieve their freedom and made freeing slaves a virtuous act. Some slaves earned respectable incomes and achieved considerable power, although elite slaves still remained in the power of their owners. Muhammad established a system to encourage manumission, and several of his companions, including Abu Bakr and Uthman ibn Affan, are recorded to have freed thousands of slaves, often purchasing them for this purpose. Many early converts to Islam were the poor and former slaves like Bilal ibn Rabah al-Habashi.
Treatment of enemies
accuses Muhammad of "mercilessness" towards the Jewish tribes of Medina. Geisler also argues that Muhammad "had no aversion to politically expedient assassinations", "was not indisposed to breaking promises when he found it advantageous" and "engaged in retaliation towards those who mocked him." The Orientalist William Muir, in assessing Muhammad's character, described him as cruel and faithless in dealing with his enemies.Jean de Sismondi suggests that Muhammad's successive attacks on powerful Jewish colonies located near Medina in Arabia were due to religious differences between them, and he claimed that he subjected the defeated to punishments that were not typical in other wars.
Muhammad has been often criticized outside of the Islamic world for his treatment of the Jewish tribes of Medina. An example is the mass killing of the men of the Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe of Medina. The tribe was accused of having engaged in treasonous agreements with the enemies besieging Medina in the Battle of the Trench in 627.
After the Qurayẓah were found to be complicit with the enemy during the Battle of the Trench, the Muslim general Sa'd ibn Mu'adh ordered the men to be put to death and the women and children to be enslaved. Moreover, Muslims believe that the Prophet did not order the execution of the Jews of Medina, but many Western historians believe that he must have been, at the very least, informed of it. Regardless, "this tragic episode cast a shadow upon the relations between the two communities for many centuries, even though the Jews, a "People of the Book" generally enjoyed the protection of their lives, property, and religion under Islamic rule and fared better in the Muslim world than in the West."
According to Norman Stillman, the incident cannot be judged by present-day moral standards. Citing Deut. 20:13–14 as an example, Stillman states that the slaughter of adult males and the enslavement of women and children—though no doubt causing bitter suffering—was common practice throughout the ancient world. According to Rudi Paret, adverse public opinion was more a point of concern to Muhammad when he had some date palms cut down during a siege, than after this incident. Esposito also argues that in Muhammad's time, traitors were executed and points to similar situations in the Bible. John Esposito notes that Muhammad’s motivation was primarily political rather than racial or theological, aiming to unify Arabia under Muslim leadership and establish stable governance.
Some historians, such as W.N. Arafat and Barakat Ahmad, have disputed the historicity of the incident. Ahmad argues that only the leading members of the tribe were killed. Arafat argued based on accounts by Malik ibn Anas and Ibn Hajar that Ibn Ishaq gathered information from descendants of the Qurayza Jews, who exaggerated the details of the incident. He also maintained that not all adult males were killed but only those who actually fought in the battle, however, William Montgomery Watt described this argument as "not entirely convincing."
Rabbi Samuel Rosenblatt has said that Muhammad's policies were not directed exclusively against Jews and that Muhammad was more severe with his pagan Arab kinsmen.
Muhammad's marriages
One of the popular historical criticisms of Muhammad in the West has been his polygynous marriages. According to American historian John Esposito, the Semitic cultures in general permitted polygamy ; it was particularly a common practice among Arabs, especially among nobles and leaders.Muslims have often pointed out that Muhammad married Khadija bint Khuwaylid, when he was 25 years old, and remained monogamous to her for more than 24 years until she died. Norman Geisler frames Muhammad's marriages as a question of moral inconsistency, since Muhammad was unwilling to abide by the revealed limit of four wives that he enjoined on other men. Quran 33:50 states that the limit of four wives did not apply to Muhammad.
Muslims have generally responded that the marriages of Muhammad were not conducted to satisfy worldly desires or lusts, but rather they were done for a higher purpose and due to God's command. Medieval Sufi, Ibn Arabi, sees Muhammad's relationships with his wives as a proof of his superiority amongst men. John Esposito explains that polygamy served several purposes, such as strengthening political alliances among Arab chiefs and providing protection through marriage to the widows of companions who had died in combat.
Aisha
In classical sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad, with the marriage being consummated when she reached the age of nine or ten years old. Some modern sources, however, state her age to be twelve or older. Christian polemicists and orientalists attacked what they deemed to be Muhammad's deviant sexuality, for having married an underage girl; early twentieth-century criticisms came from the likes of Harvey Newcomb and David Samuel Margoliouth while others were mild, choosing to explain how the "heat of tropics" made "girls of Arabia" mature at an early age. While most Muslims defended the traditionally accepted age of Aisha with vigor emphasizing cultural relativism, the political dimensions of the marriage, Aisha's "exceptional qualities" etc., some modern scholars chose to re-calculate the age and fix it at late adolescence as a tool of social reform in their homelands or to appeal to different audiences. In the late twentieth century, opponents of Islam have used Aisha's age at marriage to criticize Muhammad and to explain the great prevalence of child marriage in Muslim societies.Some researchers argue that using Aisha’s marital age in modern critiques of Muhammad applies present-day standards anachronistically and amounts to a fallacy of presentism and cultural bias.
Zaynab bint Jahsh
Western criticism has focused especially on the marriage of Muhammad to his first cousin Zaynab bint Jahsh, the divorced wife of Zayd ibn Harithah, an ex-slave whom Muhammad had adopted as his son. Orientalists and critics such as Edward Sell have criticized the marriage, questioning its motivations and implications, while some like William St. Clair Tisdall have viewed certain aspects, such as the associated revelation, through a lens of self-interest. According to Tabari, taken from Al-Waqidi, Muhammad went in search of Zayd. A curtain covering the doorway had been moved by the wind, revealing Zaynab in her chamber. Zayd subsequently found her unattractive and divorced Zaynab.In her 2006 biography of Muhammad, Karen Armstrong contextualizes this event by portraying Zaynab as a devout woman and a talented leather-worker who dedicated the earnings from her craft to charity. Muhammad’s reported affection for her is said to have arisen during an unplanned visit to her home when Zayd was away and Zaynab happened to be dressed more revealingly than usual.
According to William Montgomery Watt, Zaynab herself was working for marriage with Muhammad and was not happy being married to Zayd. Watt also places doubt on the story outlined by Al-Waqidi and states that it should be taken with a "grain of salt." According to Watt, Zaynab was either thirty-five or thirty-eight years old at the time and that the story initially outlined by Al-Waqidi in which he detailed Muhammad's incident with Zaynab during the absence of Zayd may have been tampered with in the course of transmission.
According to Mazheruddin Siddiqi, Zaynab as the cousin of Muhammad was seen by him many times before her marriage to Zayd. Siddiqi states: "He had seen her many times before but he was never attracted to her physical beauty, else he would have married her, instead of insisting on her that she should marry Zaid."
In the book "The Wives of the Messenger of Allah" by Muhammad Swaleh Awadh, it is noted that Zaynab married Muhammad during the fifth year of Hijra in Dhu al-Qadah. This marriage was unconventional and disapproved by the standards of pre-Islamic Arabia, due to the prevailing belief that adopted sons were considered as true sons, making marriage to an adopted son's former wife uncommon, even after divorce.
Munafiqs of Medina used the marriage to discredit Muhammad on two fronts, one of double standards as she was his fifth wife, while everyone else was restricted to four, and marrying his adopted son's wife. This was exactly what Muhammad feared and was initially hesitant in marrying her. The Qur'an, however, confirmed that this marriage was valid. Thus Muhammad, confident of his faith in the Qur'an, proceeded to reject the existing Arabic norms. When Zaynab's waiting period from her divorce was complete, Muhammad married her. In reference to this incident, says:
Following the revelation of this verse, Muhammad rejected the prevailing Arab customs that prohibited marrying the wives of adopted sons, which was considered taboo and culturally inappropriate. Thereafter the legal status of adoption was not recognised under Islam. Zayd reverted to being known by his original name of "Zayd ibn Harithah" instead of "Zayd ibn Muhammad". Watt interprets this event as part of Muhammad’s broader role as a social reformer, aimed at ending the pre-Islamic practice of equating adopted sons with biological ones. He also notes the political significance of the marriage, rejects claims of sensual motivation, and argues that criticism arose more from cultural norms than from actual moral concerns.