Muhammad and History's 100 Most Influential People

From WikiIslam

Jump to: navigation, search
The 100 A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History.jpg

Contents

Introduction

In 1978 Jewish American astrophysicist Michael H. Hart (born April 28, 1932) released a book titled "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History". This book, which has sold over 500,000 copies to date, has been somewhat controversial, not least due to its placing of Muhammad (the founder of Islam) over Jesus Christ (the founder of Christianity). This has unsurprisingly led to the list (as with Paul Vallely's list of so-called "20 Greatest Islamic Inventions") being used for the purpose of Islamic propaganda. Its choice of Muhammad as the most influential person in history has been, and still is being, celebrated on numerous Islamic websites and blogs, used in various videos on user-contributed media sites, and has been cited during the course of countless forum discussions.

The Top Ten

Rank Name
1 Muhammad
2 Isaac Newton
3 Jesus Christ
4 Buddha
5 Confucius
6 St. Paul
7 Ts'ai Lun
8 Johann Gutenberg
9 Christopher Columbus
10 Albert Einstein


Interpreting the List

Muslim conclusions

When faced with criticism of Muhammad's actions, Muslims will often resort to protesting and gloating in equal measures:

"How could the greatest man that ever lived be guilty of all those evil things attributed to him? Muhammad (pbuh) is ranked above Jesus (pbuh) and Buddha! He is surely the Messenger of Allah!"


How accurate is this conclusion? Does ranking number one on a list bolster Muhammad's claim to prophethood and exonerate him from all the evil he is accused of by Islam's own scriptures?

Criticism

Firstly, it must be noted that any list which attempts to measure greatness or influence of any sort is highly subjective, it is nothing more than merely a personal opinion. There are hundreds of similar lists which have been compiled by others. For example, in December 2009, the St. Petersburg Times ranked the Muslim terrorist, Osama bin Laden, as the decades most influential person. So what makes this list by Hart (which is more than three decades old) any more authoritative than the next one? Moreover, it rates Sir Isaac Newton above 'Isa (Jesus) the second most revered prophet of Islam. Does this mean Muslims consider a Christian scientist to be a greater and more moral man than one of Islam's very own prophets?


Secondly, the list compiled by Michael H. Hart only attempts to measure influence. Contrary to how it is often presented by Muslims (for example; one site claims Hart's book is a rating of "men who contributed towards the benefit and upliftment of mankind"[1]), it has nothing to say on “greatness”, moral character or personal deeds. And it most certainly does not state whether that influence was of a positive or negative nature. Indeed many could argue that no other historical figures actions have effected the modern world more potently or negatively than those of Muhammad, so his position at number one is well deserved. In fact, Hart lists several individuals who are universally reviled, were conquerors and/or have contributed negatively to humanity. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

Rank Name Influence
29 Genghis Khan Mongol Conqueror
33 Alexander the Great Conqueror
34 Napoleon Bonaparte French Conqueror
39 Adolf Hitler Nazi conqueror, responsible for the deaths of 11 to 14 million people, including approximately six million Jews
66 Joseph Stalin Revolutionary, ruler of USSR and responsible for the deaths of 3 to 60 million people


Are we to assume that Hitler (who also happened to admire Islam), Stalin or Genghis Khan were not capable of, or are falsely accused of, the evil atrocities they committed due to them appearing alongside Muhammad on a list? Were they chosen due to Hart respecting them and their contributions towards the "benefit and upliftment of mankind", or were they (along with Muhammad) also messengers of Allah?


Thirdly, the founders of seven other major religions make an appearance on the list. They are as follows:

Rank Name Religion
3 Jesus Christ Christianity
4 Buddha Buddhism
5 Confucius Confucianism
15 Moses Judaism
73 Lao Tzu Taoism
93 Zoroaster Zoroastrianism
100 Mahavira Jainism


Many followers of the religions these individuals founded would not be tolerated by Muslims under the second-class dhimmi status afforded to some by Islamic law. They are responsible for leading millions along a path other than Islam, and in doing so they have (according to the Islamic faith) earned their place in Jahannam (the Islamic Hell). Would Muslims agree that these people are great and righteous individuals worthy of praise? Muslims who use this list as a witness to Muhammad's 'greatness' have to accept every single one. Pope Urban II who called for the first Crusade even makes an appearance at number 51. Is his position also to be celebrated?


Fourthly, Michael H. Hart (the compiler of the list) is Jewish. According to the Qur'an, the Jews (among other things) will listen to any lie (Qur'an 5:41). Although most people are aware that (excluding Islam) someone's religious affiliation does not make them any more prone to telling or accepting lies than the next person, it is written in Islam's holiest text. So why trust the opinions of someone who your own faith brands as gullible?


Fifthly, in his book, Michael H. Hart explained the reasoning behind his choice of placing Muhammad at number one. The first being Muhammad's more involved role in the development of Islam in comparison to Jesus with Christianity. For example; Muhammad is credited by him of authoring the Qur'an which he says contains Muhammad's ideas and teachings:

Since there are roughly twice as many Christians as Moslems in the world, it may initially seem strange that Muhammad has been ranked higher than Jesus. There are two principal reasons for that decision. First, Muhammad played a far more important role in the development of Islam than Jesus did in the development of Christianity. Although Jesus was responsible for the main ethical and moral precepts of Christianity (insofar as these differed from Judaism), St. Paul was the main developer of Christian theology, its principal proselytizer, and the author of a large portion of the New Testament. Muhammad, however, was responsible for both the theology of Islam and its main ethical and moral principles. In addition, he played the key role in proselytizing the new faith, and in establishing the religious practices of Islam. Moreover, he is the author of the Moslem holy scriptures, the Koran, a collection of certain of Muhammad's insights that he believed had been directly revealed to him by Allah. Most of these utterances were copied more or less faithfully during Muhammad's lifetime and were collected together in authoritative form not long after his death. The Koran therefore, closely represents Muhammad's ideas and teachings and to a considerable extent his exact words.


This is something which no Muslim would agree with. But by their refusal to accept Hart's assertion that Muhammad (and not Allah) wrote the Qur'an, Muslims then (by their own admission) have to accept that Muhammad does not deserve the position given him by Hart.


Sixthly, the second reason given for his choice was Muhammad's success as a warlord. In Hart's own words:

Muhammad (unlike Jesus) was a secular as well as a religious leader. In fact, as the driving force behind the Arab conquests, he may well rank as the most influential political leader of all time. Of many important historical events, one might say that they were inevitable and would have occurred even without the particular political leader who guided them. For example, the South American colonies would probably have won their independence from Spain even if Simon Bolivar had never lived. But this cannot be said of the Arab conquests. Nothing similar had occurred before Muhammad, and there is no reason to believe that the conquests would have been achieved without him. The only comparable conquests in human history are those of the Mongols in the thirteenth century, which were primarily due to the influence of Genghis Khan. These conquests, however, though more extensive than those of the Arabs, did not prove permanent, and today the only areas occupied by the Mongols are those that they held prior to the time of Genghis Khan. It is far different with the conquests of the Arabs. From Iraq to Morocco, there extends a whole chain of Moslem nations united not merely by their faith in Islam, but also by their Arabic language, history, and culture.... the Arab conquests of the seventh century have continued to play an important role in human history, down to the present day. It is this unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad to be considered the most influential single figure in human history.


Are Muslims now ready to admit that their prophet was a conqueror? Do they agree with Hart's parallel of Muhammad and Genghis Khan? Do they agree that Muhammad's continued influence was the "driving force behind the Arab conquests" which prompted Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus' to request military aid from Pope Urban II, and eventually led to the crusades?


Seventhly, in 2009, Michael H. Hart organized and spoke at a conference held in Baltimore titled "Preserving Western Civilization".[2] On its official website preservingwesternciv.com it states:

We believe that America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and European identity must be defended. Today, our glorious Western civilization is under assault from many directions. Three such threats will be discussed at this conference. First, the massive influx to the United States and Europe of Third-World immigrants who do not share our fundamental political and cultural values. Second, the threat from Islam, a militant ideology that is hostile to our society and, in principle, committed to destroying it. Third, because of the persistent disappointing performance of blacks (which many whites mistakenly blame on themselves) many whites have guilt feelings that undermine Western morale and deter us from dealing sensibly with the other threats.


The sole reason Muhammad is on that list is due to his founding and setting in motion the Islamic ideology. If Hart himself considers Muhammad's one and only creation to be a militant invention committed to destroying the West, is there any doubt left as to his personal opinion on whether the influence Muhammad has on the world is of a positive or negative nature? Amazingly, this is the person Muslims use to commit the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. If his opinions are so authoritative, then maybe we (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) should all also accept his opinion that Islam itself is a threat to the freedom of the West?


And finally, the only other Muslim to make the list is 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph, placed at number 52 (below Pope Urban II). There are no Muslim scientists, philosophers or inventors on the list, only two conquerors. Percentage-wise; Christians, Jews, Atheists, Pagans, Chinese traditionalists and even Platonists place higher than Muslims. Is this an admission by those who hold this list in such high esteem, of how little Islam and its followers have contributed to this world?

Conclusion

Hopefully any Muslim that reads this will ponder the following; what exactly do they (as followers of Islam) consider so great about a Jewish American “Islamophobe's” opinion that an individual who he refers to as a “conqueror” ranked alongside Adolf Hitler is the most influential person in human history?

External links

See also

References

  1. ↑ Whom do you wish to believe concerning the character of the Prophet Mohammed?
  2. ↑ Preserving Western Civilization Conference - National Policy Institute, January 16, 2009
Retrieved from "http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Muhammad_and_History%27s_100_Most_Influential_People"
Personal tools