Not possible to refuse Muhammad rationally: Analyzing William Montgomery Watt

· Islam

William Montgomery Watt called Muhammad, may peace be on him, ‘one of the greatest sons of Adam,’ he regarded the Holy Quran as divinely inspired, though not infallible, yet he continued to be an apologist for Christianity all his life. Is there any rational way to reconcile Watt’s views?

The more we study Watt and other reasonable Christian Orientalists, it seems that only way to deny prophethood of Muhammad, is to have an irrational animosity against him, like the medieval Christians or a deceptive approach of constantly shifting sands! Propping up necessary illusions against the greatest champion for humanity and propaganda seem to be the only way to sustain denial of Muhammad. This article is dedicated to analyzing person and writings of William Montgomery Watt.

Any interpretation of individual incidents of the prophet Muhammad’s life that is not consistent with his well established achievements and well documented developments of his life, completely violates the principles of history. It is an obligation of every historian to give the readers a plausible and a consistent account of the person they write about. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, many Christian writers are unable to rise above the centuries of medieval prejudices against him that the Catholic Church had cultivated in the times of crusades. This introduces numerous contradictions in their writings and in my opinion William Montgomery Watt is a prime example of this phenomenon.

If my articles are boring to you, it may be that you need to read more of them, as was suggested by John Cage, “If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all.”

“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)

It is not possible to be rational and yet refuse prophethood of Muhammad, may peace be on him.  This article is devoted to analyzing the writings of William Montgomery Watt.
He writes in his book, Islam: a short history:
“Muhammad himself firmly insisted that he had not composed the Qur’an, but it had come to him from beyond himself; and sound scholarship requires that this claim be accepted.”[1]
When Watt’s writings are read in presence of some excerpts from Thomas Carlyle, Samuel Parsons Scott, Alphonse de Lamartine, Karen Armstrong, Laura Veccia Vaglieri and Michael H Hart, we are left with no choice but to accept that Muhammad was a prophet of God.
If we take above statement by Watt on face value and then look at Muhammad’s impact on history that has been covered in many of my articles, the inference is plain and simple, a deluded or dishonest man cannot achieve what Muhammad did.  We refuse his claim of prophethood only at peril of our sanity and rationality.
Samuel Parsons Scott 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 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, Watt himself understood very well, 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.”[3]
There is much more in Muhammad’s character that demands an explanation.  His achievements are of such unprecedented dimensions that we cannot shut our eyes to them.  No matter which sphere of human interest we look at, his achievements seem to chase the non-believers like a ghost, asking and probing, how do you explain this? Why do you deny this?  How can you respect or applaud any hero or heroine if you refuse Muhammad?
Mark the words of one time Foreign Minister of France, Alphonse de Lamartine:
“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.”[4]
William Montgomry Watt
To set the stage further let me bring out a quote from John Davenport, who I find stands shoulder to shoulder with Thomas Carlyle and Samuel Parsons Scott in defense of the Holy Prophet Muhammad:

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.  (John Davenport)

In his book Muhammad at Medina, Watt is trying to discredit the prophet and it becomes clear that he is friends with Muhammad’s enemies and is crtical of him.  A careful analysis begins to show his Freudian slips on every other page, if not on every page.  He wants to camoflauge the Divine help that led to the Muslim’s victory, against heavy odds.  While he weaves his rationalizations, the confessions are also there in other parts of the text, for the vigilant to take note.  His description becomes contradictory and in the final analysis is yielding to the Muslims’ perspective.  The Muslims with a small force of 313 ill prepared group had a dramatic victory over a thousand strong and well equipped Meccan or the Quraysh’s army at Badr.  With this background now let me present his contradictory comments, where he describes Badr as an opportunity for Muhammad.  He wrties about the Muslim camp:
“The Muslims certainly did not expect a conflict when they set out. According to the oldest source, ‘Urwah’s letter to ‘Abd al- Malik, ‘neither the Messenger of God nor his Companions heard of the expedition of Quraysh until the prophet came to Badr’. Had the Muslims known there was likely to be a battle they might have shrunk from taking part in the expedition. There is a curious story of how some of Muhammad’s party captured one of the Meccan water-carriers and questioned him; when he told them the truth about Abu Jahl’s force, they thought he was lying and punished him, but when he told them lies about Abu Sufyan they believed
him, and it was only when Muhammad himself interviewed him that the real state of affairs was discovered. Whether in this way or some other way, Muhammad appears to have had definite news of Quraysh before they had any exact information about him, and so to have had the tactical initiative. The phrase in the Qur’an (8. 7) about God ‘promising that one of the two parties (sc. the caravan or the relief force) should be yours’ would seem to imply that Muhammad knew about Abu Jahl sufficiently long before the battle for it to be uncertain with which party contact would be made. It is also said that the Ansar were pledged to defend Muhammad only within Medinan territory and that, before committing himself to a course leading to battle, Muhammad conferred with them and asked if they would support him in these circumstances. It is conceivable that when the Muslims learnt about Quraysh they were so close to them that retreat would have involved loss of face; but it is more likely that Muhammad saw an opportunity of attacking Quraysh with conditions in his favour, and managed to convince his followers of the soundness of such a course.”[5]
Watt states, ‘Muhammad saw an opportunity of attacking Quraysh with conditions in his favour,’ this is
preposterous.  As he wrties this he seems to forget that he had just penned a different story of the Meccan camp and how their leader Abu Jahl had planned a shock and awe strategy for his victory, with an over whelming force:
“The Meccans, led by Abu Jahl, responded to Abu Sufyan’s message by sending a large force, said to be about 950. Nearly all the fighting men of Mecca went, after a neighbouring chief of the B. Kinanah had given his word that, even if Mecca were denuded of defenders, it would not be attacked by the section of Kinanah which had a blood-feud with Quraysh. The size of the force shows that Abu Jahl probably intended to overawe Muhammad and his followers and any potential followers, and so to scare them from meeting him in battle and from raiding caravans in the future. Some days out from Mecca Quraysh got word that the caravan had eluded Muhammad and was safe. The only cause of war now was the blood of ‘Amr b. al-Hadrami, and ‘Utbah b. Rabi’ah of ‘Abd Shams was ready to pay blood-money to keep peace, but Abu Jahl skilfully shamed ‘Utbah into withdrawing his offer, and so forced Quraysh to advance; he was presumably hoping to get rid of Muhammad once for all.”[6]
In the first chapter of his book Muhammad at Medina, he patronizes Muhammad’s enemies and weaves stories against him, but if we read his chapter in light of his own conclusion of the chapter and two verses of the Holy Quran that allowed defensive warfare to the Muslims, Watt’s mischief becomes exposed. First, here is what he wrote in the conclusion of the chapter, as he analyzes the consequences of the war of Badr, as he puts on his friendly hat at the end of the chapter:
“The most important result of the battle, however, was the deepening of the faith of Muhammad himself and his closest Companions in his prophetic vocation. After years of hardship and a measure of persecution, after the weary months at Medina when nothing seemed to be going right, there came this astounding success. It was a vindication of the faith which had sustained them through disappointment. Very naturally they regarded it as
miraculous, the work of God, as the Qur’an asserted (8. 17): ‘Ye did not kill them, but God killed them, and when thou didst throw, it was not thou but God who threw. . . .’ Moreover, this disaster which had overtaken the pagans was the punishment which had been foretold in the Meccan revelations and thus Muhammad’s claim to prophethood was verified. So much is certain. It is further probable that the word furqan, at least in some passages of the Qu’ran, is to be interpreted as Richard Bell suggested In 8. 41/42 ‘the day of the furqan, the day the two parties met must be the day of Badr; and furqan, in virtue of its connexion with the Syriac word purqana, ‘salvation’, must mean something like ‘deliverance from the judgement’. This being so the furqan which was given to Moses is doubtless his deliverance when he led his people out of Egypt, and Pharaoh and his hosts were overwhelmed. Similarly, Muhammad’s furqan will be the deliverance given at Badr when the Calamity came upon the Meccans. That was the ‘sign’ which confirmed his prophethood.  Perhaps there is also a reference to the experience, analogous to the receiving of revelation, which Muhammad apparently had
during the heat of the battle, and as a result of which he became assured that the Muslims had invincible Divine assistance.”[7]
The first chapter of his book, Muhammad at Medina is titled, the Provocation of the Quraysh. In this chapter he is trying to shift the responsibility of the battle of Badr from the Meccans to the Prophet Muhammad. He is practicing the age old proverb, ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’  He weaves his story by picking up the worst from all the historians and putting the worst spin on them and disregarding the obvious and more reliable.  For example, to build his allegations in this chapter he has completely disregarded the following verses of the Holy Quran that had allowed the Muslims defensive war in the first place:

“Surely, Allah defends those who believe. Surely, Allah loves not any one who is perfidious or ungrateful.   Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them — Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’ — And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty — Those who, if We establish them in the earth, will observe Prayer and pay the Zakat and enjoin good and forbid evil. And with Allah rests the final issue of all affairs.” (Al Quran 22:39-42)

He makes us believe in the first chapter of Muhammad at Medina that Muslims’ victory against an army that according to his own writing, had come with overwhelming force to shock and awe the Muslims, amounts to nothing, even when this victory had been foretold years ago in revelations that Muhammad received during the Meccan period of his ministry.  To have such a view one would certainly need preconceived ideas against Islam that William Montgomery Watt did have and an obsession with the person of Jesus of Nazareth, which according to Prof. Phillip Cary, every Trinitarian Christian has.[8]
Let us take a detour here and high light that when we look at the totality of Muhammad’s influence and his achievements, the conclusion is inescapable that he was a Prophet of God and the seal of the Prophets.  For his achievements and his status see some of my other knols:
In the description of Treaty of Hudaibiyya Watt recognizes the historical imperative that if the Quran mentions something about contemporary events, we should accept it on face value, otherwise the Muslims of the time would have gone apostate during the time Muhammad, if the word of God was stating obvious and glaring falsehood, in describing events that were fully known to them.  He writes:
“The dream mentioned by al-Waqidi (though not by Ibn Hisham and Ibn Sa’d) may be accepted as fact in the light of the Qur’anic verse, ‘Assuredly God hath given to His messenger a true and right vision,’ (Al Quran 48:28), but the account of the contents of the dream is probably influenced by later events. It was doubtless by a dream that the idea first came to Muhammad of making the pilgrimage, and he was naturally puzzled when what he regarded as a Divine promise was not fulfilled. The idea, however, must also have commended itself to him for practical political reasons. He can hardly have hoped to conquer Mecca, for he must have known that the morale of the Meccans was still good, and his force was too small to overcome them in battle. His primary intention was no doubt simply what he said, to perform the pilgrimage; but this had certain political implications, and it was probably in these that he was chiefly interested. The performance of the pilgrimage would be a demonstration that Islam was not a foreign religion but essentially an Arabian one, and in particular that it had its centre and focus in Mecca. A demonstration of such a kind at such a time would impress upon the Meccans that Islam was not a threat to the religious importance of Mecca. It would also suggest that Muhammad was prepared to be friendly on his own terms, of course.”[9]
But, he seems to be violating the principle himself as soon as he creates it.  The verse states, “Surely has Allah in truth fulfilled for His Messenger the Vision. You will certainly enter the Sacred Mosque, if Allah will, in security, some having their heads shaven, and others having their hair cut short; and you will have no fear. But He knew what you knew not. He has in fact ordained for you, besides that, a victory near at hand.”   (Al Quran 48:28)  This highlights Muhammad’s dependence on the Providence of God and reflects the attitude of giving priority to dictates of God rather than political considerations.  The political considerations were important but played second fiddle to what Allah had commanded Muhammad to do.  Muhammad may peace be on him had gone on pilgrimage first and foremost to follow the dictates of the dream and secondly to follow the worldly means or the politcal considerations.  Watt in the above quote highlights politcal considerations and downplays Muhammad’s trust in the Providence of God.  Else where he has accepted the consideration, when he wrote:
“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.”[10]
But, here, in the mention of Hudaibiyya, as he weaves his secular explanation of Muhammad’s success the major driving force of Muhammad, namely trust in God, escapes Watt’s consideration.  Watt also fails to tell us what are the historical imperatives of the prophecy in the second part of the verse that he quotes, “He has in fact ordained for you, besides that, a victory near at  hand.”  How could Muhammad take the risk of prophecizing additional victory that had not materialized yet, while he was trying to grasp the ramifications of Hudaibiyya itself?  He also fails to explain the imperatives of the verse before and the verse that follows.
When those who disbelieved harboured in their hearts prideful indignation, the indignation of the Days of Ignorance, Allah sent down His tranquillity on His Messenger and on the believers, and made them cleave to the principle of righteousness, and they were better entitled to it and more worthy of it. And Allah knows everything full well.  (Al Quran 48:27)
He it is Who has sent His Messenger, with guidance and the Religion of truth, that He may make it prevail over all other religions. And sufficient is Allah as a Witness.  (Al Quran 48:29)
Towards the end of his description of Treaty Hudaibiyya, Watt suddenly recalls the aspect of trust in God and Muhammad’s belief in the superiority of Islamic teachings, even though in his analysis of the events through out he seemed to have ignored it.  He writes:
“As he rode home to Medina, Muhammad must have been well satisfied with the expedition. In making a treaty with the Meccans as an equal he had received public recognition of the position that was clearly his after the failure of the siege of Medina. More important was the fact that, by ending the state of war with Mecca, he had gained a larger measure of freedom for the work of extending the influence of the religious and political organization he had formed. He doubtless realized that some of the pagan Meccans had been impressed. Yet in stopping the blockade Muhammad had made a great military and economic concession, and what he had gained in return was chiefly among the imponderabilia. The treaty of al-Hudaybiyah was only satisfactory for the Muslims in so far as one believed in Islam and its attractive power. Had Muhammad not been able to maintain and strengthen his hold on the Muslims by the sway of the religious ideas of Islam over their imaginations, and had he not been able to attract fresh converts to Islam, the treaty of al-Hudaybiyah would not have worked in his favour. Material reasons certainly played a large part in the conversion of many Arabs to Islam. But any historian who is not biased in favour of materialism must also allow as factors of supreme importance Muhammad’s belief in the message of the Qur’an, his belief in the future of Islam as a religious and political system, and his unflinching devotion to the task to which, as he believed, God had called him. These attitudes of Muhammad underlay the policy he followed at al-Hudaybiyah.
This expedition and treaty mark a new initiative on the part of Muhammad.”[11]
Watt understands and nicely articulates the Prophet’s profound belief in the success of his mission and trust in God, in the above paragraph.  After these paragraphs he puts on his critical hat, reveals his Islamophobia and begins to contradict himself.  The fact is that it is not possible to refuse Muhammad, may peace bo on him and stay rational and consistent.

Analysis of Watt through the mirror of all his books will be an on going project in this knol for me.  At this juncture let me share a parting insight with any theist reader.  The Holy Qur’an states:
Will they not, then, meditate upon the Qur’an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much disagreement.  (Al Quran 4:83)
You do not have to be a Muslim to fully appreciate the essence of the argument in the above verse.  Any theist who believes in Omniscient God will understand that God cannot contradict himself, precisely because He knows every thing.  Humans by lack of omniscience are vulnerable to keep contradicting themselves and that is what Watt has done through out his biographies of the Holy Prophet, if we carefully analyze his text.
Now let me address the Muslim readers alone before I move to my Epilogue.  As the Holy Quran presents the Holy Prophet Muhammad as the best of the prophets and the best role model for all humans, whereever, a biographer deviates from these divine claims about the Prophet, he or she is going to deviate from the truth and reality and very likely contradict his or her own writing and assertions![12][13]
His (Muhammad’s) 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.[14] (William Montgomery Watt)
Most of the Orientalists that are the Christian writers about Islam have their received ideas about Islam. The most important among them are that the Quran is word of Muhammad and that it is borrowed from the Bible. For example, W Montgomery Watt writes, “For the study of the life of Muhammad it is hardly necessary to decide the relative importance of Jewish and Christian influences, especially since many details are disputed. The main necessity is to realize that such things were ‘in the air’ before the Qur’an came to Muhammad and were part of the preparation of himself and of his environment for his mission.”[15] Sir William Muir writes, “We may upon the strongest presumption affirm that every verse in the Quran is the genuine and unaltered composition of Muhammad himself, and conclude with at least a close approximation to the verdict of Von Hammer: That we hold the Quran to be as surely Muhammad’s word as the Muslims hold it to be word of God.”[16] Once we accept the historical authority of the Holy Quran even as word of Muhammad, it generates enough evidence of the truth of the Prophet Muhammad that is completely at odds with what these so called experts want us to believe.  Their preconceived ideas put them at odds with the data and the facts that suggest otherwise. This leads to their ‘Freudian conflict,’ from which they have no way out and their writings become self contradictory and their ‘Freudian slips’ begin to show on almost every page of their books.

The Orientalists look through their special glasses with the preconceived assumption that Muhammad cannot be a prophet like the prior Jewish prophets of God and analyze him through secular lenses. Moreover, in their zeal to uphold their assumptions, according to Montgomery Watt, himself, whenever a negative or cynical interpretation of the historic information, about the Prophet, is plausible they immediately fall for it without examining the likelihood of such an interpretation.[17]

Let me conclude in the words of a more honest and fair biographer of the Holy Prophet Muhammad than William Montgomery Watt, namely Karen Armstrong:

If we could view Muhammad as we do any other important historical figure we would surely consider him to be one of the greatest geniuses the world has known. (Karen Armstrong in Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet.)

Once we grant Karen Armstrong’s hypothesis and if we also yield that the Prophet Muhammad’s successes were due to his trust in his revelations, then we will come to know him as the Prophet of God and the greatest of them all!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia — My comments and highlights are red in color:

William Montgomery Watt (14 March 1909 – 24 October 2006[1]) was a Scottish historian, an Emeritus Professor in Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Edinburgh. Watt was one of the foremost non-Muslim interpreters of Islam in the West, was an enormously influential scholar in the field of Islamic studies and a much-revered name for many Muslims all over the world.”[2] Watt’s comprehensive biography of the Islamic prophet, Muhammad, Muhammad at Mecca (1953) and Muhammad at Medina (1956), are considered to be classics in the field.[2]


Watt, whose father died when he was only 14 months old, was born in Ceres, Fife, Scotland.[1]

Watt was a priest of the Scottish Episcopal Church, and was Arabic specialist to the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem from 1943-46.[1] He became a member of the ecumenical Iona Community in Scotland in 1960. He was Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Edinburgh from 1964-79.

The Islamic press have called him “the Last Orientalist“.[3] He died in Edinburgh on 24 October 2006 at the age of 97.[4]


Watt held visiting professorships at the University of Toronto, the Collège de France, and Georgetown University, and received the American Giorgio Levi Della Vida Medal and won, as its first recipient, the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies award for outstanding scholarship.[2]

Watt’s views

Watt believed that the Qur’an was divinely inspired, though not infallibly true.[3]

Martin Forward, a 21st century Non-Muslim Islamic scholar states:

His books have done much to emphasize the Prophet’s commitment to social justice; Watt has described him as being like an Old Testament prophet, who came to restore fair dealing and belief in one God to the Arabs, for whom these were or had become irrelevant concepts. This would not be a sufficiently high estimate of his worth for most Muslims, but it’s a start. Frankly, it’s hard for Christians to say affirmative things about a religion like Islam that postdates their own, which they are brought up to believe contains all things necessary for salvation. And it’s difficult for Muslims to face the fact that Christians aren’t persuaded by the view that Christianity is only a stop on the way to Islam, the final religion.” [5]

Charlotte Alfred, a reporter for the journal founded in Watt’s department at Edinburgh, the Edinburgh Middle East Report, pointed out:

His views on Islam and Christianity have at times been controversial. He rejects the infallibility of both the Bible and the Qur’ān, but regards each as divinely inspired. He has argued that the Muslim and Judaeo-Christian traditions have much to teach each other, personally commenting that his study of Islam deepened his understanding of the oneness of God.[6]

Carole Hillenbrand, a professor of Islamic History at the University of Edinburgh, states:[2]

He was not afraid to express rather radical theological opinions – controversial ones in some Christian ecclesiastical circles. He often pondered on the question of what influence his study of Islam had exerted on him in his own Christian faith. As a direct result, he came to argue that the Islamic emphasis on the uncompromising oneness of God had caused him to reconsider the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which is vigorously attacked in the Koran as undermining true monotheism.

Influenced by Islam, with its 99 names of God, each expressing special attributes of God, Watt returned to the Latin word “persona” – which meant a “face” or “mask”, and not “individual”, as it now means in English – and he formulated the view that a true interpretation of Trinity would not signify that God comprises three individuals. For him, Trinity represents three different “faces” of the one and the same God.



External links


  1. William Montgomery Watt. Islam: a short history. Oneworld, Oxford, 1996 and reissued 1999. Page 13.
  2. 1.S. P. Scott writes in, History of the Moorish Empire in Europe. Published by J B Lippincot Company in 1904. p. 126.
  3. William Montgomery Watt. Muhammad: prophet and statesman. Oxford University Press, 1974. Page 237.
  4. Historie de la Turqu, Vol. II.
  5. William Montgomery Watt. Muhammad at Medina. Oxford University Press, 1956. Page 11-12.
  6. William Montgomery Watt. Muhammad at Medina. Oxford University Press, 1956. Page 10-11.
  7. William Montgomery Watt. Muhammad at Medina. Oxford University Press, 1956. Page 15-16.
  8. Professor Phillip Cary, Ph.D., Yale University and Eastern University. History of Christian Theology. The Teaching Company course.
  9. William Montgomery Watt. Muhammad at Medina. Oxford University Press, 1956. Page 46-47.
  10. William Montgomery Watt. Muhammad: prophet and statesman. Oxford University Press, 1974. Page 237.
  11. William Montgomery Watt. Muhammad at Medina. Oxford University Press, 1956. Page 51-52.
  12. Al Quran 33:41.
  13. Al Quran 33:22.
  14. Mohammad At Mecca, By W. Montgomery Watt, Oxford, 1953, p. 52.
  15. Montgomery Watt. Muhammad at Mecca. Oxford University Press, 1953. Page 29.
  17. W Montgomery Watt. Muhammad at Mecca. Oxford University Press, 1953. Pages 52.
%d bloggers like this: