Nearly two billion Christians and over 1.5 billion Muslims believe in him, yet Jesus is perhaps the most misunderstood …

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) claimed prophet-hood over 1400 years ago. His message was simple: There is none worthy to be worshipped but God, and he (Prophet Muhammad) is the final messenger of God To test whether this claim is true we must rationally investigate the historical narratives and testimonies concerning the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Once we do this, we will be in a position to come to a balanced conclusion in this regard. In epistemology (which is narrowly defined as the study of knowledge and belief) testimony is considered to be one of the sources of knowledge, and when applied correctly, can form justified beliefs. Testimony is a valid source of knowledge only when it comes from a reliable source, especially if there are multiple sources in agreement. Obviously there are conditions as to how we can use testimony, but in the majority of cases, testimony is considered a valid source of knowledge. Let’s take a look at the universally accepted, non-violence based philosophy of Mohandas Gandhi (better known as Mahatma Gandhi). The majority of the world’s population did not have the opportunity of meeting with him, eating with him or even joining him for a peaceful protest. Imagine for a moment, a claim is made that for a short period of time, Mahatma Gandhi was a prison officer and was involved in the torture over 2000 people. For anyone to take this claim seriously, evidence would be necessary to prove the slurs on his character. In fact, a claim such as this actually undermines our understanding of how Gandhi could have led India to independence based on his philosophy of non-violence and civil right movements. Conversely, if we examine why we have such a high level of certainty that Mahatma Gandhi was a pacifist, we will conclude that it is due to recurrent testimony – that is, when a large number of people have reported a claim to knowledge such that it is impossible for them to agree upon a lie or to simultaneously lie. This is accentuated by the fact that most of these people never met one another and lived in different places, during different time periods. Therefore to claim they have lied is tantamount to claiming a mass conspiracy in which people across countries and time periods colluded to ensure its propagation. In light of the above, accepting the slurs on Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) character and rejecting his prophet-hood, could be equated to accepting these fickle and unfounded claims on Mahatma Gandhi and rejecting his pacifist philosophy! In order to assess Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) claim to prophethood, let us discuss the possible options: 1. DID HE LIE? Early historical sources on the Prophet Muhammad’s (upon whom be peace) life illustrate and emphasise the integrity of his character. He was not a liar and to assert as much is indefensible. The reasons for this abound, for instance he was known even by the enemies to his message as the “Trustworthy”[1]. Further proof of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) reliability and credibility is enforced and substantiated by the fact that a liar usually lies for some worldly gain, but the Prophet (peace be upon him) rejected all worldly aspirations, and suffered tremendously for his message [2]. He rejected the riches and power he was offered to stop promulgating his message. Significantly, he was persecuted for his beliefs; boycotted and exiled from his beloved city – Makkah; starved of food; and stoned by children to the point where his blood drenched his legs. His wife passed away and his beloved companions were tortured and persecuted [3]. The psychological profile of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was obviously incongruent with a liar, and to maintain that he was dishonest is tantamount to making bold claims without any evidence. The late Emeritus Professor in Arabic and Islamic Studies W. Montgomery Watt in, Muhammad at Mecca, explores this: 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 a leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement – all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves.[4] It was the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) truthfulness that was a key aspect of his success on both political and religious levels. Without his trustworthiness, which was an integral part of his moral behaviour, he could not have achieved so much in a relatively short space of time. This view is addressed by the historians Edward Gibbon and Simon Oakley in, History of the Saracen Empire: The greatest success of Mohammad’s life was effected by sheer moral force.[5] 2. WAS HE DELUDED? If someone is deluded, they have a strong conviction in a belief despite there being evidence to the contrary. The teachings of Muhammad (peace be upon him) are not that of someone who is deluded. Amongst many of his teachings, he taught how to perfect good character and be of service to others. Another way of looking at the issue of delusion is that when someone is deluded they speak falsehood whilst believing it to be true. To undermine this claim, the Prophet (upon whom be peace) foretold of many things that would occur to him and his community after him, pertaining to victory, the removal of the tyrannical kingdoms of Chosroes [the royal title for the Zoroastrian kings of Persia] and Caesar. These events occurred exactly as Muhammad (peace be upon him) foretold, and this is not something that is congruent with a deluded individual. There were a number of instances when this occurred. For example: The Messenger predicted ‘Ammar’s martyrdom in a ‘civil’ war: What a pity O ‘Ammar, a rebellious group will kill you. [6] The Prophet foretold that Fatima would join him first of all after his death: Before his death, the Messenger called his daughter Fatima to his bedside and