it is common belief among scholars and researchers, father stephano said, that the two most important factors in determining the nature of any human being, particularly the genius, are heredity and the environment.
it is agreed that the environment in which a man is born and brought up exerts a vital influence on his life, always ascribing to him many of the features that make him prominent in his society. the genius philosopher, say, should live in a philosophical environment, which was not the case with muhammad who lived in a bedouin, illiterate, mercantilist environment.
the genius social reformer should know and read about different religions, creeds, sects and societies within a cultural milieu that is interested in such issues. yet, here too we find that such an environment was not available to muhammad in his bedouin, illiterate, mercantilist social milieu.
the genius military leader should similarly have lived in a military environment of battles and warfare, and similarly this was not available to muhammad. we do not know that muhammad took part in any battles before he was fifty. in fact he was about fifty five when he found himself for the first time leading his followers in battle (badre), before which he consulted some of his companions and accepted their counsel and advice.([1])
the genius legislator too should be a student of different laws and various systems of governance, both in his own days and before his time, and this was not available to muhammad in his bedouin, illiterate, mercantile environment either.
the same goes for every other aspect of human genius and greatness.
so, did the environment muhammad inhabited play a role in his being the greatest of the great? definitely not, because all the people around muhammad lived in the same environment but none of them was like him. some, as far as i know, were not less humanly gifted than he was, yet all of them felt that muhammad who lived amongst them was set apart and distinguished by something way beyond them all… something god almighty had specifically endowed him with of all the others. had it not been for this one thing, many would have been able to compete with muhammad in certain aspects of human greatness, like all children of the same environment do.
as for the factor of heredity, father stephano added, it is also agreed that inherited characteristics have a vital effect on man's life, always ascribing to him many of the salient attributes of his society.
if we study the characters of muhammad's fathers and forefathers, through whatever is kept of their news in historical annals, we will find many aspects of greatness and genius among them. they were the cream de la cream of their society,([2]) yet we shall never find anyone like muhammad- neither among his forefathers nor among his descendants.([3])
why? father stephano wondered. why didn't any human being ever reach the status of muhammad?
-why did the famous french poet lamartine categorically say: "muhammad is the greatest man ever"?([4])
-why did he also ask, in the history of the turks, "is there, by any standards of human greatness, anyone greater than the prophet muhammad?"([5])
-why would the orientalist william draper state in his history of the intellectual development of europe: "of all other men, the man who exerted the greatest influence on the human race… was muhammad"?([6])
-why would the orientalist senerstein say: "he [muhammad] is well above all the great figures of human history"?([7])
-why would thomas carlyle make him "the hero of heroes"?([8])
-why would the american author michael hart write a book entitled the 100: a ranking of the most influential persons in history and choose muhammad to lead the list of the greatest?([9])
-why would a group of western scholars write the greatest
fifty persons in history and also elect muhammad the greatest of them all?([10])
just what is the secret of muhammad, he asked persistently?!
([1]) this was the view of al-'habab bin munther in choosing the location of the battlefield, reported in ibn hisham, al-sirah al-nabawiah, damascus: dar ibn kuthair, p. 523.
([2]) see sahih muslim, hadeeth no. 4221. in al-albani, silsilat al-ahadeeth al-sahihah, electronic copy, hadeeth no 302, the prophet (pbuh) says: "god elected kinanah of all the descendants of ishmael, elected quraish of all kinanah, bani hashem of all quraish and elected me of all bani hashem."
([3]) see al-albani, al-silsilah al-sahihah, hadeeth no. 3607, in which the byzantine king hercules asked abu suffian about the prophet (pbuh): "had anyone of your people said something like that (al-'quran) before? i said, no. he said: if anyone had said something like it before, i would have thought he was only imitating him and following his example."
([4]) quoted by dr ahmad al-shalabi, mu'karanat al-adyan-islam, edn. vii, cairo: dar al-nahdhah al-arabiah, 1984, p. 292. lamartine (1790- 1869) wrote a poem praising the prophet (pbuh) entitled "who is greater than you, muhammad?" translated from french by muhammad mukhtar wild abah (al-sharq al-awsat: 9991, 6/04/2006.).
)[5]) histoire de la turquie, cit., p. 277.
([6]) william draper, history of the intellectual development of europe, london, 1875, pp. 229-230.
([7]) the life of muhammad, cit., p. 18. fares al-khouri, one of the most prominent christian politicians in syria says: "muhammad is the greatest ever of all great figures in the world." see muhammad al-ghazali, hatha dinuna, al-daw'ha, katar: dar al-tha'kafa, 1988, pp. 250-251.
([8]) t. caryle, on heroes and hero worship, cit. p. 289.
([9]) michael hart justified his choice of the prophet (pbuh) as the greatest figure in human history by saying: "it is that unique blend of the religious and the secular in muhammad's character that made me believe he is the most influential person in the whole length of human history." quoted in a. deedat's what the west says about muhammad, translated into arabic as matha ya'kul al-gharb 'an muhammad, cairo: al-mukhtar al-islami, 1991, p. 9. see also the book itself, the 100, translated into arabic by k. issa and a. sabano as al-mi'a al-awa'il, damascus: dar k'utaibah, 1984, pp. 25-30.
([10]) olaf nelson published this book in 1989. he explained that the fifty persons were selected out of eleven billion people according to one criterion: who exerted the greatest influence on the course of human history? muhammad (pbuh) ranked first.
in an article entitled "who were history's great leaders?" time magazine (15/07/1974) asked a number of historians, writers, military men and others to select the greatest leader ever in history. the american psychoanalyst and professor at chicago university, jules masserman, insisted that "leaders must fulfill three functions- provide for the well-being of the led, provide a social organization in which people feel relatively secure, and provide them with one set of beliefs. people like pasteur and salk are leaders in the first sense. people like gandhi and confucius, on one hand, and alexander, caesar and hitler on the other, are leaders in the second and perhaps the third sense. jesus and buddha belong in the third category alone. perhaps the greatest leader of all times was muhammad, who combined all three functions."