Some most famous writers are against the allegations that Prophet is a lunatic man. Let us go through their words here : ‘He was a Philosopher, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images, the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured we may well ask, is there any man grater than he’- asks Lamartine” (Lamartine, Histoire de la Turguie, Paris 1854, Vol. 2).

Can a mad man be so?
Prophet’s ‘living percepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion’ (Edward Giboon and Simon ockley, History of the Saracen Empire, London 1820,P. 54). Says Gibbon and Ockley.
Is there any lunatic man like this? : J-W.Draper remarks: ‘of all men, exercised the greatest influence upon the human race…Muhammad’(John William Draper M.D, L.I.D, History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, London, 1875, Vol. 1, P. 329).

   Could any man of insanity be influenced thus, so far? :‘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 leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement- all argue his fundamental integrity’. Remarks W.M.Watt (W. Montgomery watt, Muhammad at Mecca Geford, 1953, P. 52).

   Can any body find such integrity in an epileptic man? : B. Smith remarks: “…Head of state as well as the church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without the Pope’s pretension, Caesar without the legions of Caesar. Without a standing army, without a body guard, without a palace, without fixed revenue, if every any man has the right to say that he ruled the right divine it was Muhammad for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports’ (Bosworth Smith, Muhammad and Muhammadanism, 1874, London).

   Did any Schizophrenic man enjoy such combined power of both religion and state in history?
The hostile Arabs of Prophet’s time and the critics of prophet through out centuries are dead sure that prophet is a perfect man. Yet, the facts that tempted them to forge such stories were their egocentric mentality and prejudices. As for the Arabs, they admitted that, the preaching of Prophet was true. They were convinced that prophet was having divine revelation. But they couldn’t put up with his being entitled of such an elevated office, despite their presence.

   Even Montgomery Watt, who attacked Islam many a time, cannot digest the allegations of these writers, criticizing his own teacher. Richard bell, and writers like Gustar Weil, Aloys sprenger, William Muir, David S Margoliouth and Theodere Noldeke, he remarks: it is incredible that a person who subjected to epilepsy, or hysteria or even ungovernable fits of emotion, could have been the active leader of military expeditions, or the cool far-seeing guide of city-state and a growing religious community; but all this we know Muhammad to have been (W. Montgomery watt, Bell’s introduction to the Qur’an).

   See two more comments of regarding a ‘Lunatic man’: ‘We might call him a poet or a prophet, for we feel that the words which he speaks are not words of an ordinary man. They have their immediate source in the inner reality of things, since he lives in constant fellowship with this reality (Muhammad, Tore Andrae, P.247, 1936).
“His intellectual qualities were undoubtedly of an extra ordinary kind. He had a quick apprehension, a retentive memory, a vivid imagination and inventive genius…. “In his Private dealings he was just. He treated friends and strangers, the rich and poor, the powerful and week with equality, and was beloved by the common people for the affability with which he received them, and listened to their complaints” (Washington Irving, Muhammad and his successors, London).