You have probably wondered at some point who the greatest person in the world is. Perhaps the question simply crossed your mind, or maybe you heard a Muslim claim that Muhammad was the greatest man in history. If you searched online afterward, you likely found many articles, videos, and discussions describing Muhammad as “the best person in the world.”

But is that claim actually true? Was Muhammad truly the greatest human being in history, or is the title more complicated than it first appears? To answer this question, it is important to examine where the claim comes from, what historians actually said, and how influence differs from moral greatness.

Where Did This Claim Begin?

One major reason many people on the internet describe Muhammad as “the greatest man in history” comes from a famous book written by Michael Hart called The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. In this book, Hart placed Muhammad at number one on his list of the most influential individuals in human history.

However, many people misunderstand what Hart actually meant. He did not say that Muhammad was the “best,” “perfect,” or morally superior person in history. Instead, he argued that Muhammad was the most influential person in history. These are two very different ideas.

A person can have enormous influence on the world without necessarily being morally perfect. Influence refers to the ability to shape history, politics, religion, culture, or society on a massive scale. By that definition, Muhammad was undeniably one of the most influential figures in history because he transformed Arabia and established a religious civilization that later spread across many regions of the world.

What Michael Hart Actually Claimed

Hart’s argument went beyond Muhammad simply being a religious leader. He believed Muhammad was uniquely successful in both religious and worldly matters.

One of the most quoted passages from the book states:

“My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.”

This statement is often repeated without carefully examining what Hart meant by the word “secular.”

Was Muhammad Truly Successful on the Secular Level?

Hart may be considered correct if the word “secular” is understood in its older and broader sense, meaning success in worldly affairs such as politics, governance, military leadership, law, and state-building. In that sense, Muhammad was clearly successful in establishing political authority and governing institutions in Arabia.

However, if the term “secular” is interpreted according to its modern meaning, namely the separation of religion from government, then Hart’s statement becomes far more debatable. Muhammad’s political authority, military campaigns, and legal system were deeply connected to religion and Islamic leadership rather than separated from them.

According to early Islamic historical accounts, Muhammad participated in numerous military campaigns and conflicts connected to the expansion and defense of the emerging Muslim community. Slavery also continued during that period, including the enslavement of captives from opposing groups, which reflected the social realities of 7th-century Arabia. Critics therefore argue that Muhammad’s leadership cannot accurately be described as “secular” in the modern sense because religion and governance were inseparable in his system of rule.

Most Influential Is Not the Same as Best

This distinction is extremely important. Being the “most influential” person and being the “best” person are not the same thing.

An influential person changes the course of history in a major way. A “best” person, on the other hand, would usually be understood as someone with the highest moral character and the most admirable example for humanity.

History shows that influence and morality do not always go together. Figures such as Adolf Hitler, Genghis Khan, and Alexander the Great were undeniably influential because they dramatically shaped world history. Yet many people would not describe them as morally good individuals.

In the same way, critics argue that even if Muhammad was highly influential, influence alone does not automatically make someone the greatest human being who ever lived.

Does Muhammad Deserve the Title of The Best Person in the World?

From a critical perspective, many people argue that Muhammad does not deserve the title of “the best person in the world,” even if they acknowledge his enormous historical influence. Critics believe moral greatness should be judged not only by success or influence, but also by universal ethical standards.

One major criticism concerns slavery and warfare. Although Islamic teachings introduced regulations regarding slavery and encouraged the freeing of slaves in some situations, slavery itself was never completely abolished during Muhammad’s lifetime. Critics therefore question how someone presented as the perfect moral example for all humanity could permit an institution now widely viewed as unethical and inhumane.

In addition, Muhammad participated in military campaigns, political conflicts, and punishments that critics argue reflected the harsh realities of 7th-century tribal Arabia rather than timeless moral ideals. Supporters respond by emphasizing the historical context of the time, arguing that such practices were common across societies in that era. Critics, however, counter that a truly perfect role model should transcend the moral limitations of his age rather than operate within them.

So, Who Is the Greatest Person in History?

Ultimately, the question of who the “best” or “greatest” person in the world is depends heavily on personal values and philosophical beliefs. Different people admire different qualities.

Some admire religious leaders for their spiritual influence. Others admire scientists, philosophers, inventors, or humanitarians for expanding human knowledge and improving civilization through reason and discovery.

Figures such as Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Charles Darwin were not considered morally perfect individuals either, yet they fundamentally transformed humanity’s understanding of the universe. Einstein revolutionized modern physics, Newton established the foundations of classical mechanics, and Darwin reshaped biology through the theory of evolution. None of them claimed divine authority or absolute perfection, but their intellectual contributions permanently changed human civilization.

Conclusion

The claim that Muhammad was “the greatest person in history” largely originates from misunderstandings of Michael Hart’s book. Hart described Muhammad as the most influential person in history, not necessarily the most moral or perfect human being. Influence and moral greatness are not identical concepts, and history contains many influential figures whose actions remain morally controversial.

Whether Muhammad deserves to be called “the best person in the world” ultimately depends on the standards used to judge greatness. For believers, religious influence and spiritual leadership may be enough to justify that title. For critics, however, moral consistency, universal ethics, scientific advancement, and humanitarian contributions may matter more than religious or political success.

In the end, there is no universally accepted answer. The question itself reflects deeper disagreements about morality, history, religion, and what humanity should value most in a person.