Trying to return to OP for a moment, I think historical figures as Muhammad (and, yep, Genghis Khan too) can't be objectively judged by our modern standards.
Sure, from our point of view he was an HP, but in context of his time he was a force of progress as opposed to most of his opponents, although there are black points of his record.
Really, such outlook is as shallow as certain banned poster asking on the history board if "Tudors supported welfare state".
Kal's offended reaction to dead0man's completely vanilla post certainly is amusing. (I know he said that he was merely noting that it is offensive to other people, but I'm going to assume that he wouldn't call anyone an "asshat" if he were not offended).
Yes, reaction might have been too strong. My reasons were dead0man has quite a history of intentionally making insensitive and offensive remarks toward the Muslims. I don't like bigotry, that's all.
Does "an extraordinary historical figure" equal automatic FF?
I never said that. Please read without putting words in my mouth
As unusual as it may be, I think I actually side with Dead0 and BRTD on this. The right to blasphemy is a fundamental conquest of our secular societies, and is only kept alive by exerting it actively. People with religious beliefs (whether it be Christians, Muslims or whatever) should simply learn not to be offended by the actions of those who do not share their beliefs.
Naturally. The people have a right to feel offended (seriously, every one of us was at least once offfended by something), but violence against the offending part is never justified.
I don't like when people are being offensive just for sake of pissing others off. That's stupid and unproductive. I'm entitled to my opinion as much as everyone here
Poll
