Opinion of Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)

[/]

Discuss

[Famous Mortimer]

Joseph Smith of the 8th century, only more violent.

[/]

Joseph Smith of the 8th century, only more violent.

كافر القذرة

[RosettaStoned]

  Clearly, the man suffered from a brain tumor.

[Famous Mortimer]

I'd be interested to know why people who aren't Muslim are voting FF.

[ingemann]

I'd be interested to know why people who aren't Muslim are voting FF.

Yes I get why Muslims vote FF (you're allowed to make excuse for your our own religious figures), but I would love to hear why non-Muslims vote FF for a medieval warlord, who married a 5 year old (and consummated the marriage when she was age 9). This is accoording to the Muslims own lore, not according to Islamophobic sources.

So I personal would love to hear the non-Islamic argument for why Muhammed was a FF.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd be interested to know why people who aren't Muslim are voting FF.

For his times he was an improvement over what had come before.

[ingemann]

I'd be interested to know why people who aren't Muslim are voting FF.

For his times he was an improvement over what had come before.

I'm not entire against the argument, but I doubt the Jewish city states of the Arabian desert, the kingdom of Axum, the Zoroastrians, the Kurdish pagans, the Sabeans etc. woulld agree with that statement.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Massive HP

[angus]

I'd be interested to know why people who aren't Muslim are voting FF.

Because a few of us are reasonably well informed, and because a few of us are not bigots.

First, the default generally is not to say nasty shit about dead people--Ted Kennedy, all Nazis, and most Republicans excepted of course, for being truly horrible people--and thus the argument lies with the prosecution, and not with the defendant.  Second, he is remembered--not for really bad stuff like Josef Stalin, but more like Mohandas K. Gandhi and George Washington--for organizing people.   Organization is not an easily achieved state.  Mohammed was born into a society in which alcoholism was rampant, and into a society in which domestic abuse, child neglect, and internecine warfare was the norm.  He tried hard to do something about these problems, and in large measure succeeded, at least to the extent that he achieved a following.  I'm a little surprised that this left-leaning forum would be so quick to judge him so poorly, but then I also am reminded that the average age of the forum poster is of someone who probably hasn't graduated from university yet, or even from high school yet, so I should not be too terribly surprised.

I know that it's fashionable to suscribe to the Fox News/CNN/BBC belief that every Muslim is a terrorist and a wife beater and a knuckle-dragging barbarian, but you should really open your minds and try to avoid such unjustified bigotry.  Study the times in which he lived, and study his teachings.  Mohammed's teaching represented a major step forward for his people.  As Mohammed Sai'd-al Sahaf, the former Iraqi information minister used to say, "While the ancestors of George Bush and his little dog, Tony Blair, were crawling around on their stomachs in caves, we were writing the law!  We were writing the book!   God will roast their stomachs in hell!"

On top of all that, Mohammed had a miraculous journey.  And not just to White Castle, like Harold and Kumar.  He cruised with Gabriel on a big winged stud and visited Heaven and Hell.  That's like seeing Nine Inch Nails and Don Henley, all on one night, with different ex-girlfriends.  How cool is that?

[RFayette]

Massive HP

[Famous Mortimer]

Haha, "don't speak ill of the dead" the ultimate cop out.

[angus]

Haha, "don't speak ill of the dead" the ultimate cop out.

...but used rather selectively on this forum, I've noticed, so I don't think that answers your original question.  

I'd have a different question, of course.  You seem to be surprised that a minority would consider him worthy.  I wonder more why a majority are so hateful toward him.  

[DemPGH]

Such an HP that there's not much to discuss. Fathered perhaps the most violent and oppressive religion in the world today.

I'd be interested to know why people who aren't Muslim are voting FF.

Apologists will often defend each other. Beheadings, burnings, inquisitions. "Oh, it's complex" or something.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I'd be interested to know why people who aren't Muslim are voting FF.

Yes I get why Muslims vote FF (you're allowed to make excuse for your our own religious figures), but I would love to hear why non-Muslims vote FF for a medieval warlord, who married a 5 year old (and consummated the marriage when she was age 9). This is accoording to the Muslims own lore, not according to Islamophobic sources.

So I personal would love to hear the non-Islamic argument for why Muhammed was a FF.

Clearly Muslims were the only people to do this sh_t in history. Yep, those enlightened FF ancient Greeks and Romans would never marry men in their late 20s with pre-pubescent girls! Oh-so-superior and pure European Christians who came centuries after Muhammad never did it either!

[dead0man]

Or, you know, crazy thought...... those individuals were HPs too.

[Leinad]

I'd be interested to know why people who aren't Muslim are voting FF.

Because a few of us are reasonably well informed, and because a few of us are not bigots.

First, the default generally is not to say nasty shit about dead people--Ted Kennedy, all Nazis, and most Republicans excepted of course, for being truly horrible people--and thus the argument lies with the prosecution, and not with the defendant.  Second, he is remembered--not for really bad stuff like Josef Stalin, but more like Mohandas K. Gandhi and George Washington--for organizing people.   Organization is not an easily achieved state.  Mohammed was born into a society in which alcoholism was rampant, and into a society in which domestic abuse, child neglect, and internecine warfare was the norm.  He tried hard to do something about these problems, and in large measure succeeded, at least to the extent that he achieved a following.  I'm a little surprised that this left-leaning forum would be so quick to judge him so poorly, but then I also am reminded that the average age of the forum poster is of someone who probably hasn't graduated from university yet, or even from high school yet, so I should not be too terribly surprised.

I know that it's fashionable to suscribe to the Fox News/CNN/BBC belief that every Muslim is a terrorist and a wife beater and a knuckle-dragging barbarian, but you should really open your minds and try to avoid such unjustified bigotry.

I wonder more why a majority are so hateful toward him.

Well, he ordered for the death of me and everyone like me (i.e. non-Muslims), so I don't see why I should hold him in high regard like a Ghandi or Washington.

Am I the only one shocked by the inconsistency in demanding "open-mindedness" for and condemning "bigotry" against a religion that mistreats women, gays, and anyone who doesn't share their beliefs? I, for one, am in favor of women's rights, gay rights, freedom of religion, and age of consent.

Are most Muslims okay people, like the rest of us? Of course. But no one's disagreeing with that, so you look a little silly for trying to prove that agreed-upon point.

[Leinad]

I'd be interested to know why people who aren't Muslim are voting FF.

Yes I get why Muslims vote FF (you're allowed to make excuse for your our own religious figures), but I would love to hear why non-Muslims vote FF for a medieval warlord, who married a 5 year old (and consummated the marriage when she was age 9). This is accoording to the Muslims own lore, not according to Islamophobic sources.

So I personal would love to hear the non-Islamic argument for why Muhammed was a FF.

Clearly Muslims were the only people to do this sh_t in history. Yep, those enlightened FF ancient Greeks and Romans would never marry men in their late 20s with pre-pubescent girls! Oh-so-superior and pure European Christians who came centuries after Muhammad never did it either!

I don't get your point...are you saying it's okay because other people did it?

[Famous Mortimer]

Western society does not revere random Roman patricians the way Muslim society revers Mohammed. If you insult a random Roman Senator who had sex with children, no one will want to kill you over it. In fact, almost everyone will agree with you.

[afleitch]

Not particularly positive. Though I'd have to read more.

[Indy Texas]

I'd be interested to know why people who aren't Muslim are voting FF.

For his times he was an improvement over what had come before.

I'm not entire against the argument, but I doubt the Jewish city states of the Arabian desert, the kingdom of Axum, the Zoroastrians, the Kurdish pagans, the Sabeans etc. woulld agree with that statement.

You left out the Christian Copts, Ghassanids and proto-Ethiopians.

[Oakvale]

Congratulations, Atlas. This is the worst thread of the year thus far.

[angus]

Are most Muslims okay people, like the rest of us? Of course. But no one's disagreeing with that, so you look a little silly for trying to prove that agreed-upon point.

That was never my point.  I tried to avoid any discussion of Islam in general, and focus only on Mohammed.  If I look silly to you, imagine how very silly you now look to me, given that you apparently do not read well.

[Leinad]

Are most Muslims okay people, like the rest of us? Of course. But no one's disagreeing with that, so you look a little silly for trying to prove that agreed-upon point.

That was never my point.  I tried to avoid any discussion of Islam in general, and focus only on Mohammed.  If I look silly to you, imagine how very silly you now look to me, given that you apparently do not read well.

No, I suppose my point wasn't articulated well enough.

You accused everyone who didn't have a favorable opinion of him to be "bigots," indicating that it's some sort of anti-Islamic stance. Having an unfavorable opinion of one person isn't being a bigot.

[angus]

Are most Muslims okay people, like the rest of us? Of course. But no one's disagreeing with that, so you look a little silly for trying to prove that agreed-upon point.

That was never my point.  I tried to avoid any discussion of Islam in general, and focus only on Mohammed.  If I look silly to you, imagine how very silly you now look to me, given that you apparently do not read well.

No, I suppose my point wasn't articulated well enough.

You accused everyone who didn't have a favorable opinion of him to be "bigots," indicating that it's some sort of anti-Islamic stance. Having an unfavorable opinion of one person isn't being a bigot.

I think that perhaps in this case it is.

I'm not saying specifically that you are, or that anyone in particular is, but I suspect that a large segment in the vote here is accounted for by exactly what you accused me of:  equating it with Islam in general.  Not that this is any more excusable, but it might explain the vote.

Mohammed himself was a Freedom Fighter if ever there was one.  And yes I do think he had much in common with Washington and Gandhi in that regard.  He came along in a hard time, after the weakened Romans had retreated from the levant.  When he was only five or six his mother took ill and died.  He then lived with Uncles.  It was after this that he learned the rudiments of statecraft, but he wasn't a kept boy.  He was expected to earn his keep.  He worked as a shepherd, a gardener, and a guard.  He proved to be trustworthy and hard working.  Eventually, through his reputation, he was hired as a servant of a wealthy Mecca widow, who was very impressed by his honesty and character.  She eventually proposed marriage and they were married.  He was twenty-five. She was nearly forty.  Mohammad managed her business affairs, and their next years were pleasant and prosperous. Six children were born to them, and Mecca prospere, becoming a trading center.
     
Still, he was disturbed by the materialism that had invaded Mecca.  Being a Libertarian, you might not have a problem with this.  That is your prerogative.  But I suspect that the left-leaning forum might genuinely appreciate Mohammed's concern.  This is where I get really surprised.  He railed against it.  He fasted.  He meditated.  He was concerned by the rampant alcoholism, the mistreatment of women and children, and the corrpution of officials.  Again, I don't expect a Libertarian to be particularly concerned with any of this, but I mention this for the sake of completeness.  No man can read the mind of another, and particularly one who has been dead for a millenium and a half, but Mohammed seems to have been genuinely concerned for the people of his nation. 

As for the mystical stuff, who knows?  I'm not particularly religious, and I was hoping that we might keep this thread above all that (there's enough of that already).  I'd also hope that we could keep it above triibal warfare (witness one Jew rejoicing in the killing of another, as in the thread of Sarah Silverman cheering the death of Jesus, and the shallow responses that follow).  From a sociological standpoint, and considering the mores that might have existed in the Levant at the time, Mohammed seems progressive and bent on organizing and saving a people.  You compain that he orders executions?  How many have been executed since, in the name of many leaders that we admire and worship?  You cannot impose the morally fashionable inclinations of today when judging the leaders of yesterday.  If you did, you would only remember Socrates as a man who liked to show up at parties with a 12-year-old boy on his arm instead of remembering him as a profound philosopher, and you might not respect any of the leaders of the American revolution, as they were slaveholders and womanizers. 

You must remember Mohammed in his own times and upon his own terms.  He saw great problems and he tried to deal with them in the context of his times.  Was he successful?  Well, surely there were skirmishes and revolts (e.g., (the Battle of Badr, which he won, and the Battle of Uhud, which he lost)  Eventually, however, he brought a peace to Mecca and Medinah that lasted until the Crusades, and his teachings spread as far East as China and as far west as the Azores.  Not too shabby.