Opinion of Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)

[bedstuy]

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.

Don't you think that's kind of ridiculous?

This guy was a religious figure.  The only sources about his life are religious sources from people who followed his religion.  It's that famous saying, history is written by the winners.  When someone is revered to that degree, the official version of history gets edited in a favorable light.   

If the people on the other side got to tell their story, they might view Mohammed as a Hitler like figure.  We don't have that because they lost. 

Not to mention, what do you actually know about Mohammed that's decently verifiable?  Almost nothing, no?  None of the literate cultures of the age knew that Mohammed existed until after his death.  I would think as matter of facts, we know that he existed and lived somewhere in Middle East. 

[politicus]

Your use of the Levant in this context is strange. The Arab peninsula is some distance from the Levant even if you include Mesopotamia in the concept.

In the context of the Arab peninsula Muhammad was a social reformer and as such a FF up to a point. He was also a warlord (with all the robbery, murder and enslavement that includes) and destroyer of pagan and Jewish culture. If you dislike large scale social engineering from above he becomes a much more questionable figure.

Comparing him to Washington and Ghandi is too friendly, neither of these men forced others to convert to their ideology or destroyed cultures. Mao would seem far more relevant. A successful and zealous warlord with a calling to safe his people, who eradicated old injustices and created a more egalitarian society, but created other injustices in the process, destroyed ancient cultures and imposed his own ideology on people.

Also, it is in reality not possible to differentiate between the founder of a religion and the religion he created (or the founder of a country for that matter). If you believe the world would have been a better place without Islam coming into existence - and the Arab tribes ever spreading beyond their homeland -  (and the ensuing marginalization of Christianity in the Middle East and North Africa) you are bound to have a negative opinion of Muhammad.  

[angus]

Your use of the Levant in this context is strange.

yes, it was.

Not sure what I was thinking.  A map of Rome at its height, maybe around Hadrian's time, would have included the Levant, but that's nowhere near Mecca.  Even circa AD600 the Eastern Roman Empire still controlled the Levant (province of Syria I suppose it was called) but not Mecca.  Even Medina would have been just outside the influence of Rome.  All of that is far enough into the Arabian peninsula not to be in the province of Syria.  Certainly none of them are in the Levant.  I agree it was neither necessary nor helpful to refer to the Levant.  I really can't imagine what I was thinking when I wrote that. 

Nevertheless, I think Mohammed was FF. 

[angus]

Don't you think that's kind of ridiculous?

 

Referring to the OP, rather than to an imagined question?  Not at all. 

When it becomes ridiculous to answer the question asked, rather than some other question, then I guess I no longer understand the rules.

I do agree that the answers of many posters will be prejudiced by their view of the religion he created.  I may be among the posters.  I generally have a positive view of Islam, and of religion in general.  In any case I'm not trying to start an argument over religion.  I am merely expressing surprise over the results of the poll.  They don't have objective answers, though, and I've become a little desensitized to the apparent fact that my view is a minority one.  Not particularly important, but maybe something to keep in mind should I ever find myself involved in a public discussion of Mohammed.

[bedstuy]

Don't you think that's kind of ridiculous?

 

Referring to the OP, rather than to an imagined question?  Not at all. 

When it becomes ridiculous to answer the question asked, rather than some other question, then I guess I no longer understand the rules.

I do agree that the answers of many posters will be prejudiced by their view of the religion he created.  I may be among the posters.  I generally have a positive view of Islam, and of religion in general.  In any case I'm not trying to start an argument over religion.  I am merely expressing surprise over the results of the poll.  They don't have objective answers, though, and I've become a little desensitized to the apparent fact that my view is a minority one.  Not particularly important, but maybe something to keep in mind should I ever find myself involved in a public discussion of Mohammed.

Did you read my post?

My point is that you can't have really leave religion out of a view of Mohammed, yet base your opinion on unverified religious texts.  It's like, if a book says that I'm the son of God or the final prophet of a God, you wouldn't expect a dispassionate, objective view of my character.  The quran or the oral tradition associated with it are not good historical, trustworthy sources.

Take a more modern example: 

We actually have non-biased information on Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard.  If you only looked at their religious texts and ignored everything else, you might think they were great men.  Yet, non-biased objective sources of information shows that they both were terrible liars and crooks. 

If you purely at the historical Mohammed, it's:

A warlord who lived in the Middle East, maybe Arabia, and was one of the key figures in a religious movement that became Islam.

I don't believe in getting all angry or enamored with historical figures like that either way.  Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar and Mohammed became celebrated because they were "great men" of history.  But, we don't factor in the view of their victims or the negative impact they had.  It's all about the mark they left.  With time, that normative view goes away and you just tend to evaluate people from how much they impacted their world.

[DemPGH]

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.  

Plenty of homicidal dictators have had concerns for their people both ancient and modern. We don't apologize for them. I'm not sure why an exception should be made here (other than we have religion in the mix). I also think that there are people in history who you cannot separate from their deeds (e.g., Hitler) and the violence they both committed and spawned in the name of whatever banner they were running with.

But anyway, the above quote is a very strange argument to try to make. First, I'm left wing and I'm 1) secular and 2) materialist in the broad application of the term. I can't relate to people who claim mystical, other-worldly experiences, I don't seek those experiences, evidently those experiences do not seek me, and frankly, I don't believe in them. There is through the Middle Ages a long history of pious hoaxes as well. I assume there are other leftists like that also.

Anyway, Muhammad the man? We could talk about mass killing, slaving, sex slaving, the possibility of mental illness, and delusions, of course (many of his critics during his time considered him mad). People in those days were susceptible to delusions and so forth like today, there was just no explanation for them. If a person took a seizure and ranted and raved about angels visiting him and telling him things, it was taken more at face value than today.

[Torie]

"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."

Hey Angus, did it not strike you as problematical that Mohammad's wife had six kids commencing at "nearly" 40?

[angus]

Hey Angus, did it not strike you as problematical that Mohammad's wife had six kids commencing at "nearly" 40?

haha.  The snark in this thread is strong, and mine is no exception, and I'd decided that we were all at the point of repeating ourselves, but you offer something amusing.  Something original.  Well, not really.  You're just repeating bedstuy's point, but at least you have a sense of humor about it.

yes, okay, it's all from biased sources.  Whatever.  I'm cool with mohammed.  And Mohammed's cool with me.  None of y'all know him any better or worse than I do.  

Anyway, many are deeply prejudiced against Islam in general, and has been pointed out, it's hard to separate any discussion of Mohammed from a discussion of Islam, and since Muslims are the targets of hatred, it should be no surprise that Mohammed is as well.  It's okay, because I kinda like being in the enlightened minority.  

[Famous Mortimer]

I don't like Islam but I'm not prejudiced against it. I haven't pre-judged it. I've just judged it based on its tenants and, yes, its founder. Its founder's actions are part of the reason I don't think its a respectable religion (although obviously I don't necessarily hold any ill will towards individual members).

[Famous Mortimer]

It's pretty ridiculous that you think people would think Mohammed was a great guy except for the fact that they are prejudiced against Muslims and so therefore they rate him badly. This is not something that ever happens. In fact, it's the exact opposite. People don't dislike Mohammed because they dislike Islam. People dislike Islam because they dislike the horrible guy who came up with it and all of its beliefs.

[bedstuy]

Hey Angus, did it not strike you as problematical that Mohammad's wife had six kids commencing at "nearly" 40?

haha.  The snark in this thread is strong, and mine is no exception, and I'd decided that we were all at the point of repeating ourselves, but you offer something amusing.  Something original.  Well, not really.  You're just repeating bedstuy's point, but at least you have a sense of humor about it.

yes, okay, it's all from biased sources.  Whatever.  I'm cool with mohammed.  And Mohammed's cool with me.  None of y'all know him any better or worse than I do.  

Anyway, many are deeply prejudiced against Islam in general, and has been pointed out, it's hard to separate any discussion of Mohammed from a discussion of Islam, and since Muslims are the targets of hatred, it should be no surprise that Mohammed is as well.  It's okay, because I kinda like being in the enlightened minority.  

Oh, OK.  "Whatever."  What a great point.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Muhammad was more of an Eastern Ukrainaian, while IMO Jesus Christ was a Western Ukrainian.

[Cory]

yes, okay, it's all from biased sources.  Whatever.  I'm cool with mohammed.  And Mohammed's cool with me.  None of y'all know him any better or worse than I do.  

Are you a practicing Muslim? No? Then you are wrong.

[angus]

yes, okay, it's all from biased sources.  Whatever.  I'm cool with mohammed.  And Mohammed's cool with me.  None of y'all know him any better or worse than I do.  

Are you a practicing Muslim? No? Then you are wrong.

apparently.

you are 67 percent.  We are 33 percent.  It's a good thing that we have you to tell us what to think

[Alcon]

Man angus, those pixels you're using could be put to such more substantive use, like erotic Backstreet Boys fanfiction or something.

Why even debate if you just want to hear the sound of your own opinion?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Man angus, those pixels you're using could be put to such more substantive use, like erotic Backstreet Boys fanfiction or something.

Why even debate if you just want to hear the sound of your own opinion?

You heard of this place called AAD that actually has some pretty interesting and enlightening discussions like this place used to have back in the day? And great maps from Lewis Trondheim as well?