Opinion of Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)

[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?

[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.  

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.  

[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