Opinion of Mohammed

[Big Abraham]

Founder of the Moslem religion. What is your opinion on this controversial figure?

[Houstonian Sock]

Pedophile

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Kinda obvious how I'll vote...

But to clarify Rasulullah (S) didn't "found" Islam, he merely was the final messenger of Islam.

[PSOL]

One of the first Bourgeois revolutionary, and a perfect example of why they are overrated.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Buddha fake after him, in 1200 AD, and Martin Luther reformed the Catholic Church and Henry VIII changed England to Protestant because he couldn't divorce so every religion sevularizunf the Catholic church was a Good thing

[VBM]

Massive HP

[PSOL]

Well I might as well give better context in this thread.

Muhammad and his companions represented the comparatively revolutionary interests of the smaller traders in a time of great social change in the Arabian peninsula. The movement to the urban areas in such places such as Medina, along with clashes between rich renters of Medina and the smaller merchant class. The latter was relatively economically #populist and socially centre-right, wanting better deals from tribal codes and less trade restrictions to make a living while being against the degeneracy, mostly perceived, of the cities.

Muhammad was indeed a cult leader, operating through his acolytes on account of maintaining his mystique and his shyness, and having a tight grip on his followers. Through utilizing violence in his class collaborative goals, he failed to create a stable succession, with his companions pressuring Ali to step down and with their being infighting soon after.

Saying this, the poll should be much less one-sided than this. Muhammad did codify better laws for women, even with killing more radical feminists, and built a proper welfare state. He did envision a society with far less minimal slaves than 600 AD Arabia, and *most* of his enemies and adversaries were worse than him. Slavery in Byzantine Syria, Palestine, and the caste system in Persia were greatly reduced.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Muhammad doesn't cut a particularly sympathetic figure for me, but I try to suspend judgment on founders of major religions I don't practice. I'm more than a little concerned about the current Afghanistan situation effecting a sort of "reset button" to the early 2000s when the crassest sort of anti-Muslim rhetoric was à la mode even among some left-liberals, and I want no part of that.

[Donerail]

I don't think the political compass is a particularly useful tool as applied to 600s Arabia

[HisGrace]

Not religious but I'm willing to show a little token respect to figures like Jesus and Buddha in public because at least there are no records of them marrying little girls and fighting wars of conquest. But screw Muhammad and draw pictures of him all you want.

Buddha fake after him, in 1200 AD, and Martin Luther reformed the Catholic Church and Henry VIII changed England to Protestant because he couldn't divorce so every religion sevularizunf the Catholic church was a Good thing

Olakawandi 4 Pope

[HisGrace]

Saying this, the poll should be much less one-sided than this. Muhammad did codify better laws for women, even with killing more radical feminists, and built a proper welfare state. He did envision a society with far less minimal slaves than 600 AD Arabia

Bolded is a really low bar there man. Don't want to hear any Founding Fathers bashing if you're going to make excuses for him like this.

[PSOL]

Saying this, the poll should be much less one-sided than this. Muhammad did codify better laws for women, even with killing more radical feminists, and built a proper welfare state. He did envision a society with far less minimal slaves than 600 AD Arabia

Bolded is a really low bar there man. Don't want to hear any Founding Fathers bashing if you're going to make excuses for him like this.

I took note of that here

One of the first Bourgeois revolutionary, and a perfect example of why they are overrated.

Furthermore, it is correct to say that Muhammad was better for the working class and freed more people than the tax revolters of 1776. A lot more slaves and were freed after taking control of Arabia if they converted to Islam (originally) than took in war.

Also lol, Jesus’s Posse terrorized the Roman Empire for nearly 300 years and the resultant conflicts killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. The Buddha, being a hippie, was more of a loser.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Muhammad (pbuh) was a major leader of an egalitarian revolution in Arab society and liberated its women from some very unfortunate cultural practices. Titanium FF.

[HisGrace]

Also lol, Jesus’s Posse terrorized the Roman Empire for nearly 300 years and the resultant conflicts killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. The Buddha, being a hippie, was more of a loser.

Violence has been committed in the name of every religion, that's not the distinction I was making. The closest thing to an act of violence attributed to Jesus is flipping some tables when he got mad. Muhhamad was a warrior who conquered other people groups. There is an argument to be made Jesus and Buddha deserve a modicum of respect even from non believers because they were peaceful religious philosophers. Muhammad was a killer and rapist.

[_.]

The greatest man who ever walked the face of the Earth

[Former President tack50]

Also lol, Jesus’s Posse terrorized the Roman Empire for nearly 300 years and the resultant conflicts killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. The Buddha, being a hippie, was more of a loser.

Violence has been committed in the name of every religion, that's not the distinction I was making. The closest thing to an act of violence attributed to Jesus is flipping some tables when he got mad. Muhhamad was a warrior who conquered other people groups. There is an argument to be made Jesus and Buddha deserve a modicum of respect even from non believers because they were peaceful religious philosophers. Muhammad was a killer and rapist.

Tbh I've sometimes wondered if the fact that islam seems to have more problems of violence and what nor can be traced to this.

If I had to guess whether a religion led by a random son of a carpenter in circa 33AD Jerusalem or one led by a military general in VIII century Arabia would be more violent and what not I'd bet on the latter.

I'd also add the fact that islam originally spread via conquest while Christians spent the first 300 years of their history prosecuted by the Roman Empire.

Anyways this is an obvious HP vote. I could maybe buy an apathetic FF vote considering him as a fairly generic general from the era but not an enthusiastic one. As a person and historical figure Mohammed does not seem to me any better than the likes of say, Genghis Khan or other such military figures?

[PSOL]

Also lol, Jesus’s Posse terrorized the Roman Empire for nearly 300 years and the resultant conflicts killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. The Buddha, being a hippie, was more of a loser.

Violence has been committed in the name of every religion, that's not the distinction I was making. The closest thing to an act of violence attributed to Jesus is flipping some tables when he got mad. Muhhamad was a warrior who conquered other people groups. There is an argument to be made Jesus and Buddha deserve a modicum of respect even from non believers because they were peaceful religious philosophers. Muhammad was a killer and rapist.

It’s been documented by Roman historians of the many riots and disorders caused by Christianity. The religion itself, in all streams that counted, had the end goal of tearing down the current structure of the state.

Yes, Muhammad was a killer and rapist, but given the lopsided positive rating of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, there clearly is a double standard at play. The significant other aspect is that the structural reforms in terms of class relations were undoubtedly needed, and most people killed in the name of Allah in established the first Caliphate deserved to die for being much, much worse. The introduction of Islam into Persia, for instance, ultimately was a step up from the caste system during the Abbasid Caliphate and onward. The transition of Roman Syria from a slave society to a feudal one was a major step up. The fall of the fractured tribal allegiances under one state was a step up in the Arabian peninsula.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

One and only

Holy
Pedo

[Sir Mohamed]

A DeSantis apologist who doesn't believe in blue waves and wants him to win. HP.

[Samof94]

Well I might as well give better context in this thread.

Muhammad and his companions represented the comparatively revolutionary interests of the smaller traders in a time of great social change in the Arabian peninsula. The movement to the urban areas in such places such as Medina, along with clashes between rich renters of Medina and the smaller merchant class. The latter was relatively economically #populist and socially centre-right, wanting better deals from tribal codes and less trade restrictions to make a living while being against the degeneracy, mostly perceived, of the cities.

Muhammad was indeed a cult leader, operating through his acolytes on account of maintaining his mystique and his shyness, and having a tight grip on his followers. Through utilizing violence in his class collaborative goals, he failed to create a stable succession, with his companions pressuring Ali to step down and with their being infighting soon after.

Saying this, the poll should be much less one-sided than this. Muhammad did codify better laws for women, even with killing more radical feminists, and built a proper welfare state. He did envision a society with far less minimal slaves than 600 AD Arabia, and *most* of his enemies and adversaries were worse than him. Slavery in Byzantine Syria, Palestine, and the caste system in Persia were greatly reduced.

Yeah. That is definitely not the figure they Salafi Jihadists try to emulate at all.

[Farmlands]

Muhammad doesn't cut a particularly sympathetic figure for me, but I try to suspend judgment on founders of major religions I don't practice. I'm more than a little concerned about the current Afghanistan situation effecting a sort of "reset button" to the early 2000s when the crassest sort of anti-Muslim rhetoric was à la mode even among some left-liberals, and I want no part of that.

For what it's worth, I still think the predominant view of the Afghani people, right now, is as unfortunate supporters of America, who got unwillingly taken over by an extremist force. This has nothing to do with Mohammed himself, who I see as a HP in almost every regard.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

A flawed figure who while by the standards of the time might have been a good person has had a sort of visage drawn around him making objective discussion and analysis impossible.

My votes goes HP.

[THG]

HP and false prophet.

CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD AND IS KING!

[Kingpoleon]

Well I might as well give better context in this thread.

Muhammad and his companions represented the comparatively revolutionary interests of the smaller traders in a time of great social change in the Arabian peninsula. The movement to the urban areas in such places such as Medina, along with clashes between rich renters of Medina and the smaller merchant class. The latter was relatively economically #populist and socially centre-right, wanting better deals from tribal codes and less trade restrictions to make a living while being against the degeneracy, mostly perceived, of the cities.

Muhammad was indeed a cult leader, operating through his acolytes on account of maintaining his mystique and his shyness, and having a tight grip on his followers. Through utilizing violence in his class collaborative goals, he failed to create a stable succession, with his companions pressuring Ali to step down and with their being infighting soon after.

Saying this, the poll should be much less one-sided than this. Muhammad did codify better laws for women, even with killing more radical feminists, and built a proper welfare state. He did envision a society with far less minimal slaves than 600 AD Arabia, and *most* of his enemies and adversaries were worse than him. Slavery in Byzantine Syria, Palestine, and the caste system in Persia were greatly reduced.

Usually Marxist historians aren’t quite this boring.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

HP and false prophet.

CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD AND IS KING!

Thank you BRTD