Do you think he was a great political leader but not a very moral man - e.g., Julius Caesar?

Or do you think he was a war criminal who brought nothing but misery to the people he interacted with?

I would personally go with the second option. I think Muhammad was a great political leader who managed through cunning and guile to bring his people to victory - through force. I don't believe he was a particularly moral man. In fact, I don't see his actions any better then what would be expected of a 7th century Arab warrior. I do think his religion brought improvements to the world around him, but that was after he was long dead, and most of that was by weakening Christendom. The biggest problem I have with Muhammad, is that the followers of his religion consider his conduct to be flawless and to be emulated through all ages.  Which in my opinion, is probably one of the biggest disasters for Islam.

Post edited at 5:01 pm on Aug. 28, 2008 by lsd

-------
Every Post You Make Goes To Charity

Imo i think war chriminal.

-------
Ray mears says how we have so much to learn from
native tribes.................But surely they have so much
more to learn from us!!!
and this guys a mod

---

Matter of belief and opinion.

Imo i think war chriminal.

---

He could be a war criminal and a great leader.

-------
Every Post You Make Goes To Charity

---

Nationalistic genius.

---

I think his participation in the constitution of Medina was brilliant, not to mention his signing of the highly controversial treaty of Hudaybiyyah.

But what in particular do you find about Muhammad that you would consider him a nationalistic genius?

-------
Every Post You Make Goes To Charity

---

Quote: from osmoticdespair at 5:10 pm on Aug. 28, 2008

---

Nationalistic genius.

---

I think his participation in the constitution of Medina was brilliant, not to mention his signing of the highly controversial treaty of Hudaybiyyah.

But what in particular do you find about Muhammad that you would consider him a nationalistic genius?

---

---

thought he was dead by that time...

---

IMO Muhammad was an opportunistic genius. He united Arabia at the exact time when both the Eastern Romans and the Persians were at their nadir, and thus built a massive empire which lasted in some form or another until the 20th century. I have no bones with moderate Islam and I don't blame Muhammad for the radical Muslims just like I don't blame Jesus for the Fundies.

But I do not think that he was a paragon of virtue, no one in that time (or ever) was. IMO, emulating anyone from back then to the letter is not something you want to do. Maybe use the better parts of his life as an example, but not as a whole...

I disagree with you that Muhammad is in no way responsible for "radical" Islam.  They are simply following Muhammad's Sunnah, so who could blame them?  The fact that Bidah is haram in Islam and the Qur'an will be considered to be the literal words of God for the foreseeable future will be, along with Muhammad's precedent, the major obstacles Islam will have for adapting in the modern era.

Post edited at 7:10 pm on Aug. 28, 2008 by lsd

-------
Every Post You Make Goes To Charity

---

I disagree with you that Muhammad is in no way responsible for "radical" Islam.  They are simply following Muhammad's Sunnah, so who could blame them?  The fact that Bidah is haram in Islam and the Qur'an will be considered to be the literal words of God for the foreseeable future will be, along with Muhammad's precedent, the major obstacles Islam will have for adapting in the modern era.

---

I just meant that Muhammad is not responsible directly for the 1400 years of political turmoil which gradually led to the decline of Islam. I realize that the Sunnah and whatnot are a factor, but that was not what I was referring to.