The Growing Greatness of Muhammad (S+) In The Eyes of Much of The World

[sojourner]

Muhammad, the most rapidly successful man in history
“Never before or since has a prophet won such success so quickly; nor has the work of a single man so rapidly and radically transformed the course of world history. Through his inspired utterances, his personal example, and the organizational framework he established for Islam, Mohammed laid the basis for a distinctive new style of life, which within the space of two centuries attracted the allegiance of a major fraction of the human race and today commands the loyalty of about one seventh of mankind.”

W.H. McNeill​

The Rise of the West (1963)​

Muhammad (S+), a universal personality or manifold of many dimensions
“- a thinker and judge, military leader and organizer, emissary of God and educator,”(Page 48)

G.E. Grunebaum​

Classical Islam A History (1963)​

“Mohammed died in 632. During his short life, he was a successful merchant, a devotee to the verge of fanaticism, a great religious teacher, and a successful military leader – the founder of an empire of great extent.”

Consolidated Encyclopaedia V.6 LEI – MUL​

"Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?"

Lamartine​

[FONT=&quot]Histoire de la Turquie, Paris 1854, Vol. II[/FONT]​

Muhammad (S+), the most misrepresented man in history
“…The lies which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man are disgraceful to ourselves only…”

[FONT=&quot]Thomas Caryle[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Heros and Hero Worship[/FONT]​

“No great religious leader has been so maligned and misrepresented, outside his religion,-“ (Page 85)

Geoffrey Parrinder​

Encountering World Religions (1987)​

Please refer to post #97. These quotes do not constitute mutually agreed upon dimensions. They constitute opinion.

If you'd like to recant your OP and state, instead, that in your opinion, Muhammed was the greatest... that'd be satisfactory. but you're stating here as a universal truth, which, of course, it isn't. As is, it's merely drivel.

 

[Lady B]

That is not correct. You are mixing up the incident during Uthman.

"During the period of Caliph Uthman (second successor to the Prophet) differences in reading the Quran among the various tribes became obvious, due to the various dialectical recitations. Dispute was arising, with each tribe calling its recitation as the correct one. This alarmed Uthman, who made a official copy in the Quraishi dialect, the dialect in which the Quran was revealed to the Prophet and was memorized by his companions. Thus this compilation by Uthman's Committee is not a different version of the Quran (like the Biblical versions) but the same original revelation given to the Prophet by One God, Allah." [Taken from: Proof of The Preservation of the Quran]

Ok whether It be Uthman or Abu Bakr, you stated the Koran was assembled In Mohammad's Lifetime. I have many Hadiths to dispute this claim, do you have any to back it? And please don't imply my hadiths are unreliable and yours are correct. I am asking you to prove your statement " The Koran was completed in the life of the prophet Mohamed." can you do that please?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Please refer to post #97. These quotes do not constitute mutually agreed upon dimensions. They constitute opinion.

If you'd like to recant your OP and state, instead, that in your opinion, Muhammed was the greatest... that'd be satisfactory. but you're stating here as a universal truth, which, of course, it isn't. As is, it's merely drivel.

I agree, to an extent. I do think that Mohammed was probably one of the most notable figures in western history, and his influence can hardly be calculated. But to declare him, in objective and absolute terms, the greatest person in history, is misleading at best, and an outright lie at worst. Christianity, being inspired by the myths surrounding Jesus of Nazareth, has been far more inspirational and far-reaching. Even in the East, where Hinduism and Buddhism are the primary religious beliefs, Jesus is more popular than Mohammed. So, Mohammed was indeed a very influential person, but not the greatest person in the world. This statement is due only to religious zeal by one of his followers. It would be just as wrong for me to say that Siddhartha Gautama is the greatest person in the world; while his teachings are certainly popular and influential, the idea that he is the greatest person in the world is simply a subjective statement based on my devotion and homage to him, with no objective quality of fact.

 

[sojourner]

I'm a Christian, and I would be hard-pressed to say that Jesus was the greatest human being ever, because there's just no criteria upon which to ground such a statement. Plus the fact that, for Jesus, humanity isn't an issue of superiority, it's an issue of faith.

 

[al-amiyr]

I agree, to an extent. I do think that Mohammed was probably one of the most notable figures in western history, and his influence can hardly be calculated. But to declare him, in objective and absolute terms, the greatest person in history, is misleading at best, and an outright lie at worst. Christianity, being inspired by the myths surrounding Jesus of Nazareth, has been far more inspirational and far-reaching. Even in the East, where Hinduism and Buddhism are the primary religious beliefs, Jesus is more popular than Mohammed. So, Mohammed was indeed a very influential person, but not the greatest person in the world. This statement is due only to religious zeal by one of his followers. It would be just as wrong for me to say that Siddhartha Gautama is the greatest person in the world; while his teachings are certainly popular and influential, the idea that he is the greatest person in the world is simply a subjective statement based on my devotion and homage to him, with no objective quality of fact.

The problem with almost all of you is this. The religion founded by Muhammad have taken away a great amount of your followers. Hundreds of millions of Buddhists have already been converted to Islaam and the conversions are growing by the minute. The same with Christianity, Hinduism,African traditional religion etc. Zoroastrianism, Mithraism and you name it have already fallen. Not by the sword but by the recognition of truth. I have noticed everywhere you malign Muhammad (S+) but when a follower of Muhammad comes along you get hysterical. Very few of you can really debate. You pretend so much how you love freedom of speech but I will prove to you in the end of the day how true colours will show. I am not addressing you personally. I can only speak well of The Great Buddha and may his name be blessed wherever it is heard. The Great Buddha I regard as the Enlightened One. Have no fear. Your rights will not be trampled on.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

The problem with almost all of you is this. The religion founded by Muhammad have taken away a great amount of your followers. Hundreds of millions of Buddhists have already been converted to Islaam and the conversions are growing by the minute. The same with Christianity, Hinduism,African traditional religion etc. Zoroastrianism, Mithraism and you name it have already fallen. Not by the sword but by the recognition of truth. I have noticed everywhere you malign Muhammad (S+) but when a follower of Muhammad comes along you get hysterical. Very few of you can really debate. You pretend so much how you love freedom of speech but I will prove to you in the end of the day how true colours will show. I am not addressing you personally. I can only speak well of The Great Buddha and may his name be blessed wherever it is heard. The Great Buddha I regard as the Enlightened One. Have no fear. Your rights will not be trampled on.

Seems history is doomed to repeat itself.

 

[sojourner]

The problem with almost all of you is this. The religion founded by Muhammad have taken away a great amount of your followers. Hundreds of millions of Buddhists have already been converted to Islaam and the conversions are growing by the minute. The same with Christianity, Hinduism,African traditional religion etc. Zoroastrianism, Mithraism and you name it have already fallen. Not by the sword but by the recognition of truth. I have noticed everywhere you malign Muhammad (S+) but when a follower of Muhammad comes along you get hysterical. Very few of you can really debate. You pretend so much how you love freedom of speech but I will prove to you in the end of the day how true colours will show. I am not addressing you personally. I can only speak well of The Great Buddha and may his name be blessed wherever it is heard. The Great Buddha I regard as the Enlightened One. Have no fear. Your rights will not be trampled on.

So? Muhammed is not the religion.
I don't think I've maligned Muhammed. We've asked repeatedly for you to justify your OP with objective standards, and you have not done it. Either you cannot, or you will not. Either way, in light of that reticence, we could turn your statement "few of you can really debate" back on you.

 

[9Westy9]

The problem with almost all of you is this. The religion founded by Muhammad have taken away a great amount of your followers. Hundreds of millions of Buddhists have already been converted to Islaam and the conversions are growing by the minute. The same with Christianity, Hinduism,African traditional religion etc. Zoroastrianism, Mithraism and you name it have already fallen. Not by the sword but by the recognition of truth.

1 - evidence
2 - works both ways

I have noticed everywhere you malign Muhammad (S+)

Over generalisation

but when a follower of Muhammad comes along you get hysterical.

Who here is acting hysterical?

Very few of you can really debate.

personal attack

You pretend so much how you love freedom of speech but I will prove to you in the end of the day how true colours will show. I am not addressing you personally.

You're trying to say that we don't like freedom of speech. If you are that's hilarious

I can only speak well of The Great Buddha and may his name be blessed wherever it is heard. The Great Buddha I regard as the Enlightened One. Have no fear. Your rights will not be trampled on.

Trying to dig your way out of a hole you just created for yourself?

 

[al-amiyr]

So? Muhammed is not the religion.
I don't think I've maligned Muhammed. We've asked repeatedly for you to justify your OP with objective standards, and you have not done it. Either you cannot, or you will not. Either way, in light of that reticence, we could turn your statement "few of you can really debate" back on you.

Did I not set it out already? Where do we begin? we must start somewhere.
Here is a Jewish Historian who wrote a book called The 100. He gave a criterion. One starting point. See what he says.

Muhammad, the greatest and most influential man in history
"My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level." (Page 33)

Michael H. Hart​

The 100:​

A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (1978
​

Is that not one criterion? What are yours so that we can measure?

 

[9Westy9]

Is that not one criterion? What are yours so that we can measure?

You can't measure subjective opinions objectively. I've already pointed this out to you, as has sojourner.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

The problem with almost all of you is this. The religion founded by Muhammad have taken away a great amount of your followers. Hundreds of millions of Buddhists have already been converted to Islaam and the conversions are growing by the minute. The same with Christianity, Hinduism,African traditional religion etc. Zoroastrianism, Mithraism and you name it have already fallen. Not by the sword but by the recognition of truth. I have noticed everywhere you malign Muhammad (S+) but when a follower of Muhammad comes along you get hysterical. Very few of you can really debate. You pretend so much how you love freedom of speech but I will prove to you in the end of the day how true colours will show. I am not addressing you personally. I can only speak well of The Great Buddha and may his name be blessed wherever it is heard. The Great Buddha I regard as the Enlightened One. Have no fear. Your rights will not be trampled on.

I've never actually maligned Mohammed, I've only ever spoken well of him. Now, I don't believe the religion he started, however, and I've put alot of study into Islam, but there's just nothing for me there. Which is why I chose Buddhism, not because of how many followers it had, but because it's the religion that was the most reasonable and best fit for me. You talk alot about people, us, attempting to silence you, not debating you, etc, etc, ad nauseum, but I don't really see that being the case here. It seems more to me like you're attempting to create tension and persecution where there is none.

 

[sojourner]

Did I not set it out already? Where do we begin? we must start somewhere.
Here is a Jewish Historian who wrote a book called The 100. He gave a criterion. One starting point. See what he says.

Muhammad, the greatest and most influential man in history
"My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level." (Page 33)

Michael H. Hart​

The 100:​

A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (1978
​

Is that not one criterion? What are yours so that we can measure?

No, that's one opinion.

I've already stated that there are no universally agreed-upon criteria, which is why the OP is an unsupportable statement.

Again: If you'd like to change the OP, I welcome you to do so.

 

[al-amiyr]

I've never actually maligned Mohammed, I've only ever spoken well of him. Now, I don't believe the religion he started, however, and I've put alot of study into Islam, but there's just nothing for me there. Which is why I chose Buddhism, not because of how many followers it had, but because it's the religion that was the most reasonable and best fit for me. You talk alot about people, us, attempting to silence you, not debating you, etc, etc, ad nauseum, but I don't really see that being the case here. It seems more to me like you're attempting to create tension and persecution where there is none.

I have seen how some posters have insulted the prophet (S+) which is actually against the rules of the forum. I did not see anyone say that it is wrong. There is no problem if you disagree with Islaam but going around calling the Prophet a rapist and a pedophile etc. is truly unbecoming. Go to any of my posts that I have created then you will see that I have started out setting out the Islaamic viewpoint and then you see who first started making provocative statements and then diverted from the topic.

 

[al-amiyr]

No, that's one opinion.

I've already stated that there are no universally agreed-upon criteria, which is why the OP is an unsupportable statement.

Again: If you'd like to change the OP, I welcome you to do so.

I said according to physical historical facts. And I have presented many from a diversified body of non-Muslim historians. Not one of them was a follower of Muhammad (S+). And until this is disproved I cannot think otherwise. Why don't the posters tackle the issues one by one. It is for them to debate the issue without slander... I am not saying that there are many who slander. I have have seen on this forum some very good intelligent debaters.

 

[9Westy9]

I have seen how some posters have insulted the prophet (S+) which is actually against the rules of the forum. I did not see anyone say that it is wrong. There is no problem if you disagree with Islaam but going around calling the Prophet a rapist and a pedophile etc. is truly unbecoming.

Their posts have, or are, being dealt with.

 

[sojourner]

I have seen how some posters have insulted the prophet (S+) which is actually against the rules of the forum. I did not see anyone say that it is wrong. There is no problem if you disagree with Islaam but going around calling the Prophet a rapist and a pedophile etc. is truly unbecoming. Go to any of my posts that I have created then you will see that I have started out setting out the Islaamic viewpoint and then you see who first started making provocative statements and then diverted from the topic.

Hmmm...
I don't read "prophet-bashing" as prohibited by the forum rules. I think it's bad form to do so, but it's not strictly prohibited.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I said according to physical historical facts. And I have presented many from a diversified body of non-Muslim historians. Not one of them was a follower of Muhammad (S+). And until this is disproved I cannot think otherwise. Why don't the posters tackle the issues one by one. It is for them to debate the issue without slander... I am not saying that there are many who slander. I have have seen on this forum some very good intelligent debaters.

As sojourner has pointed out, there can be no objective criteria for determining the truthfulness of the OP. How do you go about it? Look at quite a bit of modern day scientists, most of them speak most highly of eastern religions such as Advaita Vendanta Hinduism, or Zen Buddhism, or Taoism. These philosophies are most in tune with modern science, or so it would seem. Frankly, I could care less who speaks highly of what, I chose my particular religion based on my studies of what I thought was best for me, which is what I think all people should do, not simply choose a religion because it's their culture, or they're pressured into it, or any other such deceptive tactics.

 

[sojourner]

I said according to physical historical facts. And I have presented many from a diversified body of non-Muslim historians. Not one of them was a follower of Muhammad (S+). And until this is disproved I cannot think otherwise. Why don't the posters tackle the issues one by one. It is for them to debate the issue without slander... I am not saying that there are many who slander. I have have seen on this forum some very good intelligent debaters.

These are historic opinions, not historic facts. Again: Please present the universally-accepted criteria, so we can debate.

 

[otokage007]

A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History

Justin Bieber is much more influential. And that says a lot about Muhammad.

 

[gnostic]

I said according to physical historical facts. And I have presented many from a diversified body of non-Muslim historians. Not one of them was a follower of Muhammad (S+). And until this is disproved I cannot think otherwise.

You have presented opinions, not facts about Muhammad being the greatest human in the world, ever.

And those historians you've presented and quoted, are also matter of opinions.