Most Influential Person in History Faith & proof: According to many historians, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the most influential person in history, yet, he never dressed or ate differently from the other people. He never wore silk , he never wore gold, he never dressed arrogantly, he never ostentatiously, he never walked proud , arrogant. He never appeared in front of people like he was a king or an emperor even when he was the absolute ruler.  CoIin: Warriors/conquerers (Achilles, Alexander, Caesar, Muhammad, Hitler, etc) may be admirable for their talents, i.e. imposing their will on other people by violence and doing so better than anyone else. However, when it comes to morals, I see nothing to admire in these men. Their credo can be summed up as "Submit to me or die". "Great" men are seldom good men. If you want a moral role model, why not try Socrates, Thoreau, Mill, Gandhi, Tiger Woods..... Faith & proof: Hmmm, the christians would say the same thing about Jesus or Yahshua as Spirit-One says. But they are not muslims who said Muhammad ( pbuh ) is the most inflential person in history However, when it comes to morals, I see nothing to admire in these men. I hope you read Muhammad's biography before you say such a thing Koko_Krunch: 'I hope you read Muhammad's biography before you say such a thing' Yes i need a historical biography of Mohammad. But i want a non-biased account written by someone who doesnt have an agenda. Possibly by a non-muslim. Is there such a thing? Ive just finished reading 'Saladin' By Geoffry Hindley, great book. Wish there was someone similar about Mohammad.  Geoff: Colinian - In Alexander's defence, he did institute a grand scheme of education throughout his empire. Trying to bring secular Greek philosophy to the masses across Asia. Unfortunately, after he died it was abandoned. So he did have some ideals above conquering the world. You could equally say that Moses was the most influential person, or Abraham. But again, the moral legacy of these people is not exactly one to admire. I'd go for Henry VIII - even if he was a self-obsessed, womanising monster. If he hadn't split from the Church of Rome then there would never have been a British empire. 'Not a huge loss', people outside of Britain may think, but the whole of the modern world would be entirely different - there wouldn't be a USa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Hong Kong, South Africa, or anyone of dozens of other countries as we currently know them.  Malobear: FP, maybe the title thread should have read "Most Influential Person in History by Muslims" No one would debate you about that. "However, when it comes to morals, I see nothing to admire in these men." Understandable being you are Muslim. Just as I am sure the same thing is said between Christians about Muhammad. My intentions are not to offend you FP,but the fact is this is a big world and there is many religous beliefs and many that do not go along with the Islamic faith.So of course the people that are the most influential to them will be different. Faith & proof: My intentions are not to offend you FP,but the fact is this is a big world and there is many religous beliefs and many that do not go along with the Islamic faith.So of course the people that are the most influential to them will be different. This is what i mean by most influential person in history : http://www.wireclub.com/Forums/ViewTopic.aspx?ForumId=647371&ParentId=1255075&Replied=0 But i want a non-biased account written by someone who doesnt have an agenda. Possibly by a non-muslim. Is there such a thing? Sure.. read Biography of Muhammad By Prof. K. S. Ramakrishna Rao, Head of the Dept. of Philosophy, Govt. College for Women. University of Mysore, Mandya-571401 (Karnatika, India). Malobear: FP,you want someone that is non-biased,maybe one of the many Atheist that are members here will grace your thread with a comment. CoIin: Geoff - the "education" you mention, may or may not have led to a higher quality of life, however it was forcibly imposed upon the conquered masses. I suppose if we look at this from the point of view of utilitarianism, his actions might be considered moral, but from the point of view of intentions, Alex's were purely self-aggrandizing in my opinion. Your argument is the same one we hear from die-hard apologists of the British Empire (We gave these Indians railways and what thanks do we get?). Self-determinism is for wimps, eh? And... caveat emptor. If you accept that Alexander's imposition of Hellenistic institutions throughout his empire was morally justified (the end justified the means), by the same token, you may have to concede that Muhammad's sanguinary exploits led to greater stability on the Arabian peninsula and elsewhere. Do you really wanna open this can of worms, dude? FP - No one denies Muhammad was influential. It would be absurd to do so. I was just pointing out that influential does not necessarily mean "good". However, just as a sidenote, according to at least one survey I know of, most historians consider Alexander to be more influential than either Muhammad or Jesus. CoIin: Correction - "you may have to concede that Muhammad's sanguinary exploits WERE MORALLY JUSTIFIED AS THEY led to greater stability on the Arabian peninsula and elsewhere" Point5andahalf: Malo: "you want someone that is non-biased,maybe one of the many Atheist that are mmbers here will grace your thread with a comment" non-biased, hahaha. Pretty hard to find anyone non-biased (including me probably), let alone non-biased atheists in this forum. Faith & proof: FP - No one denies Muhammad was influential. It would be absurd to do so. I was just pointing out that influential does not necessarily mean "good". I agree but not in the case of Muhammad. You know why? Because by nature he was gentle and kind hearted, always inclined to be gracious and to overlook the faults of others. Politeness and courtesy, compassion and tenderness, simplicity and humility, sympathy and sincerity were some of the keynotes of his character. In the cause of right and justice he could be resolute and severe but more often than not, his severity was tempered with generosity. He had charming manners which won him the affection of his followers and secured their devotion. Though virtual king of Arabia and an apostle of Allah, he never assumed an air of superiority. oh_good_laughs: Mohammed knew that s~y would sell very well among the group of his lecherous followers who were motivated to fight battles by the promise of s%^ slaves and booty. By constantly emphasizing to his followers that they would get untouched virgins in Paradise, Mohammed is clearly expressing his "high" opinion of the institution of marriage and his fairness to women. Once the followers go to heaven, they can conveniently ditch their wives for the fresher and more pleasurable sexual encounters with 'Houris' (beautiful virgins).. But wait, Allah is all merciful! He gives the wives the rare honour of watching their husbands deflower those 72 Houris (virgins) and 28 young pre-pubescent boys. http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/heaven.html CoIin: I dunno. I'm told to respect other's beliefs. When a belief is patently absurd and in many cases demonstratably false, should I respect that? Geoff: Oh no, Colinan - I wasn't saying that his policy of education balanced out the wrongs of his actions. And I would NEVER say that the end justifies the means. That was Lenin's excuse for some of the atrocities committed during the Russian revolution. "You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs." (QFM). Which, IMO, is a morally indefensible position. CoIin: Cool! I see you got a Mutt award. I started that. Seems my sphere of influence is growing too  Animal Lover: I have to say, I think Jesus Christ wins. People still believe in him today after more than 2000 years. I am not convinced he was the son of God so I'm not a Christian. | Religion Chat Room 16 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
