The Greatness of Prophet Muhammad

[Ixtab]

The Greatness of Prophet Muhammad
by Zafar Ali Qureshi

First published in "The Qur´anic Horizons"


The Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is one of the most talked of person in the whole range of human history. Throughout the ages his followers and others have vied with one another in writing from their different angles and viewpoints on the various facets of the life and teachings of the Prophet (SWT). And it is but meet that it should be so. Arthur N. Wollaston writes in his book Half-Hours with Muhammad: "The Prophet of Islam has had a more potent influence on the destinies of mankind than has been vouchsafed to any son of Adam who has left footprints on the sands of time." [1] John William Draper observes in his classic The Intellectual Development of Europe about the Holy Prophet (SAW): "Four years after the death of Justinian was born the man who, of all men, has exercised the greatest influence upon the human race." [2]

For a correct appraisal and appreciation of the work and worth of the Holy Prophet (SAW), some idea of the condition of the world before his advent needs to be given. Syed Ameer Ali says in his The Spirit of Islam:The holy flames kindled by Zoroaster, Moses and Jesus had been quenched in the blood of men. A corrupt Zoroastrianism batting for centuries with a still more corrupt Christianity had stifled the voice of humanity, and converted some of the happiest portions of the globe into a veritable Aceldama. Incessant war for supremacy, perpetual internecine strife, combined with a ceaseless wrangling of creeds and sects, had sucked the life-blood out of the hearts of nations, and peoples of the earth trodden under the iron heels of a lifeless sacerdotalism, were crying to God from the misdeeds of their masters. Never in the history of the world was the need so great, the time so ripe, for the appearance of a Deliverer. [3]In that benighted era in a corner of the globe called Arabia darkness reigned more supreme. The law of the jungle was the code of behavior of the Arabs; "Might is Right" was their guiding principle of life. Their manners were rude, vulgar, and uncouth. Their morals were at the lowest ebb. They led a gay life of gambling and adultery. Loot and plunder was their motto, murder and rapine their very habits.

The German scholar, Von Kremer, writing in his History of Islamic Civilization, says, "Wine, women and war were the only three objects which claimed the love and devotion of the Arabs." [4]

Sir William Muir states in his Life of Mahomet:The prospects of Arabia before the rise of Mahomet were as unfavorable to religious reform as they were to political union or natural regeneration. The foundation of Arab faith was a deep-rooted idolatry, which, for centuries, had stood proof with no palpable sign of decay, against every attempt at evangelisation from Egypt and Syria. [5]Surveying the condition of the world at large, Denison states in his book Emotion as the Basis of Civilization:In the fifth and sixth centuries the civilized world stood on the verge of chaos. The old emotional culture that had made civilization possible... had broken down and nothing had been found adequate to take its place. It seemed then that the great civilization that it had taken four thousand years to construct was on the verge of disintegration and that mankind was likely to return to the condition of barbarism where every tribe and sect was against the next and law and order unknown. The new sanctions created by Christianity were working division and destruction instead of unity and order. Civilization like a gigantic tree whose foliage had overreached the world... stood tottering rotten to the core. It was among these people that the man was born who was to unite the whole known world of east and south. [6]This man was the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) -- "the Praised One."

From the very beginning he was unique in his person and behavior. His whole nation testified to his truthfulness and sincerity of purpose. They called him Al-Sadiq -- the Truthful, and Al-Ameen -- the Trustworthy. In all his multifarious dealings with all sorts of people he was gentle and kind, straightforward and upright. He had a sweetness and charm of his own in his talk and deportment. Though born among lewd folks he never indulged in any kind of indecency. He stood aloof from the feuds and wrangling of his people. On the other hand, he shared the weal and woes of everyone and was always ready to give a helping hand to the needy and the downtrodden, the helpless and the indigent, widows and orphans, slaves and wayfarers. In such a topsy-turvy world he towered above all. He was a beacon of light in the vast ocean of darkness spreading all around. Sir William Muir says, "All authorities agree in ascribing to the youth of Mahomet a modesty of deportment and purity of manners rare among the people of Mecca." [7]

When the Holy Prophet (SAW) reached the age of forty he was called upon by the Almighty to proclaim the message of Islam, the message of hope and cheer to the downtrodden humanity, the message of liberty, equality, and fraternity, the message of peace and goodwill on earth.

He chided them for all sorts of injustice and iniquity perpetrated by them and admonished them to come back to paths of justice and fair play and to give every man his due -- particularly the downtrodden and the weak, women, children, and slaves.

He deplored their puerile notions of superstitions and soothsaying, and exhorted them to acquire knowledge and learning, and to take their rightful place in the scheme of creation.

He upbraided them for their evil habits and evil ways, and asked them to inculcate notions of gentleness and kindness, and to lead lives of righteousness and piety.

Above all he told them that one day they shall have to account for all their deeds, good or bad, and no pedigree, no wealth, no distinctions of birth or position would avail them aught on the Day of Reckoning. True faith and good deeds alone will stand them in good stead on that Day.

His people, who were steeped in idolatry and other abominable vices, turned against him. He was laughed at, scoffed at, jeered upon, reviled, upbraided, pelted with stones and threatened with all sorts of dire consequences. His very life was at times in jeopardy and danger. But he stood like a rock, dauntless and fearless, against heavy odds, against the very furies of hell let loose upon him. He had illimitable faith in the Lord God, in the justice of his cause and the truthfulness of his mission. He thus triumphed over all opposition, all obstacles and all impediments.

A hostile critic like Sir William Muir has admitted:We search in vain through the pages of profane history for a parallel to the struggle in which for thirteen years the Prophet of Arabia, in the face of discouragement and threat, retained thus his faith unwavering, preached repentance and denounced God´s wrath against his godless fellow citizens. Surrounded by a little band of faithfull men and women, he met insults, menaces and dangers with a lofty and patient trust in the future. Not less marked was the firm front and unchanging faith in eventual victory which at Medina bore him through seven years of mortal conflict with his native city. [8]At another place speaking about the Holy Prophet´s trust in Allah (SWT), Sir William Muir writes:...the first point which strikes the biographer is his [the Prophet´s] constant and vivid sense of a special and all-pervading Providence. This conviction moulded his thoughts and designs from the minutest actions in private and social life to the grand conception that he was destined to be the Reformer of his people. In trouble and affiction, as well as in prosperity and joy, he ever saw and humbly acknowledged the hand of God. [9]Over and over again stress is laid in the Holy Qur´an on the observance of two cardinal principles of human conduct: "Keep up prayer and pay the Zakat" -- in short, emphasizing man´s obligation to his Creator on the one hand and to His creatures on the other.

Speaking about the purpose of the Holy Qur´an, Allama Iqbal says in his Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam:The main purpose of the Qur´an is to awaken in man the higher consciousness of his manifold relations with God and the universe. It is in view of this essential aspect of the Quranic teaching that Goethe, while making a general review of Islam as an educational force said to Eckerman: "Your see this teaching never fails. With all our systems, we cannot go; and generally speaking no man can go further than that." [10]In regard to the personality of the Prophet, it needs perhaps be stressed that he towers above all whom history calls by the name of "great." Of all the so-called "makers of history" none has made any deep impression on more than one or two aspects of variegated life with the mark of his personality. If someone is the exponent of theories he is deficient in "practical politics." If someone is renowned as a statesman, he is not a man of action in the real sense of the word. If someone is adept in ethics and spirituality he is a miserable failure in handling the mundane affairs of the word. One can go on multiplying examples of this sort. In short, one comes across heroes who are proficient and adepts in one walk of life only. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is the only example in history where all the fine traits of a grand personality are blended together in a most perfect manner.

He is a seer as well as a living embodiment of his noble teachings. He is a wonderful reformer as well as a remarkable law-giver. He is a judge of the highest eminence as well as a noted man of action. He is an illustrious statesman as well as an incomparable General. He is a great ruler as well as a superb spiritual guide. In short there is a perfect amalgam of spiritual as well as mundane traits in him.

Apart from this, all the noted figures of history were more or less products of their surroundings. His case is a unique one in that his surroundings did not exert the least influence upon his personality or mission.

Of all the so-called "makers of history" or revolutionary figures, the Holy Prophet (SAW) is the only person who had to find ways and means of starting a revolution where none existed before, who had to bring together the wherewithal of revolution, who had to mold and produce the kind of men he wanted for his purpose because the very spirit of reform and revolution and its attendant paraphernalia were non-existent in those people among whom his lot was cast.

In his History of the Muslims of Spain, the Dutch historian Reinhardt Dozy writes about the difficulties faced by the Holy Prophet (SAW): "He had to mould, to metamorphose a sensual and sceptical people -- a nation of scoffers." [11]

Rom Landau says in his book Islam and the Arabs: "He [the Prophet] had to impose discipline upon a society that thrived on tribal violence and blood vengeance.... His problem was to replace humanity for cruelty, order for anarchy, and justice for sheer might." [12]

By sheer dint of his personality the Holy Prophet (SAW) changed the thoughts, habits, and morals of the Arabs. He turned the uncouth into cultured, the barbarous into the civilized, the evildoers into pious and righteous persons. Under his spell and guidance, "sterile Arabia seems to have become converted as if by magic," as Professor Philip K. Hitti has put it, "into a nursery of heroes the like of whom in number and quality is hard to match anywhere." [13]

He accomplished this fact through his captivating manners, his endearing courtesy, and his noble teachings. By his gentle behavior he befriended even his enemies. He captivated the hearts of the people with his unbounded sympathy and the milk of human kindness. He ruled justly. He did not swerve from the path of justice and righteousness. He did not deceive or break any promise even with his worst enemies who had driven him out of his native place, who were after his very life, who had pitted the whole of Arabia against him. In fact he forgave them all when he triumphed over them. He did not avenge anyone for his personal grievance.

In spite of the fact that he became the ruler of his country, the Prophet (SAW) lived poorly as before in his thatched cottage. He did not seek any reward or profit for his own person, nor did he leave any property for his heirs. Till his last moments there was not the slightest tinge of the royal pomp and show, nor of princely glory or hauteur of the high and the mighty in him. He moved among the people and was always at their beck and call. He ruled over the hearts of the people. In a sublime manner, he fulfilled all his obligations to his Creator and His creation.

It is not humanly possible to bring out in the compass of a short article all the salient points of the life and teachings of the Prophet (SAW) with any semblance of justice. Volumes are needed for the purpose. We shall confine ourselves to quoting some of the rich tributes which have been paid by the scholars to the character and achievments of the Holy Prophet (SAW).

Stanley Lane-Poole says in his Studies in Mosque:He was an enthusiast when enthusiasm was the one thing needed to set the world aflame, and his enthusiasm was noble for a noble cause. He was one of those happy few who have attained the supreme joy of making one great truth their very life-spring. [14]In another book, The Speeches and Table-Talk of Prophet Muhammad, the same author writes:He was gifted with mighty powers of imagination, elevation of mind, delicacy and refinement of feeling.... He was most indulgent to his inferiors, and would never allow his little servant to be scolded. He was the sweetest and most agreeable in conversation.[15]Edward Gibbon writes in his famous Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:His [the Prophet´s] memory was capacious and retentive; his wit ready and social, his imagination sublime, his judgment clear, rapid, and decisive. He possessed the courage of both thought and action. [16]Stobbart writes in his book Islam and its Founder:The chief characteristic of his character was a quiet patient determination of will and fixedness of purpose which neither years of opposition nor personal danger nor exile could subdue, and ´which was destined to achieve the marvellous work of bowing towards him the heart of Arabia as the heart of one man!´[17]Major A.G. Leonard writes in his book Islam: Her Moral and Spiritual Value:A man not only great, but one of the greatest, i.e., truest man that humanity has ever produced. Great not simply as a Prophet, but as a patriot and a statesman: a material as well as spiritual leader who constructed a great nation, a great empire, and even more than all these, a still greater Faith. True, moreover, because he was true to himself, to his people, and above all to his God. [18]Various Roles of the Holy Prophet (SAW)

[Ixtab]

As a Prophet: Professor Nathaniel Schmidt writes in The New International Encyclopedia:... an historical criticism that blinks no fact, yields nothing to credulity, weighs every testimony, has no partisan interest and seeks only the truth, must acknowledge his [the Prophet´s] claim to belong to that order of prophets who... in diverse times and diverse manners, have admonished, taught, uttered austere and sublime truths, laid down principles of conduct nobler than those they found, and devoted themselves fearlessly to their high calling, being impelled to their ministry by a power within. [19]As a Social Reformer and Lawgiver: The German scholar Dr. Gustav Weil writes in his History of the Islamic Peoples:It was he who purified Arabia of idolatry and released it from foreign bondage. It was he who substituted an inviolable and inviolate system of law in place of blood-revenge, law of might and caprice. It was he who laid down the law for all times. It was he who softened the hard lot of slaves, and showed a paternal care for the poor, the orphan and the widow. It was he who assigned a share to them in the poor-tax. [20]As a Master-Mind or Great Revolutionary: C.W.C. Oman writes in his book The Byzantine Empire:For the first and last time in history there had arisen among the Arabs one of those world-compelling minds that are destined to turn aside the current of events into new channels and change the face of whole continents. [21]As a General: G.M. Draycott says in his Life of Mohammad:...continually the master of his circumstances, whom no emergency could find unprepared, whose confidence in himself nothing could shake, and who by virtue of his enthusiasm and ceaseless activity wrested his triumphs from the hands of his enemies.22As a Statesman: S.P. Scott writes in his monumental History of the Moorish Empire in Europe, Vol. I:Rather may these results be designated the operations of a master-mind actuated by lofty ambition; a mind capable of solving the most perplexing questions of statecraft, and endowed with a degree of political wisdom not often exhibited by even those whom the voice of history has invested with the proud title of "artificers of nations." [23]As an Administrator: W. Montgomery Watt writes in his book, Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman:...there is his skill and tact as an administrator and his wisdom in the choice of men to whom to delegate administrative details. Sound institutions and a sound policy will not go far if the execution of affairs is faulty and fumbling. When Muhammad died, the state he founded was a "going concern," able to withstand the shock of his removal and, once it had recovered from the shock, to expand at prodigious speed. [24]As a Just Ruler: Sir William Murir writes in his Life of Mahomet:In the exercise of a power absolutely dictatorial, Mahomet was just and temperate. Nor was he wanting in moderation towards his enemies. [25]As a Genius: Charless Mills writes in his History of Mohammedanism:Deeply read in the volume of nature though extremely ignorant of letters, his [the Prophet´s] mind could expand into controversy with the wisest of his enemies, or contract itself to the apprehension of the meanest of his disciples. His simple eloquence was rendered impressive by a manner of mixed dignity and elegance, by the expression of a countenance wherein the awfulness of majesty was so well-tempered by an amiable sweetness that it excited emotions of veneration and love; and he was gifted with that authoritative air of genius which alike influences the learned and commands the illiterate. [26]As a Born Leader of Men: Arthur N. Wollaston writes in Half-Hours with Muhammad:He had command over the hearts of men such as has never been surpassed, rarely indeed equaled in the history of mankind. [27]Carlyle writes in the same strain:No emperor with his tiara was obeyed more as this man in the cloak of his own clouting. [28]No Change in the Prophet´s Behaviour or Conduct. R. Bosworth Smith writes in his book Mohammad and Mohammadanism:On the whole the wonder is to me not how much, but how little under different circumstances, Mohammad differed from himself. In the shepherd of the desert, in the Syrian trader, in the solitary recluse of Mount Hira, in the reformer in the minority of one, in the ruler of Medina, in the acknowledged conqueror, in the equal of the Persian Khusraw and the Greek Heraclius, we can still trace a substantial unity. I doubt whether any other man, whose external conditions changed so much, ever himself changed less to meet them: the accidents are changed, the essence seems to me to be the same in all. [29]At another place Bosworth Smith says:Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without the Pope´s pretensions and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a body-guard, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man had the right to rule by a right Divine, it was Mohammed for he had all the power without its instruments and without its support. [30]Washington Irving writes in his Life of Mahomet:His military triumphs awakened no pride nor vainglory as they would have done had they been effected for selfish purposes. In the time of his greatest power he maintained the same simplicity of manners and appearance as in the days of his adversity. So far from affecting regal state, he was displeased if, on entering a room, any unusual testimonial of respect was shown him. If he aimed at universal dominion, it was the dominion of faith, as to the temporal rule which grew up in hands he used it without ostentation, and he took no steps to perpetuate it in his family. [31]Edward Gibbon writes in the same strain in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:[/list]Even at the zenith of his worldly power the good sense of Mohammad despised the pomp of royalty; the apostle of God submitted to the menial offices of the family; he kindled the fire, swept the floor, milked the ewes and mended with his own hands his woolen garments. [32]Best Exemplar as a Perfect Man: D.G. Hogarth says in his A History of Arabia:Serious or trivial, his daily behaviour has instituted a canon which millions observe to this day with conscious mimicry. No one regarded by any section of the human race as Perfect Man has been imitated so minutely. [33]

Achievements of the Prophet

Syed Ameer Ali writes in his work The Spirit of Islam:His life is the noblest record of a work nobly and faithfully performed. He infused vitality into a dormant people; he consolidated a congeries of warring tribes into a nation, inspired into action with the hope of everlasting life; he concentrated into a focus all the fragmentary and broken lights which had fallen on the heart of man. Such was his work, and he performed it with an enthusiasm and favor which admitted no compromise, conceived no halting; with indomitable courage which brooked no resistance, and allowed no fear of consequences; with a singleness of purpose which thought of no self.... The Recluse of Hira, the unlettered philosopher -- born among a nation of unyielding idolaters -- impressed ineffaceably the Unity of God and the equality of man upon the minds of the nations who once heard his voice. His "democratic thunder" was the signal for the upraise of the human intellect against tyranny of priests and rulers. In that "world of wrangling creeds and oppressive institutions when the human soul was crushed under the weight of unintelligible dogmas, and the human body trampled under the tyranny of vested interests, he broke down the barriers of caste and exclusive privileges. He swept away with his breath the cobwebs which self-interest had woven in the path of man to God. He abolished all exclusiveness in man´s relations to his Creator. This unlettered Prophet, whose message was for the masses, proclaimed the value of knowledge and learning. His persistent and unvarying appeal to reason and to the ethical faculty of mankind "his thoroughly democratic conception of divine government, the universality of his religious ideal, his simple humanity" -- all serve to differentiate him from his predecessors, "all affiliate him," says the author of Oriental Religions, "with the modern world."34Philip K. Hitti writes in his History of Arabs:Within a brief span of mortal life, Muhammad called forth out of unpromising material a nation never united before in a country that was hitherto but a geographical expression, he established a religion which in vast areas superseded Christianity and Judaism and still claims the adherence of a goodly portion of the human race. [35]Horace Shipp writes in his book Faiths that Moved the World:He found Arabia a land of primitive idolatry, tribal strife, and in fear of the powerful neighboring peoples. He left it united, vital and in possession of a great faith. He brought into the world the most powerful monotheistic religion. [36]Carlyle says in his classic Heroes and Hero-worship:To the Arab nation it was a birth from darkness into light.

Arabia first became alive by means of it.

A poor shepherd people, roaming unnoticed in its deserts since the creation of the world, a Hero-Prophet was sent down to them with a word they could believe; see the unnoticed becomes world notable, the small has grown world-great; within one century afterwards, Arabia is at Granada on this, at Delhi on that, glancing in valor and splendor and the light of genius, Arabia shines through long ages over a great section of the world. [37]Professor Oliver J. Thatcher writes in his A General History of Europe:Mohammad made the Arabs into a nation and brought them into history. His influence on them intellectually may be seen from the fact that for nearly three hundred years the Arabs led the world in civilization. [38]Encyclopaedia Brittanica records:Of all the Prophets and religious personalities of the world, Muhammad was the most successful. [39]French historian, Lamartine, says in his Historie de la Turquie:[/list]Never has man set for himself, voluntarily or involuntarily, a more sublime aim, since this aim was superhuman, to subvert superstitions which had been interposed between man and his Creator, to render God unto man and man unto God; to restore the rational and sacred idea of divinity amidst the chaos of the material and disfigured gods of idolatry then existing. Never has a man undertaken a work so far beyond human power with so feeble mans, for he [the Propohet] had in the conception as well as in the execution of such a great design no other instrument than himself, and no other aid, except a handful of men living in a corner of the desert.

If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in history with Muhammad?

The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs, and the souls. On the basis of a Book, every letter of which has become law, he created a spiritual nationality which blended together peoples of every tongue and every race. He has left us as the indelible characteristic of this Muslim nationality the hatred of false gods, and the passion for the One and Immaterial God. His life, his meditations, his heroic reviling against the superstitions of his country, and his boldness in defying the furies of idolatry, his firmness in enduring them for thirteen years at Mecca, his acceptance of the role of public scorn and almost of being a victim of his fellow country-men: all these and, finally, his flight, his incessant preaching, his wars against odds, his faith in his success and his superhuman security in misfortune, his forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death: all these attest... to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold, the Unity of God and the Immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not;...

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 him? [40]


Endnotes


Wollaston, Arthur N., Half-Hours with Muhammad (London: W.H. Allen & Com., 1886) p. 1.

Draper, John William., History of the Intellectual Development of Europe (London, 1895) Vol. I, p. 329.

Ameer Ali, Syed., The Spirit of Islam (London: Christophers, 1949) Fifth Impression, p. xviii (Introduction)

Khuda Bukhsh, S., Contributions to the History of Islamic Civilization (Calcutta University Press, 1904) second edition, p. 165 (Contains English Translation of Von Kremer´s Culturegeschichtliche Streifzug)

Muir, Sir William., Life of Mahomet (London: 1961) Vol. I, pp, ccxxxv-ccxxxvi (Introduction)

Iqbal, Allama Muhammad., Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam (Lahore: 1977) pp. 146-147, quoting Denison´s Emotion as the Basis of Civilization.

Muir, Sir William., Life of Mahomet, op.cit., Vol. 2, p. 14.

Ibid, Vol. 4, p. 315.

Ibid, Vol. 4, p. 311.

Iqbal, Allama Muhammad., Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, op.cit., pp. 8-9.

Dozy, Reinhardt., Spanish Islam, translated by F.G. Stokes, (London, 1913) p. 15.

Landau, Rom., Islam and the Arabs (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1958) p. 24.

Hitti, Philip K., History of the Arabs (London: Macmillan, 1968) Ninth Edition, , pp. 121-122 & 142.

Lane-Poole, Stanley., Studies in a Mosque (Beirut: Khayats, 1966) p. 84.

Lane-Poole, Stanley., Speeches and Table-Talk of Prophet Muhammad (London: Macmillan, 1882) pp. xxviii-xxix (Introduction).

Gibbon, Edward., The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (New York: Modern Liberary) Vol. II, p. 657.

Stobbart, Islam and Its Founder (London: S.P.C.K., 1901) p. 58.

Leonard, Major A.G., Islam: Her Moral and Spiritual Value (Lahore: Reprint) p. 21.

New International Encyclopedia, 1916, Vol. XVI.

Khuda Bukhsh, S., A History of the Islamic Peoples, translated from the German of Dr. Well´s Geschichte der Islamitischen Volker (University of Calcutta, 1914) p. 27.

Oman., The Byzantine Empire (London: T. Fisher Unwin,1892) p. 159.

Draycott., Mahomet (London: 1916) pp. 21-22.

Scott., History of the Moorish Empire in Europe (Philadelphia: 1905) Vol. I, pp. 96-97.

Watt, Montgomery., Muhammd, Prophet and Statesman (Oxford University Press, 1961) p. 237.

Muir, Sir William., Life of Mahomet, op.cit. Vol. 4, p. 306.

Mills, Charles., Muhammadanism (London: 1818) second edition, pp. 38-39.

Wollaston, Arthur N., Half-Hours with Muhammad, op.cot., p. 32.

Carlyle, Thomas., Sartor Resartus, On Heroes and Hero Worship, (London: Everyman´s Library, 1965) p. 305.

Smith, Bosworth., Muhammad and Muhammadanism (Lahore) reprint of second edition, pp. 98-99.

Ibid, p. 242.

Irving, Washington., Life of Mahomet (London: J.M. Dent & Co., 1949) p. 238.

Gibbon, Edward., The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, op.cit., Vol. II, p. 694.

Hogarth., A History of Arabia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922) p. 52.

Ameer Ali, Syed., The Spirit of Islam, op.cit., pp. 112-113.

Hitti, Philip K., History of the Arabs, op.cit., pp. 121-122.

Shipp, Horace., Faiths that Moved the World (Evans Brothers, 1946) pp. 88-89.

Caryle, Thomas., Sartor Resartus, On Heroes and Hero-Worship, op.cit., pp. 310-311.

Thatcher, Oliver J., and Schwill, Ferdinand., A General History of Europe (London: John Murray, 1919) p. 170.

Encyclopedia Brittanica, 11th Edition, Article "Koran," by Th. Noldeke.

Hamidullah, Dr. Muhammad., Le Prophete d´l Islam, II-Son Oeuvre (Paris, 1959) pp. 688-689, quoting Alphonse de Lamartine. Histoire de la Turquie, I, pp. 276-280.

[Anarch]

Anyone else asides from me think the Ka'bah should be melted down into a statute of Julian the Apostate and placed on the ruins of Jerusalem?

[Jimbo Gomez]

How about Mohammed's corpse dug up and his skull used as a penholder on the Pope's desk? :D

[Petr]

Anyone else asides from me think the Ka'bah should be melted down into a statute of Julian the Apostate and placed on the ruins of Jerusalem?

That's actually quite unappropriate, considering that Julian actually offered to rebuild Jerusalem himself.

Here's a letter from emperor Julian the Apostate to the Jewish community:


I. Julian Proposes to Rebuild Jerusalem, 362-363: To The Community Of The Jews

In times past, by far the most burdensome thing in the yoke of your slavery has been the fact that you were subjected to unauthorized ordinances and had to contribute an untold amount of money to the accounts of the treasury. [Ever since Vespasian, about 72 CE, the Jews had been paying the Romans special Jewish taxes, like the Fiscus Judaicus.] Of this I used to see many instances with my own eyes, and I have learned of more, by finding the records which are preserved against you. Moreover, when a tax was about to be levied on you again I prevented it, and compelled the impiety of such obloquy to cease here; and I threw into the fire the records against you that were stored in my desks; so that it is no longer possible for anyone to aim at you such a reproach of impiety. My brother [cousin] Constantius of honored memory [in whose reign, 337-361, severe laws were enacted against the Jews] was not so much responsible for these wrongs of yours as were the men who used to frequent his table, barbarians in mind, godless in soul. These I seized with my own hands and put them to death by thrusting them into the pit, that not even any memory of their destruction might still linger amongst us.

And since I wish that you should prosper yet more, I have admonished my brother Iulus [Hillel II, d. 365], your most venerable patriarch, that the levy which is said to exist among you [the taxes paid by world Jewry for support of the Palestinian patriarchate] should be prohibited, and that no one is any longer to have the power to oppress the masses of your people by such exactions; so that everywhere, during my reign, you may have security of mind, and in the enjoyment of peace may offer more fervid prayers for my reign to the Most High God, the Creator, who has deigned to crown me with his own immaculate right hand. For it is natural that men who are distracted by any anxiety should be hampered in spirit, and should not have so much confidence in raising their hands to pray; but that those who are in all respects free from care should rejoice with their whole hearts and offer their suppliant prayers on behalf of my imperial office to Mighty God, even to Him who is able to direct my reign to the noblest ends, according to my purpose.

This you ought to do, in order that, when I have successfully concluded the war with Persia, I may rebuild by my own efforts the sacred city of Jerusalem [closed to the Jews since Hadrian, 135 CE], which for so many years you have longed to see inhabited, and may bring settlers there, and, together with you, may glorify the Most High God therein.


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/julian-jews.html


Petr

[Billy Score]

Anyone else asides from me think the Ka'bah should be melted down into a statute of Julian the Apostate and placed on the ruins of Jerusalem?

I agree.

Petr- He wanted to use the jews against the christians. it certainly wasn't out of any real sympathy for them.

Also- this post does not belong in the socialist paradise. It will be moved to the appropriate forum.

[Petr]

Petr- He wanted to use the jews against the christians. it certainly wasn't out of any real sympathy for them.
Irrelevant.

Also- this post does not belong in the socialist paradise. It will be moved to the appropriate forum.
Whatever, Bolshevik.


Petr

[Billy Score]

i find it somewhat humorous that you responded personally to a statement that was made in general and did not concern you.

Also: neither statement proved anything. It is relevant to point that to Julian the jews were a means to an end. he did not seek to replace christianity with judaism but use one to destroy the other.

[Ixtab]

I agree. I now have some doubts as to whether you are a Socialist. I can tolerate Lucifer's arrogant inhumanity, because his ideology is more of a personality disorder than anything else, and I have sympathy for the mentally ill, but not that of anyone who considers himself a Socialist.
It will be moved to the appropriate forum.A highly inappropriate forum, actually.
I have a very high opinion of men like Jesus Christ, Muhammed, John Ball, etc. -- precicely and only because I am a Socialist.

[Vindex]

A question is why did Julian not love the chrisitans. As for rebuilding the temple he felt it would encourge the jews to go back to the middle east among other things. Too bad some cowardly christian put a spear in his back. He would not have lived too long if he tried it from the front.

[Billy Score]

I now have some doubts as to whether you are a Socialist. I can tolerate Lucifer's arrogant inhumanity, because his ideology is more of a personality disorder than anything else, and I have sympathy for the mentally ill, but not that of anyone who considers himself a Socialist.
A highly inappropriate forum, actually.
I have a very high opinion of men like Jesus Christ, Muhammed, John Ball, etc. -- precicely and only because I am a Socialist.

Islam has its merits but it is overall a cancerous parasite of a religion. And it is a culture destroyer.

how is this forum inappropriate?

[Ixtab]

Islam has its merits but it is overall a cancerous parasite of a religion. And it is a culture destroyer. This is partly why I left the forum--99% of the posts consist in pure opinion, rarely ever any informative content. So you dislike Islam -- that's all you've managed to really say. You and others only seem to express or evince your emotions of approval or disapproval. The logical character of such expressions is that of exclamation. You might as well yell "Islam!" in a tone of horror. It adds nothing to the discussion whatsoever.
This is why the forum is dying. There is nothing to discuss when all that is related are autobiographical descriptions of subjective feeling, of approval or disapproval.
I will not abandon this forum, however. There are too many excellent people here. I will simply return again when things have changed.

[Atlas]

Not talking about the darkies who immigrate to western Europe. I'm as much against them as anyone. I hate pakis and latins and all manner of dark, greasy trash humanoid garbage.

I say the Arabs who fight for their rights and homes on their own land are NATURAL people who don't care about the plastic garbage the jews have convinced us we all must have.

A true Arab ON HIS OWN GROUND is more of a True Comrade to Nazis than some white who bows to the jews, government or police.

Would you have the Iraqis bowing and scraping to Bush's invaders? You would respect THAT? Bush is a puppet of ZOG and to fight him is honourable.

If you had your politics straight, you would know Bin Laden is more of a brother than Bush or Blair...they BETRAY their race and betray YOU!

[Billy Score]

This is partly why I left the forum--99% of the posts consist in pure opinion, rarely ever any informative content. So you dislike Islam -- that's all you've managed to really say. You and others only seem to express or evince your emotions of approval or disapproval. The logical character of such expressions is that of exclamation. You might as well yell "Islam!" in a tone of horror. It adds nothing to the discussion whatsoever.
This is why the forum is dying. There is nothing to discuss when all that is related are autobiographical descriptions of subjective feeling, of approval or disapproval.
I will not abandon this forum, however. There are too many excellent people here. I will simply return again when things have changed.
I don't feel like its worth making any serious argument- you'll change your thoughts on islam in the next 6 months and become a hindu or something. It is better to just wait it out.

[Ixtab]

I don't feel like its worth making any serious argument- you'll change your thoughts on islam in the next 6 months and become a hindu or something. It is better to just wait it out.So my flaw, apparently, is that I adjust my views in light of new information; against the wishes of Mazdak whose fundamental trait is thick-headed mental rigidity.
But on this occasion, he is mistaken. I have not changed my views. My view on Islam has been more or less the same since I actually looked into it and studied it with an approach to completeness, a few years ago. Something which incurious philistines like Mazdak can't be bothered with.
My views on Islam are no different from the views I have always had on a number of other mythological systems. Legends rest upon ideals, mythical heroes rest upon popular ideals, and therefore democratic ideals must have dominated the popular mind before they found expression in Islam, Christianity and other noble creeds.

Edited to add: Your opposition to democracy is also alarming. It reinforces my suspicion that you have nothing but the utmost hostility towards Socialism, which is democratic and cannot be otherwise.

[Felix the Cat]

A question to the Christians here -

Would you prefer it if the Arabs had remained illiterate pagans, rather than they had become Muslim?

[Excorcism]

A question to the Christians here -

Would you prefer it if the Arabs had remained illiterate pagans, rather than they had become Muslim?

<part Christian>

If that meant that the Arabs wouldn't invade Iran and try to destroy Iran's culture, then yes! Islam (Wahabi Sunni) seems to preach against mercy and tolerance. That just doesn't fly well with me. Not being capable of mercy and tolerance is a sign of weakness.

[jcs]

If that meant that the Arabs wouldn't invade Iran and try to destroy Iran's culture
Iran's culture was pretty much dead by the time of Islam.

democratic ideals must have dominated the popular mind before they found expression in Islam, Christianity and other noble creeds
Fortunately, anti-democratic ideals could also be found in such creeds, or in the way these religions historically played out, which is why I find Islam and Christianity redeemable.
It is my view that nothing can come into being that lacks, on some level, a good degree of nihilism that will ultimately lead the ideal and its ideologues to decadence and self-destruction. In the Western European form of Christianity, this decadence seems to have been socialism in some veiled form.
A life-line of the West:
Ghibbeline feudalism --> Guelphist feudalism (first steps toward separation of Church and state) --> Renaissance (Christianity becomes humanism) --> Reformation (Christianity gets watered-down for the masses) --> Enlightenment (christianity/humanism become more individualistic) --> globalization, ethical imperialism, modernity.

[Excorcism]

Iran's culture was pretty much dead by the time of Islam.


Actually, it was expressed through Zoroastrianism. There just don't happen to be alot of records of Iran's culture from that time thanks to the Arab invaders that tried to destroy everything and the Iranian language.

[Billy Score]

Actually, it was expressed through Zoroastrianism. There just don't happen to be alot of records of Iran's culture from that time thanks to the Arab invaders that tried to destroy everything and the Iranian language.

This was not true- Look at Khrosrau II's expansion just before the destruction of the Empire. the empire was still strong. It had simply been caught after a devastating war before it could recover. I find it unlikely that the sassanians would have collapsed had the same arab invasion taken place only a few years earlier.

Ixabert forgive me for doubting you, but you've gone through some dramatic and drastic chnages over the years. And you always are capable of backing up your newest stance always very well. So there is no point trying to argue against it. Whether these have been in half jest or not, you cannot deny some of these have been changes have been 360s (from being ultra pro jewish to being very anti jewish).

I support Democratic centralism.

[jcs]

Actually, it was expressed through Zoroastrianism.
Zoroastrianism is a VERY old religion. I mean, it influenced early Judaism and is closely related to early forms of Hinduism. It's time had passed long before Islam.

http://www.avesta.org/avesta.html

[Felix the Cat]

That old cocksucker Gore Vidal wrote a brilliant novel about ancient Persia, "Creation", IIRC

Strongly recommended

[Ixtab]

Ixabert forgive me for doubting you, but you've gone through some dramatic and drastic chnages over the years. And you always are capable of backing up your newest stance always very well. So there is no point trying to argue against it. Whether these have been in half jest or not, you cannot deny some of these have been changes have been 360s (from being ultra pro jewish to being very anti jewish).And that last example is the only "dramatic change" I have went through that I can think of.

The other "dramatic changes" that you have cited on past occasions, have proven to be illusory, as demonstrated in a longish post I made a few months ago when you were making the same accusations. I hope you remember what I said.

[Billy Score]

And that last example is the only "dramatic change" I have went through that I can think of.

The other "dramatic changes" that you have cited on past occasions, have proven to be illusory, as demonstrated in a longish post I made a few months ago when you were making the same accusations. I hope you remember what I said.
Regardless, you cannot fault me for doubting your sincerity on political stances.

[Kodos]

How about Mohammed's corpse dug up and his skull used as a penholder on the Pope's desk? :D

Islam sucks more then catholicism but catholicism still sucks.

[Kodos]

This is partly why I left the forum--99% of the posts consist in pure opinion, rarely ever any informative content. So you dislike Islam -- that's all you've managed to really say. You and others only seem to express or evince your emotions of approval or disapproval. The logical character of such expressions is that of exclamation. You might as well yell "Islam!" in a tone of horror. It adds nothing to the discussion whatsoever.
This is why the forum is dying. There is nothing to discuss when all that is related are autobiographical descriptions of subjective feeling, of approval or disapproval.
I will not abandon this forum, however. There are too many excellent people here. I will simply return again when things have changed.


http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume2/chap50.htm#Infidels



"In the state of nature, every man has a right to defend, by force of arms, his person and his possessions; to repel, or even to prevent, the violence of his enemies, and to extend his hostilities to a reasonable measure of satisfaction and retaliation. In the free society of the Arabs, the duties of subject and citizen imposed a feeble restraint; and Mahomet, in the exercise of a peaceful and benevolent mission, had been despoiled and banished by the injustice of his countrymen. The choice of an independent people had exalted the fugitive of Mecca to the rank of a sovereign; and he was invested with the just prerogative of forming alliances, and of waging offensive or defensive war. The imperfection of human rights was supplied and armed by the plenitude of divine power: the prophet of Medina assumed, in his new revelations, a fiercer and more sanguinary tone, which proves that his former moderation was the effect of weakness: (123) the means of persuasion had been tried, the season of forbearance was elapsed, and he was now commanded to propagate his religion by the sword, to destroy the monuments of idolatry, and, without regarding the sanctity of days or months, to pursue the unbelieving nations of the earth." - Edward Gibbon

[Ixtab]

Regardless, you cannot fault me for doubting your sincerity on political stances.I am always sincere in my political stances. My opinions on this or that particular issue adjust in light of new information, but the normative basis of my beliefs, even on those same issues, hasn't changed since we first knew each other.

[Jimbo Gomez]

This is partly why I left the forum--99% of the posts consist in pure opinion, rarely ever any informative content. So you dislike Islam -- that's all you've managed to really say. You and others only seem to express or evince your emotions of approval or disapproval. The logical character of such expressions is that of exclamation. You might as well yell "Islam!" in a tone of horror. It adds nothing to the discussion whatsoever.
This is why the forum is dying. There is nothing to discuss when all that is related are autobiographical descriptions of subjective feeling, of approval or disapproval.
I will not abandon this forum, however. There are too many excellent people here. I will simply return again when things have changed.

Friend, how is it possible to post without expressing personal preferences? All you can do is link people to texts of others, and that's silly because people can dig those up themselves. We have to express our opinions when we post.

Now, tell me: you know that islamics believe the word of a Christian man only is worth half as much as that of one of their own. What do you feel about this?

[Vindex]

I do not like islam, but I will give mohammed credit, he was the single most successful human conqueror in recorded history.

[Jimbo Gomez]

I do not like islam, but I will give mohammed credit, he was the single most successful human conqueror in recorded history.


Genghis kahn and Atilla were better.

[Vindex]

No where are there empires now? The huns are gone and dust, and the Mongols empire barley lasted 200 years. But the Empire of Mohammed is still around and going strong and has over a billion people. Over a thousand years later. Mohammed conquerored with the power of religion, and the sword where the others vision was limited and thus there conquestions quickly fell apart when there where not around to lead anymore.


Genghis kahn and Atilla were better.

[Jimbo Gomez]

His religion remains, but that's it. No more empire. And even the lasting of his religion wasn't his doing. Also, what Kahn's descendats did 100 years after his death has nothing to do with his merits.

[Vindex]

The religion he founded and advanced is his Empire. There would be no Islam if not for Mohammed. His was the greater vision.


His religion remains, but that's it. No more empire. And even the lasting of his religion wasn't his doing. Also, what Kahn's descendats did 100 years after his death has nothing to do with his merits.

[Kodos]

No where are there empires now? The huns are gone and dust, and the Mongols empire barley lasted 200 years. But the Empire of Mohammed is still around and going strong and has over a billion people. Over a thousand years later. Mohammed conquerored with the power of religion, and the sword where the others vision was limited and thus there conquestions quickly fell apart when there where not around to lead anymore.

If you consider Islam one monolithic empire then I suppose you are right. There has certainly been no consistent dynasty nation or whatever that has ruled over Dar Al Islam since the Sunni Shia split. Creating a societal model based on religious stupidity and fanaticism is not something I'd want to be known for.

[Lenny]

I do not like islam, but I will give mohammed credit, he was the single most successful human conqueror in recorded history.Genghis kahn and Atilla were better.
Alexander the Great was better. He even defeated King Porus of India, Porus used 500 elephants in the battle :eek: but Alexander still managed to win. No way could Mohammed have won vs. elephants :cool:

[Billy Score]

Alexander the Great was better. He even defeated King Porus of India, Porus used 500 elephants in the battle :eek: but Alexander still managed to win. No way could Mohammed have won vs. elephants :cool:

Well, islamic empires conquered persia and most of India. So i am assuming they fought elephants (since these two were the most prone to putting war elephants on the field).

[Kodos]

Well, islamic empires conquered persia and most of India. So i am assuming they fought elephants (since these two were the most prone to putting war elephants on the field).

The official Islamic history features a ridiculous story of 3,000 arabs defeating a Sassanid army of 120,000 with Elephants.

The reality is that Persia was basically in a state of civil war at the time, and those parts of the army that were intact were concentrated along the frontier with the Byzantine empire. They probably fought some elephants but definitely not an army with a full complement of them( as Alexander, Pompey, Belisarius, Ghenghis Khan etc dealt with).

[Excorcism]

The official Islamic history features a ridiculous story of 3,000 arabs defeating a Sassanid army of 120,000 with Elephants.

The reality is that Persia was basically in a state of civil war at the time, and those parts of the army that were intact were concentrated along the frontier with the Byzantine empire. They probably fought some elephants but definitely not an army with a full complement of them( as Alexander, Pompey, Belisarius, Ghenghis Khan etc dealt with).

almost reminds me of how Alexander (or Phillip II I think) of Macedonia overtook Sparta and Athens while they were in a state of war.

[Billy Score]

almost reminds me of how Alexander (or Phillip II I think) of Macedonia overtook Sparta and Athens while they were in a state of war.

I do not think either managed to attack or take Sparta. this can be seen from Alexander's message to the Spartans; "Shall i come to Sparta as friend or foe?"

In typical laconic manner, they responded "neither."

i think he simply didn't bother, to war with sparta would have been a waste of resources and men he could ill afford. perhapsit was Byzantium and Athens, or Corinth or Thebes.

And as to the persians- yes. the parallels between the first collapse of the Persian Empire and the second cannot be denied. Both Darius and Yazdegerd III had great armies but were defeated by numerically smaller forces. Both met their ends not at the hands of enemies but at the hands of their own people. Although Yazdegerd's resistance lasted significantly longer.

[Kodos]

Phillip subjugated Greece, neither Phillip nor Alexander decided to attack Sparta directly as they probably viewed the potential loses as catastrophic relative to the value of the city.

[Ixtab]

If you consider Islam one monolithic empire then I suppose you are right. There has certainly been no consistent dynasty nation or whatever that has ruled over Dar Al Islam since the Sunni Shia split. Creating a societal model based on religious stupidity and fanaticism is not something I'd want to be known for.He did no such thing. He established in the world a tradition of fair dealing, generosity, insistence upon kindliness and consideration in people's day-to-day lives, and a society far freer from the widespread cruelty than any previous society in that part of the world. He welded the hitherto warring peoples of Arabia into a substantial unity, and if faith and will were necessary to carry out that task, I do not make any criticisms.
As to the greatness of the Islamic empire -- that has little to do with the greatest of Muhammad himself. It was indeed an impressive empire, and it could have subjugated the entire world to Allah, had there been enough faithul successors to carry out Abu Bekr's work. In fact, the only flaw was that his successors were not Muhammadan enough. The Sunni Shiite split was very much against the spirit of Muhammad. It was a reversion to the old days of bloody feuds etc. that existed generations before Muhammad was born. It marked a lack of faith in Islam, if anything -- a handful of people in Medina being more concerned with personal gain and partisan silliness than subjugating the entire world to Allah.
Nonetheless it was a remarkably successful empire. A lot of progress was made in spite of considerable political disorder.

[Ixtab]

The reality is that Persia was basically in a state of civil war at the time, That is a half-truth. By the battle of Kadessia -- the battle in which the Persian army used elepehants -- the dynastic struggle in Persia was over, and Persian resistance became quite formidable. The great Persian general Rustam comes to mind.

[Excorcism]

That is a half-truth. By the battle of Kadessia the dynastic struggle in Persia was over, and Persian resistance became quite formidable. The great Persian general Rustam comes to mind.

I recall hearing a story about how a messanger from Mohammad came to speak to the ruler of Persia before the ARab invasion. The messanger stated that Mohammad would like for Persia to convert or else they will be invaded. The Persian ruler basically said "go fuck yourself" and then the invasion happened. It was just unheard of for a bunch of nomads to grow in such considerable numbers.

[Ixtab]

I recall hearing a story about how a messanger from Mohammad came to speak to the ruler of Persia before the ARab invasion. The messanger stated that Mohammad would like for Persia to convert or else they will be invaded. The Persian ruler basically said "go fuck yourself" and then the invasion happened. It was just unheard of for a bunch of nomads to grow in such considerable numbers.Yes, it was a challenge by "Muhammad the Prophet of God" to accept the "one true God". When the Persian ruler received the letter he tore it up in anger. An identical message was sent to China, to Heraclius in Byzantine, and elsewhere.

[Kodos]

He did no such thing. He established in the world a tradition of fair dealing, generosity, insistence upon kindliness and consideration in people's day-to-day lives, and a society far freer from the widespread cruelty than any previous society in that part of the world. He welded the hitherto warring peoples of Arabia into a substantial unity, and if faith and will were necessary to carry out that task, I do not make any criticisms.


LOL, your too much Ix.

[Ixtab]

LOL, your too much Ix.The word is 'you're', which is a contraction of 'you' and 'are'.
I'm glad to see you have the integrity not to persist with your mendacious claims after their being debunked. So the debate is concluded.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Ix, do you consider islam superior to Christianity?

[Ixtab]

Ix, do you consider islam superior to Christianity?No; in some ways it is superior, in other ways it is inferior. Not quite as meticulous as Islam, as to the prescriptions on methods of prayer and worship, and allows for too many loopholes; but in certain ways Christianity is a more sublime religion. But the Alcoran also has some very sublime passages. All in all, I prefer European mythology over Semitic cults such as Christianity and Islam, as great as those Semitic cults are.

[Jimbo Gomez]

I'm telling you, you have some cryptonordicism in you. :p

[Ixtab]

If fewer Nordicists didn't despise everything not their own, I would be a Nordicist of sorts. Perhaps I can be called an Aryan romanticist (in the sense of Indo-European) with a particular fondness of things Nordic and Germanic; but by no means can I be called supremacist, nor a National Socialist, and I therefore do not wish to associate myself with Nordicists.

[Billy Score]

The first Saudi ruler of saudi arabia certainly exploited these loopholes well. I read about his bragging of having slept with hundreds fo women. Because you could marry and divorce the next morning, this is what he did.

Ix i do not say that islam is without merits, but simply that as a whole it is a detriment to national spirit and traditions. (like christianity, the cultures of the various areas have a tendency to merge or become very similar. Islam makes this far more noticeable. As i said before, Iran before islam and Iran after islam. Despite whatever problems the sassanians, the parthians, or the achaemenids had, the Persians never had the same kind of power or role in world history again.)

[Ixtab]

Lack of loopholes as to methods of prayer and worship --> means no sacrificial priest-class can emerge. Lack of ambiguity, meaning absence of the silly theological elaborations that have divided Christianity and other religions, and which the average man cannot make heads or tails of.
The Shiite Sunni split was against the spirit of Islam, as I have proven above. The feud between Ali and Othman, which gave rise to that chief division in Islam, was exactly the same type of feud that has always plagued the Arab world, long before Islam was created.

...the Persians never had the same kind of power or role in world history again.)They were declining well before Islam. Islam, by uniting the peoples of Arabia, and making Arabia a center of will and force, allowed the Arabs themselves to excel, like the Persians before them. The military compaigns that were conducted are among the most brilliant in history. They managed to recover almost all the territories taken by Persia over 1,000 before, in addition to many other territories. In science the Arabs were second only to the Greeks, and made marvelous advances over the Greek foundations. Science came to us largely from the Greeks and the Arabs, not through the Latin route.

[Excorcism]

They were declining well before Islam. Islam, by uniting the peoples of Arabia, and making Arabia a center of will and force, allowed the Arabs themselves to excel, like the Persians before them. The military compaigns that were conducted are among the most brilliant in history. They managed to recover almost all the territories taken by Persia over 1,000 before, in addition to many other territories. In science the Arabs were second only to the Greeks, and made marvelous advances over the Greek foundations. Science came to us largely from the Greeks and the Arabs, not through the Latin route.

One thing the Arabs tried to do, which is a main reason they are still disliked today by Iranians, is that they tried to destroy a great amount of Persian culture and language in make the Persians assimilate. Of course, the Persians refused and only after 200 years were the Arabs routed out. Most of the Persian culture and language was kept alive by scholars such as Ferdowsi, but I believe 3 arabic letters still remain in the Persian alphabet.

[Ixtab]

Interesting. Though most empires in history are guilty of essentially the same thing.

[Excorcism]

Interesting. Though most empires in history are guilty of essentially the same thing.

ya, I recall Xerxes under the first Persian Empire trying to place Persian culture in rules territory (which did not bode well)

[Billy Score]

Lack of loopholes as to methods of prayer and worship --> means no sacrificial priest-class can emerge. Lack of ambiguity, meaning absence of the silly theological elaborations that have divided Christianity and other religions, and which the average man cannot make heads or tails of.
The Shiite Sunni split was against the spirit of Islam, as I have proven above. The feud between Ali and Othman, which gave rise to that chief division in Islam, was exactly the same type of feud that has always plagued the Arab world, long before Islam was created.

They were declining well before Islam. Islam, by uniting the peoples of Arabia, and making Arabia a center of will and force, allowed the Arabs themselves to excel, like the Persians before them. The military compaigns that were conducted are among the most brilliant in history. They managed to recover almost all the territories taken by Persia over 1,000 before, in addition to many other territories. In science the Arabs were second only to the Greeks, and made marvelous advances over the Greek foundations. Science came to us largely from the Greeks and the Arabs, not through the Latin route.

The persian empire was an extreme example of a life/death cycle. It would be nothing then it would rise and become extremely strong but within a few centuries it would crumble again, rather quickly. The persian empire was not on the "decline" anymore than it had been after their last wars with the Byzantines. The problem was both sides saw nothing but each other. The Sassanians and the byzantines were so focused on destroying each other that both were swallowed up.

I agree with you on your above post.

[daisy]

i don't like islam because it brings out the anger in me.
it turns me against christians and it turns me against Jesus. i studied islam for about a year. it built up anger in my heart instead of love. i decided to stick to christianity because it builds up love in my heart. imo christianity is love. islam is hate.

[Excorcism]

i don't like islam because it brings out the anger in me.
it turns me against christians and it turns me against Jesus. i studied islam for about a year. it built up anger in my heart instead of love. i decided to stick to christianity because it builds up love in my heart. imo christianity is love. islam is hate.

ya, muslims (depending on how they interpret it) can have a propensity for violence.