Was Muhammad The Greatest Moral Example?

[psychoslice]

For what we call morals today, I don't believe many had the same morals back then, so I would say that no, Muhammad wasn't moral compared to our morals today.

 

[McBell]

To be able to truly honestly judge Mohammed is impossible

I agree.
But I do not limit the judging to only the "bad".

 

[Augustus]

Agreed that it's a bit out of context, but this is recurring and damaging bit of misinformation...

To be clear: The Crusades were a tiny, tiny counter measure, in response to 400 years of Islamic conquest.

It's not really misinformation in that sense though as the point has nothing to do with the crusades, whether they were justified, whether they were large, etc.

The point was about the historical evolution of the negative characterisation of Muhammed in Western discourse. Partially as a result of the Crusades, knowledge of Muhammed increased in Western Europe and the characterisation of him was obviously not 'fair and balanced'.

The degree to which contemporary views are still influenced by medieval characterisations of Muhammed is a moot point though.

(There are certainly many things in the history of Christianity that Christians should be ashamed of, but not the Crusades.)

While a lot of mythology surrounds the Crusades (and plenty of double standards), there were plenty of things to be ashamed of even if we stick to the 1st crusade (which was actually 2 separate crusades), never mind some of the rest. They weren't simply an honest defence of Christendom though.

I'm not sure that Christians collectively should share the blame though or that there is a particular moral high ground that can be taken by one religion over the other.

 

[icehorse]

I think it's misinformation because - given the sweep of history - there seems to be an overblown amount of western guilt surrounding the Crusades, and an overblown amount of Muslim grudge holding as well.

In the 400 years or so preceding the Crusades, Muslims conquered (mostly using violence), vast swaths of territory throughout the ME, Africa, SW Asia, and into Europe. Hundreds of Muslims-initiated battles were initiated during this period. By comparison, the Crusades amounted to what, maybe a score of battles?, aimed only at reclaiming lost land.

I'm not implying that Christians have the moral high ground here, merely that taken in proper historical context, the Crusades were a blip.

 

[Augustus]

I think it's misinformation because - given the sweep of history - there seems to be an overblown amount of western guilt surrounding the Crusades, and an overblown amount of Muslim grudge holding as well.

The quote had nothing to do with the morality of the crusades though. You are reading something which is not there. It would only be misinformation if you consider that there was not anti-Muhammed propaganda surrounding any of the Crusades. The point was about propaganda and its role in creating Western perceptions of Muhammed, not the crusades themselves.

To use an analogy, there was lots of anti-German propaganda during WW2. The fact that there was anti-German propaganda says nothing about the morality or justifications for declaring war on Hitler. Whether or not WW2 was just is completely irrelevant to the point of whether or not there was anti-German propaganda which lead to a misrepresentation of the German people.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus -

To round out your analogy, are you assuming that propaganda is always inaccurate? (It could be, I just want to make sure that I understand your analogy.)

I'm not seeing how propaganda fits into the discussion of the Crusades? My point is that the world's common conclusions about the Crusades amount to revisionist history.

 

[Rival]

Not sure how my thread went from Is Muhammad the Greatest Moral Example to the Crusades, but...okay...

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Say more!

I never thought I'd see a self-confessed anti-theist label the Crusades as something the Christian world should feel no shame over - especially considering:

1. How unnecessarily brutal the Crusaders were. They proclaimed to be acting on behalf of all Christendom yet they saw fit to betray & sack Constantinople the world capital of Orthodoxy. And whenever the Crusaders captured a city they ran riot;
2. The Church claimed to be acting purely to restore the Christian realm, but it profited immensely from the Crusades and hoarded that wealth;
3. It was aimed at slaughtering Muslims for the 'crime' of being non-Christians ruling an area that had been majority Christian hundreds of years before.

 

[icehorse]

I never thought I'd see a self-confessed anti-theist label the Crusades as something the Christian world should feel no shame over - especially considering:

1. How unnecessarily brutal the Crusaders were. They proclaimed to be acting on behalf of all Christendom yet they saw fit to betray & sack Constantinople the world capital of Orthodoxy. And whenever the Crusaders captured a city they ran riot;
2. The Church claimed to be acting purely to restore the Christian realm, but it profited immensely from the Crusades and hoarded that wealth;
3. It was aimed at slaughtering Muslims for the 'crime' of being non-Christians ruling an area that had been majority Christian hundreds of years before.

I didn't intend to say "no shame". That said, I think your analysis isn't quite "fair and balanced". My understanding is that the Crusades were executed pretty much on par with all of the over religious and non-religious conquests of the period. So for Muslims to call out the Crusades without acknowledging their own violent history is simply disingenuous.

How about if I said "Christians and Muslims ALL ought to be ashamed of that period." ? Would that help me restore my anti-theist cred?

 

[Augustus]

Hey Augustus -

To round out your analogy, are you assuming that propaganda is always inaccurate? (It could be, I just want to make sure that I understand your analogy.)

I'm not seeing how propaganda fits into the discussion of the Crusades? My point is that the world's common conclusions about the Crusades amount to revisionist history.

You replied to a specific quote "The period of the Crusades, when the fictional Mahound was established, was also a time of the great strain and denial in Europe. This is graphically expressed in the phobia about Islam.(By Karen Armstrong in her book, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, page 27)."

If you intended to reply to this specific quote: it is not talking about the crusades, but about how a certain view of Muhammed was established in medieval Europe around the time of the crusades. Your reply didn't match the content of the quote.

If you meant to make an unrelated point about the historical perception of the Crusades then I misunderstood you.

 

[YmirGF]

You replied to a specific quote "The period of the Crusades, when the fictional Mahound was established, was also a time of the great strain and denial in Europe. This is graphically expressed in the phobia about Islam.(By Karen Armstrong in her book, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, page 27)."

If you intended to reply to this specific quote: it is not talking about the crusades, but about how a certain view of Muhammed was established in medieval Europe around the time of the crusades. Your reply didn't match the content of the quote.

If you meant to make an unrelated point about the historical perception of the Crusades then I misunderstood you.

Then again, Karen Armstrong is hardly a "go to" person in regards to... well, anything...
That said, I'd imagine that Muhammad was no less vilified than how Muslims vilified non-Muslims who fought against them. Jus' sayin'...

 

[Tumah]

Wait what?

Dawud said:

The Crusades came hundreds of years after Muhammad died. How do the Crusades fit into this thread?

Also, the Crusades are typically misunderstood. They were a tiny, tiny counter-offensive that occurred after hundreds of years of violent, widespread Islamic conquest.

Maybe the second or third one was. But the first one contained a significant population of Europe for the times.

 

[Augustus]

Then again, Karen Armstrong is hardly a "go to" person in regards to... well, anything...
That said, I'd imagine that Muhammad was no less vilified than how Muslims vilified non-Muslims who fought against them. Jus' sayin'...

It is true to acknowledge that European perceptions of Muhammed have historically been shaped through a hostile Christian lens though. This is separate from any other points about Muslim perceptions of Christians or whether or not he was an ethical person.

It's like saying contemporary images of Salahudin have been shaped by romanticised Victorian literature like The Talisman by Sir Walter Scott. This is simply true, and says nothing about the historical figure.

 

[YmirGF]

It is true to acknowledge that European perceptions of Muhammed have historically been shaped through a hostile Christian lens though. This is separate from any other points about Muslim perceptions of Christians or whether or not he was an ethical person.

It's like saying contemporary images of Salahudin have been shaped by romanticised Victorian literature like The Talisman by Sir Walter Scott. This is simply true, and says nothing about the historical figure.

I know. It's not like Islam was good news to the Christians of Europe, so the antipathy should be expected. Heck, at the time, most hadn't even read the Bible, let alone the Qur'an.

 

[jeager106]

I know. It's not like Islam was good news to the Christians of Europe, so the antipathy should be expected. Heck, at the time, most hadn't even read the Bible, let alone the Qur'an.

That is very true even today.
Most Christians have never read the Bible save for a few verses the preacher
refers to in Sunday services.
Christians reading the Qur'an??????????????????? I'd be willing to bet that
if we survey'd people leaving a Christian church on Sunday they'd say
"Quran" wassat????"

 

[Augustus]

Then again, Karen Armstrong is hardly a "go to" person in regards to... well, anything

As regards this, she is a hagiographer who interprets theology in a certain way. It is fair to point out though that most 'anti-Muhammed' commentators rely on interpreting theology in a certain way also. Most people aren't talking about actual history after all.

People seem very happy to quote all of the perceived negative actions he carried out, yet these are from the same sources that say he split the moon in half.

People seem to want to interpret theology as history when it suits them, but treat the same sources as theology when it doesn't.

I just find this inconsistent.

 

[YmirGF]

As regards this, she is a hagiographer who interprets theology in a certain way. It is fair to point out though that most 'anti-Muhammed' commentators rely on interpreting theology in a certain way also. Most people aren't talking about actual history after all.

People seem very happy to quote all of the perceived negative actions he carried out, yet these are from the same sources that say he split the moon in half.

People seem to want to interpret theology as history when it suits them, but treat the same sources as theology when it doesn't.

I just find this inconsistent.

Actually, more emphasis should be placed on his hilarious "moon splitting" and his romp in the "night flight" where he actually had the temerity to haggle with god. The weird part is that haggling with god would seem downright peculiar from the European perspective whereas from an Arabic perspective it would likely seem to be quite an understandable and noble deed. Talk about standing memes on their pointy little heads...

 

[icehorse]

As regards this, she is a hagiographer who interprets theology in a certain way. It is fair to point out though that most 'anti-Muhammed' commentators rely on interpreting theology in a certain way also. Most people aren't talking about actual history after all.

People seem very happy to quote all of the perceived negative actions he carried out, yet these are from the same sources that say he split the moon in half.

People seem to want to interpret theology as history when it suits them, but treat the same sources as theology when it doesn't.

I just find this inconsistent.

I'd say that if you study the Hadith and the Sira, even a little bit, you'll find dubious morality by today's standards.

 

[Augustus]

I'd say that if you study the Hadith and the Sira, even a little bit, you'll find dubious morality by today's standards.

That may be the case, but is not relevant to my point.

Most of it didn't happen. It was a theologically motivated pseudo-history constructed to explain the Quran.

It makes a big difference if you are discussing theology rather than history.

 

[icehorse]

That may be the case, but is not relevant to my point.

Most of it didn't happen. It was a theologically motivated pseudo-history constructed to explain the Quran.

It makes a big difference if you are discussing theology rather than history.

Most Muslims would disagree with your definitions of these pieces of scripture.