Who was the most influential person to walk the earth?

[columbus]

Leif Erikson's discovery did not lead to the widespread colonization of the Americas.

It wasn't found or discovered by European Christians. There were already people here for millennium. It was conquered. Largely because Europeans were filthy and disease ridden and also because of weaponized gunpowder. God apparently likes people like that.
Tom

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

Who do you think was the most influential person in History?

It's a geographical question mainly, but not entirely. If we really think about the beginning of things; the beginning of connecting the world and peoples, I would say Nikola Tesla. I guess his prophet (who also didn't always agree with him) would have been Thomas Edison. But I write that last part with my tongue in my cheek.

 

[columbus]

You guys will especially love this quote about the Prophet (s.a.w.s)!!!

Reverend Bosworth Smith in "Muhammed and Muhammedanism(sic)" London, 1874

People in the 19th century believed all sorts of untrue things. Especially the religious people.

One of the biggest differences between nontheists like myself and religious people is the Faith put in human authority. Just because the guy is famous doesn't mean I take his opinion seriously.
Especially not when religious folk quote him as an authority. He probably held lots of other opinions you wouldn't find as self aggrandizing. But you aren't quoting those and would probably disagree with him if someone else did.
Tom

 

[ChristineM]

There are many who could claim the title, most lists give Jesus as number 1 which i personally find quite concerning as there is no actual hard evidence that he lived as the person depicted in that bible.

So that said I'd nominate Napoleon Bonaparte, William Shakespeare, Aristotle and Charles Darwin. At least with these people we know they actually existed in their own right to have an input into society.

I'd add on the side Hypatia of Alexandria and Hippocrates of Greece

 

[Evie]

I

Yes, I think he has that title pretty well wrapped up at this point!

agree. But in exactly what way He influenced mankind is, I believe, not the obvious way. I could be wrong.

 

[dianaiad]

Who do you think was the most influential person in History? I'm guessing Jesus...and He was born in a barn

Eve. Either the biblical one or the scientific one; the first human woman was the most influential person to ever walk the earth. Jesus comes next, I'm thinking.

Even Mohamad, who might be #3, mentions Jesus.

After that I think you have to start breaking things down into categories; as in 'most influential in agriculture," "most influential in hunting," "most influential in communication..."

And we don't know who those people were; just...what they did. In order, that would probably be "the first person who planted something," "the first person who used fire," tied with "the first person who shaped a hunting tool," and "the first person to intentionally make an arbitrary mark that communicated a message completely unrelated to the shape, color or smell of that mark."

 

[dianaiad]

There are many who could claim the title, most lists give Jesus as number 1 which i personally find quite concerning as there is no actual hard evidence that he lived as the person depicted in that bible.

So that said I'd nominate Napoleon Bonaparte, William Shakespeare, Aristotle and Charles Darwin. At least with these people we know they actually existed in their own right to have an input into society.

I'd add on the side Hypatia of Alexandria and Hippocrates of Greece

there is no reason to believe that He did NOT exist. Possibly not as the Only Begotten Son of God and the Savior Who pulled off a lot of miracles (though I believe that He was that), but that he existed as a man and an itinerant preacher who had a LOT of followers who ended up changing things a lot? Yeah. we have as much evidence for Him existing as we do for darned near anybody else who lived then and that we all accept existed.

 

[ChristineM]

there is no reason to believe that He did NOT exist. Possibly not as the Only Begotten Son of God and the Savior Who pulled off a lot of miracles (though I believe that He was that), but that he existed as a man and an itinerant preacher who had a LOT of followers who ended up changing things a lot? Yeah. we have as much evidence for Him existing as we do for darned near anybody else who lived then and that we all accept existed.

I did not say he didn't exist, there is evidence that a person named Jesus existed in Jewish scripture and I've seen his father's grave.

There is more (if not exactly evidence then indication) that Jesus was not a preacher but a member of the sicari zealots and a leading light the fourth philosophy. Both anarchist (anti government, in this case Rome) movements. As an anarchist leader he would have had many followers.

The story of Jesus was not put together until 350 years after his death so distortion is very feasable.

 

[Theist]

It wasn't found or discovered by European Christians. There were already people here for millennium. It was conquered. Largely because Europeans were filthy and disease ridden and also because of weaponized gunpowder. God apparently likes people like that.
Tom

The question was who is the most influential person in the history of the world. For better or worse, Columbus changed history in a big way. I, for one, am glad that our great nation, the USA is here instead of their civilization.

 

[columbus]

For better or worse, Columbus changed history in a big way.

I understand what you're saying. But without Queen Isabella he would have been just another European with pretentiousness and a misunderstanding of the globe.

If Cortez hadn't followed him, the continents wouldn't have been named after an Italian cartographer, Americus Vespucci.

Most of the big wheels in history were the people remembered for things that other people mostly did.
Tom

 

[siti]

there is no reason to believe that He did NOT exist. Possibly not as the Only Begotten Son of God and the Savior Who pulled off a lot of miracles

If that's right and Jesus really existed but did not really do or say what all the bull**** stories about him say he did then wouldn't that mean that the person(s) who wrote the bull**** stories were, in fact, more influential than he was?

If you're looking for the most influential in terms of propagating religion then I think Constantine fits the bill for Christianity and for Islam, maybe someone like Harun al-Rashid during whose Caliphate Islam entered its "Golden Age" with the translation of Classical works of Greek, Egyptian, Indian and Chinese cultures into Arabic and the great advances in mathematics, philosophy and science that this enabled Islamic scholars to make - but mostly because the Caliphate made its greatest territorial advances during this period and thus brought its influence to bear on a larger proportion of the earth's population.

 

[SethZaddik]

From the prelude to 'Revival of religions sciences' by Imam Abu Hamed Al-Ghazali (1058-1111 AD) vol 1.

Firstly, I begin with the praise of Allah Almighty, even though our praise is insufficient and too little to be compared with His real glory. Secondly, I invoke His blessings upon all the Messengers and in particular upon the greatest and the Seal of His Messengers, Muhammad, "Allah's blessings and peace be upon all of them." Thirdly, I pray for His help and grace that I should keep firm willing and motivated to write this..."

Before I finish this quote I would like to add. If you read it and feel it is directed at you personally (and respond in kind proving so) it likely is. I am quoting what was written almost 1,000 years ago that is as true today:

"Fourthly, O slanderer, O heedless, O rejecter of truth, what removed from my tongue the impediment of silence and put on my neck the necklace of arguments and reasons, and made it incumbent upon me to reply to your arguments, is the CLOSING OF YOUR EYES FROM OPEN TRUTHS, and rather, DEPENDENCE UPON WHAT IS INSIGNIFICANT AND UNTRUE WHICH MADE YOU PRAISE IGNORANCE, and stirring up opposition against him who wants to deprive some of his [own] deeds of the evil practice and habits of men or expresses his wish to put his learning to practice in order that Allah would purify his soul,..."

Mohammed (saws) inspired some wise words in addition to speaking them and putting them into practice.

The slanderers are the ill informed who read something online and without checking to see if it is factual and because it agrees with what they hope is true, and don't care if it isn't, repeat it verbatim, semi daily, hoping to accomplish something negative and make Islam look like something it isn't and has never been.

While ignoring all the valid historical information and facts that denounce their opinion as blind hatred merely by being factually correct, it doesn't matter what is the truth they want Islam to be evil so they use third and fourth hand lies, propaganda and deceptive rhetoric to try and convince themselves they are not just biased beyond even their own understanding(as to why).

Rejecter of Truth, if you hear kind words spoken about Islam and the Prophet (saws) from reliable, named sources (Muslim and not), discover history and realize that every person was lying or uneducated who told you that Islam grew by force and violence when that is the furthest thing from true, and just plain reject it as going against your govt. issued frame of mind (or Church issued), you have rejected the truth.

You don't have to be a Muslim to respect it or respect Mohammed (saws).

But you do need to be misinformed, uninformed, a liar or someone who hates all that is good to not.

 

[SethZaddik]

Mohammed murdered Jews at the Battle of the Ditch because they would not support his claim as a prophet of God. M's followers spread the Muslim faith through invasion, pillage and executing those who refused to accept Islam.

Perfect example of an uneducated person repeating lies told 150 years after Mohammed (saws) died by the "Jews of Medina" according to Ibn Ishaq.

What this poser doesn't realize is Ishaq didn't say it was true or that he believed it just that it was "curious" and being said.

However when one takes into account the lack of any independent evidence whatsoever from Ishaq and factors that in with what the Jews say about Jesus in the Talmud being a sorcerer, a far more reliable source than "the Jews of Medina" who hated Mohammed (saws) despite being treated fairly by Muslims.

The story is less believeable than the Jesus is an Egyptian sorcerer and illegitimate child of a Roman soldier born 100 BC story of the Talmud.

And this person is a perfect example of the slanderer repeating lies as facts that never were claimed to be facts by the author in the first place!

Dur.

Thanks for being the perfect example of everything I was just talking about regarding liars, slanderers and lovers of ignorance.

You have zero knowledge of the source of the myth (obviously, you don't even cite the author, I had to do it for you) and less knowledge of the truth about Islam and Mohammed (saws).

First, in the second Surah of the Qur'an it states, "There is no compulsion in religion."

The Qur'an also allows the religions known to the day, Jews, (acknowledged as chosen people) Christians (as recipients of Jesus p message) Sabaeans (as fellow Monotheists) and Magians (same) the same Divine Judgement from the same God based on good vs evil, not what religion you belong to.

You are thinking of Roman Catholicism.

Second, nobody was killed for not converting and at worst had to pay a tax.

Third, there is no need for a third, you are exposed. You hate without knowledge or reason to hate and care nothing about facts. You think rumor that has no validity is sufficient reason to hate, but it is not a reason and is not true or valid (your regurgitated lies).

 

[Tabu]

Who do you think was the most influential person in History? I'm guessing Jesus...and He was born in a barn

I think it should be Adam (Brahma for Brahma Kumaris),without him none of us would be here . The entire mankind follows him , if it is his day it is the day for the entire mankind , when it is his night it is night for the entire mankind.

 

[SethZaddik]

Question was: 'to walk the Earth', not: 'to ride a camel'...

Are you proud of using stereotypes to express a hatred whose source you don't even know?

Or are you say Mohammed (s.a.w.s) never touched the ground with his feet?

Because everyone rides camels in that area, especially then.

And I assure you, his feet touched the ground.

Buffoon. Why don't you figure out why you are incapable of contributing anything meaningful and get back to us when you learn anything at all, anything, besides that Arabs rode and ride camels.

 

[siti]

You don't have to be a Muslim to respect it or respect Mohammed (saws).

But you do need to be misinformed, uninformed, a liar or someone who hates all that is good to not.

Right - OK - I'm guessing that your post is (at least in part) addressed to me because i was the one who suggested that Islam was established as a major religion by force. But here's the thing - my argument is not based on government propaganda or Church anything. I have no respect for most of the western governments - including that of my own homeland - a small island off the coast Europe once considered "Great" but now with largely achieved ambitions of mediocrity - you may have heard of it by other names but I call it the Disunited Queendom. I am certainly not a subscriber to Church doctrines of any kind, but I am not an atheist. Neither do I hate Muslims or even Islam for that matter - although I personally don't find it to contain a terribly enlightening or uplifting worldview, let alone a compelling philosophical interpretation of reality. So all the motivations you have leveled in your post are entirely irrelevant to my position.

However, it is patently absurd to insist that the widespread influence of Islam (from the conquest of Arabia, through the Caliphates, the Sultanates and the Ottoman Empire...etc.) was achieved by peaceful means. That is quite contrary to the historical evidence. One might as well claim that the Roman Empire, the Hebrew conquest of Canaan, the British Empire, the French Revolution and the European colonization of the Americas were achieved without bloodshed.

My argument is therefore not ideological but historical. I don't want to debate it, its just not debatable to be honest. And it is - as I pointed out in the case of Chairman Mao - who was unquestionably more directly responsible for many more deaths and much more suffering than Muhammad ever was - irrelevant to a consideration of the magnitude of his influence. Muhammad was most definitely one of the most influential men ever to walk the earth - for better or for worse, that is indisputable - and his exact rank among the many influential people is a matter of opinion.

But to make the claim that Islam established its world presence by peaceful persuasion is, to use part of your al Ghazali quote “closing of your eyes from open truths, and rather, dependence upon what is insignificant and untrue.”

 

[SethZaddik]

People in the 19th century believed all sorts of untrue things. Especially the religious people.

One of the biggest differences between nontheists like myself and religious people is the Faith put in human authority. Just because the guy is famous doesn't mean I take his opinion seriously.
Especially not when religious folk quote him as an authority. He probably held lots of other opinions you wouldn't find as self aggrandizing. But you aren't quoting those and would probably disagree with him if someone else did.
Tom

Did you have a point because I am just quoting what non Muslims said about Mohammed (saws) that is actually true and not lies, propaganda and hateful spew from dishonest European Christians who are no less dishonest in general today.

I have no motivation other than the truth,are you just seeing that someone didn't slander Mohammed (saws) for a change (I have a TON of quotes besides the many I posted and one you attempted to take issue with and failed) and need to respond because you are brainwashed by propaganda and can't see that?

You have a lot of company.

Not people I would trust with a nickel though. Most are like you, just out to slander something good because you think it is OK to do so and you are not (OK) yourself.

 

[SethZaddik]

Right - OK - I'm guessing that your post is (at least in part) addressed to me because i was the one who suggested that Islam was established as a major religion by force. But here's the thing - my argument is not based on government propaganda or Church anything. I have no respect for most of the western governments - including that of my own homeland - a small island off the coast Europe once considered "Great" but now with largely achieved ambitions of mediocrity - you may have heard of it by other names but I call it the Disunited Queendom. I am certainly not a subscriber to Church doctrines of any kind, but I am not an atheist. Neither do I hate Muslims or even Islam for that matter - although I personally don't find it to contain a terribly enlightening or uplifting worldview, let alone a compelling philosophical interpretation of reality. So all the motivations you have leveled in your post are entirely irrelevant to my position.

However, it is patently absurd to insist that the widespread influence of Islam (from the conquest of Arabia, through the Caliphates, the Sultanates and the Ottoman Empire...etc.) was achieved by peaceful means. That is quite contrary to the historical evidence. One might as well claim that the Roman Empire, the Hebrew conquest of Canaan, the British Empire, the French Revolution and the European colonization of the Americas were achieved without bloodshed.

My argument is therefore not ideological but historical. I don't want to debate it, its just not debatable to be honest. And it is - as I pointed out in the case of Chairman Mao - who was unquestionably more directly responsible for many more deaths and much more suffering than Muhammad ever was - irrelevant to a consideration of the magnitude of his influence. Muhammad was most definitely one of the most influential men ever to walk the earth - for better or for worse, that is indisputable - and his exact rank among the many influential people is a matter of opinion.

But to make the claim that Islam established its world presence by peaceful persuasion is, to use part of your al Ghazali quote "CLOSING OF YOUR EYES FROM OPEN TRUTHS, and rather, DEPENDENCE UPON WHAT IS INSIGNIFICANT AND UNTRUE..."

I'm guessing you are complaining about something that I said?

Tough luck, it's true, like it or love it.

Unleash all the long winded rhetoric and lies, it is not new, nothing you said historical, just recycled trash talk from yesteryear for the yester fool.

 

[SethZaddik]

Right - OK - I'm guessing that your post is (at least in part) addressed to me because i was the one who suggested that Islam was established as a major religion by force. But here's the thing - my argument is not based on government propaganda or Church anything. I have no respect for most of the western governments - including that of my own homeland - a small island off the coast Europe once considered "Great" but now with largely achieved ambitions of mediocrity - you may have heard of it by other names but I call it the Disunited Queendom. I am certainly not a subscriber to Church doctrines of any kind, but I am not an atheist. Neither do I hate Muslims or even Islam for that matter - although I personally don't find it to contain a terribly enlightening or uplifting worldview, let alone a compelling philosophical interpretation of reality. So all the motivations you have leveled in your post are entirely irrelevant to my position.

However, it is patently absurd to insist that the widespread influence of Islam (from the conquest of Arabia, through the Caliphates, the Sultanates and the Ottoman Empire...etc.) was achieved by peaceful means. That is quite contrary to the historical evidence. One might as well claim that the Roman Empire, the Hebrew conquest of Canaan, the British Empire, the French Revolution and the European colonization of the Americas were achieved without bloodshed.

My argument is therefore not ideological but historical. I don't want to debate it, its just not debatable to be honest. And it is - as I pointed out in the case of Chairman Mao - who was unquestionably more directly responsible for many more deaths and much more suffering than Muhammad ever was - irrelevant to a consideration of the magnitude of his influence. Muhammad was most definitely one of the most influential men ever to walk the earth - for better or for worse, that is indisputable - and his exact rank among the many influential people is a matter of opinion.

But to make the claim that Islam established its world presence by peaceful persuasion is, to use part of your al Ghazali quote “closing of your eyes from open truths, and rather, dependence upon what is insignificant and untrue.”

You think you are a mind reader, that you know why I quoted Ghazali?

You can guess but you are incorrect.

I sat down to read my new book, came accross a quote that describes people like yourself, and provided it to get people like you to do what you are doing right now.

I already made my case for why Mohammed saws is the most influential person in history and it is not all in the comment you are shedding so many tears over.

Like I said, if you read it and think it is about you and reply as such...

It probably is.

It is.

O, slanderer, O, rejecter of of truth...

 

[SethZaddik]

Right - OK - I'm guessing that your post is (at least in part) addressed to me because i was the one who suggested that Islam was established as a major religion by force. But here's the thing - my argument is not based on government propaganda or Church anything. I have no respect for most of the western governments - including that of my own homeland - a small island off the coast Europe once considered "Great" but now with largely achieved ambitions of mediocrity - you may have heard of it by other names but I call it the Disunited Queendom. I am certainly not a subscriber to Church doctrines of any kind, but I am not an atheist. Neither do I hate Muslims or even Islam for that matter - although I personally don't find it to contain a terribly enlightening or uplifting worldview, let alone a compelling philosophical interpretation of reality. So all the motivations you have leveled in your post are entirely irrelevant to my position.

However, it is patently absurd to insist that the widespread influence of Islam (from the conquest of Arabia, through the Caliphates, the Sultanates and the Ottoman Empire...etc.) was achieved by peaceful means. That is quite contrary to the historical evidence. One might as well claim that the Roman Empire, the Hebrew conquest of Canaan, the British Empire, the French Revolution and the European colonization of the Americas were achieved without bloodshed.

My argument is therefore not ideological but historical. I don't want to debate it, its just not debatable to be honest. And it is - as I pointed out in the case of Chairman Mao - who was unquestionably more directly responsible for many more deaths and much more suffering than Muhammad ever was - irrelevant to a consideration of the magnitude of his influence. Muhammad was most definitely one of the most influential men ever to walk the earth - for better or for worse, that is indisputable - and his exact rank among the many influential people is a matter of opinion.

But to make the claim that Islam established its world presence by peaceful persuasion is, to use part of your al Ghazali quote “closing of your eyes from open truths, and rather, dependence upon what is insignificant and untrue.”

If you want to think that you actually know what you are talking about, that I don't even though I am actually a Muslim and you are not, and (I) grew up Christian so know exactly what extent their leadership will go to slander all religions but especially Islam, and an American who became a Muslim because of people like you who think lies are true, black is white, etc, and that it is acceptable to believe contrary to historical facts and assume the worst about Islam without proof and be totally ignorant of the actual truth (that Islam was successful because it was good for the world, through diplomacy, a provable historical fact)...

I will just have to laugh about it. I can't make you realize the truth if you don't even want it to be true, though it most certainly is.