Do You Think Muhammad Would Be Considered A Liberal Or A Conservative By Today's Standards?

[Mojo2]

Do you think Muhammad would be considered a Liberal or a Conservative by today's standards?

 

[lizzie]

Being that he pretty much lived the life of a kept husband later in life, and depended on his wife for financial security, probably a liberal.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Being that he pretty much holds all the same social beliefs of the GOP, probably a republican.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Conservative.

Like most religious founders and leaders, political ideology that best describes them is conservative. They're the by-the-book types because in their case, they wrote the book. So it's hard to envision their deviating from the book as with more liberal interpretations and deviations.

 

[Moonglow]

trolls gotta troll...........

 

[House Mouse]

I would say definitely Liberal....given he was into perversions, hatred, greedy and self centered ideologies, far from God centered....

 

[depotoo]

Other, he was warped.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Most definitely a liberal.

 

[Mojo2]

I just realized I know very little about Muhannad except for my having read some isolated passages of his exploits and deeds and the dates of his time on Earth.

Well, it's time I open up some room in my brain to learn more about him.

Now that I think about it, I had no right to even ask the Poll question or answer it as I did, at all!

Not with how little I know about his life.

This needs to change.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”


― Sun Tzu, The Art of War​

 

[Rikurzhen]

Let's see:

-Forcing his beliefs onto other people. That's a key liberal viewpoint.
-Exiling or killing those who don't adhere to his beliefs. Also liberal - look at what they did to Brendan Eich.
-Multiple wives. Also liberal.
-Child brides. Also liberal.
-Living in a tent in the desert. Also liberal - this is the goal that environmentalists are trying to advance.
-Warmongering. Also liberal, exporting their revolution to societies which don't want it. See liberal efforts to promote love of homosexuality in Russia and Africa.

 

[Mojo2]

Let's see:

-Forcing his beliefs onto other people. That's a key liberal viewpoint.
-Exiling or killing those who don't adhere to his beliefs. Also liberal - look at what they did to Brendan Eich.
-Multiple wives. Also liberal.
-Child brides. Also liberal.
-Living in a tent in the desert. Also liberal - this is the goal that environmentalists are trying to advance.
-Warmongering. Also liberal, exporting their revolution to societies which don't want it. See liberal efforts to promote love of homosexuality in Russia and Africa.

I would like USMB Admins to find some way of modifying the "info" icon to reflect not only that the post has given me information I hadn't known, but also that the post is spot on!

Rik, I'd like to give your post a check mark or a thumbs up icon, too!

fyi

M2

 

[asaratis]

Let's see:

-Forcing his beliefs onto other people. That's a key liberal viewpoint.
-Exiling or killing those who don't adhere to his beliefs. Also liberal - look at what they did to Brendan Eich.
-Multiple wives. Also liberal.
-Child brides. Also liberal.
-Living in a tent in the desert. Also liberal - this is the goal that environmentalists are trying to advance.
-Warmongering. Also liberal, exporting their revolution to societies which don't want it. See liberal efforts to promote love of homosexuality in Russia and Africa.

What he said^^^^^^!

Spot on, correctomoondo!

And Muhammed certainly meets the criteria that defines most liberals...He was mentally ill.

 

[irosie91]

Conservative.

Like most religious founders and leaders, political ideology that best describes them is conservative. They're the by-the-book types because in their case, they wrote the book. So it's hard to envision their deviating from the book as with more liberal interpretations and deviations.

Muhummad did not write a book---he was illiterate----the Koran was written some 100
years after he died. The origin of his filth is a bit obscure since not much is known about pre Islamic Arabian custom and law. Muslims developed a custom of destroying the evidence of "other cultures" An interesting factoid is that literate jews lived in Arabia for about 1000 years before muhummad was born. In fact it is very possible that Hebraized Arabic----that is a form of Arabic written in Hebrew letters and mixed up with Hebrew----existed prior to
written Arabic which did not come about until about 300 years before muhummad was born----Jews had been using Arabic for at least 600 years by then. The fact that NO WRITINGS MADE BY JEWS IN THE THOUSAND YEARS THEY LIVED IN ARABIA SURVIVE---- is virtually PROOF that such writings were either destroyed or hidden away----they went the way of the Buddhist art of Afghanistan. Such writings
WOULD have been a source for knowledge of Arabian society pre Islamic.----
My guess is that the stuff muhummad and friends put together as the "religion" and its laws is based on pre Islamic "religion" and
"law" and "custom"----flavored a bit with
monotheism. Aspects of Islamic law do bear some similarties with the HUMMARABI CODE. I see no reason to try to fit muhummad into "conservative" or "liberal" as
we use those designations in USA democracy. He was, first and foremost----a
sociopath-----like Stalin. Whatever he DECIDED would be "law" was enforced ---by brutal FORCE. Was Al Capone a republican or a democrat? how about Jack
the Ripper?

 

[Mojo2]

Conservative.

Like most religious founders and leaders, political ideology that best describes them is conservative. They're the by-the-book types because in their case, they wrote the book. So it's hard to envision their deviating from the book as with more liberal interpretations and deviations.

Muhummad did not write a book---he was illiterate----the Koran was written some 100
years after he died. The origin of his filth is a bit obscure since not much is known about pre Islamic Arabian custom and law. Muslims developed a custom of destroying the evidence of "other cultures" An interesting factoid is that literate jews lived in Arabia for about 1000 years before muhummad was born. In fact it is very possible that Hebraized Arabic----that is a form of Arabic written in Hebrew letters and mixed up with Hebrew----existed prior to
written Arabic which did not come about until about 300 years before muhummad was born----Jews had been using Arabic for at least 600 years by then. The fact that NO WRITINGS MADE BY JEWS IN THE THOUSAND YEARS THEY LIVED IN ARABIA SURVIVE---- is virtually PROOF that such writings were either destroyed or hidden away----they went the way of the Buddhist art of Afghanistan. Such writings
WOULD have been a source for knowledge of Arabian society pre Islamic.----
My guess is that the stuff muhummad and friends put together as the "religion" and its laws is based on pre Islamic "religion" and
"law" and "custom"----flavored a bit with
monotheism. Aspects of Islamic law do bear some similarties with the HUMMARABI CODE. I see no reason to try to fit muhummad into "conservative" or "liberal" as
we use those designations in USA democracy. He was, first and foremost----a
sociopath-----like Stalin. Whatever he DECIDED would be "law" was enforced ---by brutal FORCE. Was Al Capone a republican or a democrat? how about Jack
the Ripper?

What you did was what I hoped would come from delving into his life and my thread was an attempt to get closer to him as a person.

As I relate most people to how they measure up, Lib or Con, I guess this is a bit of Political Profiling which helps me humanize the myth.

Despite the criticism of my humble little thread idea, I think your post is very informative.

Thanks!



M2

 

[The Irish Ram]

I think he'd be considered an inmate. Pedophilia is a crime.

 

[asterism]

Muhammed was a liberal. The then current geopolitical world of his was a mix of Judeo-Christian culture and "The Orient" which was Hindu, Buddhist, and Shinto in nature. Other local divergent sects were also significant. Muhammed sought to change this. He didn't want a status quo and he didn't want a return to traditional values. He (according to his followers) was divinely inspired to radically change the world, to bring order to chaos and to fulfill the destiny of Noah and Jesus.

He believed in a strong government that micromanaged the lives of the adherents. It doesn't matter that the purported source of his authority was religion, the means by which he subjected the people was through government and control of the means by which most subsisted.

He preached forced wealth redistribution, strict conformity to standards, and global revolutionary change through incremental means.

The word Islam is derived from the word "سلم" which means "submit." In a purely religious sense, submission is not a bad thing. Islam is about much more than religion though, it's the confluence and merging of religion and governance. Therefore an Islamic state requires not only submission to God, but submission to the Islamic government.

Islam kills or casts out non-believers to the maximum level that it can. Muslim governments are full of dogmatic litmus tests that are required of everyone in the territory regardless of their own personal religious views. If you are living in an Islamic State, you will adhere to certain rules that would not apply to anyone else in any other nation.

While many people equate religion with conservative political views (with good reason, most US and European religious structures are generally conservative), Islam is almost the direct opposite. It's extremely Puritan (look that up, the Puritans were Communists), and it is heavily micromanaging and authoritarian. The needs of the many trump freedom, conformity is paramount, and the government is the enforcement arm of the dogma.

That resembles modern liberalism way more than any conservative movement.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

He would just be considered a wanted criminal; wanted for theft, murder and pedophilia.

 

[Rikurzhen]

He would just be considered a wanted criminal; wanted for theft, murder and pedophilia.

In other words, someone that the liberals could champion.

 

[Mojo2]

I think he'd be considered an inmate. Pedophilia is a crime.

What was the most common marrying age for brides way back then?

Nine is undoubtedly too young, but so is16.

Here's the story.

I used to date a woman in New Hampshire who was a custodial guardian or something to her sixteen year old niece.

My lady friend, Shelly, wanted Amber to come home for dinner but the girl was out on the town with her 34 year old boyfriend.

I was astounded that Shelly was so non-chalant about her 16 year old niece in her custody, presumably having a sexual relationship with a much older guy!

The local police station sergeant told me that's the law. Nothing anyone can do or say. If she's 16 and consenting and he's a consenting adult male, it's game on!

That's the law in New Hampshire.

Back then, in Muhammad's era, what was the 'legal age?'

 

[Rikurzhen]

I think he'd be considered an inmate. Pedophilia is a crime.

What was the most common marrying age for brides way back then?

Nine is undoubtedly too young, but so is16.

Here's the story.

I used to date a woman in New Hampshire who was a custodial guardian or something to her sixteen year old niece.

My lady friend, Shelly, wanted Amber to come home for dinner but the girl was out on the town with her 34 year old boyfriend.

I was astounded that Shelly was so non-chalant about her 16 year old niece in her custody, presumably having a sexual relationship with a much older guy!

The local police station sergeant told me that's the law. Nothing anyone can do or say. If she's 16 and consenting and he's a consenting adult male, it's game on!

That's the law in New Hampshire.

Back then, in Muhammad's era, what was the 'legal age?'

This is going to veer this discussion in a different direction but I disagree.

Back in the year 650 AD, a 16 year old girl was not too young for marriage. She had been training her whole life to be a mate for a man. There was no school, no career, her destiny was to start her own family.

Now, to your present-day example. It depends on the man and the girl. She is over the age of consent and the age difference, at that point, doesn't indicate exploitation. That 16 year old girl could be pumped and dumped by the HS Quarterback, she could be the school slut passed along from guy to guy, you can paint a number of bad, harmful, painful routes she could take with guys her own age. Now that 34 year old guy could treat her with respect, could be introducing her to an entirely new world, his world, etc. There's a power imbalance, as well as a sophistication imbalance, between a 16 and 34 year old, but the same damn imbalance can exist between a popular HS boy and a girl desperate for his attention.

One last thing about the man girl relationship. It'll probably end better for the girl than the alternate path of getting knocked up by the HS quarterback and being a single mom, or marrying the guy whose life highpoint was being quarterback and it's all downhill from there. That same age guy is someone she could be stuck with. The older man is someone she's likely to dump as she enters her twenties, now she has confidence and notices younger, hotter guys sniffing around. When she's 22, he'd be 40.