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

[Zander]

Pederast, homosexual, Jew hater. He's a liberal


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Moonglow]

animal fucker he was, so definitely a rwer...

 

[irosie91]

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.

I disagree heartily that muhummad's ideology makes him a "liberal" -----the more
appropriate word would be "REVOLUTIONARY"----like Stalin.

 

[Youch]

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

We'd first have to know his economic principles. Then, what form of government he would advocate (today). Then perhaps his social beliefs....one might infer from the Quran (a book his beliefs inspired) just what those social beliefs might be (oppress women, convert or kill infidels, etc...). But I'd have to know his economic and governmental beliefs to answer your question. And since I don't, I didn't.

 

[irosie91]

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

We'd first have to know his economic principles. Then, what form of government he would advocate (today). Then perhaps his social beliefs....one might infer from the Quran (a book his beliefs inspired) just what those social beliefs might be (oppress women, convert of kill infidels, etc...). But I'd have to know his economic and governmental beliefs to answer your question. And since I don't, I didn't.

Muhummad did not leave any information ---
the book attributed to him was written more than 100 years after he died and was, clearly the product of the ideologies of lots of
different people and---almost certainly based
on pre Islamic economics. The few things known are ---mecca was a kind of commercial center---it was a developed city along what was actually the silk road and
frequented by a highly diverse crowd from east and west. It was ALSO a site of pilgrimage for the ----indigenous religionists of Arabia --------on economic grounds. --
being a place of pilgrimage keeps a city alive-----and IN BUSINESS. That it was determined to be EXCLUSIVE to persons who were willing to worship muhummad---by
the 'in-group" is very fascinating. My sense is that the policy was an attempt to
establish a MONOPOLY on the east west
trade business by the people in power

 

[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.

I disagree heartily that muhummad's ideology makes him a "liberal" -----the more
appropriate word would be "REVOLUTIONARY"----like Stalin.

Stalin was a liberal too.

 

[Care4all]

Mohammed was conservative, compared to Christians.... He believed Christians did not follow the Word of God, and thought Christians were blaspheming God by calling Jesus God.... INSTEAD of calling Jesus a prophet from God....imo.

 

[asterism]

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

We'd first have to know his economic principles. Then, what form of government he would advocate (today). Then perhaps his social beliefs....one might infer from the Quran (a book his beliefs inspired) just what those social beliefs might be (oppress women, convert of kill infidels, etc...). But I'd have to know his economic and governmental beliefs to answer your question. And since I don't, I didn't.

Muhummad did not leave any information ---
the book attributed to him was written more than 100 years after he died and was, clearly the product of the ideologies of lots of
different people and---almost certainly based
on pre Islamic economics. The few things known are ---mecca was a kind of commercial center---it was a developed city along what was actually the silk road and
frequented by a highly diverse crowd from east and west. It was ALSO a site of pilgrimage for the ----indigenous religionists of Arabia --------on economic grounds. --
being a place of pilgrimage keeps a city alive-----and IN BUSINESS. That it was determined to be EXCLUSIVE to persons who were willing to worship muhummad---by
the 'in-group" is very fascinating. My sense is that the policy was an attempt to
establish a MONOPOLY on the east west
trade business by the people in power

A government-owned monopoly, with strict business and financial regulations.

 

[asterism]

Mohammed was conservative, compared to Christians.... He believed Christians did not follow the Word of God, and thought Christians were blaspheming God by calling Jesus God.... INSTEAD of calling Jesus a prophet from God....imo.

That's not true. While the general view in Islam is that Jesus was not the Son of God, there are no statements by Muhammad that calling Jesus the Son of God was blasphemous. He is viewed as a precursor to Muhammad and is predicted to return to this world on the day of judgement.

Surat Al-Ma idah 5 116 - The Noble Qur an -

 

[Care4all]

Mohammed was conservative, compared to Christians.... He believed Christians did not follow the Word of God, and thought Christians were blaspheming God by calling Jesus God.... INSTEAD of calling Jesus a prophet from God....imo.

That's not true. While the general view in Islam is that Jesus was not the Son of God, there are no statements by Muhammad that calling Jesus the Son of God was blasphemous. He is viewed as a precursor to Muhammad and is predicted to return to this world on the day of judgement.

Surat Al-Ma idah 5 116 - The Noble Qur an -

I didn't say calling him the Son of God was blasphemous....calling Jesus "God" was blasphemous...

 

[asterism]

Mohammed was conservative, compared to Christians.... He believed Christians did not follow the Word of God, and thought Christians were blaspheming God by calling Jesus God.... INSTEAD of calling Jesus a prophet from God....imo.

That's not true. While the general view in Islam is that Jesus was not the Son of God, there are no statements by Muhammad that calling Jesus the Son of God was blasphemous. He is viewed as a precursor to Muhammad and is predicted to return to this world on the day of judgement.

Surat Al-Ma idah 5 116 - The Noble Qur an -

I didn't say calling him the Son of God was blasphemous....calling Jesus "God" was blasphemous...

There is no record of Muhammad saying anything like that. It's not in the Quran either.

 

[Care4all]

Mohammed was conservative, compared to Christians.... He believed Christians did not follow the Word of God, and thought Christians were blaspheming God by calling Jesus God.... INSTEAD of calling Jesus a prophet from God....imo.

That's not true. While the general view in Islam is that Jesus was not the Son of God, there are no statements by Muhammad that calling Jesus the Son of God was blasphemous. He is viewed as a precursor to Muhammad and is predicted to return to this world on the day of judgement.

Surat Al-Ma idah 5 116 - The Noble Qur an -

I didn't say calling him the Son of God was blasphemous....calling Jesus "God" was blasphemous...

There is no record of Muhammad saying anything like that. It's not in the Quran either.

TY, guess it was just propaganda that I had read.... which is common, now a days...

 

[irosie91]

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.

I disagree heartily that muhummad's ideology makes him a "liberal" -----the more
appropriate word would be "REVOLUTIONARY"----like Stalin.

Stalin was a liberal too.

ok your take on stalin

 

[Dogmaphobe]

By the standards of his day, I suppose one could say Mohammad was more liberal, but by today's standards he would be an extreme conservative. After all, what is being conserved in conservatism are social mores, cultural institutions and societal order, and the values he represents are 1400 years out of date. That is the entire problem vis a vis Islamists and the west is that it is our liberal values they reject as they wish to stomp on civilization forever by implementing their knuckle dragging ways.

All a thread like this represents is the degree to which people identify with the label "conservative" and "liberal", however, with people eager to associate Mohammad with the other guy -- the ideology they hate. I don't invest any particular ego in these labels, so have not joined a tribe I feel any particular need to defend. What far too many people fail to identify is the nature of Islam, itself, which is profoundly conservative. Our western conservatives are bleeding heart liberals in comparison, and when they assail Islam, it is usually to support actual liberal values such as women's rights or protest the influence of religion controlling people's lives. Conversely, when self-appointed liberals defend Islamists at every turn in order to earn cred with their little mates as a right, proper anti-racist, what they are actually promoting is this extreme conservatism.

The whole discussion has become so jumbled up by people who see political label as identity that its fubar from the get go. People need to start thinking outside the little box in which they have placed themselves and understand what the terms actually mean.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

At the time he lived, liberal because he was the first to do so many things, both good and bad.

Now? Not a true Conservative. More like the modern-day rabid and very hypocritical RW who wants to control others and blame their version of god for every shitty thing they do.

 

[Mojo2]

By the standards of his day, I suppose one could say Mohammad was more liberal, but by today's standards he would be an extreme conservative. After all, what is being conserved in conservatism are social mores, cultural institutions and societal order, and the values he represents are 1400 years out of date. That is the entire problem vis a vis Islamists and the west is that it is our liberal values they reject as they wish to stomp on civilization forever by implementing their knuckle dragging ways.

All a thread like this represents is the degree to which people identify with the label "conservative" and "liberal", however, with people eager to associate Mohammad with the other guy -- the ideology they hate. I don't invest any particular ego in these labels, so have not joined a tribe I feel any particular need to defend. What far too many people fail to identify is the nature of Islam, itself, which is profoundly conservative. Our western conservatives are bleeding heart liberals in comparison, and when they assail Islam, it is usually to support actual liberal values such as women's rights or protest the influence of religion controlling people's lives. Conversely, when self-appointed liberals defend Islamists at every turn in order to earn cred with their little mates as a right, proper anti-racist, what they are actually promoting is this extreme conservatism.

The whole discussion has become so jumbled up by people who see political label as identity that its fubar from the get go. People need to start thinking outside the little box in which they have placed themselves and understand what the terms actually mean.

I defend my humble little thread conception as being uniquely useful in allowing us to open a dialog on Muhammad, the man. And as there aren't any others and seeing as how THIS one has prompted so many interesting and expansive responses, I'd say this is a quite respectable little thread.

Thankyouverymuch.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

By the standards of his day, I suppose one could say Mohammad was more liberal, but by today's standards he would be an extreme conservative. After all, what is being conserved in conservatism are social mores, cultural institutions and societal order, and the values he represents are 1400 years out of date. That is the entire problem vis a vis Islamists and the west is that it is our liberal values they reject as they wish to stomp on civilization forever by implementing their knuckle dragging ways.

All a thread like this represents is the degree to which people identify with the label "conservative" and "liberal", however, with people eager to associate Mohammad with the other guy -- the ideology they hate. I don't invest any particular ego in these labels, so have not joined a tribe I feel any particular need to defend. What far too many people fail to identify is the nature of Islam, itself, which is profoundly conservative. Our western conservatives are bleeding heart liberals in comparison, and when they assail Islam, it is usually to support actual liberal values such as women's rights or protest the influence of religion controlling people's lives. Conversely, when self-appointed liberals defend Islamists at every turn in order to earn cred with their little mates as a right, proper anti-racist, what they are actually promoting is this extreme conservatism.

The whole discussion has become so jumbled up by people who see political label as identity that its fubar from the get go. People need to start thinking outside the little box in which they have placed themselves and understand what the terms actually mean.

I defend my humble little thread conception as being uniquely useful in allowing us to open a dialog on Muhammad, the man. And as there aren't any others and seeing as how THIS one has prompted so many interesting and expansive responses, I'd say this is a quite respectable little thread.

Thankyouverymuch.

Well yabut, you also said that by fighting terrorists who want to harm the US and US allies, President Obama is throwing ISIS under the bus.

Waaaa Waaaa for poor ISIS.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Well yabut, you also said that by fighting terrorists who want to harm the US and US allies, President Obama is throwing ISIS under the bus.

Waaaa Waaaa for poor ISIS.

I realize that I am beginning to approach that age when one's short-term memory isn't quite the given, but seeming as this response has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said, and refers to my saying something I cannot recall ever saying, could you please do an old man a solid by quoting me as saying what you claim I have said?

 

[Rikurzhen]

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

We'd first have to know his economic principles.

He forbids the charging of interest on money borrowed. Anti-Capitalism is the life blood of liberalism.

 

[irosie91]

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

We'd first have to know his economic principles.

He forbids the charging of interest on money borrowed. Anti-Capitalism is the life blood of liberalism.[/QUOTE

I see no reason to define "no interest" as
"anti capitalism" In fact----it doesn't. The
economy which exists in shariah law is very
definitely CAPITALISTIC. The 'no interest' rule in the Old testament refers to
a LOAN OF MONEY----for the purpose of
obtaining sustenance. A person in need of money to feed his family or provide shelter is
not to be charged interest nor can a possession needed for his sustenance and basic needs be taken as a token pending
the payment of his loan------that would include his needed tools ----or impingement on his shelter. HOWEVER----loans used to
create a PROFIT----can involve interest.
In Talmudic banter that "interest" is actually
the sharing of profits between business partners. One guy provides the money---one does the mental work-----and the guy who provided the money is his BUSINESS
partner.