**My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels. Of humble origins, Muhammad founded and promulgated one of the world’s great religions, and became an immensely effective political leader. Today, thirteen centuries after his death, his influence is still powerful and pervasive.
**
This is the first paragraph of Michael H. Hart from his famous book ‘The 100’, a Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History.
There are many people in history like , who revered Muhammad (SAW), irrespective of their faiths. Will be sharing such views in this thread.
Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in “Young India”, 1924:
“I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind… I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.”
Some more saying resonating the similar views of 'Tolerant Islam and peaceful prophet' as expressed by Mahatma.
*Thomas Carlyle in ‘Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History,’ 1840 *
“The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only.”
“A silent great soul, one of that who cannot but be earnest. He was to kindle the world, the world’s Maker had ordered so.”
*A. S. Tritton in ‘Islam,’ 1951
*
The picture of the Muslim soldier advancing with a sword in one hand and the Qur’an in the other is quite false.
*Reverend Bosworth Smith in ‘Muhammad and Muhammadanism,’ London, 1874.
*
“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 bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man ruled by a right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without their supports. He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life.”
“In Mohammadanism every thing is different here. Instead of the shadowy and the mysterious, we have history….We know of the external history of Muhammad….while for his internal history after his mission had been proclaimed, we have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation….on the Substantial authority of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt.”
**Gibbon in ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’ 1823
**
The good sense of Muhammad 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 shoes and garments. Disdaining the penance and merit of a hermit, he observed without effort of vanity the abstemious diet of an Arab.
For general non muslim,
A founder of faith whose follower as soon as appeared stated demoliting our religious places, the professional looters, the follower who divided this holy land into two and later three, and whereever they are majority they simply eliminate us.
Not to hurt anybody but this is general feeling of non muslim Indians of subcontinent:)
^ For how many years has this area remained "one country" during the past 2500 years? :)
The concept of Bharatvarsh, is directely came from holy scriptures from hindukush to holy ocean till the south, even Mahabharat is called Mahabharat because it is story of Bharat which comprised of more than 100 kings who shared same culture and same religious duties:)
^ I am not disputing that, according to the recorded history please let me know when was whole of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh one country?
Always, it was just one country divided into many state and every state having its own king, as mentioned in last text of hinduism, mahabharat, 0ne country with many kingdom, this simply means the concept of bharatvarsh always existed:)
similarily, none of the hindu empires ever demolished any religious place of anyone in their entire history of survival:)
this is not true. hindu revivalists have demolished/converted countless buddhist temples and monasteries all over india historically.
this whole idea of muslims being outsiders who demolished temples etc is mindnumbingly stupid. the average muslim from india has nothing to do with any of that. yet, you are gullible enough to fall for this kind of propaganda. even without any "mullah" spreading it as the gospel.
Always, it was just one country divided into many state and every state having its own king, as mentioned in last text of hinduism, mahabharat, 0ne country with many kingdom, this simply means the concept of bharatvarsh always existed:)
Agreed, but I am not talking of mahabharat. The history from Alexander to date, for how many years and under which empires have we had one country?
Agreed, but I am not talking of mahabharat. The history from Alexander to date, for how many years and under which empires have we had one country?
how many countries on the map today had the same borders as 100 years ago? i can't even name one. forget alexander's times. this is not even a legitimate argument for national identity.
^ well The Kaur's premis is that Islam divided the subcontinent, where as I believe subcontinent was never one country, if some one can refute it, that would be great.
this is not true. hindu revivalists have demolished/converted countless buddhist temples and monasteries all over india historically.
this whole idea of muslims being outsiders who demolished temples etc is mindnumbingly stupid. the average muslim from india has nothing to do with any of that. yet, you are gullible enough to fall for this kind of propaganda. even without any "mullah" spreading it as the gospel.
Other than Pushyamitra Sunga and Shashanka of Gauda are there any other Indian rulers who persecuted Buddhists? Buddhism was in a decline after Adi Shankara and was more prevalent in the border areas of Ancient India (Sindh, Afghanistan, Bengal). Are there any historical instances of buddhist massacres by Hindu Kings ? But it is true that some buddhist monasteries were converted to temples but was it due to decline of Buddhist faith or religious intolerance ?
I've seen Prophet Mohammad saw being referred to as the founder of Islam in some newspapers too which is incorrect. He wasn't the founder, he was just one of the many Prophets who before him also preached the same religion.
buddhism was way more ubiquitous than in "the border areas of ancient india" as you put it. but putting that aside for a second,
[QUOTE]
but was it due to decline of Buddhist faith or religious intolerance ?
[/QUOTE]
bamiyan buddhas. hindu temples in the suleyman ranges. all these are/were unused from a decline of the original faith. the locals don't believe in idols. does that make it ok to convert them into mosques, remove them etc?
^ well The Kaur's premis is that Islam divided the subcontinent, where as I believe subcontinent was never one country, if some one can refute it, that would be great.
Other Invaders who came before muslims, made India home, adopted native practices, introduced their own to existing traditions and integrated with the populace to and extent that they were indistinguishable in a few generations. They did not impose their beliefs either politically or by force on the native population. Ex: When Paanini the Great Sanskrit Grammarian came up with his rules, his home was a part of the persian Empire. The Persians did not impose either Zoroastrianism or persian language on the people nor did they have special taxes like Jazia. They only administered, collected rightful taxes and mostly let the people be. When Muslims came, they set themselves apart, did not want the local culture, enticed conversion, taxed unfairly due to religion and usually imposed a different language for administrative purposes other than the native languages and in many cases destroyed places of worship and slaughtered religious men. In short they did not integrate. At the end of the day, India did not become a unified political entity and divided into 2 because the muslims did not want to live with a non-muslim majority. So the Kaur has a point.
^ the area in Northern India/Pakistan and Afghanistan were budhists during 100 BC to around 400 AD, I wonder how they were replaced by hindus afterwards?
I've seen Prophet Mohammad saw being referred to as the founder of Islam in some newspapers too which is incorrect. He wasn't the founder, he was just one of the many Prophets who before him also preached the same religion.
That is what the muslims believe. The jews and Christians do not consider Islam as a continuance of their religion and neither do they recognize ur prophet as one of theirs,. So in the rest of the world's POV, Prophet Mohammed was the founder of Islam.