The first reference on Muhammad in today’s post is from W Montgomery Watt (1909-2006), a Scottish historian and a Professor at the University of Edinburgh. Watt's comprehensive biography of Muhammad namely “Muhammad at Mecca (1953)” and “Muhammad at Medina (1956), is considered to be the classic in the field.

While bringing this extra-ordinary life to the eyes of the westerners, among many aspects, he did touch on the ones being pointed out in this discussion. His observations from a close view of history:
1. “To propose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves”; and
2. “None of the great figures in history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad”.

Here is what he says in “Mohammad at Mecca”, Oxford, 1953, p 52:

“His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement all argue his fundamental integrity To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.”

Encyclopedia Britannica, in its early versions (1768), addressed the-then prevalent misinformation:

“(Muhammad was) the most successful of all religious personalities of the world…… a mass of detail in early sources show that he was an honest and upright man who had gained the respect and loyalty of others who were like-wise honest and upright men”

Michael H. Hart, while ranking Muhammad at the top of the world’s most influential persons in his book “The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History” (1978), had to address the misinformation under discussion here.

“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 level.”

NC,

Appeals to 'authority' don't count for much - anybody could drag bits and pieces out of the written corpus to justify any dictator.

The facts are that Muhammad was a rapist (he raped Aishya at nine years old), he commanded people to be killed brutally who annoyed him, he launched unprovoked wars whenever he thought he could win. In short, he was uncivilized trash, not much different from people like Hitler or Saddam or Gaddafi.

If he existed at all, of course :) Perhaps he was mythical, a vehicle for fable and parable, like Christ, to personify the mores and doings of the illiterate desert people of those days. After all, the Koran wasn't written down for a hundred years after his death, there were competing versions of it floating around, and perhaps still are.

Back to topic: if someone declares that they are acting in the name of an ideology and can cite evidence for that from their favourite book, as IS can and does, then it is possible that their thuggery and barbarity actually does have the sanction of their book. What they assert, they can demonstrate. So it would have to be up to other Muslims to cite other bits and pieces for THEIR point of view, and to show that IS are in reality just a bunch of uncivilized thugs.

If they could also cite bits and pieces, then it would become clear that there are major differences and inconsistencies in the Koran: Pre- and Post-Medina versions of Islam are therefore very different, with the later verses regressing to a backward brutality befitting desert tribes, but extending that reactionary outlook to the entire world, as they knew it. And learning nothing from anybody else in the process and currently trapping a billion and a half people in pig-ignorance.

Joe

NC you must be the perfect cherry picker, or do you simply prefer to select the writings of one person to use to form your opinion for you? In passing, have you ever formed your own opinion on something, or do you simply prefer second hand?

You say "Michael H. Hart, while ranking Muhammad at the top of the world’s most influential persons in his book “The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History” (1978), had to address the misinformation under discussion here".

It is a no brainer to see Muhammad is an influential person on the history, in the same way as Genghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, or Mao Zedong were influential.

Only an academic would then tell us that these people earned our respect, & should be admired or revered by people in general.

I believe it is perfectly fair to he is entitled to be cursed by all, for the fact that his infamy did not die with him.

Come on NC, declare your affiliation with Islam.

And as I've asked you previously.... what do you have to say about the violent passages in the Koran that are Muhammad's message? If those passages are not Muhammad's message then all of Islam is a sham.

McAdam,

Learn to read, I said that one incident does not an archetype make, but many make a pattern. You think there is no pattern of Islamic violence and intolerance in our world?

What would happen to me and many of us ‘critics of Islam’ here (Jadine, Runner, Lego, Loudmouth, Hippie, Constance, Hasbeen, etc..) if we were in a public square in an Islamic society, saying what we have written here? Stupid question, see link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2828845/Relatives-Christian-couple-beaten-Pakistani-mob-burned-death-say-d-legs-broken-stop-fleeing-wife-wrapped-cotton-d-burn-faster.html#ixzz3MTbvzEfN

So 1500 people, Muslims, urged on by Imams, drag a couple into an oven, for a RUMOUR of blasphemy. I guess that is the “neighborliness” emphasized by Islam and expressed so well in Quran 48:29.

Or how about this: You must be very proud, McAdam, defending the weak and powerless against the tyrants that seek impose their hate on those wonderful, kind, blameless Muslims, and who, oh horrors, accuse them of following their scriptures and the example of their prophet.

In fact you may have noticed that not only are Islamic societies the most benevolent, tolerant and prosperous in the World, but also known for their peacefulness and love of reason. In fact it isn’t for nothing that millions of Westerners, Africans and Asians have left their countries and rushed to Islamic paradises, even taking small boats across perilous seas, to live in Islamic societies where the ideals of mercy and liberty flourish under the teachings of Islam. This benevolence, tolerance and freedom is all due, of course, to the strict adhesion to the tenets of Islam and the example of its prophet. Right?

See, when you throw out facts and logic, everything is easy. Never think, never ask questions!

Oh, BTW, how can the god of Jews, Christians and Muslims be the same when the Quran says Mary is part of the trinity (one of three, Quran5:116) that Christians worship? Obviously Allah and Mohammad know more about Christian doctrine than even Christians. I look forward to the Pope apologizing and replacing the Holy Spirit with Mary in all liturgies.

Yes, my dear Roman, I nailed it, but it is a very big nail.

theHypocrisy,

What evidence is there that Monis was deranged?
His beheavior seemed sane enough if taken in the context that he was following the precepts for dealing with infidels as laid down by Muhammad

"So if a deranged man says what I am doing is Islamic, wouldn't the rational thing to say be, "no this is not Islamic".

No it wouldn't, one would need to analyze what he was doing and then compare what he was doing to Islamic teachings and if he were a Muslim then that fact would need to be taken into account also.

"To believe a deranged man's claims isn't rationality it's insanity."

I'm sure that you don't really mean that, the deranged can be very rational and, moreover, appear to be quite normal.

"So which side of the fence do you sit on?"

The side that says that Islam is a political movement that has no place in a democracy.