I'm surprised I haven't seen a thread on this yet.
Who was the most influential person in all of history? Michael Hart thought it was Muhammad and I suspect he was right, but I'm open to other arguments.
It depends on how you define influential.
Socrates shaped Christian though, which shaped Islamic thought, which shaped Christian though and created the renaissance
Jesus can trace the vast majority of religious beliefs in the world directly to his preachings.
The first caveman to invent fire is indirectly responsible for all of human history.
So I ask you this OP:
Do we attribute later things that happened as a result of ideas created by one man, to that man?
And how far do we take that idea?
Alhazan wasn't actually very influential.
Which is what is so fucking depressing about him.
>Inventing shit all day urr day
>So rigorous he's considered the forefather of the scientific method.
>The only thing that gains any headway is his work on optics
>400 years later people pioneer the scientific method independently of him.
>He gets no credit for like another 500.
It's alleged that Muhammad was a student under a Monophysite monk in his youth, and that this led to his later "revelations." You can therefore thank Constantine for laying the foundations of a Christian Rome. The Monophysite church split from the Roman Imperial church after the Council of Chalcedon in 451. You can therefore thank Augustus for establishing the empire Constantine would later rule, Caesar for setting the conditions for Augustus to come to power, and Romulus for establishing the state that would become the republic that Caesar would eventually take over.
If he did not pass his ideas properly on, its no wonder nobody cared about giving credit. Respect is reserved to those that both [re]discovered and propagated the ideas we are led by nowdays, not who came upon that conclusion on their own, said "well golly gee", and left that discovery to his diaries to spook future archeologists
He didn't get the idea of Jesus being an agent of God from nowhere. He clearly had knowledge of Christianity. His deep understanding of the Abrahamic faiths betrays some sort of formal education involving them.
We have no idea when either of them lived assuming either of them did at all. It would be an interesting idea for a novel if they were actually one in the same
They believed him to be a heretic and a schismatic. Dante punished him for tearing apart the Church by having demons eternally cut him up, put him back together, and then cut him up again.
Of course, he lived in an environment where he was surrounded by Jews and (eastern) Christians. Of course he knew of their religions.
>Why would Christians try to present Muhammad as a misguided Christian?
This has been done since the Middle-Ages.
>Dante depicts both Mohammed--the founder of Islam--and his cousin and son-in-law Ali as sowers of religious divisiveness. One popular view held that Mohammed had himself been a cardinal who, his papal ambitions thwarted, caused a great schism within Christianity when he and his followers splintered off into a new religious community
>Muhammad pulling his chest open in William Blake's illustration of Dante's Inferno
Laozi > Confucius.
Laozi created taoism which influenced every subsequent Chinese philosophy and exerted an incredible influence on Buddhism, and Laozi himself may in fact be directly responsible for buddhism.
I mean if he was divinely inspired then obviously he was more knowledgeable.
But to suggest that he was the most knowledgeable otherwise is just silly.
There were Christian monasteries in the region.
You should absolutely read Dante for many many reasons, historical education being one.
I would say his education in the Abrahamic religions was not exactly superficial but hardly scholarly given the obvious glaring differences between the Qu'ranic narratives and the Biblical ones. He knew Christians, he knew Jews and he probably picked up some knowledge from talking to them.
I'm assuming that Jesus Christ doesn't "count" (divine nature and all that)?
Then I'd say Muhammad or Karl Marx. At least, those two are the historical figures most worth removing from history to mitigate evil.
This question is simply unanswerable. History is puzzle without one piece the whole thing is ruined. Everyone that ever lived effected history in some way and without them nothing would be the same
The greatest lawgiver to ever live was the prophet Muhammad.
In a time where religion was more turned to than to the law, Muhammad combined the two so that anyone who is following the religion is also following the law, therefore creating law and order in the middle east that the world had never seen before. Even Europe took after the teachings of Muhammad, and became a much more orderly sophisticated society.
>mfw early Americans thought Muhammad was a supreme lawgiver
It is true, he literally turned a system that put faith over reason and morality, to equate religion with reason and morality. Muslims were told to be critical and analytical when being presented with ideas
The Qur'an and Sunnah were probably the first instances of a constitution that outlines the roles, rights and limitations of a state leader
The Supreme Court actually honoured him for being a prominent law-giver
I think Mohammed was most successful because of the submition rituals built into Islam. Apparently when muslims do that praying thing, hormones that can be found in Stockholm syndrome situations will be released and they do that 5 times a day their entire life.
It's not hard to see why people would come to love a system like that.
They were referring to a different Muhammad you dimwit
I am pretty sure the Muhammad prophet wasn't alive in 1935. Muhammad is literally the most common name in the world, it was probably some american lawyer named muhammad
fucking hell, Muslims and their taqiyya
If only a similar reformation had happened within Christianity...
Think about it, this system made the unhospitable desert known as the Middle East into the greatest hub of thinking, science, and mathematics alike. A similar system in Europe would be 10 times bigger, and therefore much more effective than the middle east.
I would bet dollars to donuts that we would be living in a much much more advanced world today if that was the case.
I'm not so sure about Muhammad desu. Just because the religion itself spread quickly, doesn't mean that Muhammad himself was influential.
Religions are memes after all, and as far as we know, after he conquered Medina, the religion might've spread just by word alone.
Was this after he flew to the moon on a horse with a woman's face and cut it in half then put it back together?
>welcomed into Medina and was already at peace with Jews
True, there was conflict between one of the three main Jewish Tribes but it was hardly enough to say he conquered Medina.
The Quraish of Mecca did come to battle at Uhud and Badr though.
>it's a metaphor
This muslim doesn't think so
>you don't really think that the world was created in 7 days, and that earth was created before the stars and the universe
I'm not religious, nor do I follow religion so no
I didn't ask you the number of days in which the earth was created. Are you even paying attention to your own post?
I asked do you believe that mohammed flew up to the moon on a horse with a woman's face and cut it in half
"Monophysitism and its antithesis, Nestorianism, were both hotly disputed and divisive competing tenets in the maturing Christian traditions during the first half of the 5th century, during the tumultuous last decades of the Western Empire. It was marked by the political shift in all things to a center of gravity then located in the Eastern Roman Empire, and particularly in Syria, the Levant, and Anatolia, where monophysitism was popular among the people."
>"Monophysitism and its antithesis, Nestorianism, were both hotly disputed and divisive competing tenets in the maturing Christian traditions during the first half of the 5th century, during the tumultuous last decades of the Western Empire. It was marked by the political shift in all things to a center of gravity then located in the Eastern Roman Empire, and particularly in Syria, the Levant, and Anatolia, where monophysitism was popular among the people."
>That whole paragraph doesn't have a single source
>"popular among the people" suddenly means "Syria at the time was largely Monophysite"
It was though, the Syriac Monophysite church was centred in Antioch. It's not my fault you know nothing.
Yeah, like you've even read any of them. The academic journal on its own is enough, but it seems even book articles detailing the origin of the Syriac rite, the Syriac church, and why Monophysite was popular in Syria, isn't evidence of anything.
Again, it's not my fault you know nothing.
Islam being a Christian heresy was well known at the time, and recorded by contemporaries who spoke of them as such, not to mention much of the Quran is lifted directly from Syriac texts.
The main reference for Monophysitism is the archives of the Syriac Orthodox Church, including the archives of the Patriarchate of Antioch. If you can't trust them, I don't care.
"From Syria the Monophysite doctrine spread into Armenia to the north and Egypt to the south. In Syria and Mesopotamia the number of its adherents has been on the decrease ever since Islam became the dominant power in those lands."
In the east, yes, along the Persian border, but the coast and middle region were Monophysite. It's part of the reason why the Rashiduns were so successful in Syria, the Monophysites were oppressed by Constantinople and wanted Arab dhimmi status.
>"From Syria the Monophysite doctrine spread into Armenia to the north and Egypt to the south. In Syria and Mesopotamia the number of its adherents has been on the decrease ever since Islam became the dominant power in those lands."
Where the fuck does that say
>Syria at the time was largely Monophysite
Islam also spread to China, that doesn't china is all muslims. Nowhere in that phrase it implies that they were "largely monophysite"
Honestly surprised no one's said Zarathustra. Founded the first widely accepted monotheistic religion before Judaism or Christianity (Atenism doesn't count; it wasn't widespread or influential and died with the man who "founded" it.). He introduced the concepts of a single, all powerful god, and a single source of absolute darkness and evil. As well as the ideas of heaven and hell as we know them. Christianity, Judaism and Islam pretty much owe it all to that guy.
It's literally right where the link would have sent you had you actually looked at it.
Let me say it to you in simple terms. The Syrian Monopshysite church, which used the Syriac rite, was the largest church in Syria. The Romans oppressed the Monophysites, so they allowed the Arabs in. If Monophysitism wasn't the dominant faith in the area, none of this would have happened. A small sect doesn't overthrow the Roman military, a small sect doesn't spread across the known world as Monophysitism did.
He was mentioned a while back.
>It's literally right where the link would have sent you had you actually looked at it.
Then fucking quote it.
Because none of the shit you gave me or quoted says that, at all
> If Monophysitism wasn't the dominant faith in the area, none of this would have happened. A small sect doesn't overthrow the Roman military, a small sect doesn't spread across the known world as Monophysitism did.
Tell that to the christians, a small sect. That's a lot of assumptions there, do you have anything to back up your claim that Syria was largely Monophysite
Why would I quote a quote I already posted, and which I already sent you the source to?
Read the actual sources I sent to you and you will see how popular Monophysitism was in Syria. The emperors had to ban discussion of the nature of Christ at one stage, because it was going to tear the church apart.
From one of the previous links I sent you (https://books.google.ie/books?id=Qf8mrHjfZRoC&pg=PA599&lpg=PA599&dq=monophysite+majority+in+syria&source=bl&ots=1e4ZVp4mLr&sig=Sxbce-hDp7VlV06uzHrJ7__abGQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6AEwA2oVChMIrbvMxsHyyAIVBTIaCh23GQX7#v=onepage&q=monophysite%20majority%20in%20syria&f=false):
"By the mid sixth century, when the alternative Monosphysite hierarchy was being established, we can see that Syria I, Euphratensis, Osrhonene and Mesopotamia had large, probably majority, Monophysite communities."
Syria II and Phoenicia were mainly Chalcedonian, but the Ghassanids were staunch Monophysites. In simple terms, the heart of Roman Syria was staunchly Monophysite. You'd know that if you had read any of the sources I sent you, but you obviously didn't.
>a small sect
At least 10% of the empire's population was Christian before Constantine converted. It was never a small sect, it grew rapidly in the two decades after Jesus death.