Sigh.....
This whole kitten actually goes all the way back since Muhammad's passing. Muhammad was a man of many things; a leader, a guide, a messenger, husband and father. But despite his elevated status, he was still a flawed human being, just like the Quran told us so.
One particularly famous instance is the accusation of one of his wives' adultery. Rumors spread so greatly that Muhammad started believing them before he prayed to God to help him seek the truth. Once God cleared it up, he apologized to her and supposedly literally begged her to. While she did eventually forgive him, the man who was implicated in the adultery rumors was actually one of his closest followers as well, and this eventually created a noticeable rift between them.
For all of Muhammad's great virtues, he had one MAJOR flaw: He was too naive.
To elaborate, Muhammad was not a politician at all. Far from it. While he did have God's messages relayed to him, they merely acted as his moral compass, not as a political guide. There were basic socio-political norms to lay the groundwork for a civil society, but nothing explicit about running a frigging empire..... So, during his reign over the Muslim community, Muhammad basically had to learn on the fly.
There's a good reason why you can consider Muhammad's advice for Itjihad (before you say anything, no, Itjihad is not the same thing as Jihad. It means that you have to make your own considerations based on the Quran and Hadits) to be summed up as a how-to to learn on the fly.
But the worst of it, he died too soon. He only reigned over his community for about 2-3 years. When Muhammad was in rule, he ruled as fair as possible. Muhammad was not a natural-born politician, but with God's messages, he did well enough. But that doesn't make him a politician in the truest sense of the word, he was merely a moral authority like Mandela and MLK. Muhammad's lack of political savvy-ness, led to his naivety.
His naivety is that, most likely, of him being too trusting in his followers. Muhammad was able to create peace and stability during his rule, but he didn't think far enough in the future to prepare his followers for his eventual death. He did foreshadow his death at his last Hajj pilgrimage, but he didn't do anything beyond that. Muhammad didn't have enough political experience to foresee infighting in the future. His former enemies, however, did. They would later on be the root of this whole kitten the world's going through.
The first two Caliphs did well in keeping the peace, but after that, everything started to go to hell. It isn't helped by the fact that the third Caliph was corrupt as hell.
Had Muhammad specifically cited criterias for a leader in a Hadits, then we would be seeing less infighting in this world now. The infighting from the ancient times finally culminated in the cold war in which is still ongoing in the middle east. The worst of it, the infighting eventually divided the Muslim community in different parts from the Sunni, to the Shi'ites and Kurds. All of which are fighting for dominance in the middle east.
So, basically, Muhammad was indirectly responsible for why the whole world has gone to crap.
In case you're wondering where I get this from, I recommend reading Reza Aslan's "No God but God". It's a real eye-opener on Islamic politics.
Edited by Codus N, 15 November 2015 - 05:14 AM.
Times sure have turned dark if a man has to fight and kill another man! This face of humanity is terrible, really! Maybe it's about time we have something more concrete and less-vague than the concept of religion. Condolences to all the people in Paris.
.
.
.
