Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Aristotle and Justice

Oreo222
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 12:41:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Aristotle believed that, for example, the best flutes should go to the best flute players because the best flute players would then make the best music. He said that's justice. Do you agree or disagree?
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 2:31:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 12:41:54 PM, Oreo222 wrote:
Aristotle believed that, for example, the best flutes should go to the best flute players because the best flute players would then make the best music. He said that's justice. Do you agree or disagree?

- Maybe an aspect of Justice. No disrespect to the First Teacher, but doesn't that imply giving the best money to one who best handles money, where is the justice in that?!
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Oreo222
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 2:39:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 2:31:54 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/9/2015 12:41:54 PM, Oreo222 wrote:
Aristotle believed that, for example, the best flutes should go to the best flute players because the best flute players would then make the best music. He said that's justice. Do you agree or disagree?

- Maybe an aspect of Justice. No disrespect to the First Teacher, but doesn't that imply giving the best money to one who best handles money, where is the justice in that?!

I think Aristotle wanted a highly efficient society where everything and everyone did what they were best at doing.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 2:41:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 2:39:39 AM, Oreo222 wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:31:54 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/9/2015 12:41:54 PM, Oreo222 wrote:
Aristotle believed that, for example, the best flutes should go to the best flute players because the best flute players would then make the best music. He said that's justice. Do you agree or disagree?

- Maybe an aspect of Justice. No disrespect to the First Teacher, but doesn't that imply giving the best money to one who best handles money, where is the justice in that?!

I think Aristotle wanted a highly efficient society where everything and everyone did what they were best at doing.

- Yes, he did. He wanted philosophers to be politicians & rulers. I wonder how that would've turned out! I think much of the Idealism & obsession with Objectivity in the West was inherited from the Greeks...
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Oreo222
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 2:43:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 2:41:52 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:39:39 AM, Oreo222 wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:31:54 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/9/2015 12:41:54 PM, Oreo222 wrote:
Aristotle believed that, for example, the best flutes should go to the best flute players because the best flute players would then make the best music. He said that's justice. Do you agree or disagree?

- Maybe an aspect of Justice. No disrespect to the First Teacher, but doesn't that imply giving the best money to one who best handles money, where is the justice in that?!

I think Aristotle wanted a highly efficient society where everything and everyone did what they were best at doing.

- Yes, he did. He wanted philosophers to be politicians & rulers. I wonder how that would've turned out! I think much of the Idealism & obsession with Objectivity in the West was inherited from the Greeks...

Yeah. He wanted what was best for society, though not what was best for the individual.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 2:45:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 2:43:51 AM, Oreo222 wrote:

Yeah. He wanted what was best for society, though not what was best for the individual.

- Now that you're muslim, you should probably start exploring Islamic Philosophy & checking muslim philosophers. ;)
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Oreo222
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 2:52:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 2:45:26 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:43:51 AM, Oreo222 wrote:

Yeah. He wanted what was best for society, though not what was best for the individual.

- Now that you're muslim, you should probably start exploring Islamic Philosophy & checking muslim philosophers. ;)

I have masha'Allah. Al-Farabi seems interesting.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 2:56:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 2:52:57 AM, Oreo222 wrote:

I have masha'Allah. Al-Farabi seems interesting.

- More than interesting ;) . Great mind.

- Try al-Ghazali.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Oreo222
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 3:00:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 2:56:05 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:52:57 AM, Oreo222 wrote:

I have masha'Allah. Al-Farabi seems interesting.

- More than interesting ;) . Great mind.

- Try al-Ghazali.

He seems alright, but I'm sure I'm just scratching the surface.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 3:03:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 3:00:27 AM, Oreo222 wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:56:05 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:52:57 AM, Oreo222 wrote:

I have masha'Allah. Al-Farabi seems interesting.

- More than interesting ;) . Great mind.

- Try al-Ghazali.

He seems alright,

- More than alright. One of the greatest & most influential minds in Islamic History.

but I'm sure I'm just scratching the surface.

- You're not even there yet. :P

- Anyways, if you ever have questions either about this, or any Islam related question, please don't hesitate to ask. :)
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Oreo222
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 3:07:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 3:03:10 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/10/2015 3:00:27 AM, Oreo222 wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:56:05 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:52:57 AM, Oreo222 wrote:

I have masha'Allah. Al-Farabi seems interesting.

- More than interesting ;) . Great mind.

- Try al-Ghazali.

He seems alright,

- More than alright. One of the greatest & most influential minds in Islamic History.

but I'm sure I'm just scratching the surface.

- You're not even there yet. :P

- Anyways, if you ever have questions either about this, or any Islam related question, please don't hesitate to ask. :)

Alright, thanks. :)

You know, I find it quite torn about Voltaire. He's one of my favorite philosophers and I love his wit, but his complete disrespect towards Mohammed (saws) is making me rethink what my opinion about him.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 3:40:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 3:07:06 AM, Oreo222 wrote:

Alright, thanks. :)

You know, I find it quite torn about Voltaire. He's one of my favorite philosophers and I love his wit, but his complete disrespect towards Mohammed (saws) is making me rethink what my opinion about him.

- Firstly, Voltaire is an unbeliever, who has never met the Prophet (pbuh) nor does he know of his character. If you expect him to hold the Prophet (pbuh) in high regard, then that's a misjudgement on your part. Secondly, the Prophet (pbuh) was widely poorly appreciated in that world then (& still is). Voltaire's position is just a matter of course, which is an error on his part for not acquiring proper knowledge about the Prophet (pbuh), otherwise, I am sure, he would've had different ideas about him. Voltaire calls for Justice, Liberty, Reason, Beauty... all the good things our Prophet (pbuh) enjoined on us. Had he known him, the man would surely be a admirer too, like his peers (LaMartine & others). Fourthly, I think you misunderstood him. Voltaire's mean depiction of Muhammad (pbuh) is a satirical implicit portrayal of the Church, attempting to expose it & its hypocrisies. A common practice of the time. This portrayal is meaningless, for it is fictitious, in label & content.

- When the Prophet (pbuh) was called by the Qur'aysh Muthammam (i.e. condemned one) he ignored their insults & said: "They are calling for Muthammam (condemned one), not me. I am Muhammad (praised one)". What Voltaire is portraying is a fictitious character who shares no more than the name of the Prophet (pbuh), none of his person & character.

- Finally, wit or intelligence is just one of the many attributes one can possess. Praising one's intelligence or admiring it, does not entail accepting one's other attributes! Voltaire may have wit, but that doesn't speak for all his other aptitudes. You may admire his wit, even if you dislike his morals. The Prophet (pbuh) took advise from Satan himself, let alone a person such as Voltaire. 'Amr Ibn al-'As (ra) did not hesitate in praising the Romans, even if they were enemies of Islam. He said: "they (the Romans) have four qualities. They have the patience to undergo a trial and immediately restore themselves to sanity after trouble and attack again after flight. They (have the quality) of being good to the destitute and the orphans, to the weak and, fifthly, the good quality in them is that they put resistance against the oppression of kings.". Overall, always try to take the moderate approach. Admiration is due where admiration is due, & distain is due where distain is due. After all, no one knows the fate of Voltaire except Allah (swt).
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Oreo222
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 3:56:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 3:40:50 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/10/2015 3:07:06 AM, Oreo222 wrote:

Alright, thanks. :)

You know, I find it quite torn about Voltaire. He's one of my favorite philosophers and I love his wit, but his complete disrespect towards Mohammed (saws) is making me rethink what my opinion about him.

- Firstly, Voltaire is an unbeliever, who has never met the Prophet (pbuh) nor does he know of his character. If you expect him to hold the Prophet (pbuh) in high regard, then that's a misjudgement on your part. Secondly, the Prophet (pbuh) was widely poorly appreciated in that world then (& still is). Voltaire's position is just a matter of course, which is an error on his part for not acquiring proper knowledge about the Prophet (pbuh), otherwise, I am sure, he would've had different ideas about him. Voltaire calls for Justice, Liberty, Reason, Beauty... all the good things our Prophet (pbuh) enjoined on us. Had he known him, the man would surely be a admirer too, like his peers (LaMartine & others). Fourthly, I think you misunderstood him. Voltaire's mean depiction of Muhammad (pbuh) is a satirical implicit portrayal of the Church, attempting to expose it & its hypocrisies. A common practice of the time. This portrayal is meaningless, for it is fictitious, in label & content.

- When the Prophet (pbuh) was called by the Qur'aysh Muthammam (i.e. condemned one) he ignored their insults & said: "They are calling for Muthammam (condemned one), not me. I am Muhammad (praised one)". What Voltaire is portraying is a fictitious character who shares no more than the name of the Prophet (pbuh), none of his person & character.

- Finally, wit or intelligence is just one of the many attributes one can possess. Praising one's intelligence or admiring it, does not entail accepting one's other attributes! Voltaire may have wit, but that doesn't speak for all his other aptitudes. You may admire his wit, even if you dislike his morals. The Prophet (pbuh) took advise from Satan himself, let alone a person such as Voltaire. 'Amr Ibn al-'As (ra) did not hesitate in praising the Romans, even if they were enemies of Islam. He said: "they (the Romans) have four qualities. They have the patience to undergo a trial and immediately restore themselves to sanity after trouble and attack again after flight. They (have the quality) of being good to the destitute and the orphans, to the weak and, fifthly, the good quality in them is that they put resistance against the oppression of kings.". Overall, always try to take the moderate approach. Admiration is due where admiration is due, & distain is due where distain is due. After all, no one knows the fate of Voltaire except Allah (swt).

You bring up good points. I suppose you're right about Voltaire and how he didn't acquire proper knowledge. He titled the play the Turkish word for Mohammed, "Mahmet." Though you're wrong on the idea that the West was completely against Mohammed (saws). When Voltaire's play was written, he received a lot of ridicule over it. Even Napoleon Bonaparte questioned why Voltaire would write a satirical book about one of humanity's greatest person.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 4:08:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 3:56:41 AM, Oreo222 wrote:

You bring up good points. I suppose you're right about Voltaire and how he didn't acquire proper knowledge. He titled the play the Turkish word for Mohammed, "Mahmet." Though you're wrong on the idea that the West was completely against Mohammed (saws).

- Not my idea ;) . Not completely, widely.

When Voltaire's play was written, he received a lot of ridicule over it. Even Napoleon Bonaparte questioned why Voltaire would write a satirical book about one of humanity's greatest person.

- As I said, had Voltaire known of the Prophet (pbuh), he would've too been an admirer as his peers, who have known of him, such as LaMartine.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 4:43:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 12:41:54 PM, Oreo222 wrote:
Aristotle believed that, for example, the best flutes should go to the best flute players because the best flute players would then make the best music. He said that's justice. Do you agree or disagree?

It's a good abstract aim, but needs to be tempered with pragmatism. You may want the best music, but you also have to keep everyone in society from killing one another, and I think that the latter ought to be prioritized over the former. Once you read the Greeks, read the Romans, especially the stoics. They sort of tie the floaty, dreamy Greeks to solid ground, and it was a Roman Stoic (Marcus Aurelius) who finally fulfilled the Greek vision of a philosopher-king.

I recommend Seneca and Cicero. If you want a taste of both worlds, Plutarch's Lives is a fantastic read.

This is from Cicero's De Re Publica, and covers several conceptions of justice inspired by a reading of Aristotle:

"There is a true law, a right reason, conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal, whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil. Whether it enjoins or forbids, the good respect its injunctions, and the wicked treat them with indifference. This law cannot be contradicted by any other law, and is not liable either to derogation or abrogation. Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice. It needs no other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience. It is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens; one thing today and another tomorrow; but in all times and nations this universal law must for ever reign, eternal and imperishable. It is the sovereign master and emperor of all beings. God himself is its author, -- its promulgator, -- its enforcer. He who obeys it not, flies from himself, and does violence to the very nature of man. For his crime he must endure the severest penalties hereafter, even if he avoid the usual misfortunes of the present life."

~*~

"I allow that you have quoted a strong case in your own favour, but still I assert that policy receives greater confirmation by the actual conduct and practice of men than your justice can boast of. It is so, both among individuals and among nations. What state is so absurd and ridiculous, as not to prefer unjust dominion to just subordination?

[...]

"It is justice, beyond all question, neither to commit murder nor robbery. What then would your just man do, if in a case of shipwreck he saw a weaker man than himself get possession of a plank? Would he thrust him off, get hold of the timber himself, and escape by his exertions, especially as no human witness could be present in the midsea? If he acted like a wise man of the world, he would certainly do so; for to act in any other way would cost him his life. If on the other hand he prefers death to inflicting unjustifiable injury on his neighbour, he will be an eminently honourable and just man, but not the less a fool, because he saved another"s life at the expense of his own."

~*~

"Your philosophers, then, assert that the wise man does not seek virtue because of the personal gratification which the practice of justice and beneficence procures him, but rather because the life of the good man is free from fear, care, solicitude, and peril; while on the other hand, the wicked always feel in their souls a certain suspicion, and always behold before their eyes images of judgment and punishment. They suppose, therefore, that no benefit can be gained by injustice, precious enough to counterbalance the constant pressure of remorse, and the haunting consciousness that retribution awaits the sinner and hangs over his devoted head.

Our philosophers, therefore, put a case which is worth reporting. Suppose, say they, two men, -- the first is an excellent and admirable person, of high honour and remarkable integrity; the latter is distinguished by nothing but his vice and audacity. Suppose that their city has so mistaken their characters, as to imagine the good man a scandalous and impious imposter, and to esteem the wicked man, on the contrary, as a pattern of probity and fidelity. On account of this error of their fellow citizens, the good man is arrested and tormented, -- his hands are cut off, his eyes are plucked out, -- he is condemned, bound, burnt, and exterminated, and to the last appears, in the best judgment of the people, the most miserable of men. On the other hand, the flagitious wretch is exalted, worshipped, loved by all, and honours, offices, riches, and emoluments, are all conferred on him, and he shall be reckoned by his fellow"citizens the best and worthiest of mortals, and in the highest degree worthy of all manner of prosperity. Yet for all this, who is so mad, as to doubt which of these two men he would rather be?"

~*~

"How many, such as the inhabitants of Taurica along the Euxine Sea --as the King of Egypt Busiris -- as the Gauls and the Carthaginians -- have thought it exceedingly pious and agreeable to the gods to sacrifice men. Besides these religious discrepancies, the rules of life are so contradictory that the Cretans and Aetolians regard robbery as honourable. And the Lacedaemonians say that their territory extends to all places which they can touch with a lance. The Athenians had a custom of swearing by a public proclamation, that all the lands which produced olives and corn were their own. The Gauls consider it a base employment to raise corn by agricultural labour, and go with arms in their hands, and mow down the harvests of neighbouring peoples. And our Romans, the most equitable of all nations, in order to raise the value of our vines and olives, do not permit the races beyond the Alps to cultivate either vineyards or oliveyards. In this respect, it is said, we act with prudence, but not with justice. You see then that wisdom and policy are not always the same as equity. Lycurgus, the inventor of a most admirable jurisprudence, and most wholesome laws, gave the lands of the rich to be cultivated by the common people, who were reduced to slavery.

If I were to describe the diverse kinds of laws, institutions, manners, and customs, not only as they vary in the numerous nations, but as they vary likewise in single cities, as Rome for example, I should prove that they have had a thousand revolutions. For instance, that eminent expositor of our laws who sits in the present company, I mean Malilius, if you were to consult him relative to the legacies and inheritances of women, he would tell you that the present law is quite different from that he was accustomed to plead in his youth, before the Voconian enactment came into force -- an edict which was passed in favour of the interests of the men, but which is evidently full of injustice with regard to women. For why should a woman be disabled from inheriting property? Why can a vestal virgin become an heir, while her mother cannot? And why, admitting that it is necessary to set some limit to the wealth of women, should Crassus' daughter, if she be his only child, inherit thousands without offending the law, while my daughter can only receive a small share in a bequest?

If this justice were natural, innate, and universal, all men would admit the same law and right, and the same men would not enact different laws at different times. If a just man and a virtuous man is bound to obey the laws, I ask what laws do you mean? Do you intend all the laws indifferently? Virtue does not permit this inconstancy in moral obligation -- such a variation is not compatible with natural conscience. The laws are, therefore, based not on our sense of justice, but on our fear of punishment. There is, therefore, no natural justice, and hence it follows that men cannot be just by nature."
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 9:05:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
but doesn't that imply giving the best money to one who best handles money, where is the justice in that?!

That rather depends on what 'best handles money' is taken to mean. Flute players don't play the flute purely for their own pleasure - everyone gains if good flute players have good flutes. So presumably money would be given to those who would best use it for the common good, not make the most profit for their personal use.

Of course in our system the best flutes are reserved for those who can best pay for them, regardless of how badly they play - where's the justice (or even the logic) in that?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:32:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 3:56:41 AM, Oreo222 wrote:
At 11/10/2015 3:40:50 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/10/2015 3:07:06 AM, Oreo222 wrote:

Alright, thanks. :)

You know, I find it quite torn about Voltaire. He's one of my favorite philosophers and I love his wit, but his complete disrespect towards Mohammed (saws) is making me rethink what my opinion about him.

- Firstly, Voltaire is an unbeliever, who has never met the Prophet (pbuh) nor does he know of his character. If you expect him to hold the Prophet (pbuh) in high regard, then that's a misjudgement on your part. Secondly, the Prophet (pbuh) was widely poorly appreciated in that world then (& still is). Voltaire's position is just a matter of course, which is an error on his part for not acquiring proper knowledge about the Prophet (pbuh), otherwise, I am sure, he would've had different ideas about him. Voltaire calls for Justice, Liberty, Reason, Beauty... all the good things our Prophet (pbuh) enjoined on us. Had he known him, the man would surely be a admirer too, like his peers (LaMartine & others). Fourthly, I think you misunderstood him. Voltaire's mean depiction of Muhammad (pbuh) is a satirical implicit portrayal of the Church, attempting to expose it & its hypocrisies. A common practice of the time. This portrayal is meaningless, for it is fictitious, in label & content.

- When the Prophet (pbuh) was called by the Qur'aysh Muthammam (i.e. condemned one) he ignored their insults & said: "They are calling for Muthammam (condemned one), not me. I am Muhammad (praised one)". What Voltaire is portraying is a fictitious character who shares no more than the name of the Prophet (pbuh), none of his person & character.

- Finally, wit or intelligence is just one of the many attributes one can possess. Praising one's intelligence or admiring it, does not entail accepting one's other attributes! Voltaire may have wit, but that doesn't speak for all his other aptitudes. You may admire his wit, even if you dislike his morals. The Prophet (pbuh) took advise from Satan himself, let alone a person such as Voltaire. 'Amr Ibn al-'As (ra) did not hesitate in praising the Romans, even if they were enemies of Islam. He said: "they (the Romans) have four qualities. They have the patience to undergo a trial and immediately restore themselves to sanity after trouble and attack again after flight. They (have the quality) of being good to the destitute and the orphans, to the weak and, fifthly, the good quality in them is that they put resistance against the oppression of kings.". Overall, always try to take the moderate approach. Admiration is due where admiration is due, & distain is due where distain is due. After all, no one knows the fate of Voltaire except Allah (swt).

You bring up good points. I suppose you're right about Voltaire and how he didn't acquire proper knowledge. He titled the play the Turkish word for Mohammed, "Mahmet." Though you're wrong on the idea that the West was completely against Mohammed (saws). When Voltaire's play was written, he received a lot of ridicule over it. Even Napoleon Bonaparte questioned why Voltaire would write a satirical book about one of humanity's greatest person.

Voltaire didn't have much respect for Christ either. Or anyone for that matter.

He was an hedonist. A reveller in drink and women.
Oreo222
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 4:00:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:32:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/10/2015 3:56:41 AM, Oreo222 wrote:
At 11/10/2015 3:40:50 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/10/2015 3:07:06 AM, Oreo222 wrote:

Alright, thanks. :)

You know, I find it quite torn about Voltaire. He's one of my favorite philosophers and I love his wit, but his complete disrespect towards Mohammed (saws) is making me rethink what my opinion about him.

- Firstly, Voltaire is an unbeliever, who has never met the Prophet (pbuh) nor does he know of his character. If you expect him to hold the Prophet (pbuh) in high regard, then that's a misjudgement on your part. Secondly, the Prophet (pbuh) was widely poorly appreciated in that world then (& still is). Voltaire's position is just a matter of course, which is an error on his part for not acquiring proper knowledge about the Prophet (pbuh), otherwise, I am sure, he would've had different ideas about him. Voltaire calls for Justice, Liberty, Reason, Beauty... all the good things our Prophet (pbuh) enjoined on us. Had he known him, the man would surely be a admirer too, like his peers (LaMartine & others). Fourthly, I think you misunderstood him. Voltaire's mean depiction of Muhammad (pbuh) is a satirical implicit portrayal of the Church, attempting to expose it & its hypocrisies. A common practice of the time. This portrayal is meaningless, for it is fictitious, in label & content.

- When the Prophet (pbuh) was called by the Qur'aysh Muthammam (i.e. condemned one) he ignored their insults & said: "They are calling for Muthammam (condemned one), not me. I am Muhammad (praised one)". What Voltaire is portraying is a fictitious character who shares no more than the name of the Prophet (pbuh), none of his person & character.

- Finally, wit or intelligence is just one of the many attributes one can possess. Praising one's intelligence or admiring it, does not entail accepting one's other attributes! Voltaire may have wit, but that doesn't speak for all his other aptitudes. You may admire his wit, even if you dislike his morals. The Prophet (pbuh) took advise from Satan himself, let alone a person such as Voltaire. 'Amr Ibn al-'As (ra) did not hesitate in praising the Romans, even if they were enemies of Islam. He said: "they (the Romans) have four qualities. They have the patience to undergo a trial and immediately restore themselves to sanity after trouble and attack again after flight. They (have the quality) of being good to the destitute and the orphans, to the weak and, fifthly, the good quality in them is that they put resistance against the oppression of kings.". Overall, always try to take the moderate approach. Admiration is due where admiration is due, & distain is due where distain is due. After all, no one knows the fate of Voltaire except Allah (swt).

You bring up good points. I suppose you're right about Voltaire and how he didn't acquire proper knowledge. He titled the play the Turkish word for Mohammed, "Mahmet." Though you're wrong on the idea that the West was completely against Mohammed (saws). When Voltaire's play was written, he received a lot of ridicule over it. Even Napoleon Bonaparte questioned why Voltaire would write a satirical book about one of humanity's greatest person.

Voltaire didn't have much respect for Christ either. Or anyone for that matter.

He was an hedonist. A reveller in drink and women.

Oh yeah, totally. He's also hilarious.