The most important leader of all times

[Egyptian]

Do you celebrate Christmas, the birthday of Jesus?

I don't know when jesus was born and all muslims don't know .. why would we celebrate a fake date?

[Ryujin]

I don't know when jesus was born and all muslims don't know .. why would we celebrate a fake date?

I have respect for Muhammad; but his views are largely distorted nowadays. Especially with the rise of political Islam.

[magyar_lány]

Now that I see you, I realized I forgot Attila

Yeah, totally.

[Profileid]

George Washington

[Egyptian]

George Washington

I thought you were going to say Bashar the first and Bashar Junior.

[crazyladybutterfly]

Jesus was a religious leader, Mohammed was both - religious and political leader, too.

well he opposed the roman empire and how it worked. in some ways he was a political leader too

In his world, “kingdom” language was political. Jesus’ hearers knew about other kingdoms—the kingdom of Herod and the kingdom of Rome (as Rome referred to itself in eastern parts of the empire). The kingdom of God had to be something different from those kingdoms.


If Jesus had wanted to avoid the political meaning of kingdom language, he could have spoken of the “family” of God, or the “community” of God, or the “people” of God. But he didn’t: he spoke of the kingdom of God.

It would be a world of economic justice in which everybody had the material basics of existence. And it would be a world of peace and nonviolence. Together, economic justice and peace are “the dream of God”— God’s passion for a transformed world.

Jesus’ passion for the kingdom of God created conflict with the authorities. His public activity began after the arrest of his mentor, John the Baptizer, by the Rome-appointed ruler of Galilee (Mark 1:14). Conflict dominates his story throughout the Gospels and climaxes in the last week of Jesus’ life with his challenge to the authorities in Jerusalem and his crucifixion.

Jesus also used political means, most dramatically in two public political demonstrations. First, his preplanned entry into Jerusalem on a donkey symbolized a kingdom of peace in which the weapons of war would be banished. Second, he publicly indicted the temple as “a den of robbers” because it had become the center of collaboration with Roman imperial rule and taxation (Matt 21:13, Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46).

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/peop...-politics.aspx

When we read the gospels on the lookout for political overtones it becomes clear that much can be understood in political terms.

MARY’S SONG (LUKE 1:46–55) While we are probably accustomed to spiritualising Mary’s song to Elizabeth, when we read it in context it is very political. Not only will humility be exalted above pride but rulers will be deposed, the hungry (i.e. poor) fed and the rich turned away. Was Jesus political? His mother thought so! The outpouring of God’s mercy on ‘those who fear him’ (including the faithful poor such as Mary and Elizabeth) will bring about a definite change in the social order. So the mission of Jesus, the Saviour, implies as an essential outcome precisely the kind of social justice called for by Amos and the other prophets – and, of course, the Law itself. However earthly rulers may respond, God will bring this about among the people of the Kingdom.

PROCLAMATION OF JUBILEE (LUKE 4:16–21) When Jesus spoke in the synagogue at Nazareth he claimed to be fulfilling Isaiah’s vision of an eschatological Jubilee year. Jubilee was a highly political institution. Properly observed, it would severely limit the concentration of power and wealth. Isaiah’s vision expands the concept from a time-bound cycle into a description of a new regime which truly reflects God’s justice and where his faithful people receive the full measure of his blessing. And Jesus announces the inauguration of this new age ‘today’.

Read in its context, this must imply the dawning of a new day where God’s justice will be seen at work, where wrongs will be righted – specifically the injustices which lead to oppression and captivity. Again, we need to understand these words in a way consistent with their fulfilment ‘today’, not in some still future golden age. Does it not strain credulity to believe that Jesus intended to empty them entirely of their most obvious meaning – relationships between men and women here on earth?

THE GOOD SAMARITAN (LUKE 10:25–37) Who is a true neighbour? For the one who wants to inherit eternal life (enter the Kingdom), this parable makes the answer clear. The representatives of the Temple – priest and Levite – fail to be ‘neighbours’. Instead the Samaritan acts as a ‘neighbour’ to the Jew in need. In addition to the more spiritual lessons with which we are so familiar, the parable makes two important political points. First, as far as the coming Kingdom is concerned, the Temple is a dead end. Its servants are concerned only with their ritual purity and ceremonies, which were never as important as mercy and justice anyway and which will soon be shown to be completely obsolete. The Temple and its associated power structures are finished.

Second, within the Kingdom, previous national and ethnic loyalties are abandoned. In the Kingdom, the Samaritan is not the enemy. Allegiances to political entities such as nation states are undermined by the claims of the Kingdom, where ‘Love your neighbour’ crosses every human boundary. The awkward response of Jesus’ questioner in v.37 suggests that he finds this too much to accept.

Was Jesus political? Clearly not in the party political sense. Nor was his agenda political, in that it did not aim primarily at changing earthly power structures. And yet he was political. The Kingdom’s demands are so fundamental that they replace or transform our adherence to every other group, national, ethnic or cultural.

The Kingdom thus makes two kinds of political claim. Firstly, it summons its own members to a radically new and wholly exclusive commitment to Christ the King. This allegiance takes the place of those we previously held and makes us ultimately indifferent to the authority of others. In the Church – the Kingdom’s alternative new society – ethnic loyalties are completely abolished. Nationalism becomes an obsolete anomaly.

Secondly, the Kingdom issues a political challenge to the world at large. It attacks the very foundation stones of earthly politics by calling rulers to abandon their pretensions to absolute power and to recognise the true source of such power as they do possess. The way of the Kingdom is to scatter the proud and bring oppressive rulers down from their thrones.

http://www.jubilee-centre.org/jesus-...ve-wilmshurst/

in few words : if jesus message is applied it would have great political consequences , this is why he was murdered.

anyway some historians believe that he could have been not only a "prophet" but also a "leader for independence" against rome and that later his message/vision has been modified (or restricted) to fit better roma's agenda

[The.Mask]

Pick the most important leader as you wish.

Your list is lacking a lot, if you put people like Ataturk , de gaulle or Washington ( or even more ridiculous, people such as William Wallace mythified by Hollywood), then you miss people such as Skanderbeg, Constantine the Great, Diocletian, Marcus Aurelius,Cesar , Charlemagne, Mohamed Ali of Egypt, Philip II etc etc .

[Mikula]

Your list is lacking a lot, if you put people like Ataturk , de gaulle or Washington, then you miss people such as Skanderbeg, Constantine the Great, Diocletian, Marcus Aurelius,Cesar , Charlemagne etc etc .

Well each nation, or even each TA member has its own favorite hero, the list wcould be endless.

[The.Mask]

Well each nation, or even each TA member has its own favorite hero, the list wcould be endless.

I am pretty sure guys i mentioned decided fates of empires, continents, or huge mass of lands and much more important than guys such as Ce Guevara, Washington ( for his time), Wallace, Fidel Castro or even Ataturk.

[Profileid]

I thought you were going to say Bashar the first and Bashar Junior.

They're important for the middle east,but less so in the grand scheme of history.