Yes atheists are different in a lot of ways when it comes to discussing all of this, but I don't know what that has to do with what I said. It doesn't change what the atheist position is.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Yes atheists are different in a lot of ways when it comes to discussing all of this, but I don't know what that has to do with what I said. It doesn't change what the atheist position is.
Okay well, this thread is the “Religion, what’s the point?” thread, so apply that to your analogy.
I’ve found some interesting stuff to read recently on the psychoanalysis of Abrahamic prophetic figures, and as you’d imagine, it isn’t good.
Pretty sure that’s well documented history there
Thought I’d try summarize my understanding of the current approach of Western non-Muslim scholarship on the question of Muhammad and the rise of Islam, at least in the English-speaking world. Not trying to challenge any of the Café’s Muslim posters with this.
It is generally the case that right up until the 1970s these accounts were based on a broad acceptance of the traditional Islamic narrative as it appeared by the 9th century. This is the case whether it was medieval Christians portraying Muhammad as a false prophet or antichrist, Enlightenment-era scholars such as Gibbon portraying him as a stern but fair lawmaker very much in the monotheistic tradition, 19th century writers like Carlyle portraying him as a divinely inspired hero or Muir portraying him in a much more negative light. Or moving into the 20th century, the sympathetic account of Montgomery Watt or the Marxist approach of Maxime Rodinson.
However, by the mid-20th century Joseph Schacht had challenged the reliability of the hadith as legitimate sources for the early Islamic community, arguing that the isnads (chains of transmission) which form the basis for the authority of the hadith as accepted sources for the life of Muhammad and the rise of Islam were unreliable and likely the result of mass fraudulence in the early Abbasid era (i.e. after 750 AD). This in turn undermined the dependence on these sources that had dominated Western approaches to the topic until then, and a collection of revisionist scholars started looking outside the Islamic tradition for evidence. So in the 1970s you had scholars like John Wansbrough, Patricia Crone and Michael Cook publishing studies of the era based entirely on more contemporary, 7th century non-Islamic sources. Since this time, this revisionist approach has dominated Western scholarship on the topic, although there has been some pushback, obviously from Muslim scholars but also others such as Wael Hallaq. Some have accused the revisionist scholars of a hostile agenda to Islam, while they argue they are doing nothing that Western scholarship hasn’t previously applied to the Christian traditions. In any case today it is accepted that Wansbrough – who argued that the Qur’an was only completed and compiled by the end of the 8th century (i.e. more than a century and a half after the reported death of Muhammad) - and Crone/Cook (look for their controversial book Hagarism) went a bit too far in their enthusiasm, and some of their findings have been refuted (Wansbrough’s Qur’an thesis, for example, has been completely demolished by recent discoveries of Qur’anic fragments dating right back to the mid-7th century).
My understanding of the current approach – typified by scholars like Fred Donner, Stephen Shoemaker, and Robert Hoyland – is that it tries to synthesize the later Muslim sources with the earlier non-Muslim sources to present a more complete picture, while retaining a very skeptical approach to both. Their portrayal of Muhammad and the early Islamic history goes something like this – there was clearly a religious movement in the early 7th century probably based not in the Hijaz but further north-west close to the modern-day Saudi-Jordanian-Israeli border areas. It was likely led by a charismatic chief who may or may not have been called Muhammad, who emerged as a kind of mediator among the mixed religious community of Arab tribes in the area, who included Jews, Christians and polytheists. Muhammad preached an inclusive monotheism which incorporated Jews and Christians who wished to retain their religious identity, and presented himself as a prophet in the Abrahamic tradition, but not necessarily as the unique, “final” prophet of the later Islamic tradition. The community who accepted Muhammad’s message believed the end of times was imminent and closely connected to Jerusalem, which became at this time the focus of the community’s attention. They argue that it is possible that Muhammad himself was still alive at the time the movement invaded Palestine, contrary to the Islamic tradition. And they argue that a “Muslim” identity and a conception of the movement as representing something new and unique called “Islam” likely only emerged over the following decades as the inclusive basis for the movement collapsed in the midst of warfare and the attempt to incorporate the Jews and Christians of the newly conquered lands in the Middle East. They basically argue that the religious tradition we think of as “Islam” was not conclusively formed by the end of Muhammad’s life as the Islamic tradition would have it, but was only really consolidated over the course of the first century of the Abbasid period (so 750-850 AD), which is the period when the Islamic traditions concerning the topic begin to appear.
However, by the mid-20th century Joseph Schacht had challenged the reliability of the hadith as legitimate sources for the early Islamic community, arguing that the isnads (chains of transmission) which form the basis for the authority of the hadith as accepted sources for the life of Muhammad and the rise of Islam were unreliable and likely the result of mass fraudulence in the early Abbasid era (i.e. after 750 AD). This in turn undermined the dependence on these sources that had dominated Western approaches to the topic until then, and a collection of revisionist scholars started looking outside the Islamic tradition for evidence. So in the 1970s you had scholars like John Wansbrough, Patricia Crone and Michael Cook publishing studies of the era based entirely on more contemporary, 7th century non-Islamic sources. Since this time, this revisionist approach has dominated Western scholarship on the topic, although there has been some pushback, obviously from Muslim scholars but also others such as Wael Hallaq. Some have accused the revisionist scholars of a hostile agenda to Islam, while they argue they are doing nothing that Western scholarship hasn’t previously applied to the Christian traditions. In any case today it is accepted that Wansbrough – who argued that the Qur’an was only completed and compiled by the end of the 8th century (i.e. more than a century and a half after the reported death of Muhammad) - and Crone/Cook (look for their controversial book Hagarism) went a bit too far in their enthusiasm, and some of their findings have been refuted (Wansbrough’s Qur’an thesis, for example, has been completely demolished by recent discoveries of Qur’anic fragments dating right back to the mid-7th century).
My understanding of the current approach – typified by scholars like Fred Donner, Stephen Shoemaker, and Robert Hoyland – is that it tries to synthesize the later Muslim sources with the earlier non-Muslim sources to present a more complete picture, while retaining a very skeptical approach to both. Their portrayal of Muhammad and the early Islamic history goes something like this – there was clearly a religious movement in the early 7th century probably based not in the Hijaz but further north-west close to the modern-day Saudi-Jordanian-Israeli border areas. It was likely led by a charismatic chief who may or may not have been called Muhammad, who emerged as a kind of mediator among the mixed religious community of Arab tribes in the area, who included Jews, Christians and polytheists. Muhammad preached an inclusive monotheism which incorporated Jews and Christians who wished to retain their religious identity, and presented himself as a prophet in the Abrahamic tradition, but not necessarily as the unique, “final” prophet of the later Islamic tradition. The community who accepted Muhammad’s message believed the end of times was imminent and closely connected to Jerusalem, which became at this time the focus of the community’s attention. They argue that it is possible that Muhammad himself was still alive at the time the movement invaded Palestine, contrary to the Islamic tradition. And they argue that a “Muslim” identity and a conception of the movement as representing something new and unique called “Islam” likely only emerged over the following decades as the inclusive basis for the movement collapsed in the midst of warfare and the attempt to incorporate the Jews and Christians of the newly conquered lands in the Middle East. They basically argue that the religious tradition we think of as “Islam” was not conclusively formed by the end of Muhammad’s life as the Islamic tradition would have it, but was only really consolidated over the course of the first century of the Abbasid period (so 750-850 AD), which is the period when the Islamic traditions concerning the topic begin to appear.
You're not a Muslim, you're just leaning to be one
It's been an enjoyable discussion!
Well of course there are other charities and non profit organisations doing and offering stuff for communities. But irregardless of that, you seem to be suggesting churches only do this because they wish to brainwash/recruit people. I don't believe that's the case, alot of their offerings have no religious connection and its simply just the building being used and its resources. My local church runs a few mother and tots sessions as well as offering childcare stuff too.
The youth club run in my church had no religious elements in any way. We went and played computer games, pool, football, table tennis etc.. And ate sweets from a tuck shop. On occasion there'd be a 5 minute epilogue but it was very much just like any other youth club.
Your views are far too pesimestic and cynical in my opinion. I know in Islam and stuff that members of the congregation may do a large salary sacrifice. My local church is in a housing estate and they don't make alot of money off the congregation.
I live in Northern Ireland and I don't mean to be rude but you really don't have a strong understanding of it. The religion has very little to do with it, it's just a label. The religion didn't kill people, the British army did.
I would be interested to know how many members of the western armies actively practice a religion. Religion may be used as the excuse for alot of wars. But those wielding the guns shooting people are mostly not religious, particularly in Western society.
But is that a problem exclusive to Christians or religion? Gay people couldn't marry in most of the west 10 years ago. Trans women can't play rugby competitively. Look at how some Eastern countries treat LGBT+. There are plenty of gay ministers and such out there too. And the fact Liberal Methodists are distancing themselves shows there are good Christians who try to love and welcome all.
You realize I’m talking about Christians specifically because you brought up the Methodists, yes? My initial post was about religions in general. You’re basically making my original point for me here.
As for the liberal Methodists, they are a minutely small percentage of Christians and are actively going against their own religion’s doctrine regarding homosexuality.
What kind of (non-Islamic) sources are available for this topic/period? Are there any written accounts, that are still preserved?
There are a number of Christian and Jewish sources contemporaneous with the arrival of the followers of Muhammad in the Roman Middle East. Some Christian sources from Sassanian Iraq as well, along with some Zoroastrian I think. I recently read this work by Stephen Shoemaker which provides translations of and commentaries on 20 of the earliest and most significant of these sources. The introduction also provides an excellent overview of the use scholars have made of the sources - . A Prophet Has Appeared: The Rise of Islam through Christian and Jewish Eyes
Shoemaker also cites this much more comprehensive survey by Robert Hoyland, but I haven't read it so can't say a lot about it except that it includes a lot more sources than Shoemaker, although not all (according to Shoemaker) particularly significant for our understanding of the nascent Islamic movement - Seeing Islam as Others Saw It
Is this not the problem here. Discussion over historical books/texts. That don't prove a thing but yet people accept them as the truth. Without question...I'd love to know why. Human beings are deceitful, lying, selfish and power hungry control freaks. We all know this, it's why any religion exists. Control and power.
But I'm pretty sure there are a lot of things written in the bible which aren't necessarily followed these days.
The Bible was written thousands of years ago when society was much different so I feel religions do need to modernise and adjust with time. A quick Google search shows me this - https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfun...le-verses-that-turn-christians-into-atheists/
So I feel that sort of shows Christian ideology has adapted historically as I doubt those who are anti LGBT+ are pro rape and pro slavery. Or at least I hope not.
There is no muslim and there is no hindu. Every one is seeking (Sikhing) the answers
Are you going to argue that Muhammad didn’t lead an army to conquer large areas of the Arabian peninsula?
Yes, there have been lengthy discussions on here about the watering down of Christianity in some denominations / congregations over the years. The phrases “cafeteria Christianity” or “buffet line Christianity” come to mind… and all that means is that the conservative minded denominations are picking and choosing what aligns with their political ideals and the liberal denominations are doing the same. The problem you’ll face is that, in a place like the US, conservative evangelical churches now hold a large majority of the Protestant faith, while the more liberal mainline denominations are shrinking.
We get that you believe that, but please stop posting it repeatedly.
They didn’t. The pensisula came under the rule of the Arabs during the Caliphate of Umar mainly (they made some marginal gains during Abu Bakrs reign).
I didn’t say he conquered the whole thing bud.
When you’re talking about a guy from the 7th century who, over the course of a decade, was involved in around 15-20 battles & raids and planned another 15-20 that were carried out by lieutenants, I just don’t see how it’s shocking to read that person described as a warlord.
A missing piece of the puzzle when we talk about any of the Abrahamic religions is the influence of philosophy on how faiths developed and/or were practiced at various times.
I can't speak for basically anything this side of the 14th century, but in the Middle Ages there were huge debates on how (and often, whether it was right) to use the hadith and Qu'ran to reach judgements on situations not directly referenced in either. Those debates were often grounded in rival conceptions of logic and shifted over time as Aristotle's works were translated into Arabic, adopted, adapted and superceded by new ideas.
I can't speak for basically anything this side of the 14th century, but in the Middle Ages there were huge debates on how (and often, whether it was right) to use the hadith and Qu'ran to reach judgements on situations not directly referenced in either. Those debates were often grounded in rival conceptions of logic and shifted over time as Aristotle's works were translated into Arabic, adopted, adapted and superceded by new ideas.
Another believing member in here on discussing this subject said a good while back. "Yes! Of course he was a warlord."
Yes, Neoplatonism and Aristotelianism influenced the Abrahamic faiths immensely.
All that stuff massively bored me when I studied politics but fascinated me when I studied history.
Of all things, it was a literature professor teaching us the Nicomachean Ethics that got me to see them as interesting.
When you say influenced, what context do you mean?
The muatazila for example used Aristotelian ideas. But later on. They were also marginalized for doing so.
I'm just seeking clarification here
Right, well, the guy raised armies, led them in battle, conquered places, planned campaigns, all kinds of fun stuff... But don't let me stop you from denying things about his life.
I would imagine that @jeff_goldblum could expand on this, but... in general, teachings ranging from how cities should be governed, to ethics, to the nature of god were borrowed from Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Neoplatonism by philosophers in all 3 Abrahamic faiths. Frequently, you'll find theologians of all 3 faiths citing Plato, Plotinus, and Aristotle in defense of their own assertions about their specific faith, as those 3 philosophers were looked to as the authorities on certain subjects.
The philosophy of the "Islamic Golden Age" was based on this, because Islamic philosophers began translating their works into Arabic, which led Maimonides to adapt the Islamic works into his own philosophy for Judaism... Christian theologians were, and had been, working with the Greek and Latin texts for quite some time at that point as well.
I don't deny anything. I can go through every single battle and every single expedition.
The battle of Badr for example was hardly Muhammad looking for a fight.
The thing about history is the information left out or conveniently forgotten or how it is presented. I think ive mentioned before how as a kid coming to the UK I got into trouble for questioning evil Salahuddin and lionheart Richard in a history class. That wasn't to deny Salahuddin was a fighter who fought in the crusades. He just wasn't the "warlord" that was being presented to me as an 8 year old.
And yes over time Muslims took and translated Greek and other works. Influences in fashion and other areas did happen. However the usual argument is that, for example the Qur'an was influenced by Aristotle etc. I was just clarifying.
Well a decade of raising and leading medieval armies in warfare resulting in conquest and loot doth a warlord make in my book.
I imagine there wouldn't be much pushback against that title if we were discussing someone in Japan, China, India, or Northern Europe doing the exact same thing in the exact same era.
I've never read that Aristotle directly influenced the Koran, but I have read a good bit about how Aristotle influenced Islamic theology. Ditto that for Christian and Jewish theology. All with inevitable acceptance, debate, pushback, internal conflict, etc. arising from it.
Religion/Politics/Football.... what is the common factor with these?
A lifetimes belief and commitment.... (well two out of three's not bad! )
A lifetimes belief and commitment.... (well two out of three's not bad! )
The whole warlord thing is a fairly recent phenomenon when it comes to Muhammad. Not helped by various writers over the years who seem to get joy and fame from attacking Islam.
If you look closely at the battles Muhammad was involved in its not what I would call a warlord. And that isn't with the bias it may seem to have with you knowing I'm Muslim because it wasn't always the case and I didn't think so then.
I mentioned Badr already but later you had Uhud. Again a force comes to annihilate you and you respond is hardly the actions of a warlord. The battle of the trench was an army outside the gates. Again warlord? Tabuk was the army from Syria readied to attack and a n army sent and no battle took place.
The first 3 battles were in the first 3 years. All looking to finish Islam and Muhammad.
I've already explained earlier the battle with the Jewish tribes. Which contrary to popular belief weren't all killed off because they existed in Umars Caliphate. And the sentence on those who were killed was under Jewish law administered by a person chosen by the tribes.
It's also worth noting that the coming to Spain by Tariq in later was by invite due to what was happening there. Not a case of Muslims turning up to conquer for conquering sake. There are letters to this effect still preserved. Not something you get taught in history in school.
As for Aristotle, then yeah I've had many folk say Muhammad copied him, the Qur'an was influenced by him and others etc etc.
The thing is leaders have adopted certain other philosophies and governing systems. Not least in countries like Pakistan and Turkey etc. But the issue often is that what does Islam in its true form say about this?
Turkey under Attaturk was hardly Muslim. They banned the Arabic call to prayer for 18 years. Jinnah wasn't even Muslim so calling Pakistan and Islamic Republic?
Even earlier times the people who adopted or were influenced by others were named eg muatazila I mentioned but also Asharis,.Maturidis etc. These weren't called non Muslim as such but scholars highlighted their belief and weaknesses (Islamically speaking). Likes Al Basri and later Rumi are names we know in the west but they weren't the popular in Islamic scholars circles due to outside influences.
I'm from Kashmir ways. And here we have Barelwis and Deobandis. Yet the book that has the most influence on them was by Ashraf Ali Thanvi. Someone who scholars said was good in parts but wrote a lot of nonsense.
People see the Ottomans as a caliphate until the 1920's but their actions based on influences makes that questionable.
Point being that when you apply Islamic principles to many individuals or groups they are found wanting. To judge Muhammad on these later actions is not as straight forward aas it seems.
@Roane - we will agree to disagree about Muhammad’s warlord status.
As for the rest of that… I am really not quite sure what point you’re trying to make here. Especially in light of the fact that @jeff_goldblum brought up pre-14th century theology / philosophy, which I was agreeing with.
As for the rest of that… I am really not quite sure what point you’re trying to make here. Especially in light of the fact that @jeff_goldblum brought up pre-14th century theology / philosophy, which I was agreeing with.
Muhammad must be the greatest general in history. All he did was defend himself and yet he ended up with an empire. It's like Tucker and Dale vs Evil.
It’s also super convenient how often he “received” verses pertaining to fighting the Quraysh and their allies whenever he needed to do something about them.
Yeah I'm pretty sure the chronology wouldn't line up for Aristotle to directly influence the Qu'ran. As far as I'm aware, the first Greek to Arabic translations were well into the 8th century.
In the era I'm more versed in, the process by which Islamic law was derived from the Qu'ran/hadiths (qiyas), either used various logical methods developed independently by Muslim thinkers prior to the translation of Aristotle, methods drawn directly from Aristotlean logic, or methods drawn from logical approaches developed during study and critique of Aristotle. There was substantial debate as to which of the these was the right way, and indeed, whether there was a right way, which led to different rulings being applied depending on which approach was dominant in that place/time.
Indeed. Which makes complete sense, as you see the same processes occurring in medieval Christendom as well, for the very same reasons. It really is remarkable how wide reaching Plato and Aristotle’s influences were as ‘pagans’ in such an anti-pagan world.
I'm playing
Believe what you believe, I just like the conversation
I came here thinking this was about the person. Sadly not!
FYI, I know about your religion more than you know about mine. And that's a general thing