Religion, what's the point?

[nimic]

Bit pretentious, aren't we?

 

[Spaghetti]

Religion was invented to control people. In a good way. A world without religion would be absolute chaos.

All people follow religion, whether we are religious or not. There are rules and norms that we naturally follow, largely based on fear, that help to keep society in check.

 

[calodo2003]

Religion was invented to control people. In a good way. A world without religion would be absolute chaos.

All people follow religion, whether we are religious or not. There are rules and norms that we naturally follow, largely based on fear, that help to keep society in check.

Are you saying that without religion there would be no morals, ethics, or laws?

 

[Carolina Red]

FYI, I know about your religion more than you know about mine. And that's a general thing

Hard to do considering I don’t have one.

 

[Roane]

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.

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.

@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.

Muhammad's empire pretty much extended to the Hejaz in his time. As someone mentioned it widened under Umar initially and different people after his death.

@Carolina Red if I recall you are a history teacher? History tells us about the wars and reasons behind it etc. It can be checked using historical sources.

As a Muslim it is something I witness a lot. People will make assertions and allegations about Islam and aspects but then will "agree to disagree" whilst still making comments. Yet go to the end degree in other topics.

 

[Spaghetti]

Are you saying that without religion there would be no morals, ethics, or laws?

That is not what I said. However, a lot of our morals, ethics and laws revolve around religion. Often subconsciously.

In a not-too-different way, social media has started to do the same thing.

I am not religious, but religion certainly helps the world.

 

[Carolina Red]

Muhammad's empire pretty much extended to the Hejaz in his time. As someone mentioned it widened under Umar initially and different people after his death.

@Carolina Red if I recall you are a history teacher? History tells us about the wars and reasons behind it etc. It can be checked using historical sources.

As a Muslim it is something I witness a lot. People will make assertions and allegations about Islam and aspects but then will "agree to disagree" whilst still making comments. Yet go to the end degree in other topics.

Of course they can be checked… and the sources say he was a military leader who commanded his people to engage in raiding parties for loot and campaigns for conquest. That’s a warlord in my book. You clearly don’t like the nomenclature, but I don’t care that you don’t like it, so I told you I’ll agree to disagree.

 

[Roane]

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.

Ijma and qiyas are two things that can/could only be used after the death of Muhammad. It's in hadith so not an invention or innovation.

Qiyas in a nutshell is the deriving of a ruling on a new issue using older rulings.

So khamr (intoxication) caused by alcohol can be used to derive a ruling on modern day drugs that didn't exist in that time.

Or drawing of blood these days during fasting is allowed because of cupping in the Prophets days.

 

[Roane]

Of course they can be checked… and the sources say he was a military leader who commanded his people to engage in raiding parties for loot and campaigns for conquest. That’s a warlord in my book. You clearly don’t like the nomenclature, but I don’t care that you don’t like it, so I told you I’ll agree to disagree.

Oh I know you don't care. And I also know that ultimately you personally may disagree. But it's interesting to know if this is based on proof or bias.

Also I recall you going on about burden of proof earlier. Well you made the claims so by your own declaration you must provide the proof.

 

[Carolina Red]

Oh I know you don't care. And I also know that ultimately you personally may disagree. But it's interesting to know if this is based on proof or bias.

Also I recall you going on about burden of proof earlier. Well you made the claims so by your own declaration you must provide the proof.

The military campaigns of Muhammad are chronicled in…

The Koran
The Ibn Hisham and Ibn Ishaq biography of Muhammad (possibly the 1st bio of him)
The Book of History and Campaigns by Al Waqidi (written about a century after the events)
The Sealed Nectar (modern but cites numerous sources)
…And dozens upon dozens of other well sourced modern works

Also, you yourself have acknowledged in this thread that Muhammad was a military commander. So, I’ll also cite you.

 

[MarylandMUFan]

The military campaigns of Muhammad are chronicled in…

The Koran
The Ibn Hisham and Ibn Ishaq biography of Muhammad (possibly the 1st bio of him)
The Book of History and Campaigns by Al Waqidi (written about a century after the events)
The Sealed Nectar (modern but cites numerous sources)
…And dozens upon dozens of other well sourced modern works

Also, you yourself have acknowledged in this thread that Muhammad was a military commander. So, I’ll also cite you.

Wow, I forget there is a proper historicity to some of this. I always dismiss religion like I would people telling me they follow the Lord of The Rings as their gospel but forget there is a real history behind the mythology.

 

[2mufc0]

Oh I know you don't care. And I also know that ultimately you personally may disagree. But it's interesting to know if this is based on proof or bias.

Also I recall you going on about burden of proof earlier. Well you made the claims so by your own declaration you must provide the proof.

It's clear he was a military commander, so don't know what the issue is? The thing is, if he wasn't the early Muslims would have been wiped out and Islam wouldn't have existed. It's pretty much like the famous dua the prophet made before the battle of badr. However, it's not the only thing he was and shouldn't fully define who he was, which people (some with dishonest intentions) only focus on and manipulate.

 

[Roane]

The military campaigns of Muhammad are chronicled in…

The Koran
The Ibn Hisham and Ibn Ishaq biography of Muhammad (possibly the 1st bio of him)
The Book of History and Campaigns by Al Waqidi (written about a century after the events)
The Sealed Nectar (modern but cites numerous sources)
…And dozens upon dozens of other well sourced modern works

Also, you yourself have acknowledged in this thread that Muhammad was a military commander. So, I’ll also cite you.

Military campaigns and military commander are a bit different to warlord.

Albeit the commanders for various conflicts were not the same.

Ghanima is different to looting.

Language is important

 

[Carolina Red]

Military campaigns and military commander are a bit different to warlord.

Albeit the commanders for various conflicts were not the same.

Ghanima is different to looting.

Language is important

A warlord is defined as “a regional military commander with individual autonomy” and that is quite literally part of who Muhammad was, so again, and I cannot stress this enough, it doesn’t matter to me that you don’t like the nomenclature. We will agree to disagree.

 

[Roane]

It's clear he was a military commander, so don't know what the issue is? The thing is, if he wasn't the early Muslim's would have been wiped out and Islam wouldn't have existed. It's pretty much like the famous dua the prophet made before the battle of badr. However, it's not the only thing he was and shouldn't fully define who he was, which people (some with dishonest intentions) only focus on and manipulate.

Language is important to me. When people say someone is a warlord it's a different image than saying military commander. Often this is the "dishonest intention".

We have letters, or rather copies of letters, which the quraysh wrote to the people in Medina. Where they say give us Muhammad back or we will fight you, kill you and your children and take your women.

This was after Muhammad migrated to Medina after 13 years of persecution and attacks.

They then organised raids and tried to kill the Muslims. Starting with Badr, I to Uhud and the Trench. Yet for some it's "convenient" that Muhammad only fought for defense. Come on now, unless this can be disproved what are the intentions here?

 

[2mufc0]

Language is important to me. When people say someone is a warlord it's a different image than saying military commander. Often this is the "dishonest intention".

We have letters, or rather copies of letters, which the quraysh wrote to the people in Medina. Where they say give us Muhammad back or we will fight you, kill you and your children and take your women.

This was after Muhammad migrated to Medina after 13 years of persecution and attacks.

They then organised raids and tried to kill the Muslims. Starting with Badr, I to Uhud and the Trench. Yet for some it's "convenient" that Muhammad only fought for defense. Come on now, unless this can be disproved what are the intentions here?

Right, got you, don't disagree.

 

[Carolina Red]

what are the intentions here?

To portray a more realistic view of the man, as opposed to the squeeky clean image that you seem bent on portraying.

Yet for some it's "convenient" that Muhammad only fought for defense

If you’re quoting my use of the word convenient, at least do it correctly. That isn’t what I find convenient.

 

[Roane]

A warlord is defined as “a regional military commander with individual autonomy” and that is quite literally part of who Muhammad was, so again, and I cannot stress this enough, it doesn’t matter to me that you don’t like the nomenclature. We will agree to disagree.

You missed the "especially an aggressive.." but from that definition.

Synonyms of which would be despot, tyrant etc

 

[nimic]

Military campaigns and military commander are a bit different to warlord.

Albeit the commanders for various conflicts were not the same.

Ghanima is different to looting.

Language is important

Ghanima is an Arabic word ("الْغَنيمَة") meaning “spoils of war” which include land, wealth, cattle, women and children.

Is that accurate? If so, you're talking semantics.

Also:

Definition of warlord

1 : a supreme military leader

2 : a military commander exercising civil power by force usually in a limited area

 

[KirkDuyt]

Religion was invented to control people. In a good way. A world without religion would be absolute chaos.

All people follow religion, whether we are religious or not. There are rules and norms that we naturally follow, largely based on fear, that help to keep society in check.

The highly religious US kind of refutes this as it is a chaotic shithole and this is mostly caused by the religious right. You can have rules and morals wothout making stuff up to scare people.

Religion is just a human reaction to try and explain things we don't understand. There is a reason new religions stopped emerging (unless you count scientology). We understand more stuff now, so we no longer fear it.

In the end it's a pointless debate, because, as happens in this thread, religious people tend to ignore the concept of burden of proof, which is on them.

 

[Roane]

To portray a more realistic view of the man, as opposed to the squeeky clean image that you seem bent on portraying.

If you’re quoting my use of the word convenient, at least do it correctly. That isn’t what I find convenient.

Realistic base on what though?

 

[Carolina Red]

You missed the "especially an aggressive.." but from that definition.

Synonyms of which would be despot, tyrant etc

The man ordered offensive operations against the Quraysh and their allies, leading to the conquest of their land. That’s being aggressive.

 

[Carolina Red]

Realistic base on what though?

History.

Muhammad was a man. He was flawed. He didn’t always do right. Sorry

 

[Carolina Red]

Is that accurate? If so, you're talking semantics.

Also:

Ah hell. Look at that

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Hard to do considering I don’t have one.

That's the point

 

[Carolina Red]

That's the point

Okay.

 

[Roane]

Is that accurate? If so, you're talking semantics.

Also:

I know what ghanima means. And yes what you have posted is part of the definition.

However it is different to plundering and looting and sending looting parties as was the assertion.

In Muhammads own words the thief and the plunderer are not from us.

To give an example of current day events Russia is the looter and not eligible for ghanima however Ukraine can take ghanima

 

[Spaghetti]

The highly religious US kind of refutes this as it is a chaotic shithole and this is mostly caused by the religious right. You can have rules and morals wothout making stuff up to scare people.

Religion is just a human reaction to try and explain things we don't understand. There is a reason new religions stopped emerging (unless you count scientology). We understand more stuff now, so we no longer fear it.

In the end it's a pointless debate, because, as happens in this thread, religious people tend to ignore the concept of burden of proof, which is on them.

Yet still the most powerful country in the world?

 

[KirkDuyt]

Yet still the most powerful country in the world?

Which is relevant how?

 

[Roane]

History.

Muhammad was a man. He was flawed. He didn’t always do right. Sorry

No doubt. Man is flawed. As the man himself said.

However that doesn't mean things can be attributed without facts.

 

[Roane]

Ah hell. Look at that

I don't dispute ghanima. But it has context. It's different than sending out looting parties. See my Russia and Ukraine example above

 

[Carolina Red]

I don't dispute ghanima. But it has context. It's different than sending out looting parties. See my Russia and Ukraine example above

Yes, as I said, very convenient by Muhammad.

“The thief and plunderer aren’t among us” (But also go and attack those caravans and take their stuff)

Consider me skeptical.

 

[Roane]

Yes, as I said, very convenient by Muhammad.

“The thief and plunderer aren’t among us” (But also go and attack those caravans and take their stuff)

Consider me skeptical.

This is the "dispute" between us I feel.

It was anything but convenient by Muhammad. As I said earlier after 13 years of persecution, where there was physical violence against Muhammad, Muslims were being tortured and killed. Muhammad finally fled to Medina with his companions.

This was not acceptable to the Quraysh. They sent letters, which I'm sure you can find, telling the folk in Medina to either kill Muhammad or give him back to them or get ready for war. One letter says we will kill your men and children and take your women.

Another time they threatened a companion who was in Mecca. Specifically Abu Jahl told Saad that he would have killed him if he wasn't under the protection of Abu sufyan.

The Meccans confiscated the property of the Muslims and were sending some of it to Syria to get funding for the war against the Muslims.

The caravans the muslims were allowed to raid were these caravans.

Edit: Just to add there are two kinds of wars in Islam. Both having different rulings. One is a war between two sets of people and one is a war of occupation.

In simple terms if me and you went to war the the rules, for Muslims are no attacking the elderly, women and children etc. Can't even chop down trees and poison the water etc.

However if you occupied my house by force then the rules are different. Anything goes, kind of

 

[Carolina Red]

This is the "dispute" between us I feel.

It was anything but convenient by Muhammad. As I said earlier after 13 years of persecution, where there was physical violence against Muhammad, Muslims were being tortured and killed. Muhammad finally fled to Medina with his companions.

This was not acceptable to the Quraysh. They sent letters, which I'm sure you can find, telling the folk in Medina to either kill Muhammad or give him back to them or get ready for war. One letter says we will kill your men and children and take your women.

Another time they threatened a companion who was in Mecca. Specifically Abu Jahl told Saad that he would have killed him if he wasn't under the protection of Abu sufyan.

The Meccans confiscated the property of the Muslims and were sending some of it to Syria to get funding for the war against the Muslims.

The caravans the muslims were allowed to raid were these caravans.

Edit: Just to add there are two kinds of wars in Islam. Both having different rulings. One is a war between two sets of people and one is a war of occupation.

In simple terms if me and you went to war the the rules, for Muslims are no attacking the elderly, women and children etc. Can't even chop down trees and poison the water etc.

However if you occupied my house by force then the rules are different. Anything goes, kind of

I know the background to the conflict. It doesn’t change my assessment of Muhammad.

The dispute between us lies in your devotion to defending him to the hilt.

 

[Relevated]

People act as if in the past advancement was made by singing and dancing around a campfire. By definition, every single PM and president is a warlord.

 

[Carolina Red]

People act as if in the past advancement was made by singing and dancing around a campfire. By definition, every single PM and president is a warlord.

How many of them claim to be the prophet of the one true god at the same time?

Edit: and for that matter, how many of them could do so and remain in office and not be committed to a psych ward?

 

[Zlaatan]

That is not what I said. However, a lot of our morals, ethics and laws revolve around religion. Often subconsciously.

In a not-too-different way, social media has started to do the same thing.

I am not religious, but religion certainly helps the world.

The animal kingdom does a pretty good job of refuting this, especially pack animals, unless you believe that they get their morals and "laws" from religion as well, and what do you mean by subconsciously?

I also couldn't disagree more about religion helping the world, especially today. Religion does nothing that can't be accomplished in a secular world, except for comforting people that death might not be the end.

 

[RedTiger]

They then organised raids and tried to kill the Muslims. Starting with Badr, I to Uhud and the Trench. Yet for some it's "convenient" that Muhammad only fought for defense. Come on now, unless this can be disproved what are the intentions here?

Some atheists believe a religious person should be 100% pacifist otherwise they must be hypocrites. We could ask the Moriori people (one of the few truely pacifist human communities)of the Chatham Islands what they think, unfortunately they no longer exist because they didn't defend themselves.

 

[Carolina Red]

Some atheists believe a religious person should be 100% pacifist otherwise they must be hypocrites.

Muhammad wasn’t being hypocritical. He made up verses for everything he commanded his followers to do.

 

[RedTiger]

Muhammad wasn’t being hypocritical. He made up verses for everything he commanded his followers to do.

Cool cool