Are you saying that without religion there would be no morals, ethics, or laws?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.
Hard to do considering I don’t have one.FYI, I know about your religion more than you know about mine. And that's a general thing
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.
Are you saying that without religion there would be no morals, ethics, or laws?
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.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.
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.
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.
The military campaigns of Muhammad are chronicled in…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.
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.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.
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.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
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.
Right, got you, don't disagree.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?
To portray a more realistic view of the man, as opposed to the squeeky clean image that you seem bent on portraying.what are the intentions here?
If you’re quoting my use of the word convenient, at least do it correctly. That isn’t what I find convenient.Yet for some it's "convenient" that Muhammad only fought for defense
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.
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.
Definition of warlord
1 : a supreme military leader
2 : a military commander exercising civil power by force usually in a limited area
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 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.
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.
The man ordered offensive operations against the Quraysh and their allies, leading to the conquest of their land. That’s being aggressive.You missed the "especially an aggressive.." but from that definition.
Synonyms of which would be despot, tyrant etc
History.Realistic base on what though?
Ah hell. Look at thatIs that accurate? If so, you're talking semantics.
Also:
That's the pointHard to do considering I don’t have one.
Okay.That's the point
Is that accurate? If so, you're talking semantics.
Also:
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.
Which is relevant how?Yet still the most powerful country in the world?
History.
Muhammad was a man. He was flawed. He didn’t always do right. Sorry
Ah hell. Look at that
Yes, as I said, very convenient by Muhammad.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.
I know the background to the conflict. It doesn’t change my assessment of Muhammad.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
How many of them claim to be the prophet of the one true god at the same time?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.
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.
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.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?
Muhammad wasn’t being hypocritical. He made up verses for everything he commanded his followers to do.Some atheists believe a religious person should be 100% pacifist otherwise they must be hypocrites.
Cool coolMuhammad wasn’t being hypocritical. He made up verses for everything he commanded his followers to do.
The man ordered offensive operations against the Quraysh and their allies, leading to the conquest of their land. That’s being aggressive.
