Religion, what's the point?

Carolina Red said:
Okay, well Muhammad had between 5 and 9 at the same time.

But they didn’t, and he did, and by the time he’s Caliph, there’s a clearly stated rule that believers can have “2 or 3 or 4” wives.

Again: Muhammad had between 5-9 at the same time.

I’m not re-typing the entire revelation, so yes, the summation is accurate. It led to Zayd’s divorce and Muhammad’s 5th concurrent marriage.

The rest of the story you’ve typed there is irrelevant to that point.
Click to expand...

No it adds context. I know you don't like it but it is what it is.

The revelation didn't lead to the divorce. The revelation I speak of came after.

The point was before the fixed number there was no issue with anyone marrying more. Once revelation was revealed their who had more could continue to do so.

Your point was about privilege for Muhammad. My point was it wasn't a privilege in that others prior to revelation could do so too.

Overall however some rules do apply to Prophets alone. However these can be in the forms of more obligatory prayers and not eligible for certain things that the rest would be eligible for. Off the top of my head as an example is the fact that Muhammad and his family were not eligible for zakat/charitymonetary or otherwise. Others were.

Funny how we focus on one element of "privilege" but not the many others which aren't seen as "beneficial" like fasting or more prayers, tahajud etc
 
Roane said:
No it adds context.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t. It’s just distracting from the fact that Muhammad granted himself (had granted to him if you’re a believer) special dispensation to have more than 4 wives.
Roane said:
The revelation didn't lead to the divorce. The revelation I speak of came after.
Click to expand...
There was more than one revelation. I’m talking about multiple ones that allowed Muhammad to do what he wanted. Hence: “how convenient” that this keeps happening. It’s ‘almost’ like he was making it up as he went along.
Roane said:
The point was before the fixed number there was no issue with anyone marrying more
Click to expand...
Yeah… but then “god” made a rule.

Roane said:
Your point was about privilege for Muhammad. My point was it wasn't a privilege in that others prior to revelation could do so too.
Click to expand...
Which is a completely specious argument to make considering my point is that Muhammad made a special rule for himself after the fact which allowed him to do what others now couldn’t do.
Roane said:
Overall however some rules do apply to Prophets alone
Click to expand...
Finally you admit it. Good grief. Was it that hard?
Roane said:
Funny how we focus on one element of "privilege"
Click to expand...
Yeah, because it is, being generous again, very suspicious behavior.
 
Carolina Red said:
No, it doesn’t. It’s just distracting from the fact that Muhammad granted himself (had granted to him if you’re a believer) special dispensation to have more than 4 wives.

There was more than one revelation. I’m talking about multiple ones that allowed Muhammad to do what he wanted. Hence: “how convenient” that this keeps happening. It’s ‘almost’ like he was making it up as he went along.

Yeah… but then “god” made a rule.


Which is a completely specious argument to make considering my point is that Muhammad made a special rule for himself after the fact which allowed him to do what others now couldn’t do.

Finally you admit it. Good grief. Was it that hard?

Yeah, because it is, being generous again, very suspicious behavior.
Click to expand...

No it adds context. As before earlier in the discussion you don't want to seem to accept something despite what's put in front of you.

The revelations issue is something I spoke of and clarified with regards to Zainab. You're welcome to bring others regarding that to be discussed.

Muhammad didn't make special rules.for himself. As pointed out there is always a context. See his second wife for example. Sawda. He married her soon after Khadija. She was a large woman and a widow. However she also was recommended to him as he had a young daughter at the time. He offered to divorce Sawda later but she gave up some rights but didn't want the divorce.

Another reason was the fact that non of his wives would remarry and no Muslim would marry them as they took on the title of mother of the believers. There were some men who had more than 4 wives but divorced those more than 4 after revelation. These women remarried. No issue for them as they didn't carry the status of mothers of the believers.

What you also don't seem to factor in is age of Muhammad. Had he been inclined to be as you suggest he would have married more when younger. But he was with Khadija till she died. All his wives have narrated how he would be busy with the affairs of the people and pray until all hours. Towards the end of his life and illness then after death none of his wives remarried. Again the whole mother of the believers issue.

Oh and finally the whole "finally you admit it" point. Again context. Let's focus on what I said. If Muhammad was looking to privilege himself then why have rules for himself that weren't self serving? No money, fasting for continuous days when it's haram for his followers? Obligatory to pray the tahajjud prayer in the early hours where it's not obligatory for the followers? No inheritance all his money and belongings belong to the people yet his followers wealth etc is their kins? Etc etc.

Why ignore the many non beneficial "privilege" and ignore the context about the wives and not remarrying?
 
Truly amazing the mental gymnastics on display to avoid just admitting that Muhammad made one rule for himself and another for the believers.

“you don't want to seem to accept something despite what's put in front of you”

Case in point…
Roane said:
Another reason was the fact that non of his wives would remarry and no Muslim would marry them as they took on the title of mother of the believers
Click to expand...
A rule that Muhammad proclaimed to his people…
 
Last edited:
Roane said:
It's pretty well documented in a variety of sources. Muslim, non Muslim , from the time to later on.

Things like death of Muhammad was pretty much down to the day and date. If all sources agree with that then any conquests happening with him would be miraculous to say the least.
Click to expand...

No you're lying. 7th century sources have the leader of the Arabs proclaiming to be a prophet during the conquest of Jerusalem
 
shamans said:
Ooh I see your hate spewing out. Did a muslim bully you or something to have so much trite islamophobic fantasies under your sleeve?

So long as it's good copium for you.
Click to expand...

Sorry you seem to be very ignorant about your prophet and trying to deflect about what an evil person he was. He raped, enslaved, stole and commited genocide. It's all in you hadith. I imagine you avoid them at all costs
 
2cents said:
I believe he might be referring to a source named The Teaching of Jacob the Newly Baptized. It doesn't state that Muhammad conquered Jerusalem, just implies that he was present with the Arabs as the invasion of Palestine commenced.

Might as well copy the relevant parts of the text here for anyone interested - it is the earliest recorded reference (July 634) to Muhammad (though he is not actually named), dated two years after his death according to the Islamic tradition:

Justus answered and said, “Indeed you speak the truth, and this is the great salvation: to believe in Christ. For I confess to you, master Jacob, the complete truth. My brother Abraham wrote to me that a false prophet has appeared. Abraham writes, “When [Sergius] the candidatus was killed by the Saracens, I was in Caesarea, and I went by ship to Sykamina. And they were saying, ‘The candidatus has been killed,’ and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying, ‘A prophet has appeared, coming with the Saracens, and he is preaching the arrival of the anointed one who is to come, the Messiah.’ And when I arrived in Sykamina, I visited an old man who was learned in the Scriptures, and I said to him, ‘What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?’ And he said to me, groaning loudly, ‘He is false, for prophets do not come with a sword and a war- chariot. Truly the things set in motion today are deeds of anarchy, and I fear that somehow the first Christ that came, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God, and instead of him we will receive the Antichrist. Truly, Isaiah said that we Jews will have a deceived and hardened heart until the entire earth is destroyed. But go, master Abraham, and find out about this prophet who has appeared.’ And when I, Abraham, investigated thoroughly, I heard from those who had met him that one will find no truth in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of human blood. In fact, he says that he has the keys of paradise, which is impossible.” These things my brother Abraham has written from the East."​

From this book -https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520299610/a-prophet-has-appeared
Click to expand...

Do you have a view on it? It has to be at least another reference, I guess, because 634 is four years before the Jerusalem conquest.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Do you have a view on it? It has to be at least another reference, I guess, because 634 is four years before the Jerusalem conquest.
Click to expand...

I don’t really have any original thoughts on it, I’d direct you to Shoemaker’s analysis in the book cited which gives a good overview of its context and significance. It’s available to read in full here (first chapter) -https://books.google.ie/books/about...cover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&redir_esc=y

As I mentioned previously, Shoemaker is in the revisionist camp that takes a highly skeptical approach to the sources around which the Islamic tradition was built.
 
calodo2003 said:
Click to expand...

To the idiots that hear this guy and nod in brain dead agreement: Read your own book!


1 Peter 2:13-17
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.


Romans 13:1-7
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
 
What is the point of discussing if the Quran allows or doesn't allow this? It is a fact that many muslim countries use religion to oppress women. Makes zero difference if a bullshit book written over one thousand years ago allows or doesn't allow it, it is full of lies anyway and should have zero relevance for our lives today.



https://www.theguardian.com/global-...al-recognition-technology-hijab-law-crackdown

Iranian authorities plan to use facial recognition to enforce new hijab law

Government says it will use technology on public transport in crackdown on women’s dress
 
frostbite said:
What is the point of discussing if the Quran allows or doesn't allow this? It is a fact that many muslim countries use religion to oppress women. Makes zero difference if a bullshit book written over one thousand years ago allows or doesn't allow it, it is full of lies anyway and should have zero relevance for our lives today.



https://www.theguardian.com/global-...al-recognition-technology-hijab-law-crackdown

Iranian authorities plan to use facial recognition to enforce new hijab law

Government says it will use technology on public transport in crackdown on women’s dress
Click to expand...


It's absolutely a good starting point to discuss the Qur'an. Then the hadith etc.

The main reason for this being that the message from, what you call, Muslim countries is being mistaken as being from the Qur'an hence the religion.

When you look at the Qur'an and what it bought for women 1400 years ago it was anything but oppressive. Rights to inheritance, rights to property, right to and education, right to divorce, vote, the right for women to keep their names instead of become Mrs Jones etc.

Countries maybe Muslim in name but aren't Islamic in character. The first university in Egypt for women was set up because of the Qur'an and Islam. The oppression started with secularism.
 
Roane said:
It's absolutely a good starting point to discuss the Qur'an. Then the hadith etc.

The main reason for this being that the message from, what you call, Muslim countries is being mistaken as being from the Qur'an hence the religion.

When you look at the Qur'an and what it bought for women 1400 years ago it was anything but oppressive. Rights to inheritance, rights to property, right to and education, right to divorce, vote, the right for women to keep their names instead of become Mrs Jones etc.

Countries maybe Muslim in name but aren't Islamic in character. The first university in Egypt for women was set up because of the Qur'an and Islam. The oppression started with secularism.
Click to expand...


But that's exactly my point. What was great and progressive 1400 ago has no relevance today. It is a pity that people try to decipher how to live their lives in 2022 based on a book written 1400 years ago, when science and technology and education were almost non-existent compared to today.

For example, it is irrelevant for our lives today that marriage between gay people was not allowed 1400 (or even 50) years ago.
 
frostbite said:
But that's exactly my point. What was great and progressive 1400 ago has no relevance today. It is a pity that people try to decipher how to live their lives in 2022 based on a book written 1400 years ago, when science and technology and education were almost non-existent compared to today.

For example, it is irrelevant for our lives today that marriage between gay people was not allowed 1400 (or even 50) years ago.
Click to expand...

Well your initial point was about oppression of women by Muslim countries. I would say that the Qur'an is particularly useful to show these countries that what they do isnt acceptable by their own belief systems.

Overall the treatment of women needs those 1400 year old structures in these places.

And tbf just because we are where we are in the west doesn't mean it was that long ago where women were in fact oppressed here too.

The issue of marriage, hetrosexual marriage, was not always about religion for me. So that's another discussion
 
My main point is that it is irrelevant today what people thought it was "proper" 1400 years ago.

Few people today would want to send their children to a school that only uses books that were written 1400 years ago.

Few people today would want to go to a doctor that only uses methods they had 1400 years ago.

However, billions of people still believe it is important if they dress the way people used to dress 1400 years ago! This is considered "normal" in almost all muslim countries today!

How can it be "normal" to even discuss a "religious dress code", for the average person? Such a powerful god that created the universe with billions of galaxies cares about what you wear!!!

In my opinion, it is 100% idiotic even to mix religion and dress code. But in muslim countries the majority doesn't even question these things. And yes, it is used to oppress women. ( But also it is just a tool to make both women and men obedient. That's the main point of religion. )
 
3 kids butcherd in Dublin yesterday. Innocents.
All I'm hearing is people saying may GOD bless their souls and may they RIP.

Where the fuk was God last night when their killer arrived and how are they meant to RIP after the death they suffered.!!

Don't talk to me about the existence of God. Its utter nonsense. No God would allow this to happen.
 
I am Greek. Thinkers from Ancient Greece like Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, etc form the basis of the Modern Western science and democracy.

What does this mean for me today?

Should I study the Wise Greek Ancient Texts to find out what I should wear today?

Should I insist that women should NOT be allowed to vote, because they were not allowed to vote in the Athenian Democracy?

Should I consider Mount Olympus as a HOLY PLACE because that's where Zeus and the 12 Gods have their homes?

Why should the Quran have any more relevance to our lives today? There are 1100 years between Ancient Greece (400 BC) and Islam (700 AD), and one can argue that the world regressed during that time. There are 1300 years between 700AD and 2000AD, and the world has changed considerably in that time, and our knowledge for the world and science has progressed even more.

We have many problems today, but the solutions to our problems are not in books written 1300 or 2400 years ago.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
why mention Quran specifically when your comments could apply to any holy book?
Click to expand...

My guess is because he started off with some news about Iran. If he were discussing American Christian nationalism he'd be talking about the bible.
 
frostbite said:
I am Greek. Thinkers from Ancient Greece like Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, etc form the basis of the Modern Western science and democracy.

What does this mean for me today?

Should I study the Wise Greek Ancient Texts to find out what I should wear today?

Should I insist that women should NOT be allowed to vote, because they were not allowed to vote in the Athenian Democracy?

Should I consider Mount Olympus as a HOLY PLACE because that's where Zeus and the 12 Gods have their homes?

Why should the Quran have any more relevance to our lives today? There are 1100 years between Ancient Greece (400 BC) and Islam (700 AD), and one can argue that the world regressed during that time. There are 1300 years between 700AD and 2000AD, and the world has changed considerably in that time, and our knowledge for the world and science has progressed even more.

We have many problems today, but the solutions to our problems are not in books written 1300 or 2400 years ago.
Click to expand...

Because well over a billion people believe in it. If they truly believe the Quran gives them the path to God and eternal happiness in the afterlife, then they aren't going to give it up. I know there are around 1.8 billion muslims, but how many actually believe and are just cultural muslims I don't know. I'm all for freedom of religion(as long as it doesn't harm the rest of us) and freedom from religion.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
why mention Quran specifically when your comments could apply to any holy book?
Click to expand...

Because this discussion started with the following article. I am not aware of any other religion that uses technology to force people to follow a specific dress code. And I think this is a good example for how extreme this particular religion is. All religions are scams but some religions are worse than others.

(In a way, this is also a continuation of a previous discussion about whether Khomeini's fatwa for the murder of Salman Rushdie followed the Quran or not. Again, I am not aware of any other religion TODAY apart from Islam that have fatwas that call for the murder of a particular person by any random believer. )


https://www.theguardian.com/global-...al-recognition-technology-hijab-law-crackdown

Iranian authorities plan to use facial recognition to enforce new hijab law

Government says it will use technology on public transport in crackdown on women’s dress
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.