Religion, what's the point?

[Carolina Red]

Umar had 6 wives in total

But not more than 4 at the same time… correct?

 

[Roane]

Revelations like what, exactly?

Like how his wife should be Muhammad’s 5th wife?

That's no quite the revelation, the revelation here was a sort of admonishment or reprimand of you will, but let's say yes it was.

Society at the time took adopted sons as it does today as real sons in terms of inheritance etc.

Now Zainab was someone who grew up with Muhammad and was related to him. They knew each other from birth. Muhammad could have married her at anytime and she would have accepted as she was of high standing.

Her marriage to Zayd was refused by her initially as he had been a slave and later adopted by Muhammad. Hence taking his name (Zayd ibn Muhammad). She didn't feel he was up to her status/level. She married Zayd on the insistence of Muhammad. She was well known for her anger and wasn't easy to live with. Zayd wanted to divorce her and Muhammad told him to go to back to his wife.

Zayd eventually divorced her. In Islam a father can't marry his sons divorced or widowed wife. In Meccan society this included adopted sons wives.

The marriage between Zainab and Muhammad, which he stressed over hence the verse, was much discussed and maligned by non Muslims. Yet in Islam it set the precedent that adoption doesn't mean removing your biological father's name, or having rights that belong to "begotten" kids. Or in simple terms you simply don't adopt.

Now just to be clear this adoption in today's terms. It was and remained common for Arabs and Muslims to "take on" children or adopt but with a different definition to today.

So I can bring up another child. I just can't give him my name and he doesn't share my kids rights.

At the same time another rule in Islam is I can't marry a non related girl if she was breastfed by my mother or, as was the case in Arab society, a woman was employed to suckle multiple children. So Halima suckled Muhammad as his mother died. Any girl who also may have been suckled by Halima could never marry Muhammad and the issue of mehram would apply.

 

[Roane]

But not more than 4 at the same time… correct?

Correct. But 2 he married before he became Muslim were divorced due to not converting. Had they converted he would have had more than 4. And there would have been no ruling or precedent preventing him to do so.

The point being, and maybe badly made, that Muhammads life is under scrutiny whereas some of the other people not so much. If you look further into it then you will see a different picture of the time. I used Umar as he is well known too. However I accept it's a bad example

 

[Carolina Red]

Correct

Okay, well Muhammad had between 5 and 9 at the same time.

Had they converted he would have had more than 4

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 that he abided by.

That's no quite the revelation, the revelation here was a sort of admonishment or reprimand of you will, but let's say yes it was.

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.

 

[Roane]

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.

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

 

[Carolina Red]

No it adds context.

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.

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

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.

The point was before the fixed number there was no issue with anyone marrying more

Yeah… but then “god” made a rule.

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.

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.

Overall however some rules do apply to Prophets alone

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

Funny how we focus on one element of "privilege"

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

 

[Roane]

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.

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?

 

[Carolina Red]

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…

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

A rule that Muhammad proclaimed to his people…

 

[ThierryFabregas]

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.

No you're lying. 7th century sources have the leader of the Arabs proclaiming to be a prophet during the conquest of Jerusalem

 

[ThierryFabregas]

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.

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

 

[shamans]

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

Not as much as you avoid going to a shrink for your unresolved hate.

 

[Carolina Red]

If only they had shrinks hundreds / thousands of years ago…

 

[Roane]

No you're lying. 7th century sources have the leader of the Arabs proclaiming to be a prophet during the conquest of Jerusalem

Muhammad died in 632. When was Jerusalem conquered?

 

[Roane]

If only they had shrinks hundreds / thousands of years ago…

Think we need a few now

 

[Carolina Red]

Think we need a few now

There’s definitely still more folks hearing voices than there are shrinks to help them.

 

[NotThatSoph]

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

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.

 

[calodo2003]

Da fuq?

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[nimic]

Da fuq?

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet doesn't exist.

 

[2cents]

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.

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]

Tweet doesn't exist.

It was the Bruno Mars of evangelicals offering up quite the word salad. Impossible to follow.

 

[nimic]

It was the Bruno Mars of evangelicals offering up quite the word salad. Impossible to follow.

Are you sure you posted the right tweet? Because it didn't exist basically as soon as you posted it.

 

[calodo2003]

Are you sure you posted the right tweet? Because it didn't exist basically as soon as you posted it.

It looks like it was deleted immediately after I posted it. I can't find it on the poster's home thread.

 

[Moby]

It looks like it was deleted immediately after I posted it. I can't find it on the poster's home thread.

They're onto you! Watch out for any lakes burning with fire and sulphur around you..

 

[calodo2003]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Carolina Red]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

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.

 

[frostbite]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

He wants the USA to become like Iran?

 

[calodo2003]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[calodo2003]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Shakesy]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Ooooooh!!! It ALL makes sense now!

 

[calodo2003]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Charlie Foley]

Jesus is a nuisance.

.

 

[frostbite]

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

 

[Roane]

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

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.

 

[2cents]

The first university in Egypt for women

Which university?

 

[Roane]

Which university?

Sorry I got the country wrong.

It was Morrocco. Founded by Fatima Bint Muhammad Al fihriya Al qurayshia

 

[frostbite]

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.

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.

 

[Roane]

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.

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

 

[frostbite]

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. )

 

[McGrathsipan]

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.

 

[frostbite]

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.