Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

is it only me or has religion ruined the world?. Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Erm, because of the wording. You wouldn't read that passage and thing "oh, it means all of those things together, without exclusion". The word "includes" is a clue.

    Also, it would make no sense... blocking roads and spreading fear are just fine as long as you are a believer? Or disbelieving and spreading fear are ok as long as you don't block the roads? Really? And then there's "opposition and contradiction" to throw into the equation.

    What's more, you would still have the problem of "mischief" meaning "disobeying Allah", so the verse still says "those who disobey Allah can be killed".

    I appreciate that you really want to find some way of rationalising this verse, but the truth is, it was obviously written to provide a means of punishing those who refused to submit to Islam. It's not like its some crazy idea - most authoritarian regimes have some means of controlling and punishing opposition.
    I would think it requires wage war disbelief coupled with some form of treason (blocking roads, spreading fear). Also in the tafsir:

    `Ali bin Abi Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas said about this Ayah, `He who takes up arms in Muslim land and spreads fear in the fairways and is captured, the Muslim Leader has the choice to either have him killed, crucified or cut off his hands and feet.'

    Also, how would you explain non-Muslims living in Makkah during the 6th century. Why were they not killed according to the verse?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Why were they not killed according to the verse?
    Because they kept their heads down, didn't make waves and had some skills that the Moslems needed.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    I would think it requires wage war disbelief coupled with some form of treason (blocking roads, spreading fear).
    You are entirely free to interpret the interpretation of the Quran in any way you choose. Seems a bit odd though, considering I am always being told that I must defer to authentic and qualified scholars and not interpret things myself. I guess this only applies to critics and not apologists?

    Also in the tafsir:

    `Ali bin Abi Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas said about this Ayah, `He who takes up arms in Muslim land and spreads fear in the fairways and is captured, the Muslim Leader has the choice to either have him killed, crucified or cut off his hands and feet.'
    Correct, it does. So we are in no doubt that opposition with be dealt with brutally.
    But this does not contradict the stuff about disobeying god's law, etc.

    Also, how would you explain non-Muslims living in Makkah during the 6th century. Why were they not killed according to the verse?
    Because the Quran and sunnah repeatedly state that those who submit to Islam will be spared, and that includes dhimmis.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    You are entirely free to interpret the interpretation of the Quran in any way you choose. Seems a bit odd though, considering I am always being told that I must defer to authentic and qualified scholars and not interpret things myself. I guess this only applies to critics and not apologists?

    Correct, it does. So we are in no doubt that opposition with be dealt with brutally.
    But this does not contradict the stuff about disobeying god's law, etc.

    Because the Quran and sunnah repeatedly state that those who submit to Islam will be spared, and that includes dhimmis.
    Keep your interpretation. But just to avoid possible additional confusion in future, just quote the entire phrase: so "disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways".
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    spreading fear in the fairways
    What do Moslems have against golf and golfers?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blck&burgundy)
    Yh I sort of agree but does anyone else wonder if there was no such thing as religion would we have morals to begin with ? I've left Islam not that long ago and this has been on my mind for a while.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So because you have left Islam you feel that you have no morals left? :')
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    No religion hasn't ruined the world. People ruin the world.

    and if it is true that morals come from religion, then that hugely contradicts your view of religion ruining the world.

    Religion is like anything else, it can be blamed for the poor, evil, cruel actions of other humans but you can't forget there are wonderful people who wouldn't hurt a fly that follow the same religion, therefore you cannot blame religion for ruining the world.

    Humans can be cruel.
    preach :jebus:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    I'd argue modern religion pretty much saved civilisation and made it what it is.

    After the fall of the Roman Empire, we could have been in the Dark Ages for much much longer than we were - long enough to descend into a spiral of barbarity. The gaps where the Roman Empire was - the things that it filled- government, judiciary, education, law and order - these were filled by pretty much the only remaining establishment in Europe - the Catholic Church. Say what you like about it, and from a modern perspective it was a rough ride - but it got Europe through to the Renaissance period. There was no such thing as a secular science-based movement that could have stepped in. It just didn't exist, and people weren't sophisticated enough.

    No organised religion - at best we'd be somewhere between the Mongols and Tudors right now.
    The Dark Ages weren't quite as dark as often made out, but there's some truth to what you say. However, it's kind of a circular thing, as Christianity was integral to the societies of medieval Europe and so locked in that it's hard to determine if they would have done better 'without it' - it's just the way it was. What does seem pretty clear is that it became a major blockage after a while. The innovation and dynamism that emerged in places like the Netherlands and in the Italian city states only really got going when they dumped or subverted Catholic centralist rule and went their own way. These places (which came eventually to include Britain) were effectively liberated from the chokehold of Catholic orthodoxy which suppressed progress in nearly all areas of human endeavour. The places which were not liberated - Spain, Southern Italy - became increasingly backwards as the centuries progressed.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The world is ruined by human hatred, not by religion. Religion serves for peace. Misusing it can lead to destruction. All things have its positive and negative sides, as well as religion. So don't blame it solely on that, we humans are the first ones to blame everything on. Our choice is what makes the world what it is.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Lots of people have died because of religion, but more people have also died because of scarcity of resources and crazy political leaders.

    So removing religion doesn't equal a perfect world, look at the Soviet Union for example Stalin was atheist and supressed religion.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SuperHuman98)
    Lots of people have died because of religion, but more people have also died because of scarcity of resources and crazy political leaders.

    So removing religion doesn't equal a perfect world, look at the Soviet Union for example Stalin was atheist and supressed religion.
    The cult of personality that was manufactured to keep Stalin in power effectively made him a strange sort of godlike figure. The people pretty much worshipped him, hence all the giant posters of his face everywhere, with pockmarked skin carefully airbrushed - it wasn't Vogue who invented that!
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Keep your interpretation. But just to avoid possible additional confusion in future, just quote the entire phrase: so "disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways".
    I made a point of stating that his definition "includes" those things, so it was clear that it is not a definitive list.

    I think we all agree that punishment is warranted for violent or dangerous anti-social crimes. Saying that the death penalty can be applied to murderers is not really surprising (although I disagree with it). However, stating that death can be the penalty for "opposition, contradiction and disbelief" is worthy of mention in the context of claims of a peaceful and tolerant religion that forbids violence.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Religion has mainly had a positive influence on humanity(the existence of god here is not in question). Atheists and Theists have been arguing for thousands of years and in doing so indirectly lead to many scientific discoveries and innovations. While religion did not exactly help everyone individually(religious wars etc.) it has however pushed world humanity to a higher place.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Religion has been and continues to be the single most destructive force in the world. Imo, of course.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Religion has been and continues to be the single most destructive force in the world. Imo, of course.
    I don't think there's any evidence for that at all.

    For every religion-based destructive event, there will be a conquest/political/geographical one on a vastly larger scale.

    The huge conquests and mass killings/enslavements/genocides of antiquity were clashes of empire, not religion. They dwarf the kind of thing we have nowadays in both scale and effect. The two mass destruction events of modern times - the world wars, didn't have a religious basis at all.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The Dark Ages weren't quite as dark as often made out, but there's some truth to what you say. However, it's kind of a circular thing, as Christianity was integral to the societies of medieval Europe and so locked in that it's hard to determine if they would have done better 'without it' - it's just the way it was. What does seem pretty clear is that it became a major blockage after a while. The innovation and dynamism that emerged in places like the Netherlands and in the Italian city states only really got going when they dumped or subverted Catholic centralist rule and went their own way. These places (which came eventually to include Britain) were effectively liberated from the chokehold of Catholic orthodoxy which suppressed progress in nearly all areas of human endeavour. The places which were not liberated - Spain, Southern Italy - became increasingly backwards as the centuries progressed.
    I wouldn't contest that at all. Sure, the Catholic orthodoxy wasn't by any means a bed of roses - my point is that there was no mechanism for anything else. There were no other institutions to take over the rudiments of government other than the church. The only route back to civilisation would have been a really long process of self-re-education, or sit tight and wait for the Asians to colonise you in the hope that the Huns or Mongols don't wipe everyone out first.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    The huge conquests and mass killings/enslavements/genocides of antiquity were clashes of empire, not religion. They dwarf the kind of thing we have nowadays in both scale and effect. The two mass destruction events of modern times - the world wars, didn't have a religious basis at all.
    Religion seems to be at the root of the divisions which ignited certainly the 1st world war. If nothing else many wars have been caused by bickerings between the royal families of Europe who all rose to power by utilising religion as their justification. What better way to declare yourself better than someone else? Just state you were chosen by god.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Religion seems to be at the root of the divisions which ignited certainly the 1st world war. If nothing else many wars have been caused by bickerings between the royal families of Europe who all rose to power by utilising religion as their justification. What better way to declare yourself better than someone else? Just state you were chosen by god.
    I would say that is stretching an anti-religious viewpoint to its breaking point. I'm not religious at all, and I find some of the current trends insane - but I can't bring myself to blame what are obvious political conflicts on religion.

    I can't see how religion played anything but the most tiny of peripheral roles in WW1. If there were a list of 25 root causes, I don't think it would be in there.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    I would say that is stretching an anti-religious viewpoint to its breaking point. I'm not religious at all, and I find some of the current trends insane - but I can't bring myself to blame what are obvious political conflicts on religion.

    I can't see how religion played anything but the most tiny of peripheral roles in WW1. If there were a list of 25 root causes, I don't think it would be in there.
    And I disagree, thinking it was a primary cause of lot of the initial disagreements which escalated.

    Matters not though, unfortunately we are stuck with the cancer of religion it seems
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Religion seems to be at the root of the divisions which ignited certainly the 1st world war. If nothing else many wars have been caused by bickerings between the royal families of Europe who all rose to power by utilising religion as their justification. What better way to declare yourself better than someone else? Just state you were chosen by god.
    Sure. But we must understand that we have been evolutionarily designed to be violent creatures. We once were hunter-gatherers and violence is in our DNA. Religion helped us soothe this violence we unfortunately inherited. It helped many to lead controlled lives. Without religion, this world would have seen wars of greater atrocities compared to our recent violent history.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.