Discuss religion and spirituality topics.
5 posts • Page 1 of 1
I read an interesting interpretation of Islam on another forum. It is basically designed to cope with polygamy for the benefit of polygamous men. Say you have a situation of polygamy where powerful men have several wives and bondmaids, as existed in pre-Mohammad Arabia. In such a situation the polygamous men become obsessed with mate guarding, whereas the rest, lacking any legitimate access to sex, try to seduce females or form rape gangs or whatever. Islam was tailor-made to cope with this. Mate guarding was achieved by such customs as females having to wear a burka and not go out without a male relative. Sexually disenfranchised men were admonished to leave the females alone an instead go and conquer other lands and steal their females (jihad). Newly sexually disenfranchised men in the conquered territories were admonished to convert to Islam and do likewise, accounting for the rapid expansion of Islam. This would also explain why as soon as its expansion phase was over, Islam culturally declined in varous ways.
This description is pretty spot-on and looks very similar to an interpretation of Islam I wrote down months ago on another forum. It also explains in a few sentences why Islam is the religion who will ultimately conquer or other religions. And why, when that end victory inevitably happens, different factions of Islam will be forced to battle one another for eternity for the system not to collapse entirely. With the defeat of each split-group, another version of Islam has to emerge.
Interesting interpretation, although it doesn't explain the general micro-managing of people's lives. I also don't get why they wouldn't just more or less impose monogamy- it's simple & those guys with all the wives probably weren't well-liked by the rest of the people. Then again, what percentage of the women did they actually have attached to them?
MarocsZeitola: Why do you say that it's inevitable? These people have a fuck-up way of living that just doesn't usually kill them immediately. The religious freedom to get your cock off? Come on- there's the ability to screw around outside of marriage in other cultures- it's not always religiously approved, but it doesn't get met with psychotic instituted violence if someone does.
The thing is that people in some areas have gotten very comfortable with not having to directly contradict someone. They need to be able to fight without their opponent's consent. They try to "make their case" to someone that "finds them guilty." This is an exercise in futility. The concern about killing the exception IS poignant, but there are frequent situations where someone is not dealing with that theoretical exception. They don't start spraying water at buildings that aren't on fire & confrontational things shouldn't be much different.
There's some similarities to America
1)Too much of one thing defeats the purpose.
2)Everybody is full of it. What's your hypocrisy?
5 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 1 guest