3 ms·
Despite not really wanting to go into a historic or theological debate, I can't help but notice that the guy went on to be an actual king of sorts - so there de
by toyg 3y ago
Despite not really wanting to go into a historic or theological debate, I can't help but notice that the guy went on to be an actual king of sorts - so there definitely was something in it for him, at the time.
I do agree that, overall, the formal structure of Islamic clerical organisations looks somewhat more horizontal (look ma, no pope!), and precepts towards charity look more stringent than the average "try to be good" message of other religions; but it's hard to deny that there are - and were - a lot of very temporal benefits accruing towards people of power under Islamic rule. Some rulers even derive their legitimacy from dynastic relationships to the prophet - that's worth a lot of money...
- Aerbil313 3y agoNo one denies our prophet pbuh was the ruler of the Islamic state. As are the caliphates after him. It’s Christianity which has no doctrine regarding governance of people, or modern Christians who have weird ideas like religion should not be involved in governance. Someone needs to rule and spread the religion through territorial expansion, as it is the only way people can be saved. Say what you like, but it’s coherent.