[Merged] General Criticism of Islam/Islamophobia Topics

[Chaos]

It seems to me that a few posters always pop up in any thread expressing valid criticisms to come to the defense of Islam.

Add to that while I agree without naming people some seem to be stuck on a loop of just posting stuff about Islam it does not make their position or argument invalid.

I'll need to find the exact quote but one even defended mohammad's pedophillia by saying it was considered normal then so no foul.

Can you point out to me where there have been "valid criticisms" of Islam in this forum that "a few posters" have come to defend against?

Either explain how the usual islamophobic nonsense that A´isha, for example, debunks so easily is "valid criticism" of Islam, or admit that the only thing "a few posters" "come to the defense of Islam" for is not "valid criticism".

 

[Nay_Sayer]

I think the crucial part is those words. My concern, and I do not think I am alone in this, with the islamophobes is that they take the most extreme Islamic movements or statements and claim their behaviour and ideas to be the muslim norm. It is the generalization that is the problem not the critique. If I took the Westboro Baptist Church behaviour and said that it demonstrated what a homofobic religion christanity is. Would that be a valid criticism of christianity?

You are correct, I want to make it clear I agree with people using extremists to broad brush all muslims. However I just find it odd at times how quickly and how frequently some are defending it.

To answer your question, It could be argued Westboro are the "right" type of Christians, In that they make no qualms about what the bible says and follow it devoutly.

This is basically the same scenario as the Catholic church being a force for good, Should we dismiss the priests molesting children, Aids in Africa etc because there are Catholics who do good work and help the needy?

To clarify my question: Should religion be judged by the whole or the sum of its parts?

 

[elbe]

"Rafi' b. Khadij reported that Allah's Messenger came to Medina and the people had been grafting the trees. He said:

What are you doing? They said: We are grafting them, whereupon he said: It may perhaps be good for you if you do not do that, so they abandoned this practice (and the date-palms) began to yield less fruit. They made a mention of it (to the Holy Prophet), whereupon he said: I am a human being, so when I command you about a thing pertaining to religion, do accept it, and when I command you about a thing out of my personal opinion, keep it in mind that I am a human being." - Sahih Muslim 2362

That's a surprisingly good story. I mean it leaves open the door of why they should trust what he says about religion too, but it's a good, simple way to communicate that even their holy prophet is merely human and capable of making mistakes.

 

[Dissolution]

Not every act and deed and word of Muhammad is a sunnah, and therefore not anywhere close to being part of shari'ah.

"Rafi' b. Khadij reported that Allah's Messenger came to Medina and the people had been grafting the trees. He said:

What are you doing? They said: We are grafting them, whereupon he said: It may perhaps be good for you if you do not do that, so they abandoned this practice (and the date-palms) began to yield less fruit. They made a mention of it (to the Holy Prophet), whereupon he said: I am a human being, so when I command you about a thing pertaining to religion, do accept it, and when I command you about a thing out of my personal opinion, keep it in mind that I am a human being." - Sahih Muslim 2362

Mohammed claimed that he'd been given a vision of her from God though, didn't he?
He wasn't offering a personal opinion, this was divine revelation.

 

[A'isha]

Mohammed claimed that he'd been given a vision of her from God though, didn't he?
He wasn't offering a personal opinion, this was divine revelation.

He was given a vision of her because she was 'Ai'sha, though, not because she was X years old. Even in the ahadith, Muhammad never mentions her age (all mentions of that purportedly come from 'A'isha herself).

 

[Chaos]

You are correct, I want to make it clear I agree with people using extremists to broad brush all muslims. However I just find it odd at times how quickly and how frequently some are defending it.

So you realize that people make unjustified against all Muslims, but find it odd that other people defend Muslims against these attacks?

To answer your question, It could be argued Westboro are the "right" type of Christians, In that they make no qualms about what the bible says and follow it devoutly.

Welcome to the world of Humes Fork. I hope you like it there.

This is basically the same scenario as the Catholic church being a force for good, Should we dismiss the priests molesting children, Aids in Africa etc because there are Catholics who do good work and help the needy?

More like, someone claims all Christians are depraved child molesters because Catholic priests are molesting children and the rest of Christianity refuses to convert to atheism in protest.

To clarify my question: Should religion be judged by the whole or the sum of its parts?

That´s not what the discussions have been about. They were about "Should all people who consider themselves Muslims be judged by the actions of some people who consider themselves Muslims"?

 

[Christian Klippel]

That´s not what the discussions have been about. They were about "Should all people who consider themselves Muslims be judged by the actions of some people who consider themselves Muslims"?

I'm wondering if that "some people" can be quantified somehow? At what number does "some" become a critical mass? And it would be good to have such information for any religion.

I mean, if you have 100k followers of a given religion, and of those you have 100 radicals, then that is "some". However, if it turns out to be 10k, then it's technically still a minority, but already a huge force. Of course, any statistics as to where the trend is going to would help as well.

I ask this in all seriousness. The reason is that here in Germany we have, for some time already, a growth of muslim groups that are considered radical (or extremist), as reported by the authorities that watch over such developments. However, there is virtually nothing in those reports showing a similar trend for, lets say, christian groups.

I'm fully aware that the media gives a distorted view on these issues, that's why i think it would be better to go by statistics and numbers provided by authorities (and even then, some scepticism is in order).

I find it quite futile that one side uses an overly broad brush to paint islam as bad, pointing to the bad apples but not showing any numbers or trends, but at the same time i also find it futile that the other side argues that this is only "some" people in islam without giving any numbers or trends either.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Chaos]

I'm wondering if that "some people" can be quantified somehow? At what number does "some" become a critical mass? And it would be good to have such information for any religion.

Irrelevant. How big a percentage of Germans have to be racist and xenophobic before I am justified to call you a racist and xenophobe?

The correct answer, of course, to anyone who is serious about being a skeptic, is that before I can call you anything, I need to make certain that YOU, personally, hold those beliefs.

I mean, if you have 100k followers of a given religion, and of those you have 100 radicals, then that is "some". However, if it turns out to be 10k, then it's technically still a minority, but already a huge force. Of course, any statistics as to where the trend is going to would help as well.

Again, this is irrelevant. If you paint all Muslims with the same broad brush, you´re painting them all with the same broad brush, no matter how many of them believe what.

I ask this in all seriousness. The reason is that here in Germany we have, for some time already, a growth of muslim groups that are considered radical (or extremist), as reported by the authorities that watch over such developments.

I am well aware of that. But inhowfar does this have anything to do with any Muslims who are not part of these groups, yet get accused of believing the same things as them?

However, there is virtually nothing in those reports showing a similar trend for, lets say, christian groups.

Which is completely irrelevant.

I'm fully aware that the media gives a distorted view on these issues, that's why i think it would be better to go by statistics and numbers provided by authorities (and even then, some scepticism is in order).

How about, when talking about someone´s belief, you go by that person´s beliefs?

How many Germans need to be Neo-Nazis before a Germanophobic bigot justified in calling you, personally, a Neo-Nazi, because you have not demonstrated you non-Neo-Nazi-ness to the bigot´s impossible standards?

I find it quite futile that one side uses an overly broad brush to paint islam as bad, pointing to the bad apples but not showing any numbers or trends, but at the same time i also find it futile that the other side argues that this is only "some" people in islam without giving any numbers or trends either.

So, reasonable people have to stop being reasonable because bigots won´t stop spouting bigotry? Or what exactly are you trying to say?

 

[Dissolution]

He was given a vision of her because she was 'Ai'sha, though, not because she was X years old. Even in the ahadith, Muhammad never mentions her age (all mentions of that purportedly come from 'A'isha herself).

Utterly irrelevant.
He was given a vision of her which he believed instructed him to marry her.
This happened before they married, so it appears that God gives out instruction for men to marry young girls, if you believe that this stuff is true.

 

[Christian Klippel]

<...non-sequiturs snipped...>

You may want to try reading for comprehension, before you go off with knee jerk reactions about things i didn't write or even implied.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[A'isha]

Utterly irrelevant.
He was given a vision of her which he believed instructed him to marry her.
This happened before they married, so it appears that God gives out instruction for men to marry young girls, if you believe that this stuff is true.

Of course it's relevant. Muhammad wasn't given a vision of a type of person to marry, but a vision of a specific individual, to be married to another specific individual (himself), without a single reference to age in those visions or any mention that it was intended to be some kind of general guideline rather than something granted to Muhammad specifically.

Some Muslims (such as Wahhabists) certainly do extrapolate Muhammad's marriage to 'Ai'sha and her age at marriage according to Sunni tradition as meaning that modern Muslim men can marry girls as young as nine, but because there's nothing anywhere near definitive to that effect, other Muslims (such as the clerics at al-Azhar) don't see 'A'isha's age at the time of her marriage to Muhammad as explicitly or even implicitly granting permission for anything like that at all (even assuming they accept the Sunni traditional age of 'A'isha in the first place).

 

[mijopaalmc]

How many German states have to pass anti-circumcision laws–which, due to the customs of the majority religio-ethnic groups, really only effect Jews and Muslims–before all ethnic Germans are labelled anti-Semitic and Islamophobic?

 

[Humes fork]

How many German states have to pass anti-circumcision laws–which, due to the customs of the majority religio-ethnic groups, really only effect Jews and Muslims–before all ethnic Germans are labelled anti-Semitic and Islamophobic?

I'm etnirely in favor of such laws. It's about protecting the rights of children. I hope Sweden introduces such laws as well. If only certain minorities pratice it, so what? THose children must be protected as well.

 

[DC]

I'm wondering if that "some people" can be quantified somehow? At what number does "some" become a critical mass? And it would be good to have such information for any religion.

I mean, if you have 100k followers of a given religion, and of those you have 100 radicals, then that is "some". However, if it turns out to be 10k, then it's technically still a minority, but already a huge force. Of course, any statistics as to where the trend is going to would help as well.

I ask this in all seriousness. The reason is that here in Germany we have, for some time already, a growth of muslim groups that are considered radical (or extremist), as reported by the authorities that watch over such developments. However, there is virtually nothing in those reports showing a similar trend for, lets say, christian groups.

I'm fully aware that the media gives a distorted view on these issues, that's why i think it would be better to go by statistics and numbers provided by authorities (and even then, some scepticism is in order).

I find it quite futile that one side uses an overly broad brush to paint islam as bad, pointing to the bad apples but not showing any numbers or trends, but at the same time i also find it futile that the other side argues that this is only "some" people in islam without giving any numbers or trends either.

Greetings,

Chris

I have seen numbers and statistics wuit alot in those debates, and some, or a small minority is the most accurate description.

 

[DC]

I'm etnirely in favor of such laws. It's about protecting the rights of children. I hope Sweden introduces such laws as well. If only certain minorities pratice it, so what? THose children must be protected as well.

I find those laws strange, it ignores the indoctrination of children, which is an ever bigger problem, but is accepted and even respected in society.

 

[Dcdrac]

How many times does it have to be pointed out that Islam is not the only religion that has fanatics and dangerous extremists?

And this little lot of nutters are going round causing trouble claiming to be the Christian patrol:

http://www.britainfirst.org/

leader is ex BNP

 

[Humes fork]

Nobody has said that Islam is th only religion with extremists and fanatics.

 

[tsig]

Nobody has said that Islam is th only religion with extremists and fanatics.

It is the only one whose extremists and fanatics get a free pass because we can't expect them to conform to civilized standards.

 

[A'isha]

It is the only one whose extremists and fanatics get a free pass because we can't expect them to conform to civilized standards.

On what insane strawman planet do they get a "free pass"?

 

[Dissolution]

Of course it's relevant. Muhammad wasn't given a vision of a type of person to marry, but a vision of a specific individual, to be married to another specific individual (himself), without a single reference to age in those visions or any mention that it was intended to be some kind of general guideline rather than something granted to Muhammad specifically.

Some Muslims (such as Wahhabists) certainly do extrapolate Muhammad's marriage to 'Ai'sha and her age at marriage according to Sunni tradition as meaning that modern Muslim men can marry girls as young as nine, but because there's nothing anywhere near definitive to that effect, other Muslims (such as the clerics at al-Azhar) don't see 'A'isha's age at the time of her marriage to Muhammad as explicitly or even implicitly granting permission for anything like that at all (even assuming they accept the Sunni traditional age of 'A'isha in the first place).

Mohammed was given a vision of a specific young girl and told to marry her by God, according to Islam.
He's seen as the paragon of the religion and his behaviour is supposed to be copied, so it's hardly surprising that something that he was ordered to do by God isn't seen as something that's morally wrong, is it?

Failing to accept Aisha's age is simply down to wanting it to be different, in most cases.
There's more to support a young age in the Hadiths than a mistake or an older age.
Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and Sunan Dawud all say they married when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was nine.
Sahih Muslim even says that he died when she was eighteen, so how could they have done anything together when she was nineteen?
Posthumous sex, perhaps? Beats anything Jesus was supposed to have done, I guess.