Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[acbytesla]

As bad as I think Christianity is and I think it is horrible and immoral, Islam is much much worse.

If we are talking strictly about scripture, the Old Testament is as horrible as it gets. There is no getting around that all three religions are based on the same Abrahamic God. The God which decided that man was so wicked that he decided to wipe out all life on the planet except for a tiny few. The same God who told Abraham to kill his son. The same God who sent two she-bears to kill 42 children who teased Elisha. The same God who allowed the devil to torture Job which included the killing of his wife and 10 children. The same God who endorsed slavery in Exodus 21 and Leviticus and doesn't even revoke it in the New Testament. The same God who made the penalty for working on the Sabbath death. The same God who ordered the Israelites to kill all the men women and children of other tribes and take their virgin daughters. The same God that allowed Satan to torture Job over a bet. And oh among Satan's tortures was the killing of Job's wife and 10 children.
The same God that came down in human form to sacrifice himself for a weekend to himself for breaking his own rules. The same God who in the New Testament says that non-believers will be tortured in the lake of fire for eternity.

The reason Islam is worse has more to do with how it is practiced today. The stoning of homosexuals, adulterers and apostates is still practiced today. The idea of Sharia. At least Christianity has a verse that says render unto Caeser what is Caeser's.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The reason Islam is worse has more to do with how it is practiced today. The stoning of homosexuals, adulterers and apostates is still practiced today. The idea of Sharia. At least Christianity has a verse that says render unto Caeser what is Caeser's.

Hudud punishments (stoning, cutting hands off thieves, etc) were applied very rarely prior to the 20th century's radical regimes. Loopholes were quickly invented in medieval society to get around these "mandatory" punishments. So it has much more to do with contemporary political radicalism than with Islam.

 

[Carn]

Hudud punishments (stoning, cutting hands off thieves, etc) were applied very rarely prior to the 20th century's radical regimes. Loopholes were quickly invented in medieval society to get around these "mandatory" punishments. So it has much more to do with contemporary political radicalism than with Islam.

So you argue that some religion is unproblematic by concluding from past and present that only in presence of certain external factors the clearly within the religions theology existing brutal rules are applied and that otherwise the religion is mostly harmless?

That is like arguing the flu is no problem, because it normally does not kill healthy adults; and that therefore nobody should care about the flu but that being old, young, weak, etc. is the only relevant factor.

And no, you cannot counter that argument by talking about how some other disease is potentially as dangerous as the flu, if currently only the flu kills in relevant numbers.


No wonder Dawkins sometimes lashes out, if he faces such abmyssal arguments.

 

[desmirelle]

Hudud punishments (stoning, cutting hands off thieves, etc) were applied very rarely prior to the 20th century's radical regimes. Loopholes were quickly invented in medieval society to get around these "mandatory" punishments. So it has much more to do with contemporary political radicalism than with Islam.

Wait, what?

They're performing this "contemporary political radicalism" in the name of Allah. So, how is NOT to do with Islam?

 

[Belz...]

The reason Islam is worse has more to do with how it is practiced today. The stoning of homosexuals, adulterers and apostates is still practiced today. The idea of Sharia. At least Christianity has a verse that says render unto Caeser what is Caeser's.

Ultimately it all comes down to how it's practiced, but Christianity was, due to that phrase, ultimately apolitical, while Islam is, at its core, the opposite. I think that's an important difference.

 

[porch]

So you argue that some religion is unproblematic by concluding from past and present that only in presence of certain external factors the clearly within the religions theology existing brutal rules are applied and that otherwise the religion is mostly harmless?

That is like arguing the flu is no problem, because it normally does not kill healthy adults; and that therefore nobody should care about the flu but that being old, young, weak, etc. is the only relevant factor.

And no, you cannot counter that argument by talking about how some other disease is potentially as dangerous as the flu, if currently only the flu kills in relevant numbers.


No wonder Dawkins sometimes lashes out, if he faces such abmyssal arguments.

No. Religion is one component of culture. It receives input from, and provides feedback to the other components of culture. To try to isolate it is pointless.

 

[acbytesla]

Hudud punishments (stoning, cutting hands off thieves, etc) were applied very rarely prior to the 20th century's radical regimes. Loopholes were quickly invented in medieval society to get around these "mandatory" punishments. So it has much more to do with contemporary political radicalism than with Islam.

Excuse me?

In 2015, a woman was stoned to death in Saudi Arabia for adultery. Her male partner received a hundred lashes. In 2015 a women was stoned to death in Afghanistan for adultery as well. A woman was stoned to death in Iran for adultery in 2009. Notice, it's almost always women?
Yes you are right that in Muslim countries they have created some loopholes that does make these punishments more rare however I doubt people in Western nations would think very highly of the loopholes.
If a Muslim in Saudi Arabia pronounces that he doesn't believe in God he will be put to death if he doesn't recant. How crazy is that? They always recant.

 

[porch]

Excuse me?

In 2015, a woman was stoned to death in Saudi Arabia for adultery. Her male partner received a hundred lashes. In 2015 a women was stoned to death in Afghanistan for adultery as well. A woman was stoned to death in Iran for adultery in 2009. Notice, it's almost always women?
Yes you are right that in Muslim countries they have created some loopholes that does make these punishments more rare however I doubt people in Western nations would think very highly of the loopholes.
If a Muslim in Saudi Arabia pronounces that he doesn't believe in God he will be put to death if he doesn't recant. How crazy is that? They always recant.

Hudud punishments (stoning, cutting hands off thieves, etc) were applied very rarely prior to the 20th century's radical regimes. Loopholes were quickly invented in medieval society to get around these "mandatory" punishments. So it has much more to do with contemporary political radicalism than with Islam.

I think that might have been overlooked.

 

[acbytesla]

Ultimately it all comes down to how it's practiced, but Christianity was, due to that phrase, ultimately apolitical, while Islam is, at its core, the opposite. I think that's an important difference.

It hasn't always worked that way. Christians haven't always paid heed to that verse.
For example, the inquisition, the crusades, witch burnings etc. That verse is something that Christians can and do point to for being OK with the separation of Church and State and a more live and let live attitude.

Unfortunately, from my understanding there isn't a similar verse anywhere in the Quran. In fact, the opposite seems to be true with Islam and the idea to implement shariah.

 

[Carn]

No. Religion is one component of culture. It receives input from, and provides feedback to the other components of culture. To try to isolate it is pointless.

I did not isolate it.

You missed that TubbaBlubba based his arguments on the premise that there have been those problematic hudud punshiments from the beginning and still remain, but at many times were just avoided by loopholes; but that still means they remained as put down in 7th or 8th or 9th century.

So TubbaBlubba agreed that there is some so far unchanging element of the cultures in question.

And recognizing such an element for what it is and trying to understand which effect it will have under which circumstances is not isolating it.

 

[Carn]

Unfortunately, from my understanding there isn't a similar verse anywhere in the Quran. In fact, the opposite seems to be true with Islam and the idea to implement shariah.

I think the problem is only in part with words, but also depends on the stories of the founder.

Think of a bunch of buddhist; one of them raises his voice and says:
"Let's follow the great example of Buddha, draw our swords, conquer the world and enjoy the riches we plunder."

There is some decent probability that instead of joining in other Buddhist might argue, that that is utter nonesense as Buddha taught to despise wealth and not to get entangled in the affairs of the world, which one surely will be, if one tries to conquer it.

Setting out to conquer the world is hard to cope with following Buddha, even although there is no divine revealed sacred scripture.

On the other hand, suggesting to go on a raid to get some plunder and slaves is not that hard to fit together with following Muhammed, as he supposedly did that himself to some extent.

 

[porch]

In my view, there are as many Christianities as there are Christians, as many Islams as there are Muslims, as many Jainisms as there are Jains, and so on. I'm not sure that any religion has an immutable core.

 

[Carn]

In my view, there are as many Christianities as there are Christians, as many Islams as there are Muslims, as many Jainisms as there are Jains, and so on. I'm not sure that any religion has an immutable core.

Check the data, there is something called hudud punishment in Islam, which has not changed in the last thousand years or so in any relevant way; only to which extent it has been applied has changed.

Do not call it an immutable core - thereby you set up a strawman - call it a so far unchanging element.

For example the mosaic penalties of old testament are also a element of Judaism and Christianity that has not changed since some 2000+ years; their application might have changed.

All religions have some so far unchanging elements and many little changed elements. Of course also many changing elements.

If you ignore this, you ignore reality.

 

[porch]

I think the problem is only in part with words, but also depends on the stories of the founder.

Think of a bunch of buddhist; one of them raises his voice and says:
"Let's follow the great example of Buddha, draw our swords, conquer the world and enjoy the riches we plunder."

There is some decent probability that instead of joining in other Buddhist might argue, that that is utter nonesense as Buddha taught to despise wealth and not to get entangled in the affairs of the world, which one surely will be, if one tries to conquer it.

Setting out to conquer the world is hard to cope with following Buddha, even although there is no divine revealed sacred scripture.

On the other hand, suggesting to go on a raid to get some plunder and slaves is not that hard to fit together with following Muhammed, as he supposedly did that himself to some extent.

And yet . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence


Is anti-homosexuality a fundamental part of Christianity? In the United Church of Canada, there is debate about whether to allow homosexual clergy. In the American politico-religious milieu, there is debate about legal marriage for homosexuals. In Uganda, there is debate about whether homosexuality deserves the death penalty, or a lesser criminal charge. Who has the real, and who is using loopholes?

 

[porch]

Check the data, there is something called hudud punishment in Islam, which has not changed in the last thousand years or so in any relevant way; only to which extent it has been applied has changed.

Do not call it an immutable core - thereby you set up a strawman - call it a so far unchanging element.

For example the mosaic penalties of old testament are also a element of Judaism and Christianity that has not changed since some 2000+ years; their application might have changed.

All religions have some so far unchanging elements and many little changed elements. Of course also many changing elements.

If you ignore this, you ignore reality.

I did not mean to set up a strawman. Sorry, I didn't see this post before I made my last one. Does that mean that we agree, then, that there is no immutable core to any religion? And are Christianity and Islam the same in that they both have some "so far unchanging elements"? And that, even there, the application of those elements has changed over time?

 

[acbytesla]

Check the data, there is something called hudud punishment in Islam, which has not changed in the last thousand years or so in any relevant way; only to which extent it has been applied has changed.

Do not call it an immutable core - thereby you set up a strawman - call it a so far unchanging element.

For example the mosaic penalties of old testament are also a element of Judaism and Christianity that has not changed since some 2000+ years; their application might have changed.

All religions have some so far unchanging elements and many little changed elements. Of course also many changing elements.

If you ignore this, you ignore reality.

I'm sure that there will always be aspects of Islam that I don't understand mostly because I have little desire to learn every detail of every mythology. I do know that many Muslims take it seriously which I find insane. But I also find many Christians that take their religion seriously as insane as well. For example, it's extremely difficult to be openly gay in most predominantly Muslim nations.

 

[Carn]

I did not mean to set up a strawman. Sorry, I didn't see this post before I made my last one. Does that mean that we agree, then, that there is no immutable core to any religion? And are Christianity and Islam the same in that they both have some "so far unchanging elements"? And that, even there, the application of those elements has changed over time?

Saying there is an "immutable core" is a prediction about the future developments of religion; as there is no real empirical understanding of developments one cannot say whether there is something that never changes.

But i think some so far unchanging elements might also remain unchanging in the future.

E.g. in Christianity that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead is probably unchanging and i would bet that it never changes into "Jesus was to be burned at the stake, but made himself fire-immune and yet gave his body the appearance of being burned and never died".


The issue in my eyes is whether some unchanging elements are a political problem.

And one such problematic and so far unchanging (or nearly except for some minority movements) elements of Islam is that Quran is verbatim from the perfectly good creator of the universe without any error in this game of chinese whisper (Allah -> Gabriel -> Mohammed -> someone remembering it -> someone who wrote it down -> someone who compiled it).

That has consequences.

For example that at some place, at some time and in some circumstances the perfectly good course of action (what else would a perfectly good creator suggest?) was to
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&verse=29
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

One can quibble a bit with the exact wording; but its about fighting certain people till they pay tribute.

And that makes "abusing" Islam pretty easy; just convince that "some place" is here, "some time" is now and "some circumstances" are fulfilled and one can claim the mantle of perfect goodness for waging a war till the other side is ready to pay tribute.

This and other things in Islam can - at least currently - only be put into hibernation (by successfully arguing its not this place or this time), but cannot be discarded as wrong or at least as wrong for the future.

And such a thing is not that present in other religions.

Closest are Christianity and Judaism with old testament; but Jews were "tamed" mostly by the Romans 2000 years ago (meaning brutally slaughtered for trying to uphold OT teaching that the promised land is theirs) and are simply not numerous enough for serious buisiness; and in Christianity there is a clear chance between the old covenant of OT and the new covenant of NT; so there is some "intelectual leverage" against massacres OT-style (i know, that leverage has not always worked or was used; but there is some change from OT to NT and hence generally disregarding some OT teaching is plausible).

So i think that acting as if Islam is just exactly problematic or unproblematic as any other religion, is ignoring some of the so far unchanging elements of Islam; at least currently in Islam there are greater problems than in many other religions and this is also due to the "theology" of Islam (in combination with other factors).

And one should hence not ignore the "theology" of Islam and its so far unchanging or little changing elements.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

So you argue that some religion is unproblematic by concluding from past and present that only in presence of certain external factors the clearly within the religions theology existing brutal rules are applied and that otherwise the religion is mostly harmless?

That is like arguing the flu is no problem, because it normally does not kill healthy adults; and that therefore nobody should care about the flu but that being old, young, weak, etc. is the only relevant factor.

And no, you cannot counter that argument by talking about how some other disease is potentially as dangerous as the flu, if currently only the flu kills in relevant numbers.


No wonder Dawkins sometimes lashes out, if he faces such abmyssal arguments.

It all depends on whether you want to understand Islam as it is and has been practiced by its adherents and the overall effects it's had on society, or if you want to paint a caricature that gives you a way to express your deep-seated bigotry in a socially acceptable manner.

The problem here is, instead of saying, "huh, that's interesting, I wonder what this implies about my conception of Islam. Maybe I should study history and tradition in these regions a bit closer to better understand what is happening" you just doubled down. Despite the fact that this was clearly new information of monumental importance to the understanding of Islam today, you paid it no heed, because you don't care about the truth.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

M

And one should hence not ignore the "theology" of Islam and its so far unchanging or little changing elements.

Have you considered that some of these "elements" have deep rotings in MENA cultures and did not always have the implications they had today? That some go far beyond Islam, and that some have nothing at all to do with it?

Frankly, your assertions reek of orientalism. As the "Civilized West" finally realized come the Holocaust, we are just as capable of atrocities. Arguments resting on cultural essentialism are very dangerous.

Have you made a thorough investigation of the pedigree of the phenomena that disgust you so much? Did you know, for example, that the laws about rapists marrying their victims in the Near East to evade punishment derive from 19th-century French law (code Napoleon), and were deeply rooted in an European tradition of abduction and forced marriage? (Rape was generally taken for granted; without it being assumed, the marriage would not have been enforceable as the woman could've requested a nullification).

 

[Kumar]

In my view, there are as many Christianities as there are Christians, as many Islams as there are Muslims, as many Jainisms as there are Jains, and so on. I'm not sure that any religion has an immutable core.

Simply, we need to first understand main basis of any religion: Basic, gross or intermediate? Truth, rational or irrational?