Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[Carn]

I've seen plenty of feminist criticism of Islam. Maybe you're looking in the wrong places, Roofgardner.

For example the women organizing the Women's march would probably criticize islam not that much:
https://www.womensmarch.com/team/

 

[Thor 2]

I've seen plenty of feminist criticism of Islam. Maybe you're looking in the wrong places, Roofgardner.

The One Law for All group headed up by Maryam Namazie would be a good place to start.

 

[Thor 2]

......

We may not be at war with Islam, but from a theological stance, Islam is most certainly at war with us. One of the weapons that the Islamic Supremacists use is words, and thence the creation of the neologism "Islamophobia", as a means of suppressing investigation, criticism or debate. As Mohammed said... "War is deceit".

......

Not only is Islam at war with us (i.e. non Muslims) it is at war with itself even more so.

The death toll in a devastating militant attack on a mosque on Friday in Egypt's North Sinai has risen to 305, including 27 children, and 128 more people were injured, according to the MENA state news agency.

So we get this comment from someone at the scene:

"May the souls of all those who die rest in peace, Muslims and Christians alike... these people have no religion," said Abdullah, an unemployed man in downtown Cairo, referring to the attackers

Huh? The attackers were shouting Allahu Akbar, or God is great.

When are we going to see the end of this ridiculous denial.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Huh? The attackers were shouting Allahu Akbar, or God is great.

When are we going to see the end of this ridiculous denial.

This isn't really something to get worked up about. They mean it the same way you'd say that a mass murderer could hardly be a humanist.

This is also especially touchy within Islam. Due to the doctrine that there is but one Islam, accusing someone of not being a true muslim, takfir, is considered extremely serious. But that's something ISIS do rather frivolously. It follows, accordingly, that ISIS themselves cannot be "true muslims" or they wouldn't engage in this practice so much.

It's a contorted bit of mental gymnastics, but it makes sense.

 

[David Mo]

Recognizing South Africa prior 1990 kept nobody from calling out South Afriace to abandon apartheid.

And refusal to recognizing South Africa prior to 1990 kept nobody to reject terrorism.

I mean, ok, Israel sheds being a Jewish state; the about 250000+ "settlers" on the wrong side of the 1967 line are forced out of their homes at gun point or preferably cannon point; a few thousand of the more radical sort are killed in the resulting skirmishes, which subdues the rest sufficiently to accept being dislocated; Palestinians happily take over the buildings to use them for building better lives.

I have no intention to debate your personal vision of Palestine conflict. I only said that your supposition that every opponent to legitimacy of the Jewish state is terrorist is ridiculous. See my previous comments.

But if religion is just mental illness/disease, then for me a very straightforward thought is that the differing religions could present different mental illnesses/dieseases.

Oh, my god! The psychatrization of politics! This usually ends with disidents in asylums.

 

[Roofgardener]

Wow, this is outrageous. Jews would "simply be killed"? And this is inherent to Islam? Historically Jews have been LESS oppressed in Muslim society than in Christian.

Jews have been mistreated and subject to prejudice in Europe until that last 50 years or so. However, this was based on a mixture of class and individual prejudice, and perhaps jealousy of the jews tendency to be successful. (in the case of Hitler, it was opportunism to create a "common enemy within". If Jews hadn't have been available, he would have picked on .. dunno.. left-handed people or something).

It is only in the "Islamic" world that antisemitism is encoded deeply into Scripture, acting as a central source of authority for antisemitism. Since the 12th century (perhaps earlier ? ) almost all of the pograms and massacres of Jews - who had to live as second-class citizens - where led by or inspired by Islamic clerics.

Modern Islamic antisemitism is by and large an European import tied to the establishment of Israel and opposition to it.

Possibly; because Islamic theology forbids that an "Islamic country" can ever be retaken by non-muslims, and also that Jews may never have authority over muslims. Consider this; the entire region was under the control of British and French authorities following the defeat of the Ottoman (Islamic) empire after WW1. There was relatively little discontent amongst the muslim population. But GOLLY... as soon as the JEWS start turning up, its the end of the world. Consider also that most people in places like Saudi or Yemen (or Syria, Egypt and Jordan) would never have even SEEN a Jew. So where did this hatred come from ?

No, I think you are mistaken.
The Ottoman Empire decriminalized homosexuality in 1858. How much of the Christian world had done that then?

None. However, the Turkish leaders of the time where acting in contradiction to Islamic orthodoxy. Ataturk continued this. And today we see Turkey moving back to Orthodoxy, and the LGBT community increasingly marginalised. Meanwhile, in Iran, sodomy has been punishable by death since the rise of the Islamic Republic. It is illegal (though rarely punished by death, but usually just stoning, whipping or imprisonment) in Saudi Arabia. The story goes on in almost ALL of the "Islamic" countries. And it is explicitly stated in the Koran that homosexuality (amongst men) is punishable by death. So bite me

You seem to think that the only true Islam is the most radical variety you can find.

That's not fair. My argument was about Islamic Scripture, not about how different groups practice it. (though in reality ALL major Islamic branches promote hatred of Jews, suppression of women as 2nd-class citizens (and 'property') and death to homosexuals, amongst other delights).

Honestly, wow. Your last paragraph reads like a Nazi ranting about World Jewry.

Hmm... funny you should mention Nazi's. You know how they forced Jews to wear a yellow star ? Well.. that was an Islamic innovation back from the 12th Century. Indeed, I often wondered if Hitler had been exposed to Islamic teachings in his formative political years.

So, in summary, I still maintain that atheists, women and homoxsexuals have the MOST to fear from an Islamic state, and to Islamic TheoPolitics in general. And yet they remain mostly silent.

 

[Roofgardener]

For example the women organizing the Women's march would probably criticize islam not that much:
https://www.womensmarch.com/team/

A salient point Carn ! And it is interesting to note that women showing the Star of David with a rainbow background (to celebrate their identity as a lesbian jew) was asked to leave the march ! Palestinian and HAMAS colours where welcomed.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

None. However, the Turkish leaders of the time where acting in contradiction to Islamic orthodoxy. Ataturk continued this. And today we see Turkey moving back to Orthodoxy, and the LGBT community increasingly marginalised. Meanwhile, in Iran, sodomy has been punishable by death since the rise of the Islamic Republic. It is illegal (though rarely punished by death, but usually just stoning, whipping or imprisonment) in Saudi Arabia. The story goes on in almost ALL of the "Islamic" countries. And it is explicitly stated in the Koran that homosexuality (amongst men) is punishable by death. So bite me .

First, this is wrong. France had decriminalized homosexuality, and the Ottoman law of 1858 was heavily influenced by the Code Napoleon and civil law in general (which is also the apparent source of the rape-marriage laws in the Near East, incidentally). The 1858 law followed earlier codifications rooted in Islamic jurisprudence.

And. Please show me where in Islam homosexuality is forbidden.

Actually, never mind, let me answer: It isn't. There is a blanket outlawing of zina meaning "adultery" or "sexual immorality", which traditionally should be punished by death. But most traditional authorities did NOT take this to encompass homosexual acts, which were fairly widespread in Persianate cultures.

(though in reality ALL major Islamic branches promote hatred of Jews and death to homosexuals, amongst other delights).

No. Do you realize what a ********** up thing you're saying here?

Hmm... funny you should mention Nazi's. You know how they forced Jews to wear a yellow star ? Well.. that was an Islamic innovation back from the 12th Century. Indeed, I often wondered if Hitler had been exposed to Islamic teachings in his formative political years.

You have your timelines mixed up. Distinguishing mark for Dhimmi is attested as early as the 9th century. You're probably thinking of distinguishing marks forced on Jews following the Sicut Iudaeis protection laws of thw 12th century. It was prompted by the slaughter of thousands of Jews in Europe during the crusades.

In the Muslim world we certainly see early pogroms, but they're virtually always committed by small radicalist groups who oppose mainstream Islam. Probably the earliest surviving document in Islam is the Constitution of Medina; it guaranteed the fairly extensive rights of (monotheistic, presumably) non-Muslims, with Jews specifically included.

Dhimmi status was generally better than what minorities enjoyed in Europe - they could self-organize, own property, apply their own civil laws, etc, and the jizya was as a rule lower than the zakat paid by muslims, since Dhimmi were responsible for their own social institutions.

 

[David Mo]

It is only in the "Islamic" world that antisemitism is encoded deeply into Scripture, acting as a central source of authority for antisemitism.

False. Anti-semitism is present in all the gospels, specially the fourth (John). Hitler knew this and use gospels antisemitism for propaganda purposes.
"Jews killed our Lord", "All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”, and so on.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Jews have been mistreated and subject to prejudice in Europe until that last 50 years or so. However, this was based on a mixture of class and individual prejudice, and perhaps jealousy of the jews tendency to be successful. (in the case of Hitler, it was opportunism to create a "common enemy within". If Jews hadn't have been available, he would have picked on .. dunno.. left-handed people or something).

This is wrong on a dozen levels. Christian antisemitism is heavily rooted in the Christian narrative of the Jews as 'Christ-killers' which is present in all gospels and only grows clearer in the later ones. Usury laws didn't help, but as late as the 16th century we have one of the most famous and virulent antisemitic tracts of all time - On the Jews and Their Lies by Luther himself. Luther was INCREDIBLY widely read, and his antisemitism was completely rooted in the apparent unwillingness of Jews to convert in the face of apocalypse (heralded partially at least by the Ottoman advance into Europe). The more modern development of conspiratorial antisemitism is a product of 19th century nationalism mixed with the idea that the Jews were "without a country" and "parasites" on the nations they lived in, pushed along by racial biology. Your suggestion that it is rooted in a Jewish tendency to be succesful is an antisemitic trope in itself!

The idea that Hitler was just an opportunist is incredibly ignorant and shows a callous indifference to the victims of Nazism. Hitler blamed the 'parasitism' of the Jews for Germany's loss in WWI, and came to identify Jews with Communists to a degree (both being supposed anti-nationalista), giving birth to Judaeo-Bolshevism. Certainly antisemitism was to some degree widespread in Germany, particularly among Bavarian protestants, but absolutely NOT to a degree that explains the success of the Nazis.

On the contrary, every effort was made to conceal and euphemize the Holocaust, as a policy of blanket extermination materialized in 1939-1942. This was taken to a length that has led some biographers of Hitler, like Kershaw, to suggest that Hitler, even with Germany at its zenith, still feared that it was not yet as powerful as "the Jew".

Frankly, your comment is shockingly ignorant, and I urge you to study the antisemitism of the 3rd Reich more seriously.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

False. Anti-semitism is present in all the gospels, specially the fourth (John).

Yup. The whole story of the Sanhendrin arresting Jesus, accusing him of one crime (being a Christ claimant; he says yes and prophesies) then bringing him to Pilate who accuses him of another (claiming to be the King of the Jews, Jesus plays word games) screams 'anti-semitic invention'.

 

[Roofgardener]

First, this is wrong. France had decriminalized homosexuality, and the Ottoman law of 1858 was heavily influenced by the Code Napoleon and civil law in general (which is also the apparent source of the rape-marriage laws in the Near East, incidentally). The 1858 law followed earlier codifications rooted in Islamic jurisprudence.

And. Please show me where in Islam homosexuality is forbidden.

Actually, never mind, let me answer: It isn't. There is a blanket outlawing of zina meaning "adultery" or "sexual immorality", which traditionally should be punished by death. But most traditional authorities did NOT take this to encompass homosexual acts, which were fairly widespread in Persianate cultures.

The Koran describes homosexuality as a sin, but does not mandate a penalty for it. However, this is expanded upon in the Hadith's, and the concensus (amongst Sunni orthodoxy, anyway) is that the penalty should be death.

Now, the Bible does indeed condemn homosexuality. However, how many modern Christian theologians - of any significance - preach this ? Very few in the Western world I would imagine, as it would be illegal. Below, however, is a very popular, and very highly respected, modern Islamic theologian. This is TODAY, not Biblical times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Al-Munajjid#Homosexuality

Do you REALLY want to continue with your position ? (ooerr missus ;p )

No. Do you realize what a ********** up thing you're saying here?

It is the Sunnah that is "*****" up, not me.

You have your timelines mixed up. Distinguishing mark for Dhimmi is attested as early as the 9th century. You're probably thinking of distinguishing marks forced on Jews following the Sicut Iudaeis protection laws of thw 12th century. It was prompted by the slaughter of thousands of Jews in Europe during the crusades.

Oooh right... I was wrong. But so where you as it happens. It goes back to the 8th century. Nice try to blame the crusades however

In the Muslim world we certainly see early pogroms, but they're virtually always committed by small radicalist groups who oppose mainstream Islam.

Umm.... I'd challenge that. Each pogrom might have been done by a relatively small group (as opposed to an entire nation), but I think you'll find that they where following orthodoxy, and where led by Islamic clerics.

Probably the earliest surviving document in Islam is the Constitution of Medina; it guaranteed the fairly extensive rights of (monotheistic, presumably) non-Muslims, with Jews specifically included.

Dhimmi status was generally better than what minorities enjoyed in Europe - they could self-organize, own property, apply their own civil laws, etc, and the jizya was as a rule lower than the zakat paid by muslims, since Dhimmi were responsible for their own social institutions.

Are you REALLY going to suggest that Dhimmi was a benign institution ? I mean... really ? We can debate that if you like, but I think you'll struggle to sustain that position. In any case, European treatment of minorities has subsequently improved to give them equality. Sharia has NOT.

If you doubt this, by all means go and try and build a church in Saudi, and see what happens !

 

[Carn]

I only said that your supposition that every opponent to legitimacy of the Jewish state is terrorist is ridiculous.

Again, again and again you read in my words, what i did not write.

"All "Anti-Zionists" (meaning people who want the existance of the state of Israel to end; "" cause i think that not all anti-zionists are against some form of continued existance of Israel, but i am trying to use your wording) are abetters, helpers and/or allies of islamism, some intentionally, some without being aware about this; the latter should be treated as nice as possible."

"islamism" i wrote, not "terrorism".

The only time i used "terrorism" in respect to the issue of how to treat non-recognition of Israel was in using "war against terrorism" in quotation marks, which indicates i either quote someone or think that phrase to be ridiculous.

I claim that anyone unwilling to recognize the state of Israel is either an islamist or someone, who would be no real help against islamists (and since most people non-islamist not willing to recognize Israel are far left, i have seen no counter example; the far left is useless against islamism).

At least try to critize my position and not what you imagined my position to be.

 

[Carn]

False. Anti-semitism is present in all the gospels, specially the fourth (John). Hitler knew this and use gospels antisemitism for propaganda purposes.
"Jews killed our Lord", "All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”, and so on.

Did you just suggest, that christian scripture is a source of antisemitism?

If you think, that scripture can by source of somethind, then why is it not possible that islamic scripture is also source of some non-nice stuff, but in a different way than gospels, cause the texts differ?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The Koran describes homosexuality as a sin, but does not mandate a penalty for it. However, this is expanded upon in the Hadith's, and the concensus (amongst Sunni orthodoxy, anyway) is that the penalty should be death.

It's... complicated. https://www.quora.com/Can-you-be-a-...an-say-about-homosexuality/answer/Aziz-Gilani This is a very good, almost exhaustive overview. It's not true that it's "among Sunni orthodoxy", it seems to have been peculiar to the Hanbali, which prior to the Wahabbist revival were in the minority.

Now, the Bible does indeed condemn homosexuality. However, how many modern Christian theologians - of any significance - preach this ? Very few in the Western world I would imagine, as it would be illegal. Below, however, is a very popular, and very highly respected, modern Islamic theologian. This is TODAY, not Biblical times.

The Bible more than condemns homosexuality. Leviticus very explicitly mandates death by stoning for "men who lie with other men".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Al-Munajjid#Homosexuality

Do you REALLY want to continue with your position ? (ooerr missus ;p ) [/quote]
Munajjid is a Salafist. What a shocker.

It is the Sunnah that is "*****" up, not me.

No. You are deliberately taking the Sunnah out of context in order to stoke hatred against Muslims. That is morally reprehensible.

Oooh right... I was wrong. But so where you as it happens. It goes back to the 8th century. Nice try to blame the crusades however

Huh? What do you mean, nice try blaming the Crusades? The Crusades triggered pogroms in Europe. This was followed by a Papal bull guaranteeing the freedoms of Jews. This papal bull was nevertheless followed by a decree that Jews should wear identifying marks. What it looks like before that I don't know; it's possible that our sources are just too sparse.

Umm.... I'd challenge that. Each pogrom might have been done by a relatively small group (as opposed to an entire nation), but I think you'll find that they where following orthodoxy, and where led by Islamic clerics.

I think you will find not, with some exceptions.

Are you REALLY going to suggest that Dhimmi was a benign institution ? I mean... really ? We can debate that if you like, but I think you'll struggle to sustain that position.

What do you mean by "benign"? Dhimmi were certainly second-class citizens, but they enjoyed a fair amount of autonomy, exemptions and protection. Of course, this is varied across history. The Qajars of Iran weren't particularly fond of minorities, for example. But you'll find very few cases in the Medieval period where religious minorities in Europe are as well or better off.

In any case, European treatment of minorities has subsequently improved to give them equality. Sharia has NOT.

What kind of absurd comparison is this of "Sharia" with "Europe"? You are, again, taking 20th century radical political movements, often (as with Iran) heavily influenced by the West, emerging as a response to imperialism, and making them representative of Islam.

Finally, you're looking at a pretty damned narrow window in time where "European" treatment of minorities is so much better.

If you doubt this, by all means go and try and build a church in Saudi, and see what happens !

Good job consistently picking out the most radical Islamic movement in history as representative

 

[Carn]

Christian antisemitism is heavily rooted in the Christian narrative of the Jews as 'Christ-killers' which is present in all gospels and only grows clearer in the later ones.

Ok, so your position is:

Christian antisemitism is heavily rooted in Christian scripture and it is not christianophob or right-wing or propaganda or lack of careful study to say so.

Islamist supremacism is in not rooted in Islamic scripture and to suggest otherwise is islamophob or right-wing or propaganda or lack of careful study.

Your position is the rational, well-studied and consitent position.



Well, its probably pretty hard to fomulate a counterargument that would convince you.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Did you just suggest, that christian scripture is a source of antisemitism?

If you think, that scripture can by source of somethind, then why is it not possible that islamic scripture is also source of some non-nice stuff, but in a different way than gospels, cause the texts differ?

It's absolutely not as simple as antisemitism being a result of something the NT says (for one, it's very easy to find counterexamples as well). Rather what the NT says indicates a long-running conflict between those pushing for more "Gentile" Christianity, those preferring it more "Jewish", and Jews who rejected Christ. We have a continuous history of the Church and its thinkers spilling ink to explain why Jews should or shouldn't convert, why they do or don't, and what their place in society is to be. This continues into the reformation, where more "racial" theories start to take over, probably through interaction with colonial thinking, but also due to social factors (Jews and Muslims converting in larger numbers, for example, combined with an increased focus on "thought" as opposed to "sacrament" in the age of Reformation).

All that said, I think it's also important to recognize some qualitative differences between the Qur'an and the Bible. The Qur'an is not a continuous narrative or even a collection of such; it's a very difficult read, actually. It's also written in very ambiguous language. There is a heavy focus on oral tradition. And, it is very important to understand the _context_ of verses, which can sometimes be hard to tease out thanks to how the Qur'an is organized.

Sometimes I get the feeling that people read what Muhammed says in the Qur'an the way they read the Sermon on the Mount - as universal teachings on virtuous living to be applied in every situation. But even Salafis who seek to emulate Muhammed recognize the context of Muhammed's teachings and turn to Hadiths to better understand what he considered a virtuous way of life.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Ok, so your position is:

Christian antisemitism is heavily rooted in Christian scripture and it is not christianophob or right-wing or propaganda or lack of careful study to say so.

Islamist supremacism is in not rooted in Islamic scripture and to suggest otherwise is islamophob or right-wing or propaganda or lack of careful study.

Your position is the rational, well-studied and consitent position.



Well, its probably pretty hard to fomulate a counterargument that would convince you.

See my above reply. It's not the only narrative present in the Gospels, and it mirrors a continuous and ongoing conflict between Jews and Christians, and the difficulty Christians have had with understanding the place of Jews in a Christian world - that is, "Why do they reject their Messiah?". Social factors are equally (or more) important. Obviously antisemitism is not a direct PRODUCT of the text of the NT, but rather the context it was produced in - but the written NT reified it, of course. That's why I said "rooted in the narrative that is present..." not "rooted in what the gospels say".

And finally, the Qur'an is very qualitatively different from the Gospels.

 

[Carn]

That argument was at least enjoyable to read.

But it does not change:

If "Christian antisemitism is heavily rooted in the Christian narrative of the Jews as 'Christ-killers' which is present in all gospels"

then Christian antisemitism is at least potentially rooted partly in the collection of words, which make up the gospels.

Would, if we were faced with virulent Christian antisemitism, it then be christianophobic if someone argued that the gospels are part of the problem? Or would it be a position that at least potentially could have some merit (which of course depends on the details)?

Sometimes I get the feeling that people read what Muhammed says in the Qur'an the way they read the Sermon on the Mount - as universal teachings on virtuous living to be applied in every situation.

As the Koran are supposedly statements verbatim and unaltered by Allah himself, that approach is not unlikely, it is rather expectable for some devout muslims to treat them as teachings for virtous living.

Except for - and that is the only realy relevant exception -

But even Salafis who seek to emulate Muhammed recognize the context of Muhammed's teachings and turn to Hadiths to better understand what he considered a virtuous way of life.

the context which implies when, where and under which circumstances a certain statement is to be followed.

But if all that evaluation of context about for example when the command to wage war until either conversion or willing submission and jizah payment is to be followed leads to:"Here! Now! Against those disbelievers over there/over the border/whereever"

then waging war/attacking is "virtous" for the respective believers.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Would, if we were faced with virulent Christian antisemitism, it then be christianophobic if someone argued that the gospels are part of the problem? Or would it be a position that at least potentially could have some merit (which of course depends on the details)?

It would be a largely pointless diversion except to give historical context. It's a bit like the Sonderweg theory of Nazi Germany, that starting with Luther Germany was kicked into an inevitable trek toward the Holocaust. Which is a silly theory; that doesn't make Luther irrelevant to the understanding of German antisemitism.

Assigning culpability to the gospels here is only slightly less pointless than to look at the Curse of Ham as the reason for the Transatlantic slave trade.

But if all that evaluation of context about for example when the command to wage war until either conversion or willing submission and jizah payment is to be followed leads to:"Here! Now! Against those disbelievers over there/over the border/whereever"

then waging war/attacking is "virtous" for the respective believers.

"Use force to extract tax" is honestly not a particularly radical teaching.