Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[Belgian thought]

I'm not trying to be overly patriotic. There are a lot of things the founding fathers got wrong...like slavery That said, I strongly believe the secular aspect of our constitution is the one thing they got right. I consider the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights to be the single best thing about the USA.

Apologies - was not trying to dis the USA but merely highlighting the ironical oft reference to god when as a country, it references itself.

And I completely agree about the 1st Amendment too.

Amazing that it was thought up so long ago and yet in the 21st Century deemed as a weakness or something that should be restrained.

 

[acbytesla]

Apologies - was not trying to dis the USA but merely highlighting the ironical oft reference to god when as a country, it references itself.

Apology accepted although unnecessary. I didn't think you were. I did think you were mocking me for possibly acting like the typical American who sees the world through red white and blue glasses. Thinking the US is better then all other nations just because.

And I completely agree about the 1st Amendment too.

Amazing that it was thought up so long ago and yet in the 21st Century deemed as a weakness or something that should be restrained.

Yes it is amazing. I don't think that many Americans believe that it should be restrained. Some for sure, but I think most us think it is our true strength. We tolerate pretty much all expression unless it is advocating violence.

What amazes me is how many other Western countries have limits on free speech.

 

[winter salt]

Muhammad was not a “pedophilic” in the modern sense of this word. In Middle Ages the marriage with and between children was a norm among kings, nobles and families. Christian or Muslim. Neither he was a war lord in the same sense that condottieri were. He was an armed prophet in the same way that Aaron, Joshua and other Jewish prophets and kings that are

I often argue with my Muslim friends when they defend the child marriage of Mohammad in this fashion, that he's not just a king or nobleman that lived and died in the history. He claimed (or his religion vastly claimed) that he's the final messenger of the creator of everything and he's the best example for the whole humanity until the end of time. I don't know any other king or nobleman from 1500 years ago that still influence so many people in any respect. I think his claim to be a messenger of a god that has certain attributes, such as "just", "merciful" warrants his personal life be taken out of his time and criticised.

 

[David Mo]

I often argue with my Muslim friends when they defend the child marriage of Mohammad in this fashion, that he's not just a king or nobleman that lived and died in the history. He claimed (or his religion vastly claimed) that he's the final messenger of the creator of everything and he's the best example for the whole humanity until the end of time. I don't know any other king or nobleman from 1500 years ago that still influence so many people in any respect. I think his claim to be a messenger of a god that has certain attributes, such as "just", "merciful" warrants his personal life be taken out of his time and criticised.

We cannot blame a man of the Middle Ages for marrying a little girl, be prophet or not. It was a common practice in that time. We can blame those that don't are able to revising the Koran through contemporary morality. The main danger -not the only one- is fundamentalism.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

No. You persist with this notion about imposing Western stuff on the Middle East. I am just saying "secular" influence should be encouraged.

Secularism is part and parcel of Western modernity. When you talk about imposing secularism you mean imposing a particular set of Western norms.

Saddam was a Sunni Muslim as I understand it and persecuted Shi’ite Muslims.

Saddam did harahly suppress Shi'a movements that opposed him, but he was a Ba'athist, a secular Arab nationalist ideology. That these were Shi'a movements had more to do with the fact that Iraq has a Shi'a majority. The al-Assad family are also Ba'athists, and they're Twelver Shi'a Muslims.

 

[winter salt]

We cannot blame a man of the Middle Ages for marrying a little girl, be prophet or not. It was a common practice in that time. We can blame those that don't are able to revising the Koran through contemporary morality. The main danger -not the only one- is fundamentalism.

It makes a big difference if that man of the middle ages convinced billions of people in the name of "God " for the last 15 centuries that he's the best example to be followed in every aspect of human behavior.
And if you search a little further his request to marry a child was met with surprise by his contemporary followers, the girl's father. (Abu Bakr). That should tell you something.
Have you ever read the accounts about Aise's marriage to him?. How she specifically emphasises that she was playing with other children, she was plying with baby dulls when she was snapped by older woman to be prepared and given to Mohammed's tent? Forget about the age issue. The emphasis is on her being a child at that time. And have you ever read Aisa's father's surprise when his prophet friend asked him for her hand?
How about the slave girl Cuveyriyya? Do you know what that means? His friends called that slave girl that was given to him on one of his conquests that name which means the little slave girl, because she was so so young..There's a clear emphasis in these accounts that his contemporaries found these girls too young to be married with. And in the case of Cuveyriyyah it's not even marriage, it's a rape without parental consent.
Ask a 7 year old Yezidi girl who is sold in Islamic slave markets today if she cares about Muslims' so called failure to re-interpret Muhammad's actions?
Rape and slavery is not in the list of excusable acts when you claim to represent a so called just and merciful creator of all things and times. And does anyone even excuse the noblemen and kings for the similar acts? I don't.

 

[winter salt]

For political reasons. While hardly the norm (the sheer volumes of early Islamic apologetia concerning A'isha proves that) it was not unheard of either.

I'd like to know what political reasons there was in marrying his friend's child, or the slave child Cuveyriyya?
I'd like to know what those volumes of books are concerning Aisah?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I'd like to know what political reasons there was in marrying his friend's child, or the slave child Cuveyriyya?
I'd like to know what those volumes of books are concerning Aisah?

Juwayriyya was twenty years old when she married Muhammad. She had agreed to pay a ransom to be freed from the man whose share she had fallen into, and asked Muhammad (who had indirectly killed her husband as commander of the Muslim army) for the payment of this ransom. His counter-proposal was to marry her, which she agreed to.

Yeah, maybe not the most romantic story, but I'm not all that troubled with it.

The political reasons for marrying A'isha was to solidify the alliance with her father.

The volumes I refer to are the many tafsir written on the marriage to A'isha.

 

[winter salt]

Juwayriyya was twenty years old when she married Muhammad. She had agreed to pay a ransom to be freed from the man whose share she had fallen into, and asked Muhammad (who had indirectly killed her husband as commander of the Muslim army) for the payment of this ransom. His counter-proposal was to marry her, which she agreed to.

Yeah, maybe not the most romantic story, but I'm not all that troubled with it.

The political reasons for marrying A'isha was to solidify the alliance with her father.

The volumes I refer to are the many tafsir written on the marriage to A'isha.

I see your response as very sympathetic towards the religion of Islam at the minimum. What you describe as "not the most romantic story" is one of the bases for many many Allah and Mohammad-approved rapes and enslavement of poor human beings in a vast region during a long time period.
I am sympathetic towards the most unfortunate, not towards their conquerors.
Rather than evaluating Mohammad and his companions according to the going cruel customs of their time and excusing them shouldn't we hold their actions up against the claims they emerged with? Isn't he the messenger and best human creation of the "just" and "most merciful" Allah for until the end of time? (for the majority of Muslims).
Can't you see what you wrote in response for Juweyriyye's case?. She was freed by the man who just killed her husband with the condition that she would be his instead of another warrior that had his hands on her first. Yea, this could be understandable if we were talking about some ordinary warriors of the 7th century like you are trying to make it look like. But here's the way i look at it. Someone claims to be a professor of mathematics from Harvard. But repeatedly gets a most basic mathematical formula wrong in the book they write. Muhammad failed miserably in his Quran, in his so called words and actions in the most basic criteria, to be accepted as the messenger of the good and just God he described.

And your reasoning for Aisha's marriage doesn't hold water. What political?. Her father was already one of the first Muslims. He sent back a message to Mohammad that it would be impossible for him to marry off his daughter to him since they were brothers. Mohammad had to explain to him that that was only in religion, and it would be no obstacle for this marriage. (Aisha was a widow from 18 until she died at 65 because she wasn't allowed to marry again.)
And the sheer volumes of early apologetics you claimed to exist on Aisha's marriage turned out to be Tafsir, which is the Islamic scholarly interpretation of Quran.

 

[Thor 2]

Secularism is part and parcel of Western modernity. When you talk about imposing secularism you mean imposing a particular set of Western norms.

We do not own secularism in the West.

Saddam did harahly suppress Shi'a movements that opposed him, but he was a Ba'athist, a secular Arab nationalist ideology. That these were Shi'a movements had more to do with the fact that Iraq has a Shi'a majority. The al-Assad family are also Ba'athists, and they're Twelver Shi'a Muslims.

Sadam was first and foremost a brutal, despotic dictator. To talk about him being true to some ideology is a myth.

 

[David Mo]

It makes a big difference if that man of the middle ages convinced billions of people in the name of "God " for the last 15 centuries that he's the best example to be followed in every aspect of human behavior.

Are you saying that children marriage was a surprise for a man of the Middle Ages? This is not true. It was a very common and respectable habit. Therefore, what is condemnable is that this habit is praised and converted in law in our times. See for example the case of the very dubtously democratic regime that Western countries have implemented in Irak.

 

[David Mo]

Sadam was first and foremost a brutal, despotic dictator. To talk about him being true to some ideology is a myth.

Saddam Hussein was a despotic dictator. True.
Saddam Hussein's regime was relatively secularist -if we compare it with the current Irak and other Arab countries-. True also.

Both true propositions doesn't mean any justification of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

And the sheer volumes of early apologetics you claimed to exist on Aisha's marriage turned out to be Tafsir, which is the Islamic scholarly interpretation of Quran.

Uh, what did you expect them to be? The point was that marriage at that age was hardly normative in Muhammad's time, even if not unheard of.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

We do not own secularism in the West.

What? That's a non sequitur.

Sadam was first and foremost a brutal, despotic dictator. To talk about him being true to some ideology is a myth.

Hitler was first and foremost a brutal, despotic dictator...
Stalin was...
Mussolini...
Mao...
Napoleon...
Lenin...

History is full of "brutal, despotic dictators" committed to one ideology or another.

 

[winter salt]

Are you saying that children marriage was a surprise for a man of the Middle Ages? This is not true. It was a very common and respectable habit. Therefore, what is condemnable is that this habit is praised and converted in law in our times. See for example the case of the very dubtously democratic regime that Western countries have implemented in Irak.

You're not being honest here. You're putting words into my mouth.
And in defending a primitive culture that didn't treat little girls as human beings you're being contradictory. Muslims, in the name of their religion are obligated to reverse the laws that prohibit child marriage, if they're accepting Muhammad's message and sample as permanent for the whole humanity.
I'm not debating what the Western countries are doing around the world here either.

 

[winter salt]

Uh, what did you expect them to be? The point was that marriage at that age was hardly normative in Muhammad's time, even if not unheard of.

Who cares if marriage with children who were still spending their time in playgrounds was hardly normative at that time or not. In fact it was not normative it makes Mohammad look even worse.
My point was you made up volumes of books explaining Aisah's marriage. Tafsir talks very little about this issue if at all.

 

[David Mo]

And in defending a primitive culture that didn't treat little girls as human beings you're being contradictory. Muslims, in the name of their religion are obligated to reverse the laws that prohibit child marriage, if they're accepting Muhammad's message and sample as permanent for the whole humanity.
I'm not debating what the Western countries are doing around the world here either.

I am not defending any medieval culture. Muslims are not obliged to defend every thing that Muhammad done. Not more than Jews concerning Moses or Christians concerning Jesus. All three were men of their times and I find ridiculous -if not worse- to attack them personally. I attack those believers that do a literal interpretation of their sacred books or claim that they are a model for us. Not medieval or ancient persons that behaved as usual in their epoch.

 

[winter salt]

I am not defending any medieval culture. Muslims are not obliged to defend every thing that Muhammad done. Not more than Jews concerning Moses or Christians concerning Jesus. All three were men of their times and I find ridiculous -if not worse- to attack them personally. I attack those believers that do a literal interpretation of their sacred books or claim that they are a model for us. Not medieval or ancient persons that behaved as usual in their epoch.

But how can you talk for Muslims?
Muslims can not "not defend" everything that Mohammad did. And they won't (not defend). The root of their religion is to believe him as the best man and a model for humans till the end of time. And according to the Muslim faith prophets are protected from committing "sin". And Quran and Hadith clearly says he's a model to be followed. There's only one hadith that contradicts this foundational rule. That is when he gave his followers a wrong advice about maintaining their date trees. He told them in agricultural matters they don't have to follow him. Yet the same books of hadith contain many advises that relate to medicine and other sciences. Such as drinking camel urine. And Muslims today are defending even that advice of his. That's simply being Muslim.
It's a fair game, even very necessary to directly attack the so called messengers of deities. They killed and enslaved other human beings for not following them.

 

[winter salt]

I imagine most would have no difficulty expressing an opinion regarding German, Italian or Spanish fascism in the 1930s. Would discussing it mean, by necessity, falling into personal attacks or improperly sweeping rejections based on ethnicity? Alrighty, then.... So, we have ideologies, and we can observe they are associated with behaviors in real life. So now, what elements are common to any ideology when it results in violence? I suggest there are two main sources of such behavior: the actual canon, and human pride and fallibility in assuming "perfect" doctrines translate directly into "perfect" actions; i.e., that Big Truth confers absolute authority.

And there it is, the keyword-in-waiting: absolutism.

i really learn from your posts. There's no like button anywhere i can see.

 

[David Mo]

But how can you talk for Muslims?
Muslims can not "not defend" everything that Mohammad did. And they won't (not defend). The root of their religion is to believe him as the best man and a model for humans till the end of time. And according to the Muslim faith prophets are protected from committing "sin". And Quran and Hadith clearly says he's a model to be followed. There's only one hadith that contradicts this foundational rule. That is when he gave his followers a wrong advice about maintaining their date trees. He told them in agricultural matters they don't have to follow him. Yet the same books of hadith contain many advises that relate to medicine and other sciences. Such as drinking camel urine. And Muslims today are defending even that advice of his. That's simply being Muslim.
It's a fair game, even very necessary to directly attack the so called messengers of deities. They killed and enslaved other human beings for not following them.

I am not used to discuss with Muslims but modern Christians have some strategies to avoid the literal reading of the Bible or gospels. If all Christians, Jews and Muslims were literal interprets of their books this world would be the hell on the earth.

I remember that some time ago I read some articles by a liberal European Muslim that allegorized every thing that was too unbearable to him. And Roger Garaudy, a former Marxist philosopher converted to Islam, always found something spiritual beyond the literal meaning of the Koran. But I never payed a great attention to them. I am not very interested in the matter.