Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[TubbaBlubba]

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.

You're projecting your extreme bias on me. I did not bring up the volumes of apologetics as a point in Muhammed's favour, but as a counterpoint to the common defense that it was "normal" in his time. Perhaps you simply assumed that I would only say things in Muhammed's defense because you couldn't fathom yourself conceding any point in his favour?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I honestly don't understand the obsession with A'isha; is it the sheer luridness of it all? Most Muslims, depending on how liberal they are, either understand A'isha as a special case justified by a specific divine commandment (e.g. she was a miraculous child prodigy) or they see some of Muhammed's actions as those of a flawed human being (some Hadiths back this view).

Those of us who are not Muslims can understand that while child marriage may not have been normative, it was the norm that women's autonomy was at the very least secondary to other concerns, such as politics. There may even have been some degree of pressure on him to enter this marriage. There's simply no convincing indication that Muhammed was a pedophile. He could've had a whole harem of child brides if he wanted to, but he didn't.

I don't buy the view that Muhammed was in his time radically progressive wrt women's rights (the fact that Khadija was quite wealthy would seem to disprove this view), rather he appears to have been a fairly conservative traditionalist. But he was also not a monster.

It seems like anti-Muslim people are obsessed with debunking the idea that Muhammed was infallible, even when they're not arguing with Salafists. Never mind ignoring all the complexities of religious interpretation. It's getting a bit tiring to see this strawman beaten down time and time again.

 

[winter salt]

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.

Allegorizing Islam is impossible unless one can lie to himself/herself. And the suggestion of it makes serious Muslims furious. I'm not an expert to explain it in detail but it has a lot to do with the cannons of this religion being so well-preserved.
I'm interested in the subject and especially dealing with people whose tolerant and apologetic approach to Islam can stop some young people's de-conversion or from getting more radicalized and thus cause them to waste their lives. I've read many negative things about religion and Islam in my mid-thirties, that i couldn't hear as a young Muslim in my teens and during my twenties, that could've saved me from a lot of anguish and waste of life and happiness, had i come across them before i bought into the doctrine. Many millions of young Muslims are already bombarded with Islamic propaganda from birth on, when they find a skeptic forum like this to find support for their doubts they shouldn't find apologetic atheists who never experienced the damage that religion does to a 21st century mind and life telling them Islam is not so bad, Mohammad did what everybody else in his time also did etc. My education and family life and all youth energy was sacrificed to these phantom God and his long dead prophet. If you're not sure about Islam why try to make it look like less harmful or excusable in the eyes of potential victims/recruits?

 

[winter salt]

You're projecting your extreme bias on me. I did not bring up the volumes of apologetics as a point in Muhammed's favour, but as a counterpoint to the common defense that it was "normal" in his time. Perhaps you simply assumed that I would only say things in Muhammed's defense because you couldn't fathom yourself conceding any point in his favour?

You're being very dubious with your answers. It's hard to know which point to respond. Look at this sentence of yours:

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

Which is it?

And why while ignoring my question of what "political reason" there was for Mohammad for marrying his closest friend's child you keep bringing some other unknown reasons into the table in your next post. Tell me any reason, other than a) he just wanted to marry a 9 year old b) Allah ordered it.
Also you ignored my exposing your "the sheer volumes of early Islamic apologetia concerning A'isha" as non-existing and telling you that the interpretation of Quran (You said Tafsir) as those volumes not dealing with that issue at all.

Muslims believe their religion being perfect and their prophet's being a model till the end of time. And they challenge unbelievers to find any fault in their Quran. And Quran clearly puts Mohammad as their role model. If you agree that in the 21st century one should not marry a child then Allah is wrong, Quran is faulty. That's why every point that cannot even be defended by today's Muslims is at utmost importance. And they should be beaten to their heads.

 

[Thor 2]

What? That's a non sequitur.

Huh? You said:

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

Are you not implying here that secularism is an exclusively Western phenomena?

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.

Ah the old "These guys had an ideology and were despotic dictators so all despotic dictators have an ideology" argument.

You should know better.

 

[Thor 2]

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.

Yes thank you David.

Until someone can spell out what Saddam's "Ideology" was we can assume it was just a lust for power/wealth then?

 

[winter salt]

There may even have been some degree of pressure on him to enter this marriage. There's simply no convincing indication that Muhammed was a pedophile. He could've had a whole harem of child brides if he wanted to, but he didn't.

So if he raped a harem full of children you'd be convinced to call him a pedophile?
My point here is not to prove that he was an obsessive pedophile. According to his religion he's the model human, for all times. And one proven child rape should be enough to debunk his claim.
Your earlier claim about early apologetics for Aisha's marriage age is wrong. This is a recent phenomena. Old Islamic books didn't deal with this. There was no problem with this issue until modernism influenced the Muslim mind.

 

[Thor 2]

Allegorizing Islam is impossible unless one can lie to himself/herself. And the suggestion of it makes serious Muslims furious. I'm not an expert to explain it in detail but it has a lot to do with the cannons of this religion being so well-preserved.
I'm interested in the subject and especially dealing with people whose tolerant and apologetic approach to Islam can stop some young people's de-conversion or from getting more radicalized and thus cause them to waste their lives. I've read many negative things about religion and Islam in my mid-thirties, that i couldn't hear as a young Muslim in my teens and during my twenties, that could've saved me from a lot of anguish and waste of life and happiness, had i come across them before i bought into the doctrine. Many millions of young Muslims are already bombarded with Islamic propaganda from birth on, when they find a skeptic forum like this to find support for their doubts they shouldn't find apologetic atheists who never experienced the damage that religion does to a 21st century mind and life telling them Islam is not so bad, Mohammad did what everybody else in his time also did etc. My education and family life and all youth energy was sacrificed to these phantom God and his long dead prophet. If you're not sure about Islam why try to make it look like less harmful or excusable in the eyes of potential victims/recruits?

Thanks for your story winter salt, it is most compelling. Your point about the difficulty of allegorising Islam is well taken and in line with what I have learned from other sources.

Some time ago I started a thread entitled "Quo Vadis Islam". I was promoted to start the thread after listening to a Sam Harris podcast where he interviews one Sarah Haider, (Ex-Muslims of North America), on the subject of the difficulties facing Muslim apostates. They spoke about the possibility of reform within Islam, in the same way Christianity has changed over the years.

Sarah was skeptical about the possibility of this due to the inflexibility one faces when trying to interpret the Koran. As distinct from the Bible the Koran is meant to be the actual word of God so to try and pass it off as allegorical is a big ask.

 

[winter salt]

Thanks for your story winter salt, it is most compelling. Your point about the difficulty of allegorising Islam is well taken and in line with what I have learned from other sources.

Some time ago I started a thread entitled "Quo Vadis Islam". I was promoted to start the thread after listening to a Sam Harris podcast where he interviews one Sarah Haider, (Ex-Muslims of North America), on the subject of the difficulties facing Muslim apostates. They spoke about the possibility of reform within Islam, in the same way Christianity has changed over the years.

Sarah was skeptical about the possibility of this due to the inflexibility one faces when trying to interpret the Koran. As distinct from the Bible the Koran is meant to be the actual word of God so to try and pass it off as allegorical is a big ask.

Thanks and good to know. After this thread I'll check it out.

 

[David Mo]

Yes thank you David.

Until someone can spell out what Saddam's "Ideology" was we can assume it was just a lust for power/wealth then?

Every ideology is linked to the "lust" of power and almost every ideology is linked to the thirst of wealth. Even the most saint men search for power and many of them for wealth and rationalize these wishes in the form of ideas. There is not dictatorship without ideology. Hitler, Stalin, the Queen... -oh, sorry, the Queen of Babylon, I want to say.

For what I know the Baasist ideology was some kind of vague socialism and secularism. Of course, S. Hussein implemented both things in his way, that isis to say, he was relatively secularist and scarcely socialist. But even remotely, some things were lasting in his regime. It is alike as Syrian Hafed Al-Assad. Some years ago my wife could walk in the Bagdad streets alone and in her western dress without any problem and assited to a Christian public procession. Now it is unthinkable. I wonder if Western policies on Middle East are responsible in some degree of the current dissaster.

 

[David Mo]

Sarah was skeptical about the possibility of this due to the inflexibility one faces when trying to interpret the Koran. As distinct from the Bible the Koran is meant to be the actual word of God so to try and pass it off as allegorical is a big ask.

Excuse me, but the Bible is also the word of God for any Christian. Another thing is how to interpret it. There is not any intrinsecal impossibility to interpret the Koran. In the facts Muslims interpret it. No current Muslim is strictely applying the norms of the Koran in all extent, like no current Jew is applying the Bible strictely now. The difference between fundamentalists and moderates is how they interpret and what needs to be interpreted.

 

[Thor 2]

Every ideology is linked to the "lust" of power and almost every ideology is linked to the thirst of wealth. Even the most saint men search for power and many of them for wealth and rationalize these wishes in the form of ideas. There is not dictatorship without ideology. Hitler, Stalin, the Queen... -oh, sorry, the Queen of Babylon, I want to say.

Just a tad to cynical for me I'm afraid. I think it's possible for someone to come to power as the champion of an ideology, and not be consumed by a lust for power and thirst for wealth. I suggest that Mahatma Gandhi may have been one such person. Many here would be familiar with Albert Einstein's words about the man:

“On the occasion of Mahatma Gandhi's 70th birthday. "Generations to come, it may well be, will scarce believe that such a man as this one ever in flesh and blood walked upon this Earth.”

With some reluctance I suggest the current Pope, would seem to be low on lust for power and thirst for wealth also.

On the other side of the coin I don't see ideology as a necessity for someone seeking to be a dictator. It may be for some and perhaps even most would be dictators, that an ideology is necessary to get followers however.

For what I know the Baasist ideology was some kind of vague socialism and secularism. Of course, S. Hussein implemented both things in his way, that isis to say, he was relatively secularist and scarcely socialist. But even remotely, some things were lasting in his regime. It is alike as Syrian Hafed Al-Assad. Some years ago my wife could walk in the Bagdad streets alone and in her western dress without any problem and assited to a Christian public procession. Now it is unthinkable. I wonder if Western policies on Middle East are responsible in some degree of the current dissaster.

I don't see a strong case being made for an ideology of Hussein here.

 

[Thor 2]

Excuse me, but the Bible is also the word of God for any Christian. Another thing is how to interpret it. There is not any intrinsecal impossibility to interpret the Koran. In the facts Muslims interpret it. No current Muslim is strictely applying the norms of the Koran in all extent, like no current Jew is applying the Bible strictely now. The difference between fundamentalists and moderates is how they interpret and what needs to be interpreted.

This is contrary to the opinion of many Christian apologists I have read and even our own "The Big Dog" will describe much of the Bible as allegorical. Some small parts, such as the words from the burning bush to Moses, and the heavenly utterance when Jesus was baptised, would be claimed as the actual words of God, but the bulk of the book not.

This was the whole point made by Sarah Haider when interviewed by Sam Harris. The inflexibility of the Koran as the actual word of God, is the boulder in the middle of the road, hindering the progress toward massaging Islam, into a more compatible version with a secular society.

 

[winter salt]

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.

Most likely true here, but there's also another very common usage of this (depending on the terminology used) which means "atheist", as someone who doesn't believe in any God. They usually add the word "faith" to "religion" to mean that. And in their mind only an atheist could do such violent acts.

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.

Could you clarify this, because for example Sunnis and Shiats do not consider each other true Muslims yet they don't "takfir" each other. They don't call each other infidels. There's a way out from this for them, there's a thing called "ehl bid'a", and that is a lesser evil. But ultimately requires some roasting in hell. I'm forced to write from i phone for a while so it's hard to type much..

 

[winter salt]

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.

I am glad that you made this correction. But why not complete? He's right on the part that anti-semitism clearly is in the cannons of Islam. Of course you can counter this by mentioning the early verses of Quran, which were put forth before Jews rejected Mohammad's call.

 

[winter salt]

Terrorism is not explicit in the Koran. The Koran preaches the war against enemies of Islam, but explicitly forbid to kill women, children and elders. This is one difference between the bad effects of the Bible and the Koran among others.

Could you give evidence that the Quran explicitly forbids killing of women and children and the old?
I know there are verses that you could probably surmise that innocent lives should be spared according to the Quran but this only through interpretation.
On the other hand I don't know what to make of this one, Quran 8/12:

Yusuf Ali: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

I've known an Islamic group who proudly claimed to be strictly adhering to the Sunni school and their imams, and who within a period of few years completely changed their view on suicide cihad and (for then) excused those who kill children and women in the process of their cihadic attacks. I don't know how far they went with their change of "fiqh"-based ideas on cihad by now.
And why do we focus so much on the "killing" those non-fighting parties while the whole expansion of Islam left from its start a large geography filled with widows that ended up slaves and sex slaves for the rest of their lives, orphans that ended up in the same life-journey like their mothers, and older people not much in a better state?

Does Islam promote and encourage its followers to expand itself though killing others "if necessary" ?
Yes.
Did it happen?
Yes. (And mostly, if not only, so).
Will it happen again?
........
........
What abrahamic religions "really" tell of "innocent" human lives anyway?
Quran included Bible stories in which God doesn't distinguish the "guilty" from the "innocent" when it comes to mass-punishment. (God's own reasons).
And today, as always, humans and babies die from diseases, sickness and disasters "for God's own reasons" like bugs.
I think the faithful is taught not to value any human life if God's purpose is at work.

 

[David Mo]

Just a tad to cynical for me I'm afraid. I think it's possible for someone to come to power as the champion of an ideology, and not be consumed by a lust for power and thirst for wealth. I suggest that Mahatma Gandhi may have been one such person. Many here would be familiar with Albert Einstein's words about the man:
(…)
On the other side of the coin I don't see ideology as a necessity for someone seeking to be a dictator. It may be for some and perhaps even most would be dictators, that an ideology is necessary to get followers however.

Cynical? Maybe realist. Of course, some exceptions don’t refute the norm.
Your mistake: Dictators are usually brutal and base their regimes in repression. But they need also some ideological excuse to attract some addicts. Nation, Race, Religion, Empire or the People. Or the Sacred Fight against X. This is so in dictatorships as in democracy. Propaganda, you know.

This is contrary to the opinion of many Christian apologists I have read and even our own "The Big Dog" will describe much of the Bible as allegorical.

Literally or allegorical, hidden or manifest the Bible is the word of God for any believer. Why if not is it his Holy Book?

Could you give evidence that the Quran explicitly forbids killing of women and children and the old?
I know there are verses that you could probably surmise that innocent lives should be spared according to the Quran but this only through interpretation.
On the other hand I don't know what to make of this one, Quran 8/12:
Yusuf Ali: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
I've known an Islamic group who proudly claimed to be strictly adhering to the Sunni school and their imams, and who within a period of few years completely changed their view on suicide cihad and (for then) excused those who kill children and women in the process of their cihadic attacks. I don't know how far they went with their change of "fiqh"-based ideas on cihad by now.
And why do we focus so much on the "killing" those non-fighting parties while the whole expansion of Islam left from its start a large geography filled with widows that ended up slaves and sex slaves for the rest of their lives, orphans that ended up in the same life-journey like their mothers, and older people not much in a better state?

Does Islam promote and encourage its followers to expand itself though killing others "if necessary" ?
Yes.
Did it happen?
Yes. (And mostly, if not only, so).
Will it happen again?
........
........
What abrahamic religions "really" tell of "innocent" human lives anyway?
Quran included Bible stories in which God doesn't distinguish the "guilty" from the "innocent" when it comes to mass-punishment. (God's own reasons).
And today, as always, humans and babies die from diseases, sickness and disasters "for God's own reasons" like bugs.
I think the faithful is taught not to value any human life if God's purpose is at work.

I have provided a quotation of the Sunnah with the prohibition of killing children and women. It is not difficult to find others with an Internet browser. Do it yourself, please.

Of course, the Koran and the Bible preach a war against their respective enemies. It is easy to find some brutal verses, even speaking of killing children —in the Bible at least. Some imams, rabbis and priests justify killing children in order to terrorize governments and population —this is the modern concept of terrorism. But for what I know, there is not an explicit fragment in the Koran that justifies this. Maybe I am in a mistake because I am not an expert on Islam. But I have participated in some debates on this subject and nobody has provided a relevant quotation. I have seen on TV a radical imam that was justifying killing children. He made a twisted interpretation of the literal words of his Prophet. It shows how even fervent Muslims can interpret the Koran. And many Muslims —majority I think— interpret the Koran in a different way of this radical imam. Let’s hope that this moderate interpretation be dominant in the future and let us help to make it so.

If you say that the brutality and intolerance of some passages of the Bible and the Koran are worrying, I agree. It would be better if nobody consider them as sacred books. But this is the reality and we have to cope with it in the better possible way.

 

[winter salt]

I have provided a quotation of the Sunnah with the prohibition of killing children and women. It is not difficult to find others with an Internet browser. Do it yourself, please.

Of course, the Koran and the Bible preach a war against their respective enemies. It is easy to find some brutal verses, even speaking of killing children —in the Bible at least. Some imams, rabbis and priests justify killing children in order to terrorize governments and population —this is the modern concept of terrorism. But for what I know, there is not an explicit fragment in the Koran that justifies this. Maybe I am in a mistake because I am not an expert on Islam. But I have participated in some debates on this subject and nobody has provided a relevant quotation. I have seen on TV a radical imam that was justifying killing children. He made a twisted interpretation of the literal words of his Prophet. It shows how even fervent Muslims can interpret the Koran. And many Muslims —majority I think— interpret the Koran in a different way of this radical imam. Let’s hope that this moderate interpretation be dominant in the future and let us help to make it so.

If you say that the brutality and intolerance of some passages of the Bible and the Koran are worrying, I agree. It would be better if nobody consider them as sacred books. But this is the reality and we have to cope with it in the better possible way.

You completely avoided my question.
You said:

"Terrorism is not explicit in the Koran. The Koran preaches the war against enemies of Islam, but explicitly forbid to kill women, children and elders. This is one difference between the bad effects of the Bible and the Koran among others."

I asked where in "the Qur'an" is this explicit order, not to kill women, children and elders? I'm asking you because you said it so. Not the other way around like you transformed it to "But for what I know, there is not an explicit fragment in the Koran that justifies this (you're talking about killing, not "not killing" here).

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I don't see a strong case being made for an ideology of Hussein here.

How about you simply read up on Saddam's rise to power within the Ba'athist party?

 

[David Mo]

You completely avoided my question.
You said:

"Terrorism is not explicit in the Koran. The Koran preaches the war against enemies of Islam, but explicitly forbid to kill women, children and elders. This is one difference between the bad effects of the Bible and the Koran among others."

I asked where in "the Qur'an" is this explicit order, not to kill women, children and elders? I'm asking you because you said it so. Not the other way around like you transformed it to "But for what I know, there is not an explicit fragment in the Koran that justifies this (you're talking about killing, not "not killing" here).

See the last paragraph of my comment #411.

This is the text, if you are not able to find it:
"During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children".

and:
Maliks Muwatta Book 021, Hadith Number 010.
"The caliph was simply following the instructions that he had been given by non other than the prophet Muhammad. So as we see, the prophet Muhammad ordered his Muslim community to not kill women, children, or the elderly".