Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[Thor 2]

Cynical? Maybe realist. Of course, some exceptions don’t refute the norm.

But you said:

Every ideology is linked to the "lust" of power .....

And I gave you a couple of examples suggesting otherwise.

There is not dictatorship without ideology. Hitler, Stalin, the Queen... -oh, sorry, the Queen of Babylon, I want to say.


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.

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

.......

And here again, on the other side of the coin, I suggested you can have dictatorship without ideology. A dictator may seize power if he is in charge of the military for example, without the need for followers lured by ideological themes.

 

[Thor 2]

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

There are parts of the Bible that quote words supposedly spoken by God, and others spoken by the man/god Jesus, but there are many other parts that are not. Paul's substantial contribution is a good example. The Koran on the other hand is believed by Muslims to be the actual word of god who spoke directly to Mohamed.

I don't know why I must say it over again as this is an obvious point. A point stressed by Sam Harris's guest Sarah Haider, and implied by the words of winter salt, who speaks with some authority as an ex Muslim.

Allegorizing Islam is impossible unless one can lie to himself/herself. And the suggestion of it makes serious Muslims furious.

When we take into consideration the inflexibility in the mind of the Muslim, about how to deal with the instructions from their sacred scripts, the extraordinary adherence to those instructions is understood.

The following article from The Washington Post is worth reading:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lty-for-leaving-islam/?utm_term=.5bebaf18b4ff

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly extrapolated *data from the Pew Research Center’s 2013 survey report, “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” regarding *the percentage of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan who support the death penalty for leaving Islam. The correct figures, based on the 2013 Pew Research Center report, are 88% of Muslims in Egypt and 62% of Muslims in Pakistan favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion.*

Aren't these figures staggering! ..... We are looking at the views of mainstream Muslims here, not a small percentage who could be described as radicalised.

 

[Thor 2]

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

Well, given that you brought Saddam into the discussion as some kind of secular ideologue the onus is on you to provide this detail I think.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Well, given that you brought Saddam into the discussion as some kind of secular ideologue the onus is on you to provide this detail I think.

OK. Saddam came to powerr by rising through the ranks in the Arabian Socialist Ba'ath Party of Iraq and particularily controlling its intelligence.

Under the guidance of his uncle he attended a nationalistic high school in Baghdad. After secondary school Saddam studied at an Iraqi law school for three years, dropping out in 1957 at the age of 20 to join the revolutionary pan-Arab Ba'ath Party, of which his uncle was a supporter.

Revolutionary sentiment was characteristic of the era in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. In Iraq progressives and socialists assailed traditional political elites (colonial era bureaucrats and landowners, wealthy merchants and tribal chiefs, and monarchists).[23] Moreover, the pan-Arab nationalism of Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt profoundly influenced young Ba'athists like Saddam.

There. Saddam was a revolutionary radical Arab nationalist ("Socialist" in this case means something like, opposed to traditional tribal/aristocratic power structures, he was not a Marxist.)

Keep in mind: "[in 1959, 2 years after Saddam joined] the Ba'ath Party had fewer than 1,000 members." This was not some power-player faction; they were revolutionary, radical youths.

 

[winter salt]

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".

Ok. Is that Quran?
Why is it so difficult for you to admit that you either made a mistake in your initial remark, or you made up a fact that supported your position while no-one was confronting you with that mistake.
You wasted my time.
You knew what i was saying all along.

 

[metacristi]

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.

In spite of this we can at least try to expose muslims to the idea that unaided Human Reason has much more importance than what they are taught via religious indoctrination, if we were to draw some lesson from History that would be that Islam needs also the counterpart of Radical Enlightenment which brought Liberal Christianity and Reform Judaism (both hardly recognizable to medieval Christians and Jews).

Sure, given the reasons you presented above, this is much more difficult to do in Islam, that's why a robust (yet rational) criticism of Islam is a necessity. I'm afraid acting merely against literalist interpretations (as done today by even the most liberal muslims) is not enough, we have to act somehow via Reason also against the inerrancy of the Quran (forcing a relaxation of the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Quran), this if we want good chances to succeed on long term. Only when there will exist a 'critical mass' of muslims capable to admit openly at least that a spirituality going well beyond Islam may be 'at work' in the world will there be good reasons to be optimistic. I'm afraid this cannot be done without our help via the aforementioned strong, yet rational, criticism of islam.

The alternative is to do nothing or to become aggressive & discrminatory toward muslims (including colonialism redvivus). None of them a good idea of course. 'En vogue' today is to do nothing important via encouraging 'authentic' (traditionalists) muslims, largely ignore the very negative doctrines of Islam and even rewrite History itself in the interest of 'cohesion' but the basis of this 'castle' is on sand and there are very good reasons to think that it won't last. The basic idea is not bad but the method is completely wrong, not surprising given that rotten parts of postmodernism are at the basis of the whole enterprise.

The most probable outcome will be more and more extremism and at least a West without some key values of Enlightenment (including right wing in power, as the only ones who dare say the truth, very conservative religious forces, not Islamic, having a strong say etc). Ironically that will lead also to the complete annihilation of the postmodernist kind of 'progressivism'. This is not a bad thing in itself but sadly the idea of a much fairer world would also be much further away than it is today. So let's better change the tactic now, there is no real way ahead if we lie ourselves and hide under the rug the big problems with Islam. Finally there can be progressivism without the excesses of today. That is based on Reason and truth (or at least the most rational choice available).

 

[David Mo]

Ok. Is that Quran?
Why is it so difficult for you to admit that you either made a mistake in your initial remark, or you made up a fact that supported your position while no-one was confronting you with that mistake.
You wasted my time.
You knew what i was saying all along.

Difficult to admit my mistake? In my comment #411 I wrote: "Therefore our mistake was not important". In the same paragraph I explained that it was not important because this hadith is set out in the Sunnah that is the second holy Book of Islam together with the Koran.

Of course, I supposed that you were thinking that, but if you don't say what you are actually thinking in a direct way I cannot answer to questions that are not asked. If you want a fair debate speak frankly, please.

 

[David Mo]

In spite of this we can at least try to expose muslims to the idea that unaided Human Reason has much more importance than what they are taught via religious indoctrination, if we were to draw some lesson from History that would be that Islam needs also the counterpart of Radical Enlightenment which brought Liberal Christianity and Reform Judaism (both hardly recognizable to medieval Christians and Jews).

Sure, given the reasons you presented above, this is much more difficult to do in Islam, that's why a robust (yet rational) criticism of Islam is a necessity. I'm afraid acting merely against literalist interpretations (as done today by even the most liberal muslims) is not enough, we have to act somehow via Reason also against the inerrancy of the Quran (forcing a relaxation of the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Quran), this if we want good chances to succeed on long term. Only when there will exist a 'critical mass' of muslims capable to admit openly at least that a spirituality going well beyond Islam may be 'at work' in the world will there be good reasons to be optimistic. I'm afraid this cannot be done without our help via the aforementioned strong, yet rational, criticism of islam.

The alternative is to do nothing or to become aggressive & discrminatory toward muslims (including colonialism redvivus). None of them a good idea of course. 'En vogue' today is to do nothing important via encouraging 'authentic' (traditionalists) muslims, largely ignore the very negative doctrines of Islam and even rewrite History itself in the interest of 'cohesion' but the basis of this 'castle' is on sand and there are very good reasons to think that it won't last. The basic idea is not bad but the method is completely wrong, not surprising given that rotten parts of postmodernism are at the basis of the whole enterprise.

The most probable outcome will be more and more extremism and at least a West without some key values of Enlightenment (including right wing in power, as the only ones who dare say the truth, very conservative religious forces, not Islamic, having a strong say etc). Ironically that will lead also to the complete annihilation of the postmodernist kind of 'progressivism'. This is not a bad thing in itself but sadly the idea of a much fairer world would also be much further away than it is today. So let's better change the tactic now, there is no real way ahead if we lie ourselves and hide under the rug the big problems with Islam. Finally there can be progressivism without the excesses of today. That is based on Reason and truth (or at least the most rational choice available).

I don't know what posmodernism has to do with Islamic fundamentalism. I don't think that Kristeva, Todorov, Derrida, Deleuze or Vattimo had given any support to Islam. On the contrary, I think that Muslims don't like the posmodern relativism at all.

 

[winter salt]

Difficult to admit my mistake? In my comment #411 I wrote: "Therefore our mistake was not important". In the same paragraph I explained that it was not important because this hadith is set out in the Sunnah that is the second holy Book of Islam together with the Koran.

Of course, I supposed that you were thinking that, but if you don't say what you are actually thinking in a direct way I cannot answer to questions that are not asked. If you want a fair debate speak frankly, please.

You could've said that long time ago instead of not answering my repeated questioning. Anyhow that answer is wrong anyway.
Half the Muslim world doesn't accept those six books as source for their religion while they agree on Quran as a block. Therefore it was very important for you to reverse your mistake as loudly as you committed it.

 

[winter salt]

Difficult to admit my mistake? In my comment #411 I wrote: "Therefore our mistake was not important". In the same paragraph I explained that it was not important because this hadith is set out in the Sunnah that is the second holy Book of Islam together with the Koran.

Of course, I supposed that you were thinking that, but if you don't say what you are actually thinking in a direct way I cannot answer to questions that are not asked. If you want a fair debate speak frankly, please.

I'd like to also know who do you mean when you say ""our" mistake". Are you talking on behalf of a group? I never heard anyone in my life making your mistake..
Also since you corrected it as being in Hadith, as you know Shia Muslims and some others do not accept those hadith books, and there's a growing movement in the Sunni world that get away from those books. Since there are some really absurd advises in them, such as drinking camel urin for sickness. So what happens if the whole sunni world discards them? The advise not to kill the innocent in war goes with them, you think?

 

[Thor 2]

OK. Saddam came to powerr by rising through the ranks in the Arabian Socialist Ba'ath Party of Iraq and particularily controlling its intelligence.



There. Saddam was a revolutionary radical Arab nationalist ("Socialist" in this case means something like, opposed to traditional tribal/aristocratic power structures, he was not a Marxist.)

Keep in mind: "[in 1959, 2 years after Saddam joined] the Ba'ath Party had fewer than 1,000 members." This was not some power-player faction; they were revolutionary, radical youths.

Thanks for the info.

If the Ba'ath Party had fewer than 1000 members, then it would seem improbable that Saddam was carried into power, on the shoulders of adoring, ideology driven, members.

 

[David Mo]

I'd like to also know who do you mean when you say ""our" mistake". Are you talking on behalf of a group? I never heard anyone in my life making your mistake.

.
"Our": The other person who was speaking with me and myself. I am not a spokesman of anybody.

Also since you corrected it as being in Hadith, as you know Shia Muslims and some others do not accept those hadith books, and there's a growing movement in the Sunni world that get away from those books. Since there are some really absurd advises in them, such as drinking camel urin for sickness. So what happens if the whole sunni world discards them? The advise not to kill the innocent in war goes with them, you think?

Half the Muslim world doesn't accept those six books as source for their religion while they agree on Quran as a block.

I put a source that claimed that the Sunnah is a sacred book for almost all Muslims. "Sunni" just means adept of the Sunnah and 85% Muslims are sunnies. The main terrorist organizations of the last years -Al Qaeda and Isis- claim to be sunnies, therefore adepts to the Sunnah. What are your sources that deny this?
If the Sunnah is a main source of belief of almost all Islamic terrorists and the Sunnah forbid killing children, women and elderly, I have not to change my previous arguments.

We might hope that the necessary-moderate interpretations/revisions of Islam don’t affect the good precepts of the Sunnah. Have you any evidence against?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Thanks for the info.

If the Ba'ath Party had fewer than 1000 members, then it would seem improbable that Saddam was carried into power, on the shoulders of adoring, ideology driven, members.

??? What does that have to do with anything? Clearly Saddam wss an ideologue. Could anything convince you of this?

 

[winter salt]

.
"Our": The other person who was speaking with me and myself. I am not a spokesman of anybody.


I put a source that claimed that the Sunnah is a sacred book for almost all Muslims. "Sunni" just means adept of the Sunnah and 85% Muslims are sunnies. The main terrorist organizations of the last years -Al Qaeda and Isis- claim to be sunnies, therefore adepts to the Sunnah. What are your sources that deny this?
If the Sunnah is a main source of belief of almost all Islamic terrorists and the Sunnah forbid killing children, women and elderly, I have not to change my previous arguments.

We might hope that the necessary-moderate interpretations/revisions of Islam don’t affect the good precepts of the Sunnah. Have you any evidence against?

I thought the person that was asking you to prove that the Quran explicitly prohibits the killing of the innocent in cihat was disagreeing with you. So you include him in the group that commit that mistake. That's funny.
I didn't start the post to debate the percentages of Muslims who accept Bukhari books that were written a century after the Qur'an or not.
It only takes one person to bring a dirty b to a major city. And i wouldn't worry if that person follows imam bukhari or not. I'd worry if he follows the Qur'an.

 

[winter salt]

.
"Our": The other person who was speaking with me and myself. I am not a spokesman of anybody.


I put a source that claimed that the Sunnah is a sacred book for almost all Muslims. "Sunni" just means adept of the Sunnah and 85% Muslims are sunnies. The main terrorist organizations of the last years -Al Qaeda and Isis- claim to be sunnies, therefore adepts to the Sunnah. What are your sources that deny this?
If the Sunnah is a main source of belief of almost all Islamic terrorists and the Sunnah forbid killing children, women and elderly, I have not to change my previous arguments.

We might hope that the necessary-moderate interpretations/revisions of Islam don’t affect the good precepts of the Sunnah. Have you any evidence against?

I thought the person that was asking you to prove that the Quran explicitly prohibits the killing of the innocent in cihat was disagreeing with you. So you include him in the group that commit that mistake. That's funny.
I didn't start the post to debate the percentages of Muslims who accept Bukhari books that were written a century after the Qur'an or not.
It only takes one person to bring a dirty b to a major city. And i wouldn't worry if that person follows imam bukhari or not. I'd worry if he follows the Qur'an.

 

[winter salt]

because you couldn't fathom yourself conceding any point in his favour?

Yea I couldn't fathom myself conceding any point in favour of Charles Manson either. Sorry.

Why?
Maybe for these,

"Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives because of their pagan husbands. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." [The Quran verse is 4:24]
Sunan Abu Dawud 2155 (Dar-us-Salam Ref)"


"Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
Sahih Muslim 8:3371"

Let me know if you need more reasons, there are plenty of Hadith books that go along with Quran to draw reasons from.

 

[David Mo]

I thought the person that was asking you to prove that the Quran explicitly prohibits the killing of the innocent in cihat was disagreeing with you. So you include him in the group that commit that mistake. That's funny.
I didn't start the post to debate the percentages of Muslims who accept Bukhari books that were written a century after the Qur'an or not.
It only takes one person to bring a dirty b to a major city. And i wouldn't worry if that person follows imam bukhari or not. I'd worry if he follows the Qur'an.

You provided an estimate of the acceptance of the Sunnah by Muslims that you have not supported in any quotation or data. Don't say now that you are not interested in percentages.

I am worried about people be killed by bombs, machine guns or torture. I am interested in ideologies that justify the death of innocent people, whether for religious or political reasons. I believe that Islam is not the only ideology that pushes people to kill, nor is the Koran the only holy book that serves to justify murder and other crimes against humanity.

The obsession with talking about Islamic terrorism as an isolated cause of unjustifiable killings seems biased to me. I think it reveals a very useful Manichean simplism useful to cover up one's own shames. And within that, the obsession for bringing all Muslims into the same sack of intolerance and criminality is far more pernicious than it seems at first glance. And dangerous.

I think that we have discussed this in the precedent pages of this thread. I don't think your opinion brings any new.

 

[Thor 2]

??? What does that have to do with anything? Clearly Saddam wss an ideologue. Could anything convince you of this?

Well if you look back a bit you will see that you, and David perhaps, were making a point about all despotic leaders being, of necessity, ideologically driven. It was suggested they were carried to power, as the head of a popular ideological movement I suppose. If the Ba'ath Party that Saddam was a member of had fewer than 1000 members then it's unlikely that this was the vehicle that carried Saddam to power.

I maintain it's possible for non ideologically driven people to gain power with the only motivation being lust for power and wealth.

Conversely I maintain it is possible for some ideologically motivated people, who are not driven by lust for power and wealth, to prevail.

 

[winter salt]

You provided an estimate of the acceptance of the Sunnah by Muslims that you have not supported in any quotation or data. Don't say now that you are not interested in percentages.

Ok. What percentage would satisfy you? Should we say 10% ? That makes what, like 120 million muslims who don't accept the six sunni hadith books. Would you worry if these people start taking Quran seriously, I mean A to Z..
And what makes you think these hadith books are any better and humane than Quran? They may caution against killing the innocent in cihat but they contain quite a few stories of Mohammad and his friends raping and enslaving their captives? So you made a mistake by saying that the Quran explicitly prohibits killing women and children in war, but you are defending your position by saying the mistake is not important because the second source of islam which is hadith says it. (In tens of thousands of hadith you found one that is.) And your hadith actually have multiple permissions for raping women and enslaving them and children. I can see how much better the hadith is. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make this visible for everyone. Here are the couple samples I mentioned in a previous post:

"Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives because of their pagan husbands. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." [The Quran verse is 4:24]
Sunan Abu Dawud 2155 (Dar-us-Salam Ref)"


"Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
Sahih Muslim 8:3371"

I am worried about people be killed by bombs, machine guns or torture. I am interested in ideologies that justify the death of innocent people, whether for religious or political reasons. I believe that Islam is not the only ideology that pushes people to kill, nor is the Koran the only holy book that serves to justify murder and other crimes against humanity.

Isn't this statement the reason for this thread?
I don't put the political or secular ideologies in the same class with religious ideologies. Religious ideologies are much harder to be corrected than harmful secular ones. Secular ideologies come and go in a trial and error fashion. Religious ideologies take thousands of years and hundreds of generations to either disappear of be reformed and get benign. The reason Islam deserves special attention amongst religious ideologies in my opinion is the obvious nature of it. Just go read the Quran. Or try to insult its followers or prophet anywhere in the world.

The obsession with talking about Islamic terrorism as an isolated cause of unjustifiable killings seems biased to me. I think it reveals a very useful Manichean simplism useful to cover up one's own shames. And within that, the obsession for bringing all Muslims into the same sack of intolerance and criminality is far more pernicious than it seems at first glance. And dangerous.

I don't think this was towards me. But while I won't criminalize all muslims "I know first hand" that its scriptures have the power and influence to radicalize any muslim who decides to get serious about their religion. Therefore I am very outspoken about the religion being not the word of the God most muslims believe in their heart. A muslim who wants to get serious about their religion has to confront the God in his mind with the God of the Quran and make a big decicion.

The obsession with talking about Islamic terrorism as an isolated cause of unjustifiable killings seems biased to me. I think it reveals a very useful Manichean simplism useful to cover up one's own shames. And within that, the obsession for bringing all Muslims into the same sack of intolerance and criminality is far more pernicious than it seems at first glance. And dangerous.

I think a muslim who understands and follows the Quran literally and has a nuclear weapon is more dangerous than most other religious people who also are infatuated with dooms day scenarios, not only because of their theology, also because of the miserable state the muslim world is in at this time of history.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Yea I couldn't fathom myself conceding any point in favour of Charles Manson either. Sorry.

Why?
Maybe for these,

"Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives because of their pagan husbands. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." [The Quran verse is 4:24]
Sunan Abu Dawud 2155 (Dar-us-Salam Ref)"

cf 24:33:

"But let them who find not [the means for] marriage abstain [from sexual relations] until Allah enriches them from His bounty. And those who seek a contract [for eventual emancipation] from among whom your right hands possess - then make a contract with them if you know there is within them goodness and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you. And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful."

"Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
Sahih Muslim 8:3371"

Let me know if you need more reasons, there are plenty of Hadith books that go along with Quran to draw reasons from.

It's unclear to me what "Muhammed" is supposed to be saying here (what is "it"?). Anyway, presumably 24:33 applies here as well.

I'm not interested in continuing to play whack-a-sura with you, however. I've never claimed that the Qur'an is some sort of ultra-progressive document or that Muhammad was absolutely awesome. He was a man of his time and place.