Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[Carn]

They are synonyms and you have accused “leftists” to be objective supporters of Islam.
Do you understand the words “synonym” and “objective”?

You do not understand the words "without being aware".

I don’t know how Arabian State interprets this surah.

And you do not understand religion; there is little to interpret about "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula".

The only issue of interpretation is who is meant with "pagans" and which region is meant
with "Arabian Peninsula".

After resolving those two interpretation issues, the order itself is clear; one checks whether any of those classified as pagans are in the region identified as Arabian Peninsula and then removes said identified individuals from said region.

 

[Carn]

Are you joking? The Catholic Church was the largest landowner in Europe in most of the medieval era (post-Charlemagne I believe, a LONG period, mind you) It was an empire in many senses. Abbots and bishops, answering to both a sovereign and the pope, held vast and numerous fiefs in the HRE, France (which, remember, was as splintered as the HRE before the early Modern Era) and Eastern Europe (I know less here). Just as an example, the Teutonic Order alone was a major power player of the Baltic. The power vested in the Pope to crown the King of the Romans emperor, thus granting him authority to acknowledge princes as kings, was very significant in itself.

Jeez. The Pope was an immensely powerful theocratic monarch, not just a religious figurehead.

The joke is on you, if you think that by referring to the Pope's power to crown emporers, you can somehow refute that the Pope's authority is at the heart of the power of the RCC. The Pope's authority and thereby power for example to crown emporers is directly connected to the Pope in the eyes of catholic being vested with power by the words of God making him God's representative on earth.

And you did not answer in any way that the lack of such a central authority figure in Islam might be compensated by instead of having a guy made by God's word his representative having directly the unaltered word from God/Allah specifically spelling out numerous laws to govern society.

 

[Carn]

We can blame those that don't are able to revising the Koran through contemporary morality.

Will you ever notice?

The Koran is the unaltered word from God/Allah/the Creator/the big boss vastly more intelligent, wise, clever, merciful, ... than anything any human can ever offer.

Hence, "revising the Koran" is religiously at best difficult and at worst impossible, because by "revising the Koran" one is constantly in the risk of trying to put oneself above the supreme intelligent, wise, clever, merciful, all-knowing, eternal, all-powerful being; AND accidentally the Koran comprises some verses which unrevised have certain suggestions how to deal with people doing such a thing.

It is fascinating how you are aware, that "revising the Koran" would be necessary to resolve some of the problems we talk about here, how you are aware, that the Koran is considered the unaltered word from the supreme one, and how you are aware, that those fundamentalist trying to preserve the unrevised are prone for violence, and yet you are absolutely unable to connect the dots and conclude that

we have in form of the Koran one of the more challenging problems for mankind when trying to leave religous violence behind.

 

[David Mo]

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(…)

Note that the Islamic terrorism comes mainly from Sunni organizations. What I was arguing was:
1. There is a contradiction in the Koran/Sunnah between some good and bad precepts.
2. There is a contradiction between many Islamic precepts and modern Muslim life.
3. In the facts, majority of Muslims have abandoned strict koranic precepts.
4. This implies that Muslims need to choose between “moderate” and radical interpretations of Islam.
5. We have some moral and political duty to help those that are in the way of a moderate Islam.
6.This doesn’t forbid us the criticism but commits ourselves in a not offensive debate about Islam that depends of the attitude of the opposite side.

All these considerations are equally applicable to other religions.

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.

Unfortunately, this is a too optimistic statement. Many secular ideologies are not subject to auto-test. And human values are not strictly testable. The difference is that many crimes committed in the name of secular ideas are hidden under a layer of propaganda in “ethical” language. We are horrified by manual bombs but we are more insensitive when the bombs are dropped from ultra-sophisticated airplanes.

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.

“Serious”? “Intransigent” or “fundamentalist” are better words. Many “serious” Muslims are peaceful people. This is the same about “serious” Christians. It depends of how they solve their religious contradictions. And this depends mainly of environmental circumstances and character.
You concede to the Koran more power than really has.

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.

This an unfounded supposition. The only man that dropped a nuclear bomb on innocent civilians —two, in reality— was a democratically elected President of a “civilized” country. And there is another President of this civilized country that has said not to be particularly concerned if he had to use nuclear weapons. I am scared of any fanatic with this awful power whatever his ideology could be.

 

[Carn]

Excuse me, but the Bible is also the word of God for any Christian.

It is wrong in several respects to think that Bible is to Christians as Koran to Muslims.

The most obvious and important:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_(Christianity)
"In Christology, the Logos (Greek: Λόγος, lit. ''Word", "Discourse", or "Reason'')[1] is a name or title of Jesus Christ, seen as the pre-existent second person of the Trinity."

"14The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us."

 

[David Mo]

Hence, "revising the Koran" is religiously at best difficult and at worst impossible, because by "revising the Koran" one is constantly in the risk of trying to put oneself above the supreme intelligent, wise, clever, merciful, all-knowing, eternal, all-powerful being

If this would be true Muslims were applying the same precepts than n Middle Ages. This is not true, therefore your statement is false. Muslims actually interpret the Koran.
The same is valid for the Bible and other religious ancient texts.

 

[David Mo]

It is wrong in several respects to think that Bible is to Christians as Koran to Muslims.

The most obvious and important:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_(Christianity)
"In Christology, the Logos (Greek: Λόγος, lit. ''Word", "Discourse", or "Reason'')[1] is a name or title of Jesus Christ, seen as the pre-existent second person of the Trinity."

"14The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us."

The Logos is only introduced by the fourth gospel as a God's emmanation (Plotinism).

Jesus Christ is God for Christians and his word is the Word of God. So sacred as the Prophet's word for Muslims.

And the Bible is God's word revelaed to prophets and kings.

What are you trying to say? I don't see any difference. Develop your idea, please.

 

[Carn]

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

Thank you for enjoying one of those funny discussions, wherein apologist or even non-muslim apologist try to convince ex-muslims or secular muslims that

no, Mohammed was not that bad, he was not the ultimate monster you make him to be; he was just a rather traditional with some reform elements mixed in 7th century religious leader, political ruler and warlord.


I would just like to see one day, what that argument is actually aimed at.

You know, how - after they have convinced you that Mohammed was no monster but just a not that out of the norm 7th century warlord - they make their case that you should not be chilled right to the bone by literally millions or dozens of millions of Muslims taking him as a model to emulate.

Never seen that argument.

 

[Carn]

The Logos is only introduced by the fourth gospel as a God's emmanation (Plotinism).

Jesus Christ is God for Christians and his word is the Word of God. So sacred as the Prophet's word for Muslims.

And the Bible is God's word revelaed to prophets and kings.

What are you trying to say? I don't see any difference. Develop your idea, please.

You talk about these things as if you had no religious upbringing.

I had a catholic one; and no, in catholicism neither today nor a thousands years ago anyone would have considered scripture to be treated as if every single word was literally dictated by God.

If you do not see any difference between how Christians see the Bible and how Muslims see the Koran, then you simply have rather limited knowledge about one or both religions.

 

[David Mo]

You talk about these things as if you had no religious upbringing.

I had a catholic one; and no, in catholicism neither today nor a thousands years ago anyone would have considered scripture to be treated as if every single word was literally dictated by God.

If you do not see any difference between how Christians see the Bible and how Muslims see the Koran, then you simply have rather limited knowledge about one or both religions.

I got an ultra-Catholic upbringing till my age of majority. I have been taught that the Bible is God's word and one have to believe it with the aid of the Church's teaching. If you didn't understand anything you have to believe what the Church says. And if you continued to understand nothing this was your problem because you are not able to understand God's word and you have to confess immediately your sinner doubts.

I don't see many difference with the belief in the Koran.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The joke is on you, if you think that by referring to the Pope's power to crown emporers, you can somehow refute that the Pope's authority is at the heart of the power of the RCC. The Pope's authority and thereby power for example to crown emporers is directly connected to the Pope in the eyes of catholic being vested with power by the words of God making him God's representative on earth.

The power of... very, very many monarchs historically was tied to them being "God's representative" in one way or another. Do you understand the significance of being "the largest landowner in Europe"? Or the incredibly intimate connection between the church, and royal power? Or how important the clergy were as administrators in realms? The important thing is that the Church had an immense ability to enforce its views even on very powerful subjects. This obviously leads to some developments peculiar to this situation.

Your aside about the Qur'an being "God's literal word" is a non sequitur.

 

[winter salt]

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."




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.

While you know that to all whom Mohammad positively matters (over a billion) he is not "a man of his time and place" but "the representative of "the creator of everyhing" to be followed by all untill the end of time" to play into the hands of muslim apologetic agenda is not something I will ever respect. Therefore as long as you keep quoting Quranic verses in his defense I will respond with a "whack-a-sura" to you. The verse you mentioned is so bad only a devout muslim could not see it. It tells not the slaves to free themselves and their offspring from the state of slavery at whatever cost, it tells their Arab masters to consider making a deal with them as if the slave is in a position of earning "that?" payment. Big deal, Allah could as well recommend a slave master to not beat his slave to death if he saw "a good in them". It's a complete joke. Imagine the exhilliration the slaves felt upon the "revelation" of this verse.

In the verse you quoted it's not clear if you can actually rape your slave girls. It only recommends the slave owner not to force them into prostution if they "prefer" to stay "chaste". But other verses are clear on the rape issue. Such as this one :
"And those who guard their private parts, except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess-- for these surely are not to be blamed"
Qur'an 70:29-30
Have you noticed in the verse you quoted it ends with forgiveness and mercy that is directed to the prostitute slave girl. And no threat of hell fire or stoning or beating for the pimp master. How bad can "revelation" get.

The main issue you are ignoring here is Mohammad and his message is not bound with time and place in the minds of his followers. Your evoluation of him in that context is deficient and misleading.

 

[winter salt]

Thank you for enjoying one of those funny discussions, wherein apologist or even non-muslim apologist try to convince ex-muslims or secular muslims that

no, Mohammed was not that bad, he was not the ultimate monster you make him to be; he was just a rather traditional with some reform elements mixed in 7th century religious leader, political ruler and warlord.


I would just like to see one day, what that argument is actually aimed at.

You know, how - after they have convinced you that Mohammed was no monster but just a not that out of the norm 7th century warlord - they make their case that you should not be chilled right to the bone by literally millions or dozens of millions of Muslims taking him as a model to emulate.

Never seen that argument.

I so agree that this is a funny discussion. For the exact reason you already stated. I found it easier to debate with my x-"still-Muslim"-friends. They all after a few exchange at least threatened me with Allah's wrath and deleted me.
These guys are different. They are here for the joy. They don't get angry either. I guess that's a good thing. Because I am tired of debates that end with personal attacks or even worldly and heavenly threats.

 

[winter salt]

If this would be true Muslims were applying the same precepts than n Middle Ages. This is not true, therefore your statement is false. Muslims actually interpret the Koran.
The same is valid for the Bible and other religious ancient texts.

Muslims do not interpret the Koran in favor of modernism. They are abandoning it in its cruel, absurd, unacceptable and immoral orders for shame.
No tafsir (interpretation) of Koran which doesn't refer itself to the few first tafsirs is well-received by the Muslim masses. But still most Muslims while they do not literally follow Koran with its "correct" interpretation that is the way Mohammad and his friends understood it and the early tafsirs recorded it, they will not say anything against it for fear of becoming an apostate.

 

[Thor 2]

Will you ever notice?

The Koran is the unaltered word from God/Allah/the Creator/the big boss vastly more intelligent, wise, clever, merciful, ... than anything any human can ever offer.

Hence, "revising the Koran" is religiously at best difficult and at worst impossible, because by "revising the Koran" one is constantly in the risk of trying to put oneself above the supreme intelligent, wise, clever, merciful, all-knowing, eternal, all-powerful being; AND accidentally the Koran comprises some verses which unrevised have certain suggestions how to deal with people doing such a thing.

It is fascinating how you are aware, that "revising the Koran" would be necessary to resolve some of the problems we talk about here, how you are aware, that the Koran is considered the unaltered word from the supreme one, and how you are aware, that those fundamentalist trying to preserve the unrevised are prone for violence, and yet you are absolutely unable to connect the dots and conclude that

we have in form of the Koran one of the more challenging problems for mankind when trying to leave religous violence behind.

Yes exactly!

And until we recognise this we cannot hope to address the problem. As compassionate people, we cannot turn our backs on the needy who are Muslim, but we have to accept that Islam is the problem. The politicians who make the "correct" noises like saying "Islam is a religion of peace" don't help one bit.

One of the answers is to put barriers in place to make it difficult to teach Islam to Children, (as well as any other religion), and encourage interaction between kids of different religious backgrounds.

Another would be to show how adherence to religious doctrine, is just not conducive to harmonious life in our society. Maybe we have to meet this head on and bring it out front for everyone to see.

 

[David Mo]

I so agree that this is a funny discussion. For the exact reason you already stated. I found it easier to debate with my x-"still-Muslim"-friends. They all after a few exchange at least threatened me with Allah's wrath and deleted me.
These guys are different. They are here for the joy. They don't get angry either. I guess that's a good thing. Because I am tired of debates that end with personal attacks or even worldly and heavenly threats.

Muslims do not interpret the Koran in favor of modernism. They are abandoning it in its cruel, absurd, unacceptable and immoral orders for shame.
No tafsir (interpretation) of Koran which doesn't refer itself to the few first tafsirs is well-received by the Muslim masses. But still most Muslims while they do not literally follow Koran with its "correct" interpretation that is the way Mohammad and his friends understood it and the early tafsirs recorded it, they will not say anything against it for fear of becoming an apostate.

It is amazing that you prefer an insulting opponent to a polite and calm one. I won't to enter in a game of aggression. It is not my way. You can continue as you want.

Yes, forums degenerate frequently in a cockfight without many reasons. Even the so called “rationalists” seem to have hidden needs to entering in a continuous battle. You can see here some examples. Maybe your erroneous idea of what a Muslim is comes from these forums that you mention

You cannot say that Muslims defend always the literal interpretation of the Koran and that they change their view because of “shame”. You contradict yourself: either they change or don't change. It doesn’t matter if Muslims are changing their view of some conflictive passages of the Koran because of rationality or shame, as you said. Shame is also a moral emotion and very effective in changing moral and political points of view of Muslims and everybody.

You cannot say that Muslims are intrinsically fundamentalists. There are many important Islamists organizations in Europe that have manifested many times if favor of democracy and against terrorism. Furthermore, I remember you that the “Arab Spring” was undertaken in behalf of freedom and democracy. And it was brutally repressed with the indifference or support of Western powers.

It remains a worrying point that I have mentioned earlier: the tendency to impose their religious beliefs on political society. This is an objection not only to Muslims but also to other religious people and hierarchies in general. In my country the Catholic church has highs levels of power and enjoys privileges that enable it to interfere continuously in social life. I assure you that this activity worries me much more that Muslims influences —except punctual acts of terrorism, of course.

The way that Islam evolves in Europe and other areas will depend to a large extent of our answer to the Muslims’ social requirements. If we continue to marginalize and consider them as an enemy of Western democracies, we will continue to fostering the most regressive tendencies of Islam.

NOTE: I would appreciate if you cease to call me “a guy”. My English is not good but I suspect that this is not a kind word. Thank you.

 

[Carn]

I have been taught that the Bible is God's word and one have to believe it with the aid of the Church's teaching.
...
I don't see many difference with the belief in the Koran.

To compare our two statements:
"scripture to be treated as if every single word was literally dictated by God"


You notice, that with the bible on supposedly should seek the aid of the church? You notice that saying the bible is God's word usually does not imply that every single word therein is dictated by him?

Both make a huge difference in how the bible is approached compared to koran.


Maybe - as you had a catholic upbringing - i try to make my point by pointing to a discussion currently taking place in RCC; the discussion about how to treat divorced and remarried; there is quite a debate going on with even some talking about a new coming schisma; why?

Because unlike usually in religious discussions about the bible it is not about inspired words, parabels or the like, where interpretation is an obvious need (and hence, the aid of the church is suggested), there are supposedly verbatim quotes by Jesus aka God himself that divorcing and marring someone else and staying with that new one is adultery; there is little to interpret; the lord called it adultery, so it - usually - is adultery (unless something can be wiggled from special situation or translation issues).

A single sentence considered to be verbatim from god and even minor meddling with the issue might produce a schisma.

That is what verbatim statements from god are to believers; for the believer such a statement verbatim from god is not set in stone, cause stone withers too fast; it is treated like being burnt into one's skin, engraved into one's bones, not to be disrepected, not to be breached; and hence, even slight issues of different interpretations and at least verbally every believer (who cares about his/her faith) is ready to take up arms.

A lot of sentences/statements in the bible are not of that type; for example the entire stories of the apostles and their letters is not verbatim dictated by god and furthermore often describes just what happened and even contains stuff like greetings to those some letter was sent to; nobody cares about slight disagreements there. The old testament is to large part a description of what supposedly happened like Jews fleeing from enslavement in Egypt, some people being slaughtered when they come to the promised land, etc.

Very few sentences in the bible are actually god verbatim; but as the example of divorce currently shows, this have the power to produce discussions, strive and schisma even by mild interpretation divergences.


And the Koran is an entire book full of god verbatim; thousands of statements each with the ability to be a source of strive if even mild interpretation differences arise.

The only thing coming close to what the koran is, is what the bible is to some protestants; but even they come short of considering every word verbatim from god.

I would appreciate if you cease to call me “a guy”. My English is not good but I suspect that this is not a kind word. Thank you.

The only unkind things about that word would be, that the word assumes you are biological male and that thereby it presses you into that despicable heteronormative world view that there are only two biological determined genders and not like enlighten facebook tells us some 40 something different genders, which one can select and change by clicking.

 

[Carn]

Your aside about the Qur'an being "God's literal word" is a non sequitur.

You like David Mo seem to be unaware about the difference there is between some guys some 10-60 years after the fact collecting stories about what god said and did and having a book wherein every single word was dictated by god.

 

[winter salt]

NOTE: I would appreciate if you cease to call me “a guy”. My English is not good but I suspect that this is not a kind word. Thank you.

I hesitated in writing those remarks, but did it anyway. Wasn't sure if it came across rude. So I am sorry if I insulted anyone in the process of stating my observation. My observation is basically this. There were populations conquered by this "divine" ideology and in the process of their subjugation and conversion some of their members suffered rape and slavery and murder, sanctioned by the "divine message". And the latest visible application of this ideology can be seen in this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii4zbNLZXcw
of course that was ISIS, but you need to explain to me how different it was in the early years of islam than this, excepting the machine guns, and modern vehicles.
So maybe I am a little zealous in opposing this "divine" ideology in the light of what i see on the screen and in my imagination while reading passages from Koran and Hadith, while non of my family members suffered in this way, I am loosing respect for intelligent people like yourself when I feel like they make the blatantly evil aspects of this "divine" ideology even slightly less blatantly evil than they are, and thus it reflects to my language.
But your English is much superior to mine as well as your knowledge of the world and I wouldn't get my point diverted into the areas you have been enticing me to. Because I am no match to your rhetorical powers backed with your worldly knowledge . Unfortunately my youth intellectual energy was high-jacked by this religion and its theology that in that period it left no time and desire to learn anything much outside religion.
By the way you do have good points that I have not acknowledged. But I am limited with time I can spend here recently and I focus more on the big issues..

 

[metacristi]

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.

And yet postmodernism has everything to do with the current uncritical attitude in the West toward islam, a main catalyser of Islamic fundamentalism and yes, indirectly at least, of Islamic terrorism. If you paid more attention to what I said you'd have seen that I was referring to what WE can do to solve this problem durably. Self censorship and waiting ad infinitum for a solution coming entirely from inside the Islamic community* is not what the existing evidence indicate as being rational I'm afraid. Finally basically ignoring the role of the Islamic religious ideology in the creation of the problem via searching ad infinitum for non religious 'root causes' is a huge mistake.


* with strong roots in cultural relativist postmodernist ideology, leading to incommensurability impotence via 'who are we to criticize, what metric give us the right to criticize?'