To Islam, From an Agnostic

[Frozenwolf150]

First off, you should already be aware of my stance on Islamic extremism. You should know that I'm the first to criticize those who want to force Sharia into the laws of the land in order to justify honor killings and executions of gays, apostates, and nonbelievers. I have no sympathy for Muslims who act like their faith overrides the rights and freedoms of others. I feel that if those violent extremists want to die so badly and get their 72 consorts, they should blow themselves up a safe distance away from everyone else.


That said, Islam has indeed been a part of my comparative religious studies. I attended a community outreach program at a mosque several years ago, and Islam was part of the curriculum in my World Religions course. The Muslims I've met are ordinary people who believe in interfaith tolerance, gender equality, and peace.

The first aspect of Islamic theology I wish to point out is that there is no "fall of man" in Islam. Humans are not born with original sin or seen as inherently sinful. Allah judges people according to their deeds, not their beliefs alone. This represents a huge rift with Pauline theology in Christianity. You won't be "saved" through death worship, and you won't accomplish anything without good works. Like Judiasm, Islam focuses on what you do.

An even more important aspect is the model of reality and what it implies about the significance of the world we live in. Medieval Christian theology, similar to Hinduism, asserts that the world we are born into is an illusion. This false world exists to distract us from the ultimate reality, which is called God (or Brahman) and the goal of our existence is to reunite with this God. In Christianity, this world is a corrupt fallen creation, and should only be used and exploited on our journey back to God. We should not be tempted by material things, and knowledge about this world only amounts to knowledge of an illusion.

Islam says the exact opposite. According to Islamic reasoning, if creation was an act of divine will, then this world is also real, and also important. This dualist model, as opposed to the strict idealism of Christianity, gave Islam a different attitude towards knowledge and the study of nature through science. Both worlds are "good" and there is no denigration of the material world. In addition, the Madhi (messiah) has yet to come, and Jesus is not considered the Madhi. Christian theology often views the world as one abandoned by the messiah, given the departure of Jesus, but Islam has no such problem.

This is the very reason why Islam underwent a period of enlightenment in the Middle Ages, with advancements in science, philosophy, medicine, the arts, and mathematics, such as the invention of algebra. At its height, the Islamic empire had free hospitals in Baghdad and surgical procedures that were advanced for the time. Islamic scholars were unafraid of studying scriptures from other religions. Their scribes preserved many ancient Greek and Jewish texts, which would otherwise have been long lost by now.

If God exists and created this world, then this world is real, and we can strive for real knowledge about it. If God doesn't exist, then this world is the only one we've got, and we have good reason to study and learn about it. Either way, knowledge is to be valued, not despised.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Interesting read. Thank you.

 

[MikeG]

What address did you put on the envelope?

 

[Craig B]

... This is the very reason why Islam underwent a period of enlightenment in the Middle Ages, with advancements in science, philosophy, medicine, the arts, and mathematics, such as the invention of algebra. At its height, the Islamic empire had free hospitals in Baghdad and surgical procedures that were advanced for the time. Islamic scholars were unafraid of studying scriptures from other religions. Their scribes preserved many ancient Greek and Jewish texts, which would otherwise have been long lost by now.

You may attribute these achievements to basic Islamic doctrines: however, these have not changed, while the Muslim world did lose its intellectual pre-eminence in the course of time and presently seems to be experiencing the greatest difficulty in keeping up with the West, either socially or technologically. Thus, some force other than these doctrines appears to be in play.

 

[cullennz]

Medieval Christian theology, similar to Hinduism, asserts that the world we are born into is an illusion. This false world exists to distract us from the ultimate reality, which is called God (or Brahman) and the goal of our existence is to reunite with this God. In Christianity, this world is a corrupt fallen creation, and should only be used and exploited on our journey back to God. We should not be tempted by material things, and knowledge about this world only amounts to knowledge of an illusion.

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but how exactly do you come up with this?

 

[TriangleMan]

You may attribute these achievements to basic Islamic doctrines: however, these have not changed, while the Muslim world did lose its intellectual pre-eminence in the course of time and presently seems to be experiencing the greatest difficulty in keeping up with the West, either socially or technologically. Thus, some force other than these doctrines appears to be in play.

While not the entire reason war was a major cause. The primary centres of Islamic learning were destroyed (Damascus, by the Mongols), disrupted (Baghdad, again the Mongols) or conquered (Cordoba, by the Christians).

Cairo would be an exception, not sure off the top of my head what happened there. Anyway I'm sure there's lots online discussing the decline of what's known as the "Golden Age" of Islam.

 

[Craig B]

While not the entire reason war was a major cause. The primary centres of Islamic learning were destroyed (Damascus, by the Mongols), disrupted (Baghdad, again the Mongols) or conquered (Cordoba, by the Christians).

Cairo would be an exception, not sure off the top of my head what happened there. Anyway I'm sure there's lots online discussing the decline of what's known as the "Golden Age" of Islam.

Let it be entirely the result of these wars. We must still ask why the Muslim world has never until now recovered its pre-eminence. Consider the Dark Ages, from the early sixth century onwards. We are entitled to ask why Western Europe took so many centuries to catch up with its previous state, while China, having suffered a similar collapse, recovered so quickly. A similar question arises with regard to a civilisation that suffered disasters in the thirteenth century. Can these explain the collapse at the time? Yes, of course. Can they explain the protracted partial eclipse of the civilisation? That's not so obvious, and other factors must be present.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Why not take up the Bahá'í_Faith^WP?

It has all the benefits of Islam and little of the historical baggage?

Certainly much more inclusive.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

You may attribute these achievements to basic Islamic doctrines: however, these have not changed, while the Muslim world did lose its intellectual pre-eminence in the course of time and presently seems to be experiencing the greatest difficulty in keeping up with the West, either socially or technologically. Thus, some force other than these doctrines appears to be in play.

In addition to what others have previously mentioned, the Islamic world, specifically the Ottoman Empire, lost its pre-eminence around the time of the colonial period. Western European powers were geographically closer to the new world than those centered in the Middle East, and better able to profit from the venture. The Ottoman Empire wasn't able to keep pace with powers like Great Britain, and by the end of WWI there was no more Ottoman Empire. However, this was due to the people's desire for a more democratic system of government; modern Turkey is a secular democracy, and one of the most progressive. Islamic scholars in Turkey have in fact been working on ways to reinterpret their scripture to better suit people living in the modern world.

There are numerous causes for the lack of progress in parts of the Islamic world today, most of which involve local conditions and old tribal customs and disputes. Often what you will see are rulings based on loose interpretations of the Hadiths, which are stories about the life of Muhammad that serve as guidelines for how Muslims should live, that merely justify the preexisting tribal laws. For example, nowhere does it say that women need to be covered head to foot in burkas, but some fringe groups force women to dress this way because that's what their tribal customs dictate. Ironically, it's based on the belief that men are weak and unable to control their sexual impulses, therefore the "sensible" thing to do is conceal women from sight.

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but how exactly do you come up with this?

In some interpretations of Christian theology, the fall of man from grace caused the fall of the entire world. The world we live in now, according to Christianity when it tries to explain the problem of evil, is corrupted. It's only through belief in Christ, the divine intercessor, that we may be saved. Of course, this lends itself to the absurdity that God would have to sacrifice himself to himself to enable him to change a rule he made himself.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

There are numerous causes for the lack of progress in parts of the Islamic world today,

What do you mean by 'progress'?

Often what you will see are rulings based on loose interpretations of the Hadiths... that merely justify the preexisting tribal laws.

What's wrong with that?

nowhere does it say that women need to be covered head to foot in burkas, but some fringe groups force women to dress this way because that's what their tribal customs dictate.

If that's their custom, who are we to say it's wrong? Try walking down the street with no pants on in any western city - and see how far you get. Then ask yourself what 'fringe group' is forcing us to dress this way because 'that's what their tribal customs dictate'.

Ironically, it's based on the belief that men are weak and unable to control their sexual impulses, therefore the "sensible" thing to do is conceal women from sight.

It's true, some men are weak and unable to control their sexual impulses. They have one solution, we have others (porn, prostitution, prison...). Which is best?

The world we live in now, according to Christianity when it tries to explain the problem of evil, is corrupted. It's only through belief in Christ, the divine intercessor, that we may be saved. Of course, this lends itself to the absurdity that God would have to sacrifice himself to himself to enable him to change a rule he made himself.

Yes, it's ridiculous. Now ask yourself - how have Christian nations managed to 'progress' while Islamic nations haven't, when both religions are equally absurd? IMO it's because westerners are willing to mold their religion to fit their needs - to the point where the 'God' most of us follow today bears little resemblance to the one described in the Bible.

If God doesn't exist, then this world is the only one we've got, and we have good reason to study and learn about it.

God doesn't exist, and religions are wholly an invention of Man. However that doesn't mean that they don't have any value. A religion which evolves to suit the needs of its followers is better than one which rigidly sticks to archaic dogma. So we shouldn't be decrying those Muslims who use 'loose interpretations' to fit Islam into their 'preexisting tribal laws'. If we think any of their laws are obnoxious then we should oppose those laws - not the religion that was co-opted to support them.

You should know that I'm the first to criticize those who want to force Sharia into the laws of the land in order to justify honor killings and executions of gays, apostates, and nonbelievers.

You should know that Christian groups in many western countries have similar notions - and are trying their best to force their obnoxious religious laws onto us. If you live in the US for example, you should be more concerned about the actions of Christian Fundamentalists than what Muslims might be doing on the other side of the globe.

The Muslims I've met are ordinary people who believe in interfaith tolerance, gender equality, and peace.

Yes, just like most Christians, Agnostics and Atheists. The best thing we can do for Muslims is to lead by example - practice tolerance, equality, and peace - and let them achieve 'progress' in their own way.

 

[jsfisher]

In some interpretations of Christian theology, the fall of man from grace caused the fall of the entire world. The world we live in now, according to Christianity when it tries to explain the problem of evil, is corrupted.

Why are you asserting this interpretation as the view for all of Christianity?

 

[SezMe]

Islamic scholars in Turkey have in fact been working on ways to reinterpret their scripture to better suit people living in the modern world.

Translation: Some who are not besotted with Islam recognize that it has to be "reinterpreted" because, if not, it will increasingly be seen as nonsense.

Of course, this lends itself to the absurdity that God would have to sacrifice himself to himself to enable him to change a rule he made himself.

Is that any more absurd than thinking some angel conveying the words of god would pick some itinerant, illiterate tradesman to be the recipient of god's eternal wisdom?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Why are you asserting this interpretation as the view for all of Christianity?

I didn't. In the part you quoted, I said some, not all.

Translation: Some who are not besotted with Islam recognize that it has to be "reinterpreted" because, if not, it will increasingly be seen as nonsense.

I don't disagree.

Is that any more absurd than thinking some angel conveying the words of god would pick some itinerant, illiterate tradesman to be the recipient of god's eternal wisdom?

I didn't say it was more or less absurd.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

What do you mean by 'progress'?

I was talking about the causes of Islam's loss of intellectual preeminence. If you object to my use of the word progress, then I'll be glad to rephrase it.

If that's their custom, who are we to say it's wrong? Try walking down the street with no pants on in any western city - and see how far you get. Then ask yourself what 'fringe group' is forcing us to dress this way because 'that's what their tribal customs dictate'.

It's true, some men are weak and unable to control their sexual impulses. They have one solution, we have others (porn, prostitution, prison...). Which is best?

Now you're arguing moral relativism. While you could say that we, as an outsider culture, have no business telling them it's wrong, it also holds from a modern sociological perspective that we can criticize other cultures by pointing out internal contradictions in their moral systems. The Taliban, when they were in power, forced women to follow strict dress codes and harsh regulations as part of their tribal laws. Some examples. Should we have said nothing about this? Islamic law only says to dress modestly in public, and it applies to both men and women.

Yes, it's ridiculous. Now ask yourself - how have Christian nations managed to 'progress' while Islamic nations haven't, when both religions are equally absurd? IMO it's because westerners are willing to mold their religion to fit their needs - to the point where the 'God' most of us follow today bears little resemblance to the one described in the Bible.

I never said one was more or less absurd than the other.

God doesn't exist, and religions are wholly an invention of Man. However that doesn't mean that they don't have any value. A religion which evolves to suit the needs of its followers is better than one which rigidly sticks to archaic dogma. So we shouldn't be decrying those Muslims who use 'loose interpretations' to fit Islam into their 'preexisting tribal laws'. If we think any of their laws are obnoxious then we should oppose those laws - not the religion that was co-opted to support them.

Agreed.

You should know that Christian groups in many western countries have similar notions - and are trying their best to force their obnoxious religious laws onto us. If you live in the US for example, you should be more concerned about the actions of Christian Fundamentalists than what Muslims might be doing on the other side of the globe.

It concerns me all the same.

Yes, just like most Christians, Agnostics and Atheists. The best thing we can do for Muslims is to lead by example - practice tolerance, equality, and peace - and let them achieve 'progress' in their own way.

Agreed as well.

Keep in mind, I'm studying comparative religion, which includes all groups, their beliefs, and how these affect their laws and customs. I don't believe in any gods or follow any religion, but I believe in the potential of religion to do a lot of good in the world. For me, this was a marked change in perspective, as I had previously seen all religions as detrimental to society. Islam was just another set of illogical beliefs, one I had associated with terrorism, and unrest in the Middle East. I had to open my mind in order to appreciate the contributions Islam had made to the world, and it wasn't easy for me to admit I was wrong.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I was talking about the causes of Islam's loss of intellectual preeminence. If you object to my use of the word progress, then I'll be glad to rephrase it.

I am not objecting to it, just wondering what you consider to be progress. For example, some people think that all drugs should be legalized, while others think that even tobacco and alcohol should be banned. No doubt both camps believe that their goal is 'progress'. What do you think Muslims should be moving towards? Just 'Intellectual preeminence', or are there other things they should be doing?

Now you're arguing moral relativism.

Yes, I am. The alternative is moral absolutism - which is a problem when nobody can agree on which morals are 'absolute'. The Taliban forced women to follow strict dress codes. Our dress codes may not be as strict, but we still have them. If one restrictive dress code is immoral, why is another one not?

What is right or wrong for you does not have to be the same for everybody else. Another country may have different morals and laws that don't match yours, but which suit the needs of their people. You may think you have a right to drink whatever you like, but being caught with a beer in Saudi Arabia will get you thrown in prison. Are their alcohol laws inherently wrong, or an effective way to reduce drunkenness amongst their people? Who are you to decide what is right for them?

It also holds from a modern sociological perspective that we can criticize other cultures by pointing out internal contradictions in their moral systems.

You can criticize as much as you like, but don't assume that your cultural perspective must be right. Yes, The Taliban, when they were in power, forced women to follow strict dress codes. But to them it was simply upholding a long standing tradition which is spelled out in the Qur'an.

Islamic law only says to dress modestly in public, and it applies to both men and women.

Are you sure about that?

"And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their head coverings to cover their bosoms, and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers... and not to strike their feet on the ground so as to make known what they hide of their adornments." — Qur'an Sura Nur Chapter: The Light. Verse 31

I am not saying that the Taliban should force women to wear the burqa, but we should respect their right to hold onto their traditions. Of course we think the burqa is unfairly restrictive, but we also have laws against women going topless. What is so shocking about the female breast that we have to keep it covered up in public?

For me, this was a marked change in perspective, as I had previously seen all religions as detrimental to society. Islam was just another set of illogical beliefs, one I had associated with terrorism, and unrest in the Middle East. I had to open my mind in order to appreciate the contributions Islam had made to the world, and it wasn't easy for me to admit I was wrong.

That's great! You have seen past the lies and propaganda spewing out of western media.

As you learn more about Islam you will discover that it really is a set of illogical beliefs, just like Christianity. But you should not get upset about this. Many Muslims are quite happy to select the good parts and ignore the rest - just as we have done with Christianity. It is important that we let them do this of their own accord, rather than criticizing their culture or highlighting internal contradictions in their moral systems. As a member of an outsider culture, your criticisms would be seen not just as an attack on Islam, but on all Muslims - which makes you a tool of the haters.

 

[Craig B]

Roger Ramjets, when you read that

... some fringe groups force women to dress this way because that's what their tribal customs dictate.

did you really intend to respond like this?

If that's their custom, who are we to say it's wrong? Try walking down the street with no pants on in any western city - and see how far you get. Then ask yourself what 'fringe group' is forcing us to dress this way because 'that's what their tribal customs dictate'.

What did you mean by that? The issue here is women being forced. Are you saying that's ok if it's customary to do it? As to walking about without pants being banned: that is less of a restriction than being forced to wear a burka, and it applies to both sexes, not only to women.

 

[jsfisher]

I didn't. In the part you quoted, I said some, not all.

Really? Let's do a fact check, shall we? Here is my full post with embedded quote:

In some interpretations of Christian theology, the fall of man from grace caused the fall of the entire world. The world we live in now, according to Christianity when it tries to explain the problem of evil, is corrupted.

Why are you asserting this interpretation as the view for all of Christianity?

In the first sentence, sure enough, you qualify your allegation that the fall of the entire world is an interpretation of only some Christian theologies, but in the very next sentence you abandon any qualifier at all and just go with "according to Christianity". Not "according to some parts of Christianity" or "according to these same Christian ideologies" to build on the previous sentence, but the bare "according to Christianity". If we go back to the opening post, the situation is worse.

My statement stands. Why are you asserting this interpretation as the view for all of Christianity?

 

[Skwinty]

In the first sentence, sure enough, you qualify your allegation that the fall of the entire world is an interpretation of only some Christian theologies, but in the very next sentence you abandon any qualifier at all and just go with "according to Christianity". Not "according to some parts of Christianity" or "according to these same Christian ideologies" to build on the previous sentence, but the bare "according to Christianity". If we go back to the opening post, the situation is worse.

My statement stands. Why are you asserting this interpretation as the view for all of Christianity?

You ask an interesting question.

I am not religious by any means, but my understanding is that the christian faith believes that we are living in the end times and that the world is currently under the control of satan. ie corrupted.

What other christian ideology believes otherwise?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The issue here is women being forced.

Is that really the issue? Or is it that the Taliban were doing it? Has a survey of Taliban households found that all women despise the burqa, and their husbands have to force them into it? Are all Taliban men misogynistic brutes who treat their wives like dirt? Or is wearing the burqa just a part of their culture and it doesn't bother them that much?

Why did France have to ban the burqa in order to stop women from wearing it? Was it because otherwise their husbands would beat them? If so then why did the French government have to pass a new law, couldn't they just prosecute the husbands for spousal abuse? Or perhaps some women actually prefer to wear the burqa? If so, who are the real oppressors?

To be honest, I don't know the answers to these questions. Perhaps all Taliban women are being oppressed. But I am very suspicious of the way it is being presented to us. At one time the Taliban were our allies and it wasn't an issue. Now they are our enemies and suddenly it's more proof of how evil they are. And of course this now applies to all Muslims.

There's a Christian sect around here that sticks to the Bible 'religiously'. The women cover their heads with scarves and wear long plain-colored dresses. They mostly stay at home and are forbidden from socializing with outsiders. Worldly things such as television, cellphones, and even fiction books are prohibited (not alcohol though - I've been told they drink like fish). Are they being oppressed? Does anybody care? Does the fact that they are Christian, wealthy and supported G W Bush have anything to do with it?

As to walking about without pants being banned: that is less of a restriction than being forced to wear a burka, and it applies to both sexes, not only to women.

I've bared my chest in public many times and never got into trouble for it. Could I do that if I was a woman?

 

[hgc]

... the christian faith believes ...

Problem spotted