To Islam, From an Agnostic

[Craig B]

Is that really the issue?

Yes. the only one. You responded to this statement

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

in these words

If that's their custom, who are we to say it's wrong?

I ask again, is forcing women not wrong if it's customary? By the way I am very strongly opposed to bans on the wearing of the burqa in France.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

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?

Then allow me to rephrase it. According to these same Christian ideologies when they try to explain the problem of evil, the world we live in now is corrupted. I've studied the views of Christian denominations across the board, and I know they don't all adhere to that view. Is that clearer? I didn't intend for it to mean otherwise.

 

[jsfisher]

Is that clearer? I didn't intend for it to mean otherwise.

Yes, thank you.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

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?

In Afghanistan today, they've done away with the dress codes I mentioned, as well as many of the other restrictions the Taliban had imposed. The women are certainly free to choose to cover their faces, or not, but the choice is the issue. I was using it as just one example of mistreatment of women under fanatical religious regimes. Yes, I admit I could have made a stronger case if I'd said that to begin with.

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?

I'll reiterate. According to moral relativism, outsider cultures aren't in a position to criticize based on comparisons to their own traditions. However, outsiders are still in a position to criticize based on self-contradicting laws within the culture itself. For example, if Islamic extremists are targeting women and girls for the mere offense of seeking an education, I as an outsider could point out that Muhammad's own wife was an educated business woman, therefore their cultural values are internally inconsistent.

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

Yes, both.

"Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest" (surah 24:30)

So the burden isn't entirely on the woman. In the World Religions course I mentioned earlier, the topic of separate worship areas for males and females at the mosque came up. Not only is it to prevent the men from staring at the women, but also the women from staring at the men. As a female Muslim student said to a male Muslim student, "Well, your ass in the air is distracting too!"

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.

Agreed, as long as they wear what they want to wear out of their own free choice, there shouldn't be any problem.

 

[Acleron]

Roger Ramjets. A general area where western society has progressed over Islamic nations is in tolerance. Tolerance for people who wish to live differently whether they are women, homosexuals, atheists, apostates or even of a slightly different cult. We aren't perfect by any standard but we are progressing.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Roger Ramjets. A general area where western society has progressed over Islamic nations is in tolerance. Tolerance for people who wish to live differently whether they are women, homosexuals, atheists, apostates or even of a slightly different cult. We aren't perfect by any standard but we are progressing.

That's a good point, because it touches on what I was saying originally. During the time of its intellectual preeminence, the Islamic world tolerated other religions, gave women expanded rights, and did in fact acknowledge homosexuals. Here are some specifics.

When it ruled much of Europe, the Islamic empire tolerated Christians and Jews. They were free to practice their own religions, as long as they paid a tax for it. Islam did not say Christians and Jews went to hell; they would still go to heaven, just not the best part of heaven. This point, however, is lost on Islamic extremists today.

Women were originally given more rights under Islamic law than they had under older tribal laws. They had the right to own property, to get an education, to have a professional career, and to divorce. A good source with more information. I think it's also worth pointing out that belly dancing originated in the Middle East, and was practiced by both the Saracens and the Ottomans.

Speaking of which, the Ottoman Janissaries and Egyptian Mamelukes had something else in common. They were typically European-born slave soldiers who were converted to Islam to serve as the royal guard. Homosexuality was prevalent, and possibly even encouraged, because it meant these soldiers would owe loyalty to their king, rather than any sons they'd otherwise have.

If we take progress to mean tolerance of various groups, then there's nothing within Islam that's inherently incompatible with tolerance. All you need is to look to history for examples.

 

[Humes fork]

That's a good point, because it touches on what I was saying originally. During the time of its intellectual preeminence, the Islamic world tolerated other religions, gave women expanded rights, and did in fact acknowledge homosexuals. Here are some specifics.

What propaganda have you been swallowing?

Islam was deeply intolerant to Hindus and Zoroastrians.

When it ruled much of Europe, the Islamic empire tolerated Christians and Jews. They were free to practice their own religions, as long as they paid a tax for it. Islam did not say Christians and Jews went to hell; they would still go to heaven, just not the best part of heaven. This point, however, is lost on Islamic extremists today.

This is wrong as far as I know. Jews and Christians go to hell, but not the worst part of hell.

Women were originally given more rights under Islamic law than they had under older tribal laws. They had the right to own property, to get an education, to have a professional career, and to divorce. A good source with more information. I think it's also worth pointing out that belly dancing originated in the Middle East, and was practiced by both the Saracens and the Ottomans.

Islam didn't give women more rights than in the past. This is easy to see. Muhammad's first wife Khadija was a merchant running her own business, and originally employed Muhammad. Women in modern Saudi Arabia can hardly do anything without the approval of a make relative or husband. Limitations Khadija did evidently not live under.

Speaking of which, the Ottoman Janissaries and Egyptian Mamelukes had something else in common. They were typically European-born slave soldiers who were converted to Islam to serve as the royal guard. Homosexuality was prevalent, and possibly even encouraged, because it meant these soldiers would owe loyalty to their king, rather than any sons they'd otherwise have.

It doesn't mean Islam and its scholars/theologians approve of that. Not everything taking place within Islamic lands is a direct consequence of Islam. It would be like crediting Christianity for liberal democracy.

If we take progress to mean tolerance of various groups, then there's nothing within Islam that's inherently incompatible with tolerance. All you need is to look to history for examples.

Sure.

 

[Humes fork]

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.

For some reason it is horribly persecuted by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

 

[A'isha]

What propaganda have you been swallowing?

I've often wondered the same about you.

Islam was deeply intolerant to Hindus and Zoroastrians.

For the most part Muslim rulers treated these subjects pretty much the same as Jews and Christians were treated, and even at times better (the jizya was abolished for Hindus in the Mughal Empire for over a century at one point). Though as with pretty much everything else in human history it varied by place, time, and ruler - the ancestor of the Mughal Emperors, Tamerlane, was pretty much a genocidal religious fanatic.

Islam didn't give women more rights than in the past. This is easy to see. Muhammad's first wife Khadija was a merchant running her own business, and originally employed Muhammad. Women in modern Saudi Arabia can hardly do anything without the approval of a make relative or husband. Limitations Khadija did evidently not live under.

The dark irony of the above certainly does not escape me, but even you are aware that Saudi Arabia is an outlier in this regard from other Muslim countries.

It doesn't mean Islam and its scholars/theologians approve of that. Not everything taking place within Islamic lands is a direct consequence of Islam.

Indeed.

Sure.

Why is your example something that a British-backed despot did in 1895, 1200 years after the region was dominated by Islam?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

For some reason it is horribly persecuted by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

But of course. Muslims know that the Bahia do not understand the TRUTH that Allah is the ONLY God and Mohamed is his TRUE prophet.

So mercifully they all should be killed.

Oh. The IRONY.

Idiots all.

 

[A'isha]

But of course. Muslims know that the Bahia do not understand the TRUTH that Allah is the ONLY God and Mohamed is his TRUE prophet.

So mercifully they all should be killed.

Oh. The IRONY.

Idiots all.

The adherents of offshoots of Islam, such as the Bahá'í and the Ahmadiyya, are often treated worse because they're seen as heterodox movements instead of actual separate religions. The Ahmadiyya especially suffer - Pakistan's infamous blasphemy law, for instance, was mostly instituted because its drafter and main proponent, Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, has a particular hate-on for the Ahmadiyya and specifically targeted the law at them, even though he's otherwise such an interfaith activist that his opponents have derisively nicknamed him "Tahir-ul-Padri" after the term for a Christian priest.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

What propaganda have you been swallowing?

Islam was deeply intolerant to Hindus and Zoroastrians.

Only at certain times and under certain rulers. There's nothing inherent in Islam that prevents tolerance, such as the Mughal emperor Akbar showed towards Hindus.

This is wrong as far as I know. Jews and Christians go to hell, but not the worst part of hell.

I've actually heard it both ways. There's a contradiction in the Quran about this. Moderates, like the ones I meet in everyday life, would say they go to heaven. Extremists, like the terror suspects interviewed on the news, would say they go to hell.

Islam didn't give women more rights than in the past. This is easy to see. Muhammad's first wife Khadija was a merchant running her own business, and originally employed Muhammad. Women in modern Saudi Arabia can hardly do anything without the approval of a make relative or husband. Limitations Khadija did evidently not live under.

I was again referring to Islam at its height, in order to draw a contrast with the abuses that happen today, including the ones you mentioned. In fact, my arguments would be directed towards the Saudis if we were having such a debate. For example, it's not unusual for the Saudis to engage in public beheadings, something King Saladin would never have done to captive Crusaders.

It doesn't mean Islam and its scholars/theologians approve of that. Not everything taking place within Islamic lands is a direct consequence of Islam. It would be like crediting Christianity for liberal democracy.

Of course, though my point was that some forms of Islam are still compatible with tolerance, and could still be today. To say that Islam poses no obstacle isn't the same as crediting them with these achievements.

Sure.

As ANTPogo said, this had more to do with British imperialism. They did the same exact thing in China, after all.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The adherents of offshoots of Islam, such as the Bahá'í and the Ahmadiyya, are often treated worse because they're seen as heterodox movements instead of actual separate religions. The Ahmadiyya especially suffer - Pakistan's infamous blasphemy law, for instance, was mostly instituted because its drafter and main proponent, Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, has a particular hate-on for the Ahmadiyya and specifically targeted the law at them, even though he's otherwise such an interfaith activist that his opponents have derisively nicknamed him "Tahir-ul-Padri" after the term for a Christian priest.

Yes. I know. What you say explains it. But it does not EXPLAIN it.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. (Voltaire )

 

[metacristi]

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.

Well written but I'm afraid you are completely wrong on this. First the vast majority of Christians are obviously realists. This world is very important for them (hence the curiosity to understand and master it once the Christian theology ceased to condemn curiosity as a sin, in the 13th century).

Secondly Islam has a huge theological problem with Reason*, something which ceased to be a problem at least in Western Christianity after Thomas Aquinas. Read for example The closing of the muslim mind to understand the proportion of the disaster.

I would rather put the Golden Age of islam on the fact that the early muslims decided to preserve the roman methods of administering their new provinces (not so surprising given the fact that they were illiterate and the new provinces eons ahead) and so Greek sciences could find their way in the Islamic world (especially via the non muslims in the conquered lands and the existence of some Mecean caliphs).

But when it became clear that the so called 'foreign sciences' (how nuslims always labelled Greek heritage) - Greek rational philosophy included - were actually against islam Reason totally lost. Unfortunately the de-Hellenization of islam is still with us even today (including shia islam; here, albeit in a better situation, Reason is the total 'slave' of religious traditions**, it can only confirm them, still no place for critical thinking and fallibilism at this level).


*the sunni islam is more affected but this it is very visible also in shiism for the roots for this problem go directly in the quran; I'am afraid the quran has much more support for rejecting the view that God is primarily Reason (as Christians believe)

**no surprise that the symbolic interpretation of the quran + admitting that not everything is perfect in the holy book is an ocean apart from what we see in Christianity

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Interesting. My studies only focused on the Golden Age of Islam and its contrast to Christianity at the time, but not the philosophical underpinnings leading to its de-Hellenization. Loss of the Islamic empire was attributed to the reconquest by European powers.

Are you saying modern Islam is completely incompatible with reason?

 

[A'isha]

Are you saying modern Islam is completely incompatible with reason?

It's not. There's even a specific term for it, 'aql.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

Secondly Islam has a huge theological problem with Reason*, something which ceased to be a problem at least in Western Christianity after Thomas Aquinas. Read for example The closing of the muslim mind to understand the proportion of the disaster.

Hmm. I'm not sure about either of these claims. I don't think Islam has an inherent problem with reason (although I confess that my knowledge in that area isn't as hot as it might be), and I'm sure that certain expressions of Christianity are still very antagonistic towards reason. You've surely heard of Ken Ham and AiG, and there's more where that came from - muscular forms of belief which portrays blind faith as a virtue, reason as potentially misleading, and science as the enemy.

IME, both religions are happy to use reason and science as far as it helps to support their cause, but retreat to blind faith and "you can't prove God doesn't exist" as soon as they run out of material. A selection of arguments for a young Earth from AiG and certain prominent Muslims would be all but identical. The same's true of arguments from nature against homosexuality. You could make a case for reason being well-integrated in these beliefs, or for reason being sidelined, but I don't see an easy distinction between Islam and Christianity in this context.

 

[Humes fork]

It's not. There's even a specific term for it, 'aql.

Of course it is incompatible with reason. Because there is no evidence that Islam is true, and plenty of evidence that it is false.

How is this changed in any way by the existence of an Arabic word for intellect? Why wouldn't there be an Arabic word for it? Guess what, there is a Swedish word for intellect too, which has nothing to do with Islam or any other religion.

 

[metacristi]

Interesting. My studies only focused on the Golden Age of Islam and its contrast to Christianity at the time, but not the philosophical underpinnings leading to its de-Hellenization. Loss of the Islamic empire was attributed to the reconquest by European powers.

Are you saying modern Islam is completely incompatible with reason?

I am not saying that. But in my view it is not at all an easy task given that in the Quran there is much more support for the view that Reason means basically nothing, all that count being the holy book and the traditions (no chance to make them renounce the discriminatory parts of sharia if morality is seen as what God wills + commands in the holy book and which have to be obeyed blindly). The fact that they still rely heavily on the outdated medieval schools of jurisprudence (with only minor changes) does not make me very optimistic. It may be though, at least let's hope. IF we are successful to propagate the use of Reason and critical thinking among muslim communities. Not the case at the moment.

However what it seems pretty clear to me is that merely accepting that Reason is important is not enough to really solve the problem. Fundamentalist and conservative Christians, shia muslims and so on do accept a much greater status for reason than in sunni islam but Reason is still seen there as a mere appendix to the holy book and to a great extent to religious traditions: it's use can only confirm religious traditions, still no place for critical thinking at this level.

What is needed is the next step, to accept that Reason can be sometimes more important than traditions and even the holy book, opening and keeping the door firmly open to critical thinking applied to religion. In my view islam is in a much worse position than other religions both at the level of philosophy* (also no intrinsic idea of secularism) and at the level of personal freedom (those who 'move in front' are considered a shame for the community and very often severely punished, there is no way for non trivial alternatives).

As a side note there is a reason of why the devout Christians (in a time when open atheism was inexistent) who tried in the 17 century to prove Christianity via Reason put the basis of Enlightenment and modern science and not to creationist science and religion in the constitution. Happily Christianity let much more 'gaps' to non trivial reforms and thus arriving at the conclusion that Reason is more important than tradition is much easier to reach (no surprise that the Islamic equivalent of the medieval Christian 'Great Chain of Beings' is basically intact even now).

So I definitely do not think that Modernity could have appeared equally well in the Islamic world given the huge brakes which theology put (still partially valid) to non trivial change and intellectual curiosity. Returning to our time only rational people capable to 'direct' religion where they want, to cherry pick only what is compatible with modernity, admit that some parts are no more applicable because time changed and so on can really succeed to make islam fully compatible with liberalism and secularism.

Given the existing context I'm skeptical that the time when culture will strongly shape islam (the case of other religions) and not the other way around is so close as some enthusiastic people believe...

 

[A'isha]

Of course it is incompatible with reason. Because there is no evidence that Islam is true, and plenty of evidence that it is false.

Since this is just as true for other religions as it is for Islam, I have no idea why you think it's a roadblock unique to it.

How is this changed in any way by the existence of an Arabic word for intellect? Why wouldn't there be an Arabic word for it?

Because it's not just "an Arabic word for intellect", but a specific philosophical and theological term of art.