AgnosticWeb.com - Islam

Islam (reply)

George Jelliss — Sun, 10 May 2009 18:27:25 +0000

I'd just like to draw attention to this excellent article by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a Muslim woman, on the awful situation of women in Islamic states, and the lack of protest from many Muslim women in this country. - http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibr... - "Female oppression in Islamic countries is manifestly getting worse. Islam, as practiced by millions today, has lost its compassion and integrity and is entering one of the darkest of dark ages." - "There have been enlightened times when some Muslim civilisations honoured and cherished females. This is not one of them. Across the West ... for a host of reasons ... millions of Muslims are embracing backward practices."

Islam (reply)

xris — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:59:20 +0000

I can not be so sacrosanct, sorry but how you can compare christianity and Islam is beyond my comprehension...I can not believe that Spain is being shown as a good example of Islam in power...read its history of the abuse of its slaves..When and where does Christianity request the use of war to expand christianity like Islam has given muslims the authority through Jihad..A conservative allowance of 80 million Hindus..Pagans..over three centuries where massacred by muslims...10,000 Buddhists in Afghanistan where wiped out by invading muslims..The history of Islam is covered in the blood of its vanquished and those who did not die where taken as legitimate slaves..Modern muslims draw on the same teachings and they are required by there faith to jihad...The christian crusades was a violent response to Islamic aggression not sanctioned by scriptures. Im no christian and do not defend it wholeheartedly but do me favour dont compare christian values with the barbarity of Islams teachings and history..

Islam (reply)

Carl — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:33:02 +0000

Agreed. Let us move on.

Islam (reply)

dhw — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:48:56 +0000

Carl writes: "It appears this is a topic upon which, to the extent there is disagreement, we will have to agree to disagree." - I'd agree to disagree if I thought there was any disagreement! - You: My desire is to avoid tarring all Muslims with the same brush that is used to paint the Iranian leaders and Osama Bin Laden. Me: You are right that we mustn't condemn Islam because of its extremists. - No disagreement there. - You: The enemy is not the Koran, but the primitive ignorance of some of the backward cultures which makes them interpret it literally. Me: Dependence on ancient texts, possibly on inaccurate translations and subjective interpretations, can create havoc." - No disagreement there. - The mini-wrangle over Rushdie was only because you dismissed the case as one of "rhetorical excess" as you obviously didn't know the facts. But although George and I provided you with the relevant information, at no time did we use it to suggest that all Muslims were evil! So shall we shake hands and move on?

Islam (reply)

Carl — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:50:39 +0000

Now I am aware Rushdie had an assassination attempt, although it doesn't sound as if Iran sent in its first team. But this is just a distraction, a single instance which proves nothing, like the slaughter of Croatian Muslims by Christian Serbs does not prove all Christians are evil. I vaguely recall from my college philosophy class a logic error to the effect "Socrates is a man. Socrates is wise. Therefore, all men are wise." In this case it would be "Iran is an Islamic nation. Iran is evil. Therefore, all Islamic nations are evil." My desire is to avoid tarring all Muslims with the same brush that is used to paint the Iranian leaders and Osama bin Laden. To put an ethical spin to it, it is unwise. It makes more difficult the inevitable blending of cultures between Islam and the West. As to the Koran verses, I recall a verse from the NT where Jesus admonishes his followers to pluck out their eye if it looks upon a woman with lust, but I don't see that many one-eyed Christian men walking around. The enemy is not the Koran, but the primitive ignorance of some of the backward cultures which makes them interpret it literally. They can be educated, as can the Christians, that texts written by primitive cultures cannot be interpreted literally in a modern world. It appears this is a topic upon which, to the extent there is disagreement, we will have to agree to disagree.

Islam (reply)

dhw — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:17:15 +0000

Xris drew our attention to the problems that arise from Muslim fundamentalism based on the Koran, which explicitly incites the faithful to commit violence against non-believers. In reply to my supporting post, Carl cites violent episodes in the Bible, and goes on to say: "The point is that you can't look at the old texts. You have to look at the modern reality. There are nut fringes in Islam just as there are in Christianity, but they do not define the religion. Current history shows that Jews and Christians are just as capable of dealing out mass violence as the Muslims." - We are talking at cross purposes. Abhorrence at the violence of Muslim extremists is not an attack on the moderates, and is not a defence of other religions. The point is that people do look at the old texts, and the purpose of my post was to emphasize that "dependence on ancient texts, possibly on inaccurate translations and subjective interpretations, can create havoc" That applies as much to the Bible as it does to the Koran. In any case, you can hardly defend one religion by saying others are just as bad. - In your afterthought, you suggest that the moderates keep quiet out of "misplaced religious solidarity". I'm pleased to say that in the UK many leading Muslim clerics have spoken out emphatically against all acts of terrorism. - As George and David have pointed out, your comment on the fatwa against Salman Rushdie is disingenuous. Of course the 1.5 billion Muslims were not out to get him, but we are not talking of the moderates, we are talking of the extremists, and the threat was real. In addition to the attacks mentioned by George, the Japanese translator of Satanic Verses was murdered, the Italian translator was stabbed, there were bombing attacks on a large number of bookshops, especially in the UK, and Rushdie himself was forced to live in hiding for ten years. This is not "rhetorical excess". You are right that we mustn't condemn Islam because of its extremists, just as we should not condemn Christianity or Judaism because of theirs. But when xris says that the Koranic scriptures encourage violence against non-believers, he is stating a fact, and the consequences are real and dangerous.

Islam (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:17:09 +0000

Thank you, George. You made my point. Carl,, I think you are doing alot of wishful thinking about the goodness of people around the world. It is safest for this country to remember that the world is a tough and dangerous place. That doesn't mean that our country should stop doing charitable work and stop encouraging democracy everywhere. We simply need to relate to the world with our eyes and our hearts open, and negotiate and verify.

Islam (reply)

George Jelliss — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:48:23 +0000

According to wikipedia there was a failed assassination attempt on Rushdie: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie#The_failed_assassination_attempt_and_Hezbol... - This article reports attacks on and deaths of other people associated with Rushdie: - http://kirjasto.sci.fi/rushdie.htm - "In 1993 Rushdie's Norwegian publisher William Nygaard was wounded in an attack outside his house. In 1997 the reward was doubled, and the next year the highest Iranian state prosecutor Morteza Moqtadale renewed the death sentence. During this period of fatwa violent protest in India, Pakistan, and Egypt caused several deaths."

Islam (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:57:33 +0000

A fatwah issued by a nation run by borderline psychotics to keep the citizens worked up against the west. And, Rushdi's error was breaking Muslim solidarity and criticizing Islam in public. I am not aware of any attempt by any Muslim to carry out the fatwah. - If the Rushdie fatwah is so unimportant, why did he rush to the protection of England?

Islam (reply)

Carl — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:39:11 +0000

David says of my defense of Islam: "I disagree. Just think of Salman Rushdi, and the fatwah on his head." A fatwah issued by a nation run by borderline psychotics to keep the citizens worked up against the west. And, Rushdi's error was breaking Muslim solidarity and criticizing Islam in public. I am not aware of any attempt by any Muslim to carry out the fatwah. Certainly there are examples of rhetorical excess in Muslim countries just as there are in Christian countries. For example, W. Bush and his "Axis of Evil". Again, if 1.5 billion Muslims had gone after Rushdi, they would have got him. I believe the most immediate threat to peace is Pakistan, because they already have the bomb, have missals to deliver it, military leader that are in sympathy with Islamic radicals and an extremely unstable domestic situation.

Islam (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:06:02 +0000

. > dhw says of Muslims, "No doubt the failure of moderates to respond to fundamentalists is the result of fear. I too would be reluctant to argue with someone who believes he has divine authority to cut off my head." > I disagree with that. I think it is because of a misplaced religious solidarity, a variation of the "My country, right or wrong" thinking. I think if there is anything in Islam we have to fear, it is their tendency to side with a Muslim they know is wrong against a Christian they know is right. - I disagree. Just think of Salman Rushdi, and the fatwah on his head.

Islam (reply)

Carl — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:02:29 +0000

An afterthought. dhw says of Muslims, "No doubt the failure of moderates to respond to fundamentalists is the result of fear. I too would be reluctant to argue with someone who believes he has divine authority to cut off my head." I disagree with that. I think it is because of a misplaced religious solidarity, a variation of the "My country, right or wrong" thinking. I think if there is anything in Islam we have to fear, it is their tendency to side with a Muslim they know is wrong against a Christian they know is right. The howls of protest over Abu Ghraib vs the stone silence when a suicide bombers kills Muslim children gathered around an American soldier passing out candy is an example. I think all religions do that. I can't believe that all Jews approve of all acts by the government of Israel. I don't think you can fault their courage. I am constantly stunned by their willingness to die by suicide or attacking heavy weapons with small arms and RPGs.

Islam (reply)

Carl — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:42:35 +0000

I don't know if the context of the Koran quotes would change their implication, but I don't think you can make a special case for the Koran being violent. Here is a quote from the King James version of the Bible. Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Old religious texts trend to the violent and bloody. During the sack of Jericho, a man took treasure which was supposed to go to the priests. His entire family was stoned and burned to death. This is the book that the Christians use. The point is that you can't look at the old texts. You have to look at the modern reality. There are nut fringes in Islam just as there are in Christianity, but they do not define the religion. Current history shows that Jews and Christians are just a capable of dealing out mass violence as the Muslims.

Islam (reply)

dhw — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:11:47 +0000

Xris has drawn our attention to the hatred and violence incorporated in the basic teachings of Islam, and informs us that on Muslim forums, moderates "never or hardly ever respond to the extremists in their midst". - My thanks to Xris for what I believe is the first post on this website from someone with direct experience of Muslim forums. - Sadly, the point you make is borne out by even a cursory glance at the Koran. Here are three quotes found after just five minutes' research: - 9:5 "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them." - 9:73 "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them." - 47:4 "When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads." - Carl is right when he points out that the moderates live at peace with their neighbours, and have done so for centuries, but the exhortation to violence is in the Koran itself and is a terrible reminder of how dependence on ancient texts, possibly on inaccurate translations and subjective interpretations, can create havoc. No doubt the failure of moderates to respond to fundamentalists is the result of fear. I too would be reluctant to argue with someone who believes he has divine authority to cut off my head.

Islam (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:29:54 +0000

xris is not quoting nonsense. That stuff is on the Koran, but Carl, you are right. Most Arab societies in the past understood how to handle minorities. The Turkish Empire followed Sharia law, but most regions were semi-autonomous, and left to their own way of doing things as long as the taxes were properly sent to Constantinople.

Islam (reply)

Carl — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:08:39 +0000

xris says about Islam, "The problem is the basic teachings and islamic history is one of hate, dislike and down right violence towards non believers.. it cant be denied Islam is a violent unforgiving belief..We see slaves are acceptable ,rape of slaves is acceptable, war against unbelievers is acceptable, child marriages are acceptable, stoning of adulterers is acceptable.." Xris, this is nonsense. Spain under the Moors was much more tolerant than under the Christians. Many countries in the Middle East had (before the violence of the last sixty years) blended societies of Muslim, Jew and Christians, and they co-existed peaceably, though there were some areas of discrimination. The mores of Islam are based on the Arab culture of 700 AD, and as a result are somewhat primitive, but modern Muslim are able to do the same thing modern Christians do, make the cultural adjustment to the twenty first century and keep on going. There are almost 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and if even a small minority of them rose up in violence, it would be disastrous. They are mostly moderates, although they should speak out more forcefully against the atrocities of the violent few.

Islam (reply)

xris — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:35:11 +0000

For me who has inhabited muslim forums the so called moderate muslim never or hardly ever respond to the extremists in their midst's...The problem is the basic teachings and islamic history is one of hate, dislike and down right violence towards non believers..The fundamentalists have scripture on their side it cant be denied Islam is a violent unforgiving belief..We see slaves are acceptable ,rape of slaves is acceptable, war against unbelievers is acceptable, child marriages are acceptable, stoning of adulterers is acceptable..etc ..etc ..the scriptures are there it cant be denied..

Ethics (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:37:21 +0000

There are seven states that apply the death penalty for consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex, and capital offences in Iran include "cursing the Prophet", adultery and drinking alcohol. These are moral judgment acts, made criminal by theocracies. - > All of this seems to me to raise two wider questions. Firstly, where should one draw the line between individual freedom and society's right to protect itself? God doesn't provide the answer, since different believers hear different messages. Can anyone come up with a formula? - The Torah and the New Testament both have an answer about God and about a formula. God provides the Ten Commandments for Christian and Jew, and both the Torah and the NT teach equivalently "do unto others." There is always a tension between a smoothly running society and individual rights. In the most advanced governments there is a definite separation of church and state, and safeguards follow democratic discussion. - > But what punishment fits what crime? And is justice only about punishment? - Again democratic discussion decides upon penalties that fit the acts against the state. Justice is also about rehabilitation, but Pedophiliacs have close to a 100% recidivism rate, and generally cannot be rehabbed. Life imprisonment for one act is fine and for repeated acts, death; perfectly reasonable. This shows society has to go crime by crime.

Ethics (reply)

Carl — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:36:45 +0000

Dhw says morality consists in "the right of all human beings to pursue happiness in such a way that it causes minimal harm to humanity and to other forms of life". To me, this is a definition of individual freedom rather than morality. Morality should rule out self-destructive behavior. It should also contain some encouragement to work for the betterment of society. I have written earlier of equating ethics and wisdom, so that ,for the most part, that which is unethical is also unwise. I use ethics and morality interchangeably here. Since I believe that ethics are situational and relative to the circumstance of their application, my position will be different from that of someone who believes that there is an absolute objective standard of ethics. I would not expect to find agreement between myself and a devout Christian or Muslim on this point. We simply have to agree to disagree. And yet, we must devise a compromise standard of ethics and a punishment for infraction that we can all support as public policy, even though our personal ethics will differ. This is where I disagree with George, Dawkins and Austin Dacey in their confrontational approach to religion. It is not conducive to the compromise that is necessary for a smoothly functioning society. When groups seek a pure society instead of a compromise society, it is usually done at the expense of social cohesion. However, there should be some well identified market place of ideas where views are freely exchanged with passions left at the door. This would be the place for Dawkins and others to express their objections to the religions of others. In a compromise society, no group should expect to see only their beliefs reflected in public policy. This is the distinction between public policy and personal ethics. Such policies do not deliver society to your particular version of heaven or prevent parents from raising their children to believe things that you don't agree with. It does provide a smoothly functioning society within which you can work out your own personal salvation. Dhw: "Just what should we do with criminals when we've caught them? ...what punishment fits what crime? ...is justice only about punishment?" From society's point of view, the prime purpose of justice should be deterrence of unsocial acts - to prevent repetition by the offender and discourage future offenders. A secondary purpose is vengeance for the injured so they do not seek personal vengeance. Society must agree on a standard of behavior for its citizens and enforce that standard. An overwhelming majority (90+%) of the society must support the standard and the allotted punishment for transgression. Our current debacle on drug policy is a case in point when the standard is not supported by the masses. Punishment should be the maximum that an overwhelming majority of society can agree would not be excessive. Thus, if the masses agreed that life imprisonment is not excessive for simple murder, then that should be the sentence. However, if the mass felt that life without possibility of parole would be excessive, then parole should be allowed. And ,yes, if the overwhelming majority of society agreed that defaming the Prophet justified the death penalty, such should be the case. The small minority with an overpowering urge to defame the prophet should be aware and hold their tongue.

Ethics (reply)

dhw — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:13:44 +0000

An article in yesterday's Guardian reported that five countries (China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the US) were responsible for 88% of state executions in 2007. In Europe, only Belarus has retained the death penalty. China is the world's No. 1 executioner, and there are approx. 7500 people including children on Pakistan's death row. There are seven states that apply the death penalty for consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex, and capital offences in Iran include "cursing the Prophet", adultery and drinking alcohol. - All of this seems to me to raise two wider questions. Firstly, where should one draw the line between individual freedom and society's right to protect itself? I suggested in an earlier post that morality consisted in "the right of all human beings to pursue happiness in such a way that it causes minimal harm to humanity and to other forms of life." But the facts listed above beg the question of who should decide what is harmful, i.e. what society needs protection against. Such decisions are in the hands of the law-makers and/or religious bodies, who frequently have an agenda of their own that can lead to oppression and tyranny. We in the West may see ourselves as liberal-minded, but in eastern eyes we may seem degenerate. God doesn't provide the answer, since different believers hear different messages. Can anyone come up with a formula? - My second question goes back to the death penalty, and it arose during a discussion between Carl and myself. Just what should we do with criminals when we've caught them? W.S. Gilbert's Mikado reckoned he had the answer: "My object all sublime I shall achieve in time ... To let the punishment fit the crime ... The punishment fit the crime." But what punishment fits what crime? And is justice only about punishment?