Are Muslims disobeying the Qur'an by participating in this forum?

[stevecanuck]

And yet they are authoritative texts beyond the Qur'an. Whether they rationalize them as "just clarification" is sort of beyond the point. They are additional material beyond the "perfect" Qur'an. So it appears that your reading of the verse in question is not how most Muslims read it.

The hadiths help Muslims understand their defining text. They in no way change it.

Doesnt seem different. It's about how verses are interpreted and how Muslims actually apply Islam in their own lives.

Suppose Islam had died out hundreds of years ago. The Qur'an could still be studied in terms of what it teaches and demands.

The same way I explain centuries of Christian conquest, theocracy, and slavery. People have only quite recently in history adopted international liberal values as the norm.

It's not at all the same. I can give you quotes from the Qur'an and examples of atrocities committed by Mohamed that encourage jihad. You can't say the same for Jesus and the O.T. (That's all the whataboutism I'm going to indulge).

Seems to me they disagree, as they don't consider one another "true" Muslims.

As I explained, and you ignored, their differences are all post-Qur'an.

 

[stevecanuck]

The interpretation is primarily in when physical/military fighting is condoned and when it isn't. See here for reference with regard to the Taliban (though he links to an earlier article of his on ISIS): Taliban 'Islam' versus the Islam of the Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an

I clicked on the link and only got as far as "I sympathize with his despondency that the European and North American press can still ask a stupid question like that in 2021". I've read enough Islamopropaganda pieces to be able to spot them a mile away.

Rather than read predictable defenses from people with a vested interest, just ask yourself why a Muslim army found itself fighting in "self defense" in France. Ask yourself why Muslims had to go to India and slaughter millions of Hindus in "self defense". Test yourself. Ask a few hard questions.

 

[KWED]

Please allow me to jump in and comment on this line from your post. I think the best way to judge a new religion is to look at the actions of the first adherents. That is when the message is the most fresh and the least diluted/misunderstood.

Islam is a great example because it was created over a short period, and by only one person in a very restricted and isolated setting. In the early 600's every Muslim in the world lived in one place, spoke one language, and actually lived with the man who was creating Islam on the fly (my opinion of course - I don't believe in divine revelations).

What did they do with all this new-found "knowledge" and commands from Allah? They set out to try to conquer the known world. Real Islam is the Islam of 7th century Saudi Arabia. Now look at ISIS and AQ, etc., and tell me you don't see the parallel.

The contents of the later Quran and Sunnah certainly suggest that Muhammad and the sahabah would recognise the Islam of ISIS over the Islam of the the Inclusive Mosque Initiative or The Progressive Muslim Union of North America.

 

[KWED]

Are you an alternate account of @stevecanuck ?
If not, then why are you responding to a post that was specifically responding to one of his arguments?

This is an open, public debate forum. If I see a post presenting a flawed argument, it is perfectly acceptable and legitimate for me to point that out.

If you're so eager for a discussion, then why don't you start by engaging with posts I made in response to your arguments instead?

I respond to every reply in the order I read them. Be patient.

 

[KWED]

If the Quran doesn't make anybody more bigoted than they already are, then that proves my point re: religion not being the root of bigotry. I'm glad that we're in agreement here at last.

In many cases, how would you know?
An infant is a blank slate. The views of the adult are often formed during childhood. Someone who is raised as a devout religionist who is homophobic probably wouldn't be homophobic if raised in a liberal atheist family. Is the homophobia mere coincidence?

Also, you seem to be avoiding the key point that some people clearly and unashamedly state that their bigotry is caused by their religious beliefs. There have been people on this forum admitting that their intolerance of certain groups and actions is simply because god tells them in holy scripture, and therefore should not be questioned or analysed. It is a brute fact and no explanation is required. This includes converts who did not hold those views before. QED.

 

[KWED]

The Islam of the 7th century isn't any more "real" than the Islam of the 21st century. Religions change with time. If we care about human rights, liberal values and so on, we should be happy that religions have grown to align more with those values.

Islam has developed and grown and diverged from the original.
There is no "21st century Islam", but in the 7th century it was monolithic. There was only one authority. In the early stages every Muslim knew each other, the prayed to gather. They listened to gods last messenger reveal gods plan together.
If Islam really was god's final and perfect guide for all mankind, the version practiced by Muhammad and his companions is the best indication of what that god actually wants us to do.

 

[KWED]

No, it is not. If I had called you a bigot, then that would be an ad hominem fallacy.

Not quite. That would be an accusation, or insult.
Ad hom fallacy is dismissing a person's argument because of some element of the person's character, beliefs, etc.
eg. "You are just a bigot so why should I accept anything you say".

 

[KWED]

So when discussing Nazism, you would avoid talking about the Holocaust?

No, because the Final Solution was part of the ideology, as expressed by its founder.
However, it would be meaningless to claim that Naziism as an ideology was not innately intolerant and violent simply because some Germans opposed Hitler's plans. Do you understand now?

 

[KWED]

Then our discussion is pointless, since I am primarily concerned with the behavior of factual people in the real world.

But you have been telling others that they cannot assess an ideology by the content of its scripture, only by the behaviour of those living under it, which is demonstrable nonsense.
Also, the behaviour of people is influenced by the ideology to a greater or lesser degree so one cannot properly understand their behaviour without understanding the nature of the ideology.
When ISIS use female captives for sex, it is simply incoherent to claim that the explicit permission to use female captives for sex in the Quran and sunnah has no influence on that behaviour, when part of ISIS's raison d'être is to impose a literalist and retentionist reading of those scriptures.

 

[KWED]

Some of them are, as in the Bible.

You said "As well as many other texts written by humans" in addition to the Bible, which you mentioned separately.
Also, there are plenty of Christians who do not consider the Bible to be the infallible, immutable, revealed word of god.

And murder is murder whether you think God sanctioned it or because you think it's because the person you killed is genetically inferior to you or because you are a sociopathic narcissist who has no conscience. Humans are very creative.

But you are missing the point there. "Murder" is "unlawful killing". A law is defined by the system that formulated it. Islam doesn't consider killing homosexuals or adulterers or apostates to be "murder" because it is sanctioned by god.

part of what impacts the assessment of an ideology are its real world consequences. Assessing an ideology in a vacuum only gets you so far.

The impact of an ideology obviously involved looking at how followers choose to impose it, but in order to assess this we need to know what the ideology actually says - and that is not affected by how individuals impose it.

Of course not.

So you think it is reasonable to criticise the Quran and sunnah for allowing the use of female captives for sex - even if not a single Muslim actually does it?

It is odd, because as critical as you are of Islamic fundamentalism, you seem to be reasoning the way they do here. You seem to presume that the content of a religion's teachings (the "correct" or "actual" teachings) is only to be found in the most literal interpretations of scripture and without any context or nuance.

I never make any claim about what is "correct Islam". My point is that apologists cannot say "Islam does not condone x" when the Quran or sunnah explicitly dies condone x. The fact that the apologist may personally disagree with x does not remove it from scripture. And this is a problem if that same apologists claims that every word in it is true and acceptable.
A Muslim cannot reasonably condemn ISIS for using female captives for sex if they will not similarly condemn the Quran for allowing the use of female captives for sex.

Only in half measure, as explained above.

The problem with assessing the content of an ideology like Islam on the behaviour of Muslims is that you then have millions of different ideologies.

Yeah, I see that. My point is that some atheists tend to put an outsized emphasis on the evils of Islam and not on other issues.

And some doctors specialise in specific conditions rather than generalising in all of them. It is not an unreasonable approach.

 

[KWED]

Indeed, the same problem does apply. You can try to go back and determine the original intent, of whoever wrote the text, but with ancient texts that's often quite difficult. And people routinely disagree, particularly on interpretation of religious texts that may be unclear or poetic or metaphorical or what have you. Which is why, rather than focus on "who has the right interpretation?," which tends to be the focus of fundamentalists, my focus is on what people actually do with the interpretations they adopt. And that is as much relevant to the assessment of a religion as "what their texts say."

Interpretations of how to implement the ideology was not what I was talking about, because there can be as many interpretations as there are individuals (which was why I asked the question).
What many apologists seem to do is insist that their interpretation is the only valid and acceptable one, regardless of how it corresponds to the original text (some of which is entirely clear and unambiguous). There is nothing wrong with followers adapting and revising an ideology to cope with changing circumstances - in fact it is often essential. However, it is difficult to justify doing that when it is also claimed that the ideology is infallible and immutable.

 

[KWED]

I see, so based on this verse you don't believe that Islam allows any development in its ideas or theology? Not even in the hadith, which most of the world's Muslims accept as authoritative?

There is a concept in Islam called "bidah" (innovation). It refers to any change or introduction of new events to the essential nature of Islam. It is considered a major sin and an act of kufr (taking a person out of Islam).

Do you think it's weird that the vast majority of people who actually follow this religion don't agree with your interpretation of that text?

An here lies the paradox. Every Muslim believes that Allah revealed Islam in its perfect, final and unchangeable form, but at the same time many disagree with some elements on a personal level.

Really? So Iran and Saudi Arabia, both of whom are officially Islamic states and both of whom disagree not only with each other but also with AQ and ISIS and have literally fought against AQ and ISIS, are not following "true" Islam?

"True Islam" is a subjective concept. Every Muslim believes they are following "True Islam". So how do we assess those claims?
Given that the core doctrine of Islamic ideology is the unchangeable perfection of the Quran and the ultimate example of Muhammad, we can only compare their actions to the content of the Quran and sunnah.

The key thing that comes out of all this is that Islam needs to move away from the concept of absolute scriptural infallible immutability. The problem is that without any kind of supreme authority, that can only happen on an individual or group level. As long as any qualified individual can make binding theological rulings, ISIS will have as much theological legitimacy as any other group (although they will all still call each other "Not True Muslims")

 

[Kooky]

No, because the Final Solution was part of the ideology, as expressed by its founder.

You will find no mention of the Holocaust in the NSDAP's party manifesto, nor in Mein Kampf. The Wannsee conference significantly postdates any of the foundational works of Nazi ideology.

In order to link Nazi ideology with the Holocaust at all, you would have to abandon pure exegesis of foundational ideological texts as your method of choice.

 

[Kooky]

But you have been telling others that they cannot assess an ideology by the content of its scripture, only by the behaviour of those living under it, which is demonstrable nonsense.

So do you actually believe that it is "demonstrable nonsense" to assess Nazi ideology by the factual policies implemented by factually existing Nazis?

Is it "demonstrable nonsense" to assess the French Revolution by the factual policies implemented by factually existing revolutionary leaders, rather than the pure, abstract ideas of the Enlightenment?

Is it "demonstrable nonsense" to assess the factual reality of factual Bolshevist policies, rather than focusing entirely on the abstract philosophical theories laid out by Marx, Engels et al?

Of course you don't believe that. I predict that in the face of these examples, you will immediately backpedal and claim that no, really, these factually implemented policies were, in fact, visible from the very start in purely ideological texts, even if you are completely unable to come up with any evidence in support of that claim.

Also, the behaviour of people is influenced by the ideology to a greater or lesser degree so one cannot properly understand their behaviour without understanding the nature of the ideology.

Is it though? You claimed that you wouldn't be able to tell to what degree factual bigotry of Muslims is influenced by the bigotry of Quranic verses, did you not?

So from where do you draw this sudden certainty that you can trace the exact influences of millions of people's behavior solely from reading a sacred text?

Are you sure you are not, in fact, working backwards from the premise that your approach of pure textual exegesis is intrinsically worthwile, and therefore must be the key to understanding every ideology and religion in human history?

When ISIS use female captives for sex, it is simply incoherent to claim that the explicit permission to use female captives for sex in the Quran and sunnah has no influence on that behaviour, when part of ISIS's raison d'être is to impose a literalist and retentionist reading of those scriptures.

All of these practices can be readily traced from factually verifiable material and cultural conditions - Muslims are, after all, not the only people who have historically forced women into wartime sex slavery. In order to understand ISIS and its policies, I see no need to pore over thousand-year old texts that you yourself have admitted the majority of these people haven't even read properly.

 

[Kooky]

I've read enough Islamopropaganda pieces to be able to spot them a mile away.

Are there arguments in defense of Islam that you wouldn't characterize as "Islamopropaganda"?

 

[KWED]

You will find no mention of the Holocaust in the NSDAP's party manifesto, nor in Mein Kampf. The Wannsee conference significantly postdates any of the foundational works of Nazi ideology.

In order to link Nazi ideology with the Holocaust at all, you would have to abandon pure exegesis of foundational ideological texts as your method of choice.

Wait, so are you claiming that there is nothing in any of Hitlers writings or Nazi ideology that suggest a "Jewish Problem" that requires a solution? Are you sure?

 

[Kooky]

Wait, so are you claiming that there is nothing in any of Hitlers writings or Nazi ideology that suggest a "Jewish Problem" that requires a solution? Are you sure?

I am claiming that there is nothing in Hitler's writing specifying the Holocaust as it factually happened.
Sure, you can find vague allusions to a "Jewish question", but no explict mentions of concentration camps, or even outright calls for genocide.

Feel free to prove me wrong and dig up one of those plentiful mentions of death camps in Auschwitz that you are claiming exist somewhere in his pre-war writings. I'm curious to see what tortured logic you are going to use to justify your pure exegesis approach in the face of its evident failure.

 

[KWED]

So do you actually believe that it is "demonstrable nonsense" to assess Nazi ideology by the factual policies implemented by factually existing Nazis?

In this context, Nazi party policy and the laws passed by the Nazi government under Hitler = the Quran and sunnah (the official ideological line).
How individual Muslims implement the Quran and sunnah in their lives = the German population's attitude towards Nazi policy.

Didn't think this needed explaining really.

Is it though? You claimed that you wouldn't be able to tell to what degree factual bigotry of Muslims is influenced by the bigotry of Quranic verses, did you not?

Don't remember claiming that. Perhaps you didn't understand what I wrote?

So from where do you draw this sudden certainty that you can trace the exact influences of millions of people's behavior solely from reading a sacred text?

Yet another straw man. I am sensing a pattern developing here.

Are you sure you are not, in fact, working backwards from the premise that your approach of pure textual exegesis is intrinsically worthwile, and therefore must be the key to understanding every ideology and religion in human history?

Again, you are mistaken or deliberately straw manning. The history of those following the ideology has a part to play in understanding the whole. However, the ideology itself is defined by the contents of the texts, not by the behaviour of those individuals. As I keep explaining (and you keep ignoring) that behaviour differs so massively as to make such an analysis meaningless.

All of these practices can be readily traced from factually verifiable material and cultural conditions - Muslims are, after all, not the only people who have historically forced women into wartime sex slavery. In order to understand ISIS and its policies, I see no need to pore over thousand-year old texts that you yourself have admitted the majority of these people haven't even read properly.

So just to be clear, you are claiming that ISIS using female captives for sex, and quoting the Quran verses and hadith that permit it as justification, has nothing to do with the contents of the Quran and sunnah? It is just a coincidence?

 

[Kooky]

Again, you are mistaken or deliberately straw manning. The history of those following the ideology has a part to play in understanding the whole. However, the ideology itself is defined by the contents of the texts, not by the behaviour of those individuals. As I keep explaining (and you keep ignoring) that behaviour differs so massively as to make such an analysis meaningless.

Do you consider it irrelevant how an ideology is factually implemented in the real world?

If yes, then why do you consider the analysis of such implementations meaningless?

 

[KWED]

I am claiming that there is nothing in Hitler's writing specifying the Holocaust as it factually happened.
Sure, you can find vague allusions to a "Jewish question", but no explict mentions of concentration camps, or even outright calls for genocide.

Sure, if you are discussing Nazi ideology, there would be no need to refer to specific concentration camps. That comes under WW2 history.

Feel free to prove me wrong and dig up one of those plentiful mentions of death camps in Auschwitz that you are claiming exist somewhere in his pre-war writings.

Oh dear. Yet more straw men. You must have quite the barn back there.

I'm curious to see what tortured logic you are going to use to justify your pure exegesis approach in the face of its evident failure.

You have, as yet, failed to show why analysis of the contents of the Quran and sunnah cannot be used to assess Islamic ideology. Furthermore, you have also failed to address my explanations as to why only looking at how individual Muslims behave is meaningless in that context.
It is you who has logic on the rack, and the poor thing is stretched to breaking point.