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

[stevecanuck]

I am not an "apologist".
I believe that the Qur'an is authored by G-d, along with billions of others.
I am not qualified to argue about Islamic history..
..apparently, you think that you are.

Admitting that you've chosen to remain ignorant of a subject is not exactly a winning position.

 

[Kooky]

When did I claim that? I suspect you probably misunderstood what I said. Wouldn't be the first time.

I suppose I must also have misunderstood you saying "Whether individual cases are caused by religious texts or other means would require further work."

Can you explain how these two propositions can both be true?

1. We can tell for certain that the Quran turns people into bigots.
2. Answering the question whether bigotry is caused by religious texts "requires further work".

 

[Kooky]

Also noted that you declined to confirm your condemnation of the practice. Of course, you don't have to. It's not like anyone might infer anything from refusing to condemn the principle of using female captives for sex.

I did not decline, I simply chose to avoid giving you another opportunity to put words in my mouth and twist my arguments into caricatures of themselves.

I think rape is bad, regardless of the perpetrator's or victim's religion.

Do you think everyone who did not outright condemn rape in this thread supports rape?
Do you believe that @stevecanuck , who hasn't commented on your condemnation of rape at all, supports rape, like you seem to believe I do? If not, then why not?

Can you make a coherent argument why you think people in this thread support rape?

 

[stevecanuck]

In post #261, I said this:

The Qur'an says it's permitted to have sex with female captives. Do you see that as rape? If not, why not?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yet again, the fallback to the Nuremberg Defence.
"What do you mean it's immoral to have sex with a 10 year old slave girl? Allah says it's ok!"

If that's what you believe..
You see things in terms of "sex", whereas Allah prohibits relations with women without contractual responsibility.

You "cherry-pick" exceptions, due to the differences in society 1500 years ago, and claim it all to be immoral.

When I suggest that usury is immoral, you say that it is unavoidable.
I say that it needs to be approached by practical means.
It is the same with the issue of slavery. It isn't practical to change the status-quo overnight. Slavery is not endorsed as being a good thing.

Unfortunately, people are capable of all sorts of behaviour, including military conquest and subjugation of nations.
It still happens today in the 21st. century.
It is easy to speak from a "platform" where you feel relatively secure.
All I see from you is negativity. You ignore verses that encourage peace and fairness. You seem to be "stuck in a rut", reading one or two verses over and over again, and claim you are outraged etc.
We all see what we want to see.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Admitting that you've chosen to remain ignorant of a subject is not exactly a winning position.

Not at all.
It is quote obvious that nations can argue over who has blame for war, and get nowhere.

I do not claim that any nation is blameless, regardless of religious persuasion.
You will claim that Islam is "spread by the sword", and it is a faith of barbarians etc.
G-d knows who is guilty and who is not.
Empires rise and fall .. and always will.
This phenomena does not depend on existence of religious text.

 

[KWED]

I suppose I must also have misunderstood you saying "Most societies and cultures have their share of bigots. Whether individual cases are caused by religious texts or other means would require further work."

Can you explain how these two propositions can both be true?

1. We can tell for certain that the Quran turns people into bigots.
2. Answering the question whether bigotry is caused by religious texts "requires further work".

Ah yes, I see your problem here. (Whether your misrepresentation of my argument is deliberate or through lack of comprehension is another issue)
There are passages in the Quran (and other religious texts) that can give rise to bigotry. That is undeniable. There are examples of this happening (I gave you a couple). Knowing whether any given Muslim's bigotry on a specific issue was caused by the contents of the Quran and sunnah or something else would require a conversation with that person.

An analogy might help you here...
We know that eating undercooked chicken can cause food poisoning. Confirming whether a particular case of food poisoning was caused by eating undercooked chicken would require further work.

Now, time for you to answer a question.
If a person is homophobic and they admit that their homophobia is simply because of god's words in a religious text - how is that not religious texts giving rise to bigotry?
Similarly is someone who never previously defended using female slaves for sex converts to a religion whose texts explicitly condone UFSFS and then starts defending UFSFS, how is that change not caused by the content of those texts?

 

[KWED]

I did not decline, I simply chose to avoid giving you another opportunity to put words in my mouth and twist my arguments into caricatures of themselves.

With all due respect, not explicitly condemning an issue is what enables people to assume your position on it. An unequivocal condemnation would have the opposite effect. Puzzling that you would think otherwise.

I think rape is bad, regardless of the perpetrator's or victim's religion.

What about using female captives for sex when sanctioned by god?

Do you think everyone who did not outright condemn rape in this thread supports rape?

When someone spends pages defending an ideology that explicitly condones an action, one has to wonder.

Do you believe that @stevecanuck , who hasn't commented on your condemnation of rape at all, supports rape, like you seem to believe I do? If not, then why not?

Your arguments seem to be losing all their coherence. @stevecanuck 's position on using female captive for sex has been made abundantly clear. Yours hadn't (and still hasn't)

Can you make a coherent argument why you think people in this thread support rape?

Can you make a coherent argument why you think I think people in this thread support rape?

You have devoted much time and energy to defending the Quran and sunnah from accusations of being responsible for people's attitudes towards using female captives and slaves for sex, and in all that time never indicated that you find the practice abhorrent.

Perhaps another analogy?...
If a person spends a lot of time trying to defend Trump from accusations of being responsible for 1/6 and never express any condemnation of the insurrection, it is not unreasonable to suspect that person of tacitly supporting it, or at least not wanting to offend those who do support it..

 

[KWED]

If that's what you believe..
You see things in terms of "sex", whereas Allah prohibits relations with women without contractual responsibility.

So how about a straight answer.
Is it immoral - in principle - for a man to have sex with his 10 year old slave girl if she has reached puberty?
Yes or no?
(We are talking about the principle, so distractions about what modern law says, etc are irrelevant)

You "cherry-pick" exceptions, due to the differences in society 1500 years ago, and claim it all to be immoral.

So you admit that the Quran was written for 7th century Arabia, not 21st century Europe.

When I suggest that usury is immoral, you say that it is unavoidable.

No I don't. Where did you get that idea?
I say that interest-bearing loans are not immoral.

It is the same with the issue of slavery. It isn't practical to change the status-quo overnight. Slavery is not endorsed as being a good thing.

A nonsense and easily debunked argument.
1. Allah expected people to change their lives overnight in other respects.
2. He could have said that slavery was wrong and should be abolished as soon as possible, but he didn't. Instead, he enshrined slavery as an acceptable practice in his perfect and unchangeable guide for all people and all times.

Unfortunately, people are capable of all sorts of behaviour, including military conquest and subjugation of nations.

Of course. It is a part of human nature. I have never argued otherwise.
The issue is that you claim Islam only permits fighting in self defence, yet Muhammad managed to conquer half the Arabian peninsula in a decade. How was that possible only fighting in "self-defence"?
(I appreciate that you cannot answer that question, because the only possible answer debunks the whole "only self defence" claim. But I will keep asking it as long as you keep avoiding it).

You ignore verses that encourage peace and fairness.

No I don't. I acknowledge they exist and understand their context. The problem here is what I call the Jimmy Savile defence. Do we ignore all the child rape just because he raised millions for charity?

You seem to be "stuck in a rut", reading one or two verses over and over again, and claim you are outraged etc.
We all see what we want to see.

Not sure what your argument is here. The Quran and sunnah explicitly promote or permit slavery, using female captives for sex, torture, mutilation, domestic violence, homophobia, religious intolerance, gender discrimination, etc. These are all things that are universally condemned and prohibited by civilised society, yet you keep defending them. So yes, I am outraged and will continue to be outraged as long as people keep trying to defend and justify them.

 

[KWED]

I do not claim that any nation is blameless, regardless of religious persuasion.

Ah, so you finally admit that Muhammad engaged in aggressive military action in order to invade and conquer other peoples lands.
Do you also admit that he committed acts that today would see him prosecuted for war crimes?

[quoye]You will claim that Islam is "spread by the sword", [/quote] It was, to some degree. Obviously the change in the world power balance means that it isn't really possible any more, although some groups have given it a go recently.

and it is a faith of barbarians etc.

Wrong. As a faith it contains barbaric elements, but many Muslims seem either unaware of or uncomfortable with these elements.
As I often say, most Muslims are better than the religion they follow.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..yes, I am outraged and will continue to be outraged as long as people keep trying to defend and justify them.

OK .. you are outraged by the Qur'an and the billions that accept it as being authored by G-d.
You are entitled to your opinion. You see things in black and white.
You judge by modern secular values. I don't.

I don't intend to answer to your accusations of "slavery, using female captives for sex, torture, mutilation, domestic violence, homophobia, religious intolerance, gender discrimination," etc.

It feels much like an attack from a machine gun.
You will not change my beliefs in that manner.

 

[muhammad_isa]

As I often say, most Muslims are better than the religion they follow.

You mean your characterisation of it.

 

[KWED]

OK .. you are outraged by the Qur'an

By some of the prescriptions and permissions in it, yes.

and the billions that accept it as being authored by G-d.

Nice try. I am only outraged by individuals' words and deeds. If an individual expresses support for or try to defend things like slavery, torture, using female captives for sex, domestic violence, etc then yes, I am outraged by their views.

You see things in black and white.

When it comes to things like slavery, yes. Owning another human as property is unequivocally wrong. No exceptions. It really is that simple.

You judge by modern secular values. I don't.

Well, duh! And you get your moral code from 7th century Arabia.
That's why I can condemn slavery, torture, using female captives for sex, domestic violence, etc - and you cannot.
You're not really improving your position with this line of reasoning.

I don't intend to answer to your accusations of "slavery, using female captives for sex, torture, mutilation, domestic violence, homophobia, religious intolerance, gender discrimination," etc.

Of course you don't. You can't. You feel obliged to try and defend and justify all those things, simply because they are promoted or permitted by your holy scripture, but at the same time probably understand that most people would be appalled by such a defence. It is the classic theological rock and a hard place. You can't criticise Allah but you also don't want people to think you an immoral monster. So you deflect and ignore.

 

[KWED]

You mean your characterisation of it.

No. I mean what is stated in the Quran and sunnah.

Despite many requests, you have still not presented any examples of me misrepresenting the contents of the Quran or sunnah. Maybe now would be a good time to do so?

 

[Kooky]

With all due respect, not explicitly condemning an issue is what enables people to assume your position on it. An unequivocal condemnation would have the opposite effect. Puzzling that you would think otherwise.

What about using female captives for sex when sanctioned by god?

When someone spends pages defending an ideology that explicitly condones an action, one has to wonder.

Your inability or unwillingness to actually respond to the content of my posts is really getting on my nerves at this point.


I've made my position in this debate explicit multiple times. If you hadn't dismissed those posts as "nonsense", then perhaps you wouldn't have had to invent positions I didn't argue, or claiming that I defend ideologies I did not defend.

Your arguments seem to be losing all their coherence. @stevecanuck 's position on using female captive for sex has been made abundantly clear. Yours hadn't (and still hasn't)

Can you point to a post where he responds to you with an explicit condemnation of the practice?

Can you make a coherent argument why you think I think people in this thread support rape?

How many have so far come out to explicitly condemn rape? If they haven't, then why do you assume they condemn rape, while you apparently assumed I was supporting it?

By the way, we've been speaking of Nazis, but you haven't explicitly condemned genocide.
Are you going to, or do I have to assume that you support genocide, like you apparently assumed I support rape?

You have devoted much time and energy to defending the Quran and sunnah from accusations of being responsible for people's attitudes towards using female captives and slaves for sex, and in all that time never indicated that you find the practice abhorrent.

Once again you are twisting my words and creating positions I did not argue out of whole cloth.
I assume at this point that you are simply struggling with reading my posts comprehensively and misunderstanding their content out of an inability to comprehend them, because otherwise I would have to assume malice and bad faith.


I have made it abundantly clear that I do not believe that texts have power over people, that all the terrible things people attribute to texts ought to be attributed to factually existing people, and their factually existing organizations, institutions, and communities, with their factually existing oppressive power structures, callously ingrained habits, and their will and wants.

But instead of accepting this position as the one I factually hold out of my own genuine belief and understanding of the world, you keep dismissing that position and inventing strawmen to argue against.

Perhaps another analogy?....

**** off. If you can't debate me without bad faith insinuations, then just don't debate me at all.

Goodbye.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Despite many requests, you have still not presented any examples of me misrepresenting the contents of the Quran or sunnah. Maybe now would be a good time to do so?

I have made many attempts, but you don't even try to understand, imo.
..probably because you are an atheist. You either can't understand or won't understand my point of view.
I'll leave you to it for now.

 

[KWED]

Your inability or unwillingness to actually respond to the content of my posts is really getting on my nerves at this point.


I've made my position in this debate explicit multiple times. If you hadn't dismissed those posts as "nonsense", then perhaps you wouldn't have had to invent positions I didn't argue, or claiming that I defend ideologies I did not defend.


Can you point to a post where he responds to you with an explicit condemnation of the practice?


How many have so far come out to explicitly condemn rape? If they haven't, then why do you assume they condemn rape, while you apparently assumed I was supporting it?

By the way, we've been speaking of Nazis, but you haven't explicitly condemned genocide.
Are you going to, or do I have to assume that you support genocide, like you apparently assumed I support rape?


Once again you are twisting my words and creating positions I did not argue out of whole cloth.
I assume at this point that you are simply struggling with reading my posts comprehensively and misunderstanding their content out of an inability to comprehend them, because otherwise I would have to assume malice and bad faith.

Look, it's quite simple.
If you do not attempt to defend or justify or act as an apologist for a universally condemned action, or for others who attempt to defend or justify that action, there is no reason to ask for condemnation.

Let's try another analogy...
Every rational, civilised person condemns the Holocaust by default. No one feels the need to ask others what their position is.
However - if someone attempts to defend Holocaust deniers, or criticises people who condemn Holocaust deniers, it is not unreasonable to ask them to clarify their position.
Hope this helped.

I have made it abundantly clear that I do not believe that texts have power over people, that all the terrible things people attribute to texts ought to be attributed to factually existing people, and their factually existing organizations, institutions, and communities, with their factually existing oppressive power structures, callously ingrained habits, and their will and wants.

And I have repeatedly explained why you are wrong.
Where do you think those people and organisations get their ideas?
The very concept that religious behaviour has nothing to do with religious texts is so demonstrably incoherent that it is barely worth responding to.

But instead of accepting this position as the one I factually hold out of my own genuine belief and understanding of the world, you keep dismissing that position and inventing strawmen to argue against.

Hmm, perhaps the actual issue here is that you don't understand how debate works. We don't all just sit around agreeing with each other or accepting every claim as valid.
Your belief is demonstrably wrong. Why would you think that no one should point that out to you on a debate forum.

Also the delicious irony of you complaining that people shouldn't challenge other people's beliefs and positions, because we are only having this discussion because you came in to challenge and criticise the positions people "factually hold out of their own genuine belief and understanding of the world".

**** off.

Top debating skillz there bro.

If you can't debate me without bad faith insinuations, then just don't debate me at all.

You just stated that you aren't interested in debate. (And before you start complaining about being misrepresented, again, you just complained that I should have just accepted your position and not explained that it was flawed).

 

[KWED]

I have made many attempts, but you don't even try to understand, imo.

You most certainly haven't.
You keep making the claim but failing to back it up.

If I quote the Quran, supply hadith that support the apparent meaning, and show classical tafsir that explain the passage to mean what it seems to say - you responding with "that's not how I see it" is not showing that I have misrepresented the Quran. If anything, you are attempting to misrepresent it by ignoring the apparent evidence.

However, feel free to cite an example of where I have "misrepresented" the Quran - in other words, where I made a claim about the Quran that was not supported by scriptural references.

 

[stevecanuck]

If that's what you believe..
You see things in terms of "sex", whereas Allah prohibits relations with women without contractual responsibility.

That lie has been exposed. Muslim fighters can have sex with female captives. Period. Where's your "contractual responsibility" in that?

You "cherry-pick" exceptions, due to the differences in society 1500 years ago, and claim it all to be immoral.

Translation: He found verses that exposed your lie.

 

[stevecanuck]

Not at all.
It is quote obvious that nations can argue over who has blame for war, and get nowhere.

I do not claim that any nation is blameless, regardless of religious persuasion.
You will claim that Islam is "spread by the sword", and it is a faith of barbarians etc.
G-d knows who is guilty and who is not.
Empires rise and fall .. and always will.
This phenomena does not depend on existence of religious text.

The Islamic Empire is a direct result of Allah's command to, "Fight those who believe not in Allah".

In his tafsir of surah 9, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi (https://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html), summarizes "the problems that were confronting the [Islamic] Community at that time" thus:

- to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam [abode of Islam],
- to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,
- to crush the mischief of the hypocrites, and
- to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world.