Islam needs scrutiny too.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Having grown up Christian, I'm familiar enough with Christianity to blow plenty of holes in it, and often thanks to this board, to be aware of the ignorance and dishonesty of its apologists.

Presently I work with Muslims, and get exposed to borderline proselytizing daily; they don't know I'm an atheist, and I don't mind too much because it gives me a bit of foreign perspective. Nevertheless, I'm rather at a loss to critically attack the foundations of the religion, other than simply burden of proof arguments, since I haven't read the Q'uran completely, nor do I know Arabic (yet), nor am I terribly familiar with Islamic teachings and interpretive structures.

Islam benefits relative to Christianity and Judaism that its text and supplementary teachings were compiled, standardized, and promulgated with imperial force all within a generation of its origin, so it's less rife with outright contradictions and readily disprovable nonsense than the bible. This makes it harder for someone unfamiliar with it to make strong arguments. I've visited the Skeptics Annotated Q'uran, but so far haven't found it that terribly helpful.

I was wondering if there were any resources or lines of reasoning that any among you have found valuable in understanding and de-fanging Islam. Since it is arguably the most politicized religion currently, it is something that has to be dealt with if we intend to have a more sensible world.

[Darth Yoshi]

Well, in my admittedly limited experience, Muslims believe in the inherent perfection of Islam and the Koran. To which you can point out that with the exception of maybe Turkey, all the Muslim countries are third world shitholes. So perfection doesn't mean shit, if the damned Western infidels dominate the world.

[Twoyboy]

The Skeptics Annotated Bible has a section on the Koran if you'd like to pick some holes in it.

[Kanastrous]

Well, in my admittedly limited experience, Muslims believe in the inherent perfection of Islam and the Koran. To which you can point out that with the exception of maybe Turkey, all the Muslim countries are third world shitholes. So perfection doesn't mean shit, if the damned Western infidels dominate the world.

Do Muslims have any concept equivalent the the Christian Essence/Accident business?

Maybe the Muslim world is a glorious world-spanning empire of justice and perfection, in essence, but the third-world-shitholery is merely the outward visible accident concealing it.

Cross-fertilizing insanities is fun.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, in my admittedly limited experience, Muslims believe in the inherent perfection of Islam and the Koran. To which you can point out that with the exception of maybe Turkey, all the Muslim countries are third world shitholes. So perfection doesn't mean shit, if the damned Western infidels dominate the world.

Do Muslims have any concept equivalent the the Christian Essence/Accident business?

Maybe the Muslim world is a glorious world-spanning empire of justice and perfection, in essence, but the third-world-shitholery is merely the outward visible accident concealing it.

Cross-fertilizing insanities is fun.

No, they don't. As a matter of fact, Muslims go very far in the opposite direction, and believe that there is no cause and effect. Rather, God causes both the cause, and the effect, independently of each other.

This is but one of many charming examples of Islam's complete insanity. Others include Jesus killing infidels out to the limit of his eyesight with his bad breath during the apocalypse.

[Kanastrous]

Essence-vs-Accident is less about cause-and-effect than about the idea that the world is an imperfect material reflection of divine conceptual ideals.

[AniThyng]

Well, in my admittedly limited experience, Muslims believe in the inherent perfection of Islam and the Koran. To which you can point out that with the exception of maybe Turkey, all the Muslim countries are third world shitholes. So perfection doesn't mean shit, if the damned Western infidels dominate the world.

Depending on where these Muslims are from, they might cite Malaysia (or perhaps the UAE) as an example of a Muslim country that is not a 3rd world shithole. Well maybe it is from your perspective *shrugs* but your blanket statement and condescending referal to Turkey strikes me as rather offensive and unhelpful when talking to a muslim.

[Kanastrous]

Malaysian urban life looks glamorous, modern, and shiny.

What does one find out in the countryside?

[AniThyng]

Malaysian urban life looks glamorous, modern, and shiny.

What does one find out in the countryside?

One finds villages and towns. Some of them are indeed, as villages are wont to be, in poverty. Some are ghost towns as all the young people have went to the big city. For many smaller towns, they may be "poor" relative to the cities, but you can have a filling meal for a fraction of the price in the big city. Malaysia has its problems, and many do stem from Islam in a way, but it is IMO a gross misrepresentation to say "Islam" and not the western capitalist economic model is the reason for the rural-urban wealth divide.

[BountyHunterSAx]

I'm a Muslim and a strong believer, and the number one hole you can really poke is to challenge them as to the 'value' of judging the meaning of a statement of the Qur'an.

It is commonly understood by just about any Muslim that verses of the Qur'an are to be understood within a myriad of contexts. The context of the surrounding verses, the context of the asbab-un-nuzool (time/location [literally 'doors'] of revelation), allegorical references, etc. Any problematic verse will be met with a context-based explanation. This verse:


He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding. [Qur'an 3:7]


Is oft-quoted in describing the attitude towards verses that are allegorical vs. literal. The idea, then, is to hammer home the point "What makes a verse literal or allegorical? Who says this verse is allegorical and that one isn't?" And by describing a verse as allegorical - even one that was most likely intedned to be taken literally - pawning off whatever one desires as the actual meaning of Islam.


-AHMAD

[PainRack]

Kanastrous, have you been to Malaysia? While public facillities in the rural areas aren't top notch, that's why they're rural.

Frankly, other than some inane interference such as the no nude mannequins the PAS tried to pull, its alright.

[Darth Yoshi]

Depending on where these Muslims are from, they might cite Malaysia (or perhaps the UAE) as an example of a Muslim country that is not a 3rd world shithole. Well maybe it is from your perspective *shrugs* but your blanket statement and condescending referal to Turkey strikes me as rather offensive and unhelpful when talking to a muslim.

*rereads post* Shit, I do come off as condescending. My mention of Turkey was actually referring the secular Turkish government, but as I'm not familiar with Malaysia, I'll apologize for coming off as such and cheerfully eat my words anyway.

[Rye]

Is oft-quoted in describing the attitude towards verses that are allegorical vs. literal. The idea, then, is to hammer home the point "What makes a verse literal or allegorical?

Actually, you don't even have to do that. All you have to do is hammer home the point that islam is founded on the preacceptance of "revelation" as a legitimate epistemology (wholly unjustified, as the quran reveals nothing new), and the assumption that the quran is representative of a real revelation, rather than merely being a bastardised form of christianity and judaism with a dose of preislamic meccan folklore (jinn, for example).

Who says this verse is allegorical and that one isn't?" And by describing a verse as allegorical - even one that was most likely intedned to be taken literally - pawning off whatever one desires as the actual meaning of Islam.

Who says any of it is actually from God and should be heeded anyway? That core untruth is the problem, the rest of it is just playing in the fundamentalist's yard, which you have no reason to do, unless you want to laugh at contradictions and absurd things like embryos being considered "blood clots". The truth is, the quran was compiled decades after Mohammed's death from fragments written on cowhide from his supposed speeches, none of it was out of line with the knowledge available at the time and it's clearly a man-made movement and a major source of suffering in the world.

That's more important than "hm, this bit telling me to throw homosexuals from mountains might be allegorical."

[Alerik the Fortunate]

I suppose it boils down to simply a lack of evidence. If their God wanted people to believe, he could have made unambiguous communication to as many people as necessary whenever appropriate instead of offering a mixture of rigid instructions and vague spiritual platitudes to one person and being silent after that, leaving that person and his successors to interpret these words without clear guidance and then enforce those interpretations on the rest of humanity. I'm curious as to why Muslims consider that acceptable, other than that's their default and, as far as a lot of people are concerned, has worked well enough for their society.

Am I wrong in demanding a perfect being live up to reasonable standards?
Also, I'm curious about the story of Mohammed splitting the moon. That's not in the Q'uran is it? If not, what is it's status in the canon? An unquestionable truth? Metaphor? Unsuppressed folk belief? That seems like the kind of thing that could be directly addressed.

[BountyHunterSAx]

The truth is, the quran was compiled decades after Mohammed's death from fragments written on cowhide from his supposed speeches

Proof of that claim? That the Ahadith (the Prophet's speeches and sayings) were widely recorded prior to his death. And further that these were conflated and confused with the Qur'anic verses.

Lest we forget, the Qur'an was preserved primarily as an oral tradition, prior to becoming a written one. And this preservation was not in the minds of the aristocratic and the elite only, nor only in the minds of the literate, but in the minds of a *huge* segment of the believing Muslims. When you realize their religious zeal and fervor, small wonder they would try to do so.

*SNIP* and it's clearly a man-made movement and a major source of suffering in the world.

Proof for that claim? That the Qur'an is a man-made movement? If that claim is true, I renounce my religion. But it's most certainly not provably true.

That's more important than "hm, this bit telling me to throw homosexuals from mountains might be allegorical."

Proof for that claim? That the Qur'an instructs Muslims to throw homosexuals off of mountains and/or execute them? It most certainly condemns their actions as immoral but it does *not* prescribe an earthly punishment for them.



-AHMAD

[Kanastrous]

*SNIP* and it's clearly a man-made movement and a major source of suffering in the world.

Proof for that claim? That the Qur'an is a man-made movement? If that claim is true, I renounce my religion. But it's most certainly not provably true.

No one's obliged to prove it false.

Burden of proof's entirely upon believers to prove it true, if they want any disinterested party to regard it as true.

[BountyHunterSAx]

Also, I'm curious about the story of Mohammed splitting the moon. That's not in the Q'uran is it?

Surat "Al Qamar" (verses 1-2) mentions the incident in brief:

Rough Translation:

The hour came nearer and the moon was torn apart. And if they see a miracle they turn aside and say: "Transient magic."


On account of the Qur'an being written for all times it seldom uses the direct-reference, and so this verse implies strongly that the miracle did occur. Further, according to the stories, independent tribes and bedouins who came into Makkah were asked by the Quraish about it and they verified that it had occurred.

Other instances of God doing that which man could not would be the parting of the Red Sea, or the fire that became cold for Abraham.

-AHMAD

[BountyHunterSAx]

*SNIP* and it's clearly a man-made movement and a major source of suffering in the world.

Proof for that claim? That the Qur'an is a man-made movement? If that claim is true, I renounce my religion. But it's most certainly not provably true.

No one's obliged to prove it false.

Burden of proof's entirely upon believers to prove it true, if they want any disinterested party to regard it as true.

If we're saying 'assume false until proven true', why should I assume that it's a man-made movement until he proves as much?

I don't believe in applying parsimony to metaphysics.

-AHMAD

[Eleas]

Am I wrong in demanding a perfect being live up to reasonable standards?

The question is, would you even need to demand it unless something is wrong somewhere? Shouldn't a perfect being be able to effortlessly live up to these standards, unless, for some reason, he/she/it didn't want to? Which would make said deity a bit of an asshole.

[Kanastrous]

If we're saying 'assume false until proven true', why should I assume that it's a man-made movement until he proves as much?

Because a man-made movement is intrinsically more likely than a divinely-communicated movement.

I don't believe in applying parsimony to metaphysics.

Why not?

Isn't that just basically a way to exempt your beliefs from hard standards of scrutiny, because you presumably know that the belief-system can't stand hard scrutiny?

[BountyHunterSAx]

I don't believe in applying parsimony to metaphysics, because metaphysics deals exclusively in the realm of things that are *not* demonstrable or provable.

Is it "good" to kill? Is it "good" to steal? Is it "moral" to self-cannibalize? These are ethical questions that deal in the realm of things which cannot - and indeed will not ever be provable. No matter how much data you collect on the degradation of a society by allowing anarchy, you'll never be able to prove that it's "better" to live in a society without anarchy.

Parsimony, further, need not always give the right answer. What if there *is* a scenario that's unnecessarily more complicated, hmm? Let's say that we try to formulate a theory about how a fridge works (as kids, i mean) and one of us theorizes, "When you open the door, the switch pulls out and the light goes on because of that." And the other's theory goes, "When you open the door, a switch pulls out, and tiny particles called electrons form a closed circuit to the light bulb."

Kid1 asks Kid2 to prove the existence of his theorized "tiny electron particles" and Kid2 says he can't, he only heard about it from some source that he trusts. Kid1 says "it violates parsimony" - and in this case he's right, because they don't have enough observations to prove that it actually DOESN'T violate parsimony.


A metaphysical argument - at least by the definition i'm understanding for it - cannot yield provable evidence and so applying parsimony will cut away 'good' theories.



Parsimony works perfectly in the physical world because science allows us to black-box ideas effectively. "Who cares if we're describing this wrongly/too generally? As long as our description is consistent with what we observe we can produce meaningful results. And if our results cease to be meaningful, we update the definition until they are."

-AHMAD

[Alerik the Fortunate]

The electron example is silly because though kid 2 may not know the details, the sources of explanation give access to both the reasoning that led to the conclusion, and the means to independently verify it though experiment, as time consuming and unlikely as that is to actually occur. Yet if either child grows up to be an engineer or scientist, he or she is likely to in fact go through that process.

Metaphysical exemption from parsimony is referring to things that are unverifiable in principle. How can they then be normative? How can you demand absolute submission of yourself, and most importantly others, to something on the basis that it might possibly be true, or could be interpreted to be consistent with what is known? By that logic anyone is capable of justifiably claiming to be God if they create a backstory that explains why it appears that they are just ordinary people.

[Sarevok]

Ahh why do every muslim launch an epic essay length tirade when the simple yes no question of if there is proof is brought up. Why not admit you believe out of blind faith and be done with ?

[Kanastrous]

A metaphysical argument - at least by the definition i'm understanding for it - cannot yield provable evidence and so applying parsimony will cut away 'good' theories.

And yet someone intelligent and perceptive enough to recognize that evidence is an impossibility, chooses to believe as if the unsupportable-by-evidence claims, are as real as the things for which there *is* evidence and proof.

Remarkable.

Alas, also common.

[Sarevok]

And yet someone intelligent and perceptive enough to recognize that evidence is an impossibility, chooses to believe as if the unsupportable-by-evidence claims, are as real as the things for which there *is* evidence and proof.

Remarkable.

Alas, also common.

Personally I remain muslim even while recognizing there is zero evidence because it brings peace of mind. Perhaps many people feel the need to believe in something too because without a strong inherent desire to trust fanciful tales religion would not have taken root. The problem is that most people will try to justify their religious beliefs with logic instead of recognizing it as a mental crutch.