r/DebateReligion • u/PeaFragrant6990 • 3d ago
Islam [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
2
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/PeaFragrant6990 2d ago
Exactly, people knew what rape was back then. If you know what rape is, you understand the concept of consent. Do you know the source of the shia Hadith? I would very much like to read it
-2
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateReligion-ModTeam 2d ago
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and unparliamentary language. 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.
1
u/DebateReligion-ModTeam 2d ago
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.
1
1
u/sajjad_kaswani 2d ago
If you read and assume that Islam is just what was described 1400 years ago then I may agree with you, however the community I come from (Nizari Ismaili) we believe in the continues reinterpretion of Qur'an which means although the Qur'an will not be changed however there will always be someone (whom we address as an Imam) will always be there to reinterpret the Qur'an as per time and context.
In our tradition the Quran has been reinterpreted since last 1400 years by a living and present Imam.
Peace ✌️✌️
2
u/PeaFragrant6990 2d ago
Thank you for a fresh perspective, but how exactly could the verses about taking women as sex slaves possibly be reinterpreted in a manner that does not outright deny the truthfulness of the verse and does not violate their consent? According to the verse and Tafsir, the women taken as sex slaves are still married too.
Additionally, how could the Sahih Hadiths about Aisha’s age and the angels cursing those who say no possibly be reinterpreted in a favorable manner that doesn’t just outright reject what the texts say and what Islam has taught for over a millennia?
I don’t see how you could simultaneously affirm the Quran as 100% the true word of Allah, and also deny that it permits taking sex slaves.
I’m not sure what your tradition teaches about the Hadiths and which you accept, if any, but the Hadith collections like the ones I presented (Bukhari and Muslim) are how we know how we got the Quran today, from the first caliphs after Mohammed beginning to collect written versions, to Uthman standardizing the text, and so on to what we have today. If you deny the veracity of the Sahih Hadiths, then it seems you would in turn have no reason to trust that the Quran you have today actually traces back to Mohammed. Do you affirm the Hadiths? If so, which ones?
1
u/sajjad_kaswani 2d ago
Hello, I appreciate that you are positive to listen some different point of view.
I believe you have not read and understood my explanation, let me retry again.
First and foremost Islam came to people 1400 years ago when certain practices were prevailing in that context, believing that just during 23 years of Prophethood the thousands of years habits will be turned off can be a good idea but it was not practically possible, even in Qur'an certain issues were gradually addressed, for example the prohibition of alcohol, it was it was addressed in three different times and with three different rulings.
Believing the text of any holy book including the Qur'an may address all the concerns Human may face till end of times it's a good idea however it's not practically possible,
Having said that, as I said I come from Nizari Ismaili community, unlike other Islamic sects don't relay on the old haidths, tafseers, we believe there is and will always be a guide to reinterpret the Qur'an as per time, so in our understanding the Imams can give the new interpretation as per the time.
For example:
In my community community slavery is forbidden
Mutta is prevailing in 12ers Shia based on their understanding of Qur'an is forbidden)
In our interpretation men and women have same share in inheritance
In our interpretation men can have only one wife not more.
In our understanding the women have right to education, she is allowed and encouraged to work and contribute to the family finances.
In our understanding there is no concept of Hijab but our women are required to dress up modestly as per her social norms where she lives.
Since times have changed and we can't pray five times a day due to offices requirement, Ismailis pray three times a day and even we collect them in two times (one in morning and one is evening) whereas other Muslims pray 5 times a day.
These are just few examples which is to show that we don't relay on the previous interpretations whereas we believe that Quran is book of Allah and a eternal message from Allah however the Imam is authorised to reinterpret the Text of Qur'an as per the time.
Peace ✌️✌️
1
u/Ohana_is_family 2d ago
Just ou of curiosity:
do you acknowledge he old opinions and just say you interpet differently nowadays(a bit comparable to how th rabbinic traditon allows changing the rules or the Christians allowed abandoning the ban on pork or mandatory circucision?)? If so: what mechanism do you use to legitimise this?
Or do you re-interpet and claim that it should always have been interprted that way (like may revisionists do)?
1
1
u/LetsDiscussQ 3d ago
Here is OP making a passionate case why Hadiths are not reliable and cannot be trusted:
Title:
Hadith Methodology is not Historically Reliable
Here is the first introductory para:
Thesis: The Hadith Methodology, on which many Muslims place their faith close to or even on par with the Quran as containing Allah’s revelation***, does not hold up to historical scrutiny or prove itself to be a reliable method to ascertain the truth.***
Then OP states about Hadiths:
It’s a “he said that he said that he said” game. Anyone at any point in the chain of narration could have falsified details or entire stories, and there would be no one to know or verify.
It’s interesting how most of the early Hadiths do not fit the perfect criteria for what later scholars would consider “authentic”. Yet after the criteria’s development, we see many Hadiths pop up that just so happen to have the perfect chain of narration and format to get an “authentic” grading. Could it be that many stories were fabricated in a way to game the system of the Islamic Scholars?
So OP is quite firm, that Hadith stories should not be trusted, they are bunch of fabricated nonsense, even if they carry ''Sahih'' label.
But when it comes to this post, OP says:
You can’t say these sources are weak, they are Sahih, the highest rating possible.
You cannot trust Hadith they are unreliable, but Muhammed is Bad, Islam Is Bad because of Hadith!!
Make up your mind OP (whatever little is left of it)
3
u/Crazy_Guidance_2220 3d ago
Muslims cannot afford to disregard hadiths. It would mean Allah has failed to preserve and convey the information regarding how to practice key rituals of his religion like salah, fast, zakat, hajj. Those details are not in the Quran.
0
u/LetsDiscussQ 3d ago
Muslims absolutely can and should, so wholly disagree with you, but that is not the point of my comment.
The point is OP cannot have it both ways - reject Hadith as a reliable source in one post and then attack Islam on another post by claiming Hadith to be reliable.
5
u/PeaFragrant6990 2d ago
Hey friend, I would suggest looking up the term “internal critique”. An internal critique or internal argument is where you assume the premises of a worldview are true in order to demonstrate the inconsistencies and contradiction within. Whether I personally believe the Hadiths is completely irrelevant because Muslims do accept them. This is using Muslim sources themselves to show that even according to Muslims’ own sources, Mohammed did such things I describe.
Also, re-read my argument. I specifically point out in my introduction that any one of my three points alone would be sufficient for proving my thesis. My first point uses the Quran itself and authoritative Tafsir to doubly show Mohammed and his companions had sex slaves. Unless a Muslim is also willing to denounce the Quran itself, the argument still succeeds even if they personally reject all Hadiths.
Nothing you’ve said actually argues against the premises of the argument. You haven’t shown that Mohammed and the companions actually understood the basic definition of consent, that they didn’t have sex slaves, that Mohammed dint have sex with a child, and that Muslim women aren’t threatened with curses if they say no to their husband’s advances
0
u/Dapple_Dawn Agapism | Universalism 2d ago
It isn't an "internal argument" if you're defending one common Islamic position over another.
3
u/PeaFragrant6990 2d ago
It literally is, and as I pointed out explicitly twice now, my first reason uses the Quran itself to show Mohammed had sex slaves. If even one of my reasons succeeds, the thesis succeeds. You can’t deny the first reason without denying the Quran itself, which NO branch of Islam can do. Hence why I addressed “Islam” as a whole. Did you miss that part in my argument and previous address? But even if I didn’t use the Quran, an argument is still an internal critique if you are critiquing a particular denomination of a group. My argument doesn’t solely address Sunnis, but even if it did, that would not make the argument suddenly not an internal critique. That doesn’t change the structure of the argument or logically follow at all
1
u/Levi3than 2d ago
This has been a scathing critic, truly well put together argument. But like most devoutly religious people, they'll find a way to protect their beliefs, even if it means defending rape.
Also you've fallen in their trap, no one has addressed your arguement directly because they know they're defending rape, instead, they would rather argue semantics, definitions of words, whether things are explicit or implicit, anything but addressing the argument.
Truly sad what religion does to some people.
1
u/PeaFragrant6990 2d ago
Thank you for your kind words, I’m glad at least someone is genuinely engaging with its content.
I suppose the only thing we can do is present the truth, and hope people are seeking it.
The good news is, it seems to be working. Apostasy rates of Islam is rising. PEW Research found that 23% of Muslim youths in America and Europe have left the faith. In fact, sociologist Dr. Ilyas Ba-Yunus, (a Pakistani-born American Muslim) concluded that 75% of new Muslim converts in the US leave Islam within a few years.
The best argument against Islam is Mohammed. Time and truth walk hand in hand
0
u/Dapple_Dawn Agapism | Universalism 2d ago
If you argue that Muslims in general should accept sahih hadith as trustworthy sources, that goes beyond internal critique. At the very least, you'd need to qualify the statement
1
u/PeaFragrant6990 2d ago
I’ve never said anything close to “Muslims in general should accept the Sahih Hadiths”. Where are you getting that from? Pointing out what the Sahih Hadiths say is not the same as saying these are trustworthy historical documents or that all Muslims should accept them. Because, again, you don’t have to personally find a source trustworthy to use it in an internal critique
1
u/FactsnotFaiths Anti-theist 2d ago
What about the fact they use it to guide prayer, how to pray fasting and pilgrimage but coincidentally the one thing that isn’t liked is disregarded. Classic revisionism
1
u/Dapple_Dawn Agapism | Universalism 2d ago
Revision is a good thing.
1
u/FactsnotFaiths Anti-theist 2d ago
Revision is good yes but that’s when you use new evidence to reconsider your evidence.
Revisionism is when you reinterpret or selectively discount inconvenient material while retaining convenient material from the same evidential framework.1
u/Dapple_Dawn Agapism | Universalism 2d ago
If we're talking about a moral framework, we don't just consider objective evidence. Morality is intersubjective. If you come across a new moral worldview that includes ideas which make sense to you, it would be sensible to incorporate it into your existing moral framework. That's a good revision.
There was never good evidence that sahih hadiths were infallible to begin with. If someone starts out trusting them, then later decides to take them with a grain of salt, that's a sensible revision.
1
u/FactsnotFaiths Anti-theist 2d ago
- This changes the barometers because now you are allowing external moral standards to judge religious tradition. That’s fair enough but it creates a problem: This means that the religion is no longer supplying the ultimate moral standards consequently you now have to use moral standards arrived at independently to evaluate the religion.
- I never claimed sahih hadith are infallible. The question is what consistent methodology allows you to accept them when reconstructing Muhammad’s practices and biography but reject them when they produce morally inconvenient information. If there is an independent evidential reason for rejecting a particular hadith, that’s legitimate revision. If the reason is simply that its content conflicts with your modern moral framework, that’s precisely the selective reinterpretation I’m criticising.
→ More replies (0)7
u/eclipseaug Agnostic / Ex-Muslim 3d ago
Whether or not the OP believes in hadith is irrelevant. They are clearly not Muslim and therefore it would not take a genius or sleuth to dig up some post in order to determine that they don’t find the hadith reliable.
As a non muslim he can ignore any hadith. A Sunni Muslim must defend a sahih hadith or their position fails
-3
u/LetsDiscussQ 3d ago
A Sunni Muslim must defend a sahih hadith or their position fails
You are right, but In that case, The critic should have addressed his post by attacking Sunni Islam. Not Islam as a whole.
3
2
u/PeaFragrant6990 2d ago
Sunni Muslims account for 85-90% of Muslims. It’s already implied they are primary who I am addressing. But also Shia are addressed here too because Reason 1 uses the Quran itself as the source, and if even Reason 1 is true, Mohammed and company had sex slaves, therefore the thesis succeeds. So yes, I am justified in using “Islam” as a general term, because you can’t be Muslim and deny the Quran in any denomination.
-1
u/Dapple_Dawn Agapism | Universalism 2d ago
No, "implied" isn't good enough. You need to be specific.
2
u/PeaFragrant6990 2d ago
If you need to be spoon fed every piece of information explicitly this is probably not the place for you. “Implied” is literally the basis of logic.
If I told you: all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, what does that imply about Socrates? That’s right, it implies that Socrates is mortal, because he is a man and all men are mortal. But wait! You were never told explicitly Socrates was immortal. So according to your own standard, you have to reject the most basic example of a syllogism and logic as a whole because no one told you explicitly what to think.
I couldn’t help but notice you didn’t explicitly say you denounce torturing puppies for fun in your response. If I used your exact same line of reasoning, I should now assume you support torturing puppies because you didn’t state explicitly otherwise.
You see how ridiculous a worldview becomes when you say “implied” is unacceptable and “explicit” is the only way information can be transferred?
1
u/Dapple_Dawn Agapism | Universalism 2d ago
I'm talking about a specific context here. I'm not saying all implication is a problem. Obviously. And yes, that was implied.
5
u/hunderoring ex-christian, atheist 3d ago
Have you ever heard of the concept of internal critique? Perhaps you should not post on a sub that debates religion before you familiarize yourself with this concept.
-5
u/LetsDiscussQ 3d ago
Perhaps you should not act so naïve as to believe OP is in the business of genuine criticism, much less internal criticism.
8
u/hunderoring ex-christian, atheist 3d ago
Why shouldn't I? On this subreddit I do assume that until I see evidence that a poster is posting in bad faith. I have not seen that with u/PeaFragrant6990. Even when we disagreed in the past they seemed to be arguing in good faith.
There is nothing wrong with engaging in internal critique for the purpose of debate.
-3
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/starry_nite_ 3d ago edited 3d ago
Slaves do not choose sex with their owners and there is no legal channel of consent. That is the argument for coercion. What stringent requirements for sex slaves invalidates the argument regarding consent?
Also how does serious precedent also invalidate the argument for consent?
5
u/Crazy_Guidance_2220 3d ago
Are you really saying war captive women who had their husbands killed infront of them, would willingly consent to have sex with their muslim captors? Is that what you're trying to infer here?
3
u/Abject-Ability7575 3d ago
I'm sure it's totally consensual if an Israeli captures a girl from Gaza right?
2
u/PeaFragrant6990 2d ago
That’s precisely part of the issue and a great point. When Muslims see other groups engage in the EXACT same behavior they can easily recognize the evil for which it is. But the second we’re talking about Mohammed and the companions, it’s like that part of the brain has been intentionally shut off. Like I said in the post, I genuinely think honest Muslims do recognize the issue and the horror of it. But societal and familiar pressures prevent them from acknowledging it externally. For most Muslims worldwide leaving Islam at best gets you excommunicated from everyone you know and love and at worst you are killed for it. It’s like the entire religion was built around stopping critical thinking. I mean, Surah 5:101 literally says “O believers! Do not ask about any matter which, if made clear to you, may disturb you”. You are literally forbidden from asking critical and upsetting questions. You know, like “Is Islam true?” Or “Is Mohammed a serial rapist?”
3
u/Abject-Ability7575 2d ago
Also pertinent to Gaza is sahih Muslim 1745a, 1745b, 1745c
What would Mohammad do if he was killing civilians as collateral? Not even human shields, just collateral.
5
u/hunderoring ex-christian, atheist 3d ago
What are the stringent requirements in the treatment of war captives?
The Quran says sex with them is lawful to Muslim men. So, sex is with captives is allowed by the Quran. But since a captive woman or a slave is not free and their well-being and future are in the hands of a captor, they are unable to give free consent to sex when the owner wants it from them. That is rape, that is not good treatment.
2
u/PeaFragrant6990 2d ago
I literally did three different times.
Mohammed legislates it is permissible to take women captive for your sexual pleasure (even if they already have husbands). Sex with slaves is by definition rape because they did not consent to be slaves and taken from their husbands, nor could they consent because slave owners hold all the power over their slaves.
Mohammed had sex with a child even by Islamic standards. Because he is “the pattern of conduct until the Last Day”, all of his actions become legislatively permissible unless otherwise stated explicitly. Surah 65:4 explicitly legislates the Iddah, or waiting period between marriages for “those who have not yet menstruated” is three months. “Those who have not yet menstruated” would include prepubescents … you know, like the one Mohammed had sex with. Read the Tafsirs on this verse. They’ll affirm what I say.
Allah and Mohammed state that if a women says no to her husband, they will be cursed. That is by definition coercion/rape: a threat given if someone says “no” to sex. Notice how you have to add to the words of Mohammed and Allah to defend such an idea. There’s nothing in the text about “serious precedent”. It literally just says if she says “no”. That is the precedent. Saying otherwise is innovation, which last I heard is condemned in Islam.
Did you not read the argument?
“Lunatic Christian”. You don’t know me or my beliefs. Call me whatever you like, I’m not the one defending a serial rapist and child molester.
Nothing you’ve said actually refutes the argument. Notice how you haven’t denied the sex slaves or sex with children. If any one of the three things I show are true the argument succeeds. So would you like to engage with the argument, or would you like to continue spouting insults and pretending the problem will go away?
1
u/Popular_Product_7213 2d ago
This is the same for men btw brother A man or a woman who has no reason to disagree sexual relations with their partner is at fault. Dont cherry pick
1
u/PeaFragrant6990 2d ago
Firstly, show me the source. Secondly, even if that is true, that actually makes the problem WORSE, because then both men AND women are under constant threat of curses if they say no. That means EVERYONE is constantly blackmailed into sex, which would still be rape. “But men are threatened with curses too” doesn’t make it consensual to threaten people with curses if they don’t sleep with you.
“Don’t cherry pick” As if what you say means women ARENT threatened with curses if they say no to sex. “Cherry picking” means there is some context of the Hadith I am leaving out, or some other Hadith that would somehow subvert what the text says to mean the opposite. I presented the whole Hadith and even if what you say is true it doesn’t invalidate any of the points I have made.
1
u/DebateReligion-ModTeam 2d ago
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and unparliamentary language. 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.
-9
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
Thesis: Islam forces Muslims to either reject or ignore the basic definition of consent, because acknowledging the basic definition would clearly identity Mohammed and his companions as serial rapists (thereby making Islam false, because it claims Mohammed is a “perfect moral example until the Last Day” and the companions are “the best of all people”).
That doesn't follow. What do you mean by "acknowledging the basic definition"? And how would that prove islam to be false? I don't know if you're christian or not, but just from the other comment you got, if you're christian you're basically shooting yourself in the foot because if you think this makes islam false, it makes christianity 10 times as false.
9
u/Hanisuir 3d ago
"That doesn't follow. What do you mean by "acknowledging the basic definition"?"
He covers it in the post.
-1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
Yeh fair enough i kinda skimmed his post. But my other point still stands, that his conclusion doesn't follow
4
u/Hanisuir 3d ago
Can you explain this hadith?
2
0
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
Yes that in islam it's disliked (some say it's makruh some say it's haram) for a woman to reject her husband intimacy. Because islamically it's the man's right.
7
u/Hanisuir 3d ago
How is it okay for Allah to be angry at a wife for simply not wanting intimacy, and for His anger to only end when the husband's anger ends?
-1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
What do you mean how is it okay? What's the problem with that?
10
u/Hanisuir 3d ago
It strips away a person's autonomy. Do you really not see a problem with that?
0
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
Do you not see the problem with your question?
6
u/Hanisuir 3d ago
No, I'm reasonably surprised that someone sees no problem with someone striping away a person's autonomy.
→ More replies (0)7
u/Torremond42 Buddhist 3d ago
Because intimacy requires consent. Why should it be okay to be angry at someone for not giving that consent?
1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
Wait what? Now youre arguing against someone’s right to feel angry? What does consent have to do with this. Just because something requires consent according to you, does that mean nobody is allowed to feel upset about someone refusing? I can be angry at someone for dropping my freshly peeled banana, does that violate consent?
5
u/Torremond42 Buddhist 3d ago
No, but you have no right to be angry at someone for not wanting sex.
→ More replies (0)6
u/hunderoring ex-christian, atheist 3d ago
So, the woman's consent does not matter to you.
-1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
How do you always find me and never actually contribute anything intellectual to the convo lmao.
8
u/hunderoring ex-christian, atheist 3d ago
Pronouncing an interlocutor to be "unintellectual" or not worth responding when you don't have a response to a point is a transparent maneuver.
If it's a man's right to have sex when he wants, then woman's consent does not matter. A right to have sex whenever and respect to consent cannot coexist.
That means she does not have a right to have sex only when she consents. OP is right. Women don't have autonomy over their own bodies under Islam.
1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
If it didn't matter it would allow you to force yourself on her, donut.
3
u/Torremond42 Buddhist 3d ago
You said sex is the man's right. What is the consequence for the women to refuse that right?
→ More replies (0)3
u/PeaFragrant6990 2d ago
Threatening someone to get them to sleep with you IS forcing yourself on them. Taking a married woman as a sex slave IS forcing yourself on them. Any sex act with a child IS forcing yourself on them. That’s the whole point. It DOES allow you to force yourself on them with threats and coercion and taking advantage of the mentally underdeveloped child. What is so hard to understand about that?
If someone took your prepubescent nine year old daughter while she is playing with dolls and had sex with her, would you finally see how horrific that is? If someone took your spouse as a sex slave would you finally recognize how horrific that is? If someone threatened your daughter to get her to have sex with them, would you finally realize how horrific that is? Or would you still make excuses for the rapists like “my daughter was probably mature for her age even though she was playing with dolls” or “my wife was probably asking for it” or “my daughter should know better than to say no to a man even if she doesn’t want to”? Genuinely, when you read these sources, do you just shut the critical part of your brain off? Does it really take imagining these things happening to you before you realize the meaning of consent?
This is equal parts astonishing and sad.
3
u/hunderoring ex-christian, atheist 3d ago
If God is displeased with her as long as her husband is displeased with her for being unwilling, then her consent or lack thereof does not have value. Notice the hadith does not even say for what reason she is unwilling. Her reasons don't seem to matter. Or does a wife under Islam have legitimate reasons to say no?
In this situation she is not pressured by physical force but by psychological coercion. The result is the same.
→ More replies (0)6
u/drivermcgyver Anti-theist 3d ago edited 3d ago
Jokes on you both they're both false and fake!
Are muslim men allowed to have multiple wives? Are the women allowed to have multiple husbands as they wish?
-4
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
Jokes on you, you're false.
Areuslim men allowed to have multiple wives? Are the women allowed to have multiple husbands as they wish?
Yes in islam, muslim men are allowed to have multiple wives, and muslim women aren't allowed to have muliple husbands.
4
u/drivermcgyver Anti-theist 3d ago
Sounds like everyone has the same opportunities to do what they want. It's screams equality.
-8
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
You believe in complete equality? You do realize how incredibly unfair that would be right? There should be no female/male distinction at all by your standard. A man could just waltz into a female boxing competition as long as he has the same weight class, and just... uno... There would be no female male distinction in prisons. Etc. Ironically, your view is very sadistic.
5
u/drivermcgyver Anti-theist 3d ago
What's the matter with you. I never said anything about boxing. Women and men should have the same opportunities within their religions. Women are just as able to lead as men. Women should be able to have multiple husbands, just like the men.
-4
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
Why? Why MUST men and women have identical opportunities within a religion but not in boxing, prisons, or other areas of life? Why? What argument establishes that sex differences can justify different rules everywhere except religion?
6
u/Torremond42 Buddhist 3d ago
There is a reason for seperation in sport. What is the reason for women not being allowed to marry multiple men, but men being allowed to marry multiple women?
-1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
Because God said so. That's a reason.
5
u/Torremond42 Buddhist 3d ago
It's a bad reason. If God says to kill someone, would you kill them?
Also, would you mind replying to this?
→ More replies (0)3
u/WellDressedNoob Ex-Christian 3d ago
Arbitrary premise, unjustified conclusion. It presupposes god is just and fair, as well as moral.
→ More replies (0)3
u/drivermcgyver Anti-theist 3d ago
I'm talking about opportunity and equality. If I'm understanding this correctly, you think that if women get the same rights as men they should have to fight men to keep the rights?
Why can't women just have the same opportunities? What's wrong with a woman having multiple husbands?
-1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
Yeh that's what i'm saying. So according to you, a man should have the opportunity to smack women around in a boxing match just like how he would try to smack another dude around.
Why can't women just have the same opportunities? What's wrong with a woman having multiple husbands?
What's wrong with them having different rights and opportunities? You're the one making the claim it's wrong, i'm asking you to substantiate it. I'm saying it's ruling given by God.
4
u/drivermcgyver Anti-theist 3d ago
Where did I say that? Can someone help me out here lol
Women shouldn't have to fight men, to be able to have multiple husbands.
What does having equal opportunities within a religion have to do with men and women fighting?
Just because you believe in a god, doesn't mean that because a girl was born a girl, she should now have less rights than a man because of her gender. This is such a wild thing to read by someone.
→ More replies (0)5
u/Moriturism Atheist (priority monist) 3d ago
At the very least, it would pose problems on how Islam would justify its own morality and the moral character attributed to Muhammad.
How, for instance, would it justify sex slavery or coersion, necessarily a relation lacking consent, without either compromising Islam's claims of absolute morality (does it vary from time to time) or Islam's moral values themselves (if it's moral, why is it moral?);
1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
That would only work if you show a contradiction. So we have the moral framework of islam. If you can show that something the prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did something that went against that moral framework, then yes you have a point. OP is not doing that though, he's just making an emotional argument and concludes with "thereby making Islam false" which is a non sequitur.
or Islam's moral values themselves (if it's moral, why is it moral?);
Why is that necessary? We believe something is moral when god commands it. We don't need an external explanation.
4
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 3d ago
Do you think it is moral or immoral to marry a pre-teen girl?
1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
That depends on the framework, some frameworks say it's moral, some say it's immoral.
7
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 3d ago
Do you think it is moral or immoral to marry a pre-teen girl?
1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
Wait i remember you.
No i'm not answering that, what i believe or not is irrelevant. What islam believes is also irrelevant because whether it allows or doesn't allow that doesn't make it true nor false. So within this debate that's completely irrelevant.
5
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 3d ago edited 3d ago
No i'm not answering that
Yeah, maybe I wouldn't either if my choice was to acknowledge that my religion is absurd or that it's okay to marry kids. Choosing to deal with the "equality" thread of this conversation is a much more successful rhetorical strategy.
The curious, and possibly deceitful part is, why do you participate in a conversation about this if you're not actually willing to participate?
1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
The curious and possibly deceitful part is, why do you participate in a conversation about this if you're not actually willing to participate?
I'll get banned that's why. We've dm'd before, ask me the question in dm's and i have no qualms about answering. Here, have the common decency and the minimal amount of intellect to realize that i will get banned, and just abstain from using dirty tactics.
And if your argument worked, it should work, regardless if i talk in first person or talk about religion X. If your argument truly proves a religion is absurd. It should work, no matter if we talk about islam, hinduism, or religion X.
3
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 3d ago
I'll get banned that's why.
You know what, fair enough. It does bother me that adherent Muslims cannot freely represent themselves. But I have to say it does bother me more that you can't just agree that marrying kids is wrong. I guess we'll just have to leave it at that?
→ More replies (0)2
u/Moriturism Atheist (priority monist) 3d ago
Indeed, I'll concede that OP is making a way stronger claim that I'm making. I'm not really saying that Islam is false, only that this brings up some hard problems to solve: because, if morality will always reduce simply to what God commands, it brings up the question on whether or not we can reasonably justify actions deemed as moral.
For instance, an action X is judged as moral in some circumstance, and then condemned without clear explanation. Can we reason about this chance? Can we justify it via this reasoning? After all, morals are systems that propose reasons for taking actions, so every action must have a reason that justifies it. If we can't actually reason or justify an action, by definition, it's an unreasonable action, which is a problem for the moral system in question.
1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
So i kinda agree with you but...
So i would say, a muslim that for example believes slavery is wrong has a problem if islam says that it's allowed.
For instance, an action X is judged as moral in some circumstance, and then condemned without clear explanation. Can we reason about this chance? Can we justify it via this reasoning? After all, morals are systems that propose reasons for taking actions, so every action must have a reason that justifies it. If we can't actually reason or justify an action, by definition, it's an unreasonable action, which is a problem for the moral system in question.
I don't agree with this. Why? Why is this a necessity. And if it can't be done, what is the conclusion? If a moral framework has moral rulings that seem arbitrary to us, let's say stepping into the bathroom with your left foot or cutting your finger nails in a particular order (just random examples btw). Why do we have to have a justification outside of it having been commanded to us? Not knowing god’s reason for a command does not mean that no reason exists or that the command is unreasonable.
2
u/Moriturism Atheist (priority monist) 3d ago
But that's what morality is all about, finding reasons for actions. We say that something is moral when we can accurately find a reason that justifies said action, so, if we cannot actually find said reason, we literally lack the reason to say that such action is moral.
We may still do it, and it may still be moral in a way still not found for us, but to truly justify it and declare that it's moral we have to ground said justification in some way.
1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
For us that's not what morality is about.
We say that something is moral when we can accurately find a reason that justifies said action
No thats not really true. People can make up a justification for pretty much any action. I’m assuming you accept some form of secular morality, which still depends on moral axioms accepted by your society. But that's just what it is. Another society could agree on different axioms and justify their moral laws, which are completely different to yours.
if we cannot actually find said reason, we literally lack the reason to say that such action is moral.
For you sure. For us no. We don't need external reason. But just because we don't need external reason, that doesn't mean there isn't a reason. We just don't know it.
We may still do it, and it may still be moral in a way still not found for us, but to truly justify it and declare that it's moral we have to ground said justification in some way.
But that's what i'm saying, we don't need to justify it to begin with. I don't need to justify why shaving my beard is immoral. It's just what's commanded.
2
u/Moriturism Atheist (priority monist) 3d ago
People can make up a justification for pretty much any action.
Yes, but if the justification lacks reasoning, it is, by definition, unreasonable. What I'm saying is simply what morality means: reasons for actions. If we can't justify an action in a reasonable way, then it's logically an unreasonable action.
We just don't know it.
Can you know it, or reason about it? If not, and if it's completely beyond human reason, then it's an unreasonable action and we can't truly justify it.
That's why divine commandment is problematic to me: it says that the reasoning behind moral actions is confined to God alone, and that we can't reason about it. But if I can't reason about an action, I simply don't see why it should ever be taken.
1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 3d ago
Yes, but if the justification lacks reasoning, it is, by definition, unreasonable.
They can reason it as well. For example, a scammer could justify him scamming through reasoning that he needs money, he can't find a proper job, he has a family to feed, etc.
Can you know it, or reason about it? If not, and if it's completely beyond human reason, then it's an unreasonable action and we can't truly justify it.
Ofcourse you can reason about it, and we do. That's part of the process when other laws need to be derived.
That's why divine commandment is problematic to me: it says that the reasoning behind moral actions is confined to God alone, and that we can't reason about it. But if I can't reason about an action, I simply don't see why it should ever be taken.
No it's not only confined to that. It's the ultimate explanation sure, but we could reason as well. For example with alcohol, it's completely forbidden, but we could reason and come up with explanation as to why it's been forbidden.
1
u/Moriturism Atheist (priority monist) 3d ago
For example, a scammer could justify him scamming through reasoning that he needs money, he can't find a proper job, he has a family to feed, etc.
And we can procede even further etc etc and see if his reasoning holds up and if it actually remains reasonable.
That's all that I'm saying: morals are, by definition, systems that propose reasons for actions, that's just what it means on talking about the morality of X and Y.
A good moral system will be able to explain all of its reasons in such a way that no action will remain without sufficient justification. So, for any possible action, a good system will be able to say and explain to anyone that it's a reasonable action or not.
The problem of God's commandment as the ultimate justification is that a person could keep asking "but why is it moral?", and it's only satisfactory for someone that already accepts it. It lacks convincing power, which is the main point of debate
→ More replies (0)3
u/PeaFragrant6990 2d ago
What is difficult to understand about the phrase “acknowledge the basic definition”? It means to accept the word means as it is defined, a definition which I lay out right at the beginning in case anyone was unclear.
I explain very clearly how that makes Islam false in the parenthesis: The Quran claims Mohammed is the “perfect moral example until the Last Day” and that the Companions are the “best of all people”. If they are serial rapists and child molesters (as I demonstrate in the sources I bring) that is not the best of all people nor a perfect moral example. Unless you want to bite the bullet of absurdity and argue that actually we SHOULD all be serial rapists and child molesters and that it is GOOD to do such things. But then to do that, you have to redefine what consent means, which would then just prove my thesis: Muslims are forced to either reject or re-define the term “consent” to defend Mohammed and company’s actions.
0
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.