As a former Muslim (which was not my will to accept it, just inherent), I have witnessed plenty of obsessions and repetitions in Islam. I still observe all of them as I am still in Turkey and everyone around me believe in Islam. Let me mention about some of them below:
1. Entering into a bathroom/toilet with left leg first. And the right one is waiting to be used for exit.
2. Entering into the house, mosque or any clean place with the right leg first. And the left one is used for exit.
3. Using the right hand for eating and drinking. Left hand is for cleaning your genitals in the toilet.
4. Obsessions while mentioning holly words. For instance, say Allah's name for 99 times, or say 33 times Suphanallah, Elhamdulillah and Allahu Ekber consecutively, which will be totally 99 at the end, or say any pre-determined word or phrase for certain times in order to be granted a wish. These are countless, and contain specific numbers for lots of prays.
5. Saying "be free" for three times in order to divorce from your wife. (Wifes are not authorized to divorce from their husbands.)
6. Say Bismillah before starting to eat or do something.
I don't know if other religions have also this kind of obsessions. If you also know some oddities for Islam or any other language, please share your ideas.
Thanks.
Alkibiades from Turkey
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Those behaviors are encouraged as a means of erasing individualism and ensuring submission.
Yeah CyberLN. I liked your comment. You are right. That is a way of suppressing individuals, and incorporate them into a repetitive, but a meaningless cycle. So they can be digested in the unreasonable network of rules.
Let's face it, the word 'Islam' means 'submission'.
Yes. You surrender yourself to Allah. However, my problem is not only with Islam, but with all religions, monotheistic or polytheistic. So, Christians' submission is to God and Jesus Christ, Zoroastrians' is to Ahura Mazda, for pagans to lots of gods. All brings about their nonsense rules and obsessions, and then illogical process.
Alkibiades, thank you and very interesting. Can I ask where this is from? If Hadith, then what number?
There were some in my religion (lutheran):
Saying god help you when someone sneezes and that weird obsession with the numbers 3 and 7.
You are most welcome Polly73. These are generally hadiths. In Quran, it is often difficult to find verses depicting the practices. Muslims learn how to pray five times a day, fast during Ramadan or other primary practices by reading the Hadiths, all of which was quoted by the followers of prophet Mohammad accompanied him. These quotes were not written for a period, most probably for one century, therefore they are all considered as word of mouth. Then many authors put them on paper. However, some of them are considered as reliable authors. Although verses can be referred as numbers of verses and suras (section of the Quran), hadiths do not have numbers.
In Islam, there is also a ceremonial order in order to reply to sneezing. When someone sneezes, sneezing person says "Thank Allah", then the other person replies "God bless you", and finally sneezing person says "Allah let you find the true path of you and me.". All is said in Arabic. But most people does not practice this, as they are in Arabic language, which is so much different from Turkish language. In Turkey, people just say "Live longer or live healthier" when you sneeze, and the reply is "You too.".
Yes, numbers and gestures are the subjects of obsessions. Not only in Islam, but like you said in other religions too. However, as I live in an Islamic environment, I am familiar with these obsessions.
I thought of one more weirdness in my former religion - during Easter and Christmas Eve we weren't allowed to play any kind of board- or card games. It was called "to entertain the devil". All bars close at 12 midnight on December 23rd and the night before Easter because it's considered a sin to be drinking booze on "holy days". I don't think this is directly from any kind of scripture though (not sure), just a tradition that has developed over time.
Hello Alkibiades,
About the right side/ left side superstitions, those can actually be traced back to the Greeks. In both greek and roman cultures, the left side and lefhandedness were considered negative. The latin word for left is "sinstra", which translates to "sinister" ( evil, bad omen). This superstition was passed on from the Roman culture to Christianity and subsequently to Islam.
Now concerning the repetitions/ numbers in islamic or Islam related practices, I can name other examples (those you mentioned are accurate):
- Eating exactly 7 dates a day( presumably to stay healthy and cure diseases)
- During the pilgrimage, going around the "Kaaba" 7 times
- Knocking on the door exactly three times
- In every prayer, repeating certain sentences three times
- There are 5 pillars of Islam and 5 prayers a day
- "Allah" has 99 names
Do you notice a pattern here? It's always odd numbers.
Resarchers in the History of the Arabian Peninsula think that this fascination with odd numbers has originated from the pagan religions of the region that Islam abolished (ironically), but many aspects of that pagan culture slipped into the teaching of Islam because it was the most dominant at the time, before the Islamic takeover. I can go into further detail about this later if you are really interested.
Putting the obvious religious practices (prayer, pilgrimage, fasting...) aside, the rest seem like (and actually are) very stupid, extremely absurd superstitions that people in the 21st century shouldn't worry about, but religion is a hell of a drug.
Interesting
Just to add a little bit:
"sinstra" in Latin and later evolved to "sinistra" in Italian.
Both mean LEFT
It is of pagan origin indeed, in fact Christianity is of pagan origin and Islam is just a version of Christianity gone over board.
Robert Spencer(a christian) makes an interesting case for the origin of Islam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6bBeyaRjac
Hi Rawan,
I didn't know that sinister is left in Latin, and this superstition passed from Romans to Christianity then to Islam. Great information! Thanks!
Yeah, upon some pondering on the repetitions, I can see that there is not even number of repetitions. In fact, salaats (namaz in Turkish) are five times a day. But, for instance, morning prayer has four rakats, noon has ten, and mid-afternoon has eight. I can only see the exception here. Perhaps there are few more. Nevertheless, the general rule for odd numbers particularly in repetitions still dominates.
With regard to the five prayers a day, you know it is a result of a hard bargain made between Allah and Muhammad. :) It is very funny. Allah is inconsistent. It does not know what it wants, and then it does not know the result of its actions. Destiny (Kader) is only a fairy tale then.
When Muhammad was mandating Muslims to fast, he could not see beyond Arab Peninsula. Poor guy! Scandinavian Muslims and others who live in northernmost parts of the world are now suffering and starving. In the winter, they are the kings of the world. Few hours is OK for them.
Islam, comprising of very outdated practices, is based on lunar calendar.
Lots of stupid rules and millions of followers. Poor people! Most of them, feared of death and uncertainty, just desire a imaginary heaven in the afterlife. They cannot confess that this world is the end, there is nothing after it. If the God is omnipotent and fair-minded, it could have just put us in the heaven first and foremost. Otherwise, he likes to watch us while being tortured in this world.
A dysfunctional but a perfect design! A perfect body, but is prone to the diseases, and dies just 80 years later. A perfect weather, but kills thousands with its hurricanes and floods. A perfect land, but kills thousands with earthquakes and demolishes cities.
Mr. Spencer's theory is really interesting, except he has been misinformed about one detail: the Quran was actually collected by the Caliph Uthman circa 650. The caliph was later assassinated (for political reasons) and almost every copy of his version of the quran ( called the Uthman Quran / Samarkand Kufic Quran) was burned and replaced with another version collected and edited by his successor.
Whether Muhammad did exist and wrote the Quran himself or he didn't exist and the Quran was fabricated later, there are three obvious inspiration sources in the holy book of Islam:
- Christianity
- Judaism
- Indigenous paganism
What I've found most interesting through my readings about Muhammed's (alleged) upbringing in Mecca, before he started preaching Islam is:
1- His family (the Beni Hachem dynasty), and especially his grandfather and uncle who raised him, were responsible for catering to the pilgrims of the Kaaba, which was the center of the pagan cult in the arab peninsula back then. He worked there as a child and until his early twenties.
2- As a teenager, he would sit in the neighbouring jewish tribes gatherings with old jewish men, listening to their discussions for hours.
3- In the few years preceding the start of his allegations, he was very close with "Waraka Ibn Nawfel", famously known as a christian theologist who didn't believe in the divinity of Christ and saw him only as a messenger of God. Some researchers even claim that it was Ibn Nawfel who wrote or at least inspired most of the Quran.
This, in my opinion, might explain why the Quran is mainly an amlgamation of these three sources of religious beliefs IF the historical Muhammed did in fact exist.
I doubt he did, the most logical reason why any religion survives the very first stages is because of political reasons.
In other words the people in power must indeed accept it, they must at the bare minimum tolerate it enough to financially support it's distribution throughout the region.
The idea that a religion can survive without preachers preaching every week(if not every day) is an outright lie.
No religion what so ever survives if there is no type of indoctrination unless it is some selective type of cult that targets rich and influential people.
But as religions go, all of them went through the same propaganda process.(not small cults)
Preachers in every town square preaching everyday.(today Christians call it mass)
The money to do this amount of propaganda (not counting the literature spending) is huge.
Only the most rich and influential people can handle such a task.
This in itself marks the tombstone for Christianity starting by just 12 apostles or Islam starting by Mohamed and his followers.
It is by far more logical that they had people with power to back them up, to finance such a huge undertaking.
This is logical, if you been believing all your life in a pagan religion, the only way you would change your mind is either because it is forced upon you, or a lot of propaganda is being spread around for a different religion everyday. (go with the flow)
There is simply no way on earth that just 1 preacher visiting once a month/year can change anybody's mind about their religion.
This fact is conveniently ignored by religious people.
Today the preachers got their own church, their own abbots, their own sleeping quarters and people come to them, instead of going in the town square everyday.
A successful business comes with it's advantages.
Hi Rawan. You are making good points, and I enjoy reading them. The problem is that Christ or Mohammad, both are adorned with lots of epic stories. They both are accepted as the role models having outstanding behaviors to be followed.
Quran is the blended version of Jewish and Christian holly books, and previous pagan beliefs and stories.
Congratulations for making out of Islam.....I hope things are going fine in your life now @ Alkibiades
about the topic such kind of practices only show the Power of brainwashing/mind control
Thanks Abeer. :)
There is no doubt that money and power played an essential role in the spreading of major religions. But in the case of Islam, this argument cannot be used to prove the non-existence of Muhammed.
The more you read about the birth of Islam in history books, the more you realise that Muhammed was mainly a cunning politician.
First, he started preaching secretively among slaves and poor people, inciting them to rebel against the wealthy and powerful masters and gaining their support in the process. During this early phase, his speech was all about preaching the word of God peacefully and how the poor and miserable were deserving of a better life.
Ten years go by, and Muhammed wins the support of two of the most powerful and wealthy men of Mecca : Abu Bakr Al-Seddik and Omar Al-Khattab and their followers. Only then he decides to go public with his claims.His speech becomes softer towards rich people and more agressive against "the infidels".
With the financial aid he just obtained, he prepares a small army to fight the other big dynasties who still rule Mecca. The first thing he does? He attacks a caravan carrying trading revenues of the most powerful rival dynasty (Beni Omaya), and steals all their gold, horses and weapons, adding to his power and weakening the enemy.
In the following years, Muhammed wins over all the arab tribes, either by fighting them until they surrender or by luring them with the promise of abundant war loot and sex slaves.
Does any of this sound like the standard doings of prophets or messengers of God as described in the old and new testament ? It doesn't look like it to me. Because Muhammed was just a politician and a war monger who used religion only as a device to build a base of followers in the beginning and to give legitimacy to his power seeking plans.
Of course he wasn't alone, he surrounded himself by some of the most important people of his society (warlords, aristocrats,slave traders) and they followed him purely for political and financial reasons.
You see, the spreading of Islam wasn't through preaching, or even mass propaganda. It was through wars and political manoeuvring. The people who accepted Islam at the time were just afraid for their lives and didn't have a choice.
Of course later, once the Islamic empire was established, the powerful people (as you mentioned) made sure Islam remained the only largely practiced religion ( by forcing Jews and Chrisitians to pay a disriminatory tax (Jizya) for living on islamic empire land, executing anyone who speaks against Islam or tries to leave the faith,...etc...)
What I'm saying is, everything you said makes sense, but it doesn't prove Muhammed didn't exist. The actions of Muhammed and his followers ( according to Islamic history and litterature) follow more or less the same process you describe.
If we want to disprove Muhammed ever existed, we need a better argument, because as a historical figure he totally makes sense. He was not an all forgiving, almost divine miracle achieving man. He was a deeply flawed, horrible person. His actions were driven by greed, lust and hunger for power.
Maybe one day more historical evidence will surface, allowing us to know once and for all if this man was real because the logical argument is not enough in this case.
"There is no doubt that money and power played an essential role in the spreading of major religions. But in the case of Islam, this argument cannot be used to prove the non-existence of Muhammed."
Your argument makes sens to me, I am glad to have the opportunity to debate some one like you.
You seem to agree with me that Islam started by a political move and propaganda.
So with that out of the picture, the thing we seem to disagree about is:
1)Did it originate with Mohamed and it was used for control?; or
2)Was it invented later(including Mohamed) for control?
Do you agree with me that the burden of proof fall on the one making the claim?
So considering (1) one must provide evidence of this person existence first?
The problem is that there is no evidence, and the his entire life is all fabricated, since there is no way someone would keep a record of every day of his life 50 or so years later. That never happened in history and never will happen.
It is extremely unlikely that someone kept such records and hid them for 50 years without taking the credit for them.
So considering(2) one must provide evidence for a typical forgery.
Just like the Jews invented prophets in the scriptures that prophetized a messiah.
Just like the roman empire copied the jews and invented jesus the prophet in the bible.
So does Mohamed, an other prophet comes for the people living in their area.
The Jews inserted in their past the life of invented prophets and it united the Jews against impossible odds with their prophecies by those invented prophets.
So did the Romans, they invented a prophet that united the slaves and peasants under their control to enjoy being a slave and embrace suffering.
A Waring country needed a prophet that fits what the Waring faction was demanding "a deeply flawed, horrible person. His actions were driven by greed, lust and hunger for power."
They needed people that accepted that kind of person as a good person since their leaders were like that person.
Just like the Christians accepted slavery as a good thing since the Romans were promoting slavery.
-No biography(by him) of Muhammad is present yet we have his entire life day by day documented. No signature anywhere.
-No other accepted historical character has anything like this.
-Lunar calendar missing days hints at a forgery.
-At the right time that the Waring faction needed something that unites them, at the perfect time the empire is just formed, a new religion shows up to unify it. "Coincidentally" that happens to agree with what the current leaders of the time needed.
-No contemporary witness of his existence hints at an invented character.
"What I'm saying is, everything you said makes sense, but it doesn't prove Muhammed didn't exist."
I cannot prove the non existence of something, that is the problem, I can only speculate on what is more likely.
Mohammed existence is extremely unlikely given the lack of evidence presented for his existence compared to the evidence against his existence.
"If we want to disprove Muhammed ever existed, we need a better argument, because as a historical figure he totally makes sense."
I agree, if we want to prove his non-existence we do need a better argument, but do we really need to prove his non-existence?
Do I need to prove the non-existence of the flying spaghetti monster to claim that given the lack of evidence for its existence compared to the evidence against its existence, it most likely never existed?
I do agree that the burden of proof is on those making the claims. I just believe, as a rationalist in thoroughly examining all the facets of a given topic using all the available data in order to come to a satisfying conclusion.
You make a compelling argument here about the unlikelihood of Muhammed ever existing. Thank you for taking the time to put out such a constructive response.
Just a small detail (that doesn't go against your reasoning anyway) : while the version of Quran we have today was collected 30 to 50 years after Muhammed's alleged death, the first books relating the specifics of his life and his preachings (the Hadith) appeared 200 to 240 years after his death.
So, what we have here is a colossal volume of writings by various scholars, talking about the life and ways of this man we're not sure ever lived, written hundreds of years after his death and filled with appalling contradictions. It is logical to presume it was all just a fabrication.
"I do agree that the burden of proof is on those making the claims. I just believe, as a rationalist in thoroughly examining all the facets of a given topic using all the available data in order to come to a satisfying conclusion."
Cool me too.
"the first books relating the specifics of his life and his preachings (the Hadith) appeared 200 to 240 years after his death."
Thanks for that information/correction, I was not sure about the exact dates, and too lazy to go through a detailed investigation so I tried to be as generous as possible to surly hit the point I was making.
This is exactly the type of constructive criticism I like.
If you are interested to know why it makes so much sens that Mohammed was invented you should learn how most likely JESUS was invented.
Once you see how the Jesus character was created, you would understand better why it makes sens for The Islamic leaders to invent a prophet.
It was a method that works, the method of how to mange an empire.
Christianity evolved many times till 600 AD, Islam was like Christianity 7.0 or something.
Here is who, how and when Christianity was most likely created:
(hard to find a working link for this)
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/174117/Caesars_Messiah__The_Roma...
Hope it helps to understand my point of view of Islam.
Well, I always thought that Jesus was a pure invention even in my early teens, mainly because of the mythological components of the story (virgin birth, ascension and other miracles). The idea that it was all set up by the Roman empire isn't new to me since I've read about such theories years ago.
I still watched the documentary and I found it very enlightening and thought provoking.
But if we were to accept Atwill's conclusions, we must point out some major differences between the origins of Christianity and the origins of Islam.
(A)
Rome was a well established empire at the time of the invention of Christianity, they had the scholars, means and cooperation ( Herods, Alexanders) necessary to write the gospels. Most importantly, they had advanced mastery of proper languages ( Latin, Hebrew....)
The pre-Islam Arab peninsula had very few urban centers where scholars and politicians could thrive. It was mainly a big desert populated by warring nomad tribes with very few literate people.
In fact, arabic was not even a properly set language back then, but a bunch of somewhat different dialects descending from ancient semitic languages, mainly Aramaic. Even the alphabet didn't ressemble one bit the arabic alphabet we have today. People (poets in particular) used to invent words as they go to express themselves, frequently.
The grammatical rules of Arabic were established more than 150 years after Islam, and the Quran was used as one of the templates in making those rules.
Now, we can almost be sure that Islam was invented in Mecca, which at the time had enough theologists and poets to come up with the Quran, but it was not Rome.
If we assume one or more of the big ruling dynasties of Mecca were the political force behind Islamic scripture, it is not clear who it was exacly and it is very unlikely that we will some day find out.
Unlike the Flavians, they weren't the rulers of a huge empire with their own historians, sophisticated political institutions and propaganda machine when they invented Islam. They were just barbaric tribes at war who took the world by surprise, they only reached a comparbale level of civilization two centuries later.
(B)
The gospels were sophisticated,complex, layered writings full of allegories that need more than one reading to be fully understood. And that's what makes it difficult for the public to see the real message and the parralels with the old testament and Josephus's works of litterature.
The Quran is written in an obscure language (did I mention they were no clear grammatical rules at the time?), with many words from other dead semitic languages and other words that are just plain invented ( some of which we still haven't figured out today).
Often in Quran, rhyming the verses seems more important than making sens or using the appropriate syntaxe. It has some well crafted sections, but over all it's very clumsy and confusing even for scholars and linguists.
My point is, interpreting the Quran on its own is not easy, and we don't have enough arabic writings preceding it or from the same era to make a comparaison and/ or to understand the political and cultural scene leading up to its resurgence.
Back then,all information was passed on by word of mouth through generations and an extremely insignificant portion of the population could read or write. All the books we have about that era, we can't really trust because they were written hundreds of years later.
This is why it's hard to create an analogy between the birth of Christianity and the birth of Islam. Although the purpose behind the two might be the same ( subdue, unifie, controle) the cicumstances were different.
Was Jesus invented? We can almost be sure he was.
Was Muhammed invented? Most likely, yes.
But it's safer to treat them as separate cases.
In a debate with a theist person, the "Jesus isn't real therefore Muhammed isn't real; they were both invented the same way" theory could be debunked easily by pointing out the differences. And I only mentioned a few (because I'm too lazy to go reach for a book now).
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
"In a debate with a theist person, the "Jesus isn't real therefore Muhammed isn't real; they were both invented the same way" theory could be debunked easily by pointing out the differences. And I only mentioned a few (because I'm too lazy to go reach for a book now)."
Whenever you copy an idea, it is rarely the same thing, you usually want to improve upon it or make it more suitable for your current situation.
The "differences" apologetic is old and does not really work at all.
Mainly because it is claiming that every site on the internet that uses a template, is not using a template just because it could be "debunked easily by pointing out the differences."
It is basically making the fallacious assumption that a template must be exactly the same.
+
I did not claim that they are similar but that even an idiot can copy something that works and then add to it.
The Romans did not create literature for religious purposes originally, or at least that was not their intention.
They tried through propaganda/preachers (word of mouth) influence the populous.(this is the idea that they copied/template)
This was a system that works, and the "the pre-Islam Arab" faction was not very bright but surly understood that this method works.
They did not need "their own historians, sophisticated political institutions and propaganda machine when they invented Islam."
It started with propaganda, just like the Flavians started the propaganda about their emperor being divine and sent by god to destroy the Jewish Temple in 70 AD, so did "the pre-Islam Arab" faction.
(Propaganda machine= organized propaganda which usually comes with literature to serve as guide for preachers and much more)
"Back then,all information was passed on by word of mouth through generations and an extremely insignificant portion of the population could read or write."
Fits perfectly for the type of propaganda that was used.(by preachers in every town)
The Flavians took them 10+ years of this type of propaganda before understanding the use of literature in propaganda.
(this concept was really not well understood by the Romans since they believed in statues and a book that the followers cannot even read made no sens to them)
They had no intention of creating a new religion originally but later the Caesar cult and this propaganda got mixed up together and originated a new religion.
It is logical that the "the pre-Islam Arab" faction. would take them much more time and be much more unreliable and contradictory.
The more time passes, the more people get involved, the more disagreements will occur.
it is quite evident that "the pre-Islam Arab" faction did not quite understand the use of literature either.
It is the glue that binds the propaganda, it is what gives the propaganda credit and also serves as a guide for preachers.
This is also evidence why his entire life needed to be put on paper some 200 years later, it is a clear tell tell sign of the amount of claims that were being thrown left, right and center.
It was an effort to stop different/new leaders from adding things to support their political agenda.
"In a debate with a theist person, the "Jesus isn't real therefore Muhammed isn't real"
Yes you are right, in such a situation this argument would not hold because a theist person does not have basic common sens when it comes to his religion.
But I wasn't discussing with a theist person either.
Neither was I trying to put forward an argument to use against a theist in a debate.
I was just trying to show you why it becomes natural to invent a prophet when you are trying to create a religion.(when all the other major religions had one and it worked)
(this is done after the propaganda period)
What most likely happened, is that they realized that propaganda alone was not really working for such a huge territory and looked at how other empires managed their vast territories.(with different cultures/mentality/etc..)
Religion was the solution which worked in those times and they copied it and shaped it according to their own culture.
It is not a coincidence that Mohammed is warmonger etc..
He represents the leaders of that time/place, just like Jesus represents the Flavians(bring peace).
The message is different but the template is the same.
I'm just trying to find the truth through logic and research and I am enjoying our discussion.
Thank you Jeff.
I think I might have failed to express myself properly. I know it's an oversimplification of the facts to say that the Flavians invented Christianity. I get that it's more complicated than that, and the evolution of the Imperial cult into the Christian religion we know today took centuries.
What I was getting to with my argument about the pre-Islam Arab peninsula, is not that it was impossible for them to come up with a new religion but that it is harder for us to know who exactly was involved, who wrote the Quran, who started the whole political movement behind it....
Researchers of the origins of Christianity have it easier because they have more available archeological and historical evidence.
Researchers of the origins of Islam have little to go from, as I said there are no known scriptures of pre-islam era, plus Saudi Arabia won't permit any excavations to be carried out on their territories.
"But I wasn't discussing with a theist person either.
Neither was I trying to put forward an argument to use against a theist in a debate."
That's true. I tend to be trapped in the mindset of finding an argument that can also be used against a theist person by force of habit. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.
"I was just trying to show you why it becomes natural to invent a prophet when you are trying to create a religion."
I'm with you on that. It is a successful formula. In Christianity, it is a transformation/combination of two pre-existing sacred figures (Judaic Messiah and the Ceasar) that gives us Jesus Christ.
In Islam, Muhammed is the chosen one and happens to be a descendant of Abraham ( for more religious legitimacy)
"Religion was the solution which worked in those times and they copied it and shaped it according to their own culture."
Exactly.
All in all, it is clear that our views about the whole issue are not that different. We just have slightly different argumentative approaches.
You go for a comobination of historical and logical arguments, which is completely adequate for this conversation.
I prefer to stick to historical evidence and proved facts because I always fear the logical argument won't stand in a debate with a theist or an atheist who believes only in solid facts.
I'm glad we had this discussion, it taught me things I did not know. I guess that is the point.
Alkibiades,
It is sad that so many people consider Jesus and Muhammed role models. I'm an ex-muslim too and I know how disgusted you must have felt after figuring out the kind of person Muhammed is.
And by the way, almost every person I know who left Islam did it after discovering Hadith books and learning more about Muhammed's ways ( the whole marrying a 9 year old, raping women right after he killed their husbands and fathers, brutally murdering his enemies after he promessed them mercy...etc....) rather than because of any logical or scientific argument against religion. So, I think more muslims should read those books.
Rawan,
As an ex-muslim like you, it is very easy to see the very silly practices of Islam everyday and anytime.
In fact, as the origin of any religion is against the existence of god, universe and human, and any other stupid creatures made up by religions like jinnis, the religion is worth throwing into a dumpster. We do not see Allah, and it is said that we feel its existence everywhere. Yeah, Allah is so omnipotent that it cannot prevent the evil from dissuading humble human beings.
Yes, Muhammad is almost equal or sometimes more important than Allah, although Muslims claim that Islam is pretty different from Christianity as Jesus the Christ is the son of God. However, the emphasis is on Muhammad rather than Allah. Because Muhammad is an entity which can be materialized as he lived once upon a time one way or the other.
As Muhammad is the savior of the people like Christ, then he can do whatever he wants. So, as you said it won't be a solution for Muslims to read about his pervert behaviors. They will make up any excuse to vindicate him.
Although Muslims claim and prove that Muhammad is a perfect guy, it won't again warrant that religion and Allah are real. Because the logic is totally nonsense.
Thank you very much for your messages and very detailed and useful information.
You're welcome. And thank you for taking the time to respond.
You're right, the five prayers a day ( the most important islamic practice) were the result of some heated negotiations between Muhammad and God. I've read that Hadith multiple times, it's really funny but Quran and Hadith books are full of even funnier gems.
In Quran, Allah is often depicted as an undecisive yet condescending entity, obsessed with killing and vengeance. And Muhammad is his spoiled manipulative child. Allah is constantly making exceptions or changing the rules for Muhammad's benefit.
One of the best known examples is adoption.
In the beginning of Islam, adoption was OK. Muhammad adopts an orphan ( Zayd Ibn Haretha), although treats him more like a servant.
Later, Muhammad accidently sees Zayd's wife "Zeinab" semi-naked while entering their house without properly announcing himself. He wants to have her, but she is his daughter in law and it's completely forbidden.
God intervenes (via Quran) saying that:
a) Muhammed shouldn't feel ashamed for desiring his daughter in law.
b) It is OK for him to marry her after Zayd has had enough of her and divorced her.
c) Adoption is now forbidden, therefore Zayd is no longer your son: Boom! Problem solved!!
And this is why today hundreds of millions of muslims can't adopt.
I am not even exaggerating, it's all in the Surat 33: 4 and Surat 33:37. You can check it out here:
http://quran.com/33
As for Muslims prefering Muhammed over God, it is really obvious. In most arab muslim countries, Allah is insulted every day ( it's one of the most common insults), and no one bats an aye. But once a stupid video or a silly cartoon mocking Muhammed appears, people go nuts and start burning foreign embassies.
The problem is indoctrination. The way Muhammed is presented to us, as young children is really misleading. Like you said, he's presented to us as the perfect man, merciful, kind,loving, forgiving... He's our saviour from ourselves in this life by teaching us morals and from burning in hell in the afterlife by pleading for us to God.
Many islamic practices and fasting in particular can be problematic. As you mentioned, fasting for 22 hours a day is insane, but some people are just that deep in delusion.
You pointed out some common misconceptions and misleading generalisations perpetuated by Islam ( God's creations are perfect, Earth, nature, animals were created in the sole purpose of serving Men) that happen also to be a part of the ideological core of other monotheistic religions.
What is really revolting to me is that despite you and me being from different countries, different continents and different cultures, we were raised on the exact same lies. Every little detail you mentioned, I already knew about. That just shows you the extent of the power religion has over both our societies. There is no escaping it. It is so prevalent that you will be exposed to it one way or another, even if your parents are not very religious.
I understand it is slightly more comfortable for the secular person in Turkey. I tried to move there years ago because I was feeling threatened and I didn't have enough money to move to a European country, but later decided it wasn't a good idea. ( I was only 21 and didn't speak the language)
I don't know much about turkish politics but from what I've read, Erdogan and his party are a real threat to the secularity of Turkey. Like other islamists, they would like to change laws and reduce individual liberties to be more conforming with their ideology. I hope the turkish people will always have the strengh and conviction to stand against those reforms.
Firstly about marrying a 9 year old.
Let's be a little more charitable to history. Rawan, we all tend to labor under this illusion that our sense of right and wrong are universal and absolute. But far from it... we are ourselves the product of a particular cultural, epistemological and historical baggage, which only has a relative position in terms of its validity vis-a-vis other baggages. But it just happens that our baggage is the hegemonic ideal currently, which can change with time, to be replaced by some other dominant ideal later.
Our ideas of age of marriage and consent are deeply entrenched in our modern educational system, where we have 14 years of schooling to do followed by a few more years of college and a career and so on. Take yourself back in time to an agrarian society, where a girl has nothing more to learn other than milking goats and cooking bread. The pressure of intense manual labor requires sufficient population, for which birth rates have to be very high. Moreover, there is chance of diseases wiping out whole populations in a single stroke... these makes child bearing and child rearing one of the most productive tasks for a woman to contribute to her community. You cannot project your ideas of right marraige age back on to such a society. Your ideas will be absurd for them. Likewise... take your mind a 1000 years ahead of time. The circumstances would be wholly different then. And who knows, it might warrant very early marriage or sometimes it might warrant very late marriage... and for those people, when they look at our moral ideas on marriage, they might find it laughable. 18 years might be too early for them... may be for them childhood might extend all the way up to 30 or so... because of advanced medical tehcnology where lifespans touch 150 or so. Tell them about getting married at 18, and they will call it pedophilia.
I am only trying to make you understand that the lens through which you are making your judgments is relevant only in our context... and it cannot be used to judge realities in another time and place. This is the reason, even the harshest critics of Mohammed, up until a century ago, never critiqued Aisha's early marriage. Because it was sort of an accepted norm the world over. But only with the modern, western sensibilities did this thing start looking bad.
As i am short on time, I will leave it at this for now. But i will send you my thoughts on your other points too about rape and murder. Also about the subject of this thread "obsessions in islam"
Firstly about marrying a 9 year old.
Let's be a little more charitable to history. Rawan, we all tend to labor under this illusion that our sense of right and wrong are universal and absolute. But far from it... we are ourselves the product of a particular cultural, epistemological and historical baggage, which only has a relative position in terms of its validity vis-a-vis other baggages. But it just happens that our baggage is the hegemonic ideal currently, which can change with time, to be replaced by some other dominant ideal later.
Our ideas of age of marriage and consent are deeply entrenched in our modern educational system, where we have 14 years of schooling to do followed by a few more years of college and a career and so on. Take yourself back in time to an agrarian society, where a girl has nothing more to learn other than milking goats and cooking bread. The pressure of intense manual labor requires sufficient population, for which birth rates have to be very high. Moreover, there is chance of diseases wiping out whole populations in a single stroke... these makes child bearing and child rearing one of the most productive tasks for a woman to contribute to her community. You cannot project your ideas of right marraige age back on to such a society. Your ideas will be absurd for them. Likewise... take your mind a 1000 years ahead of time. The circumstances would be wholly different then. And who knows, it might warrant very early marriage or sometimes it might warrant very late marriage... and for those people, when they look at our moral ideas on marriage, they might find it laughable. 18 years might be too early for them... may be for them childhood might extend all the way up to 30 or so... because of advanced medical tehcnology where lifespans touch 150 or so. Tell them about getting married at 18, and they will call it pedophilia.
I am only trying to make you understand that the lens through which you are making your judgments is relevant only in our context... and it cannot be used to judge realities in another time and place. This is the reason, even the harshest critics of Mohammed, up until a century ago, never critiqued Aisha's early marriage. Because it was sort of an accepted norm the world over. But only with the modern, western sensibilities did this thing start looking bad.
As i am short on time, I will leave it at this for now. But i will send you my thoughts on your other points too about rape and murder. Also about the subject of this thread "obsessions in islam"
To valiya s sajjad:
"Our ideas of age of marriage and consent are deeply entrenched in our modern educational system"
"But only with the modern, western sensibilities did this thing start looking bad."
This is derived from a deep misunderstanding of morality.
You are actually claiming that just because the morals of that time were different, then it was a right thing to do.
Morality does not work in that way.
The more knowledge you gain the better of a moral judgment you can make.
So "marrying a 9 year old girl" was always a morally wrong thing to do, they just did not know it yet.
"You cannot project your ideas of right marriage age back on to such a society."
Also I AM SHOKED to see that you cannot even understand what is wrong about "marrying a 9 year old girl".
It has nothing to do with "marriage age" per se.
It has to do with RAPE.
Yes, mental and physical rape of children.
A 9 year old(male or female) is still in the process of learning from his/her parents.
Basically he/she is still with the mentality of "parents are always right".
Basically "marrying a 9 year old girl" is like a legalized abuse of a person without their consent.
Without them having the ability to choose since they haven't learned that they actually have a choice in the matter.
Apart from the physical abuse that a 9 year old girl could suffer from a horny 30 year old male.
"I am only trying to make you understand that the lens through which you are making your judgments is relevant only in our context."
Rape was always a bad deed to do, and no matter what context you apply to it, you won't succeed in claiming the opposite.
(unless you provide a valid reason for raping a 9 year old, it is considered immoral)
It does not matter if they knew about it or not, it just proves that they were still IMMORAL people.
Which is actually evidence against Islam being a religion of peace but a religion of rape and submission of children.
HI Jeff
This is precisely what i was trying to disabuse - our confidence that what we think to be moral is ultimate, universal and absolute! Your words reflect this attitude. Before we go further, let me ask you - do you think that morality from your paradigm is absolute across time and space? Would you say for example that our concept of the age of consent "say 18" should be the norm for all times... including the past and future? Even a 1000 years later, 18 should be norm... would you say that?
I would like to hear your comments.
Hmm it seems rather evasive the way you avoided my main points in my last post.
So please do read it again and check what you failed to reply to.
Then I would feel more encouraged to answer your questions since it would show some degree of honesty and interest to learn something.
For the sake a mature debate that I hope you are looking for, I will answer your question anyway.
"our confidence that what we think to be moral is ultimate, universal and absolute! Your words reflect this attitude."
Which words reflect this attitude?
Edit:
It seems that you have some problems with the definition of morality and this could lead to misunderstanding, thus I will define my position in my posts to avoid more misunderstanding.
First of all it is usually the theists that try to claim the morality is objective.
We atheists usually understand that morality is subjective to new knowledge.
Today we have more knowledge then 1000 years ago, thus we have a better moral judgment. That is a fact.
Apart from that, there is a huge misunderstanding about morals/deeds/reasons.
They are 3 different things.
Theists and Atheists alike usually mix the 3 of these together creating confusion.
Thanks to more knowledge we DISCOVERED that rape(deed) is wrong.
One could argue that indeed deeds can be considered objective but that does not mean that raping someone for any reason is objectively wrong.
You can do a wrong deed for the right reasons.(good moral person)
That is where morality and moral judgments come in.
MORALITY IS THE ONGOING UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY, IT IS THE COMBINATION OF "DEEDS" WITH "REASONS" BASED ON CURRENT KNOWLEDGE.
If in the future some new knowledge arrives, we might change a moral judgment.
"let me ask you - do you think that morality from your paradigm is absolute across time and space?"
Short answer: NO
Morality is subjective, reasons are subjective, deeds are debatable but I am ready to consent that they could be objective.
"Would you say for example that our concept of the age of consent "say 18" should be the norm for all times... including the past and future? "
NO, however having it less then 18 is currently an immoral action, since there are currently no good reasons to have it less then 18.
This shows that a 1000 years ago people were immoral on this topic and that Islam was built on immoral HUMAN principles.
Surly not by god.
"Even a 1000 years later, 18 should be norm... would you say that?"
I do not know what will happen in a 1000 years, and would be arrogant of me to assume the norm in a 1000 years since I do not have a clue of the amount of new knowledge we would gain for a better moral judgment.
Pages