Good article in Sunday Times about Questioning Islam

Spirogyra

By Mark Humphreys. In a nutshell he says that a proliferation of sceptical material on-line, may eventually ,in a hundred years or so reduce the 'confidence' of Islam . Muslim children and adults are not immune to this material. Islam is not used to being questioned. Christianity has been 'browbeaten' from 400 years of such and its potency reduced. He makes referrence to the Cold War and how nobody then spoke of Islam. Its a household name he says due to its violence. Increased amounts of sceptical material may lessen its confidence in time, like it did with Christianity. Unfortunately its not free on-line but its well worth a read if anyone has it.

What do others think of the above anyway? As the Quoran says that the world is flat and also references slavery, I think greater scrutiny might help.

Avatar MIA

Spirogyra wrote: »

As the Quoran says that the world is flat and also references slavery, I think greater scrutiny might help.

Have never read the Quoran or ever likely to except at the point of a curvy sword.

Where does it say that?

fran17

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Have never read the Quoran or ever likely to except at the point of a curvy sword.

Where does it say that?

Nor have I read the Quran,I'd be surprised if any reputable source laid claim to what the OP is claiming.On the issue of slavery,to judge the actions of those of the seventh century by todays standards would be pointlessly anachronistic.

Saipanne

fran17 wrote: »

Nor have I read the Quran,I'd be surprised if any reputable source laid claim to what the OP is claiming.On the issue of slavery,to judge the actions of those of the seventh century by todays standards would be pointlessly anachronistic.

Either it's the eternal absolute morality of God, or it isn't.

fran17

Saipanne wrote: »

Either it's the eternal absolute morality of God, or it isn't.

Well if you self interpret what the Quran states and shoehorn it into an atheist forum then it isn't.Again I have not read the Quran but call me a sceptic regarding the validity of the OP's claim.

Saipanne

fran17 wrote: »

Well if you self interpret what the Quran states and shoehorn it into an atheist forum then it isn't.Again I have not read the Quran but call me a sceptic regarding the validity of the OP's claim.

Think harder.

fran17

Saipanne wrote: »

Think harder.

Ok.....Or the OP could provide something substantial to bolster the claim perhaps?

Spirogyra

http://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/quaran-state-earth-flat/ the world was 'rolled out like a scroll' ,mountains it was believed were 'pegs' to keep the earth down,just like tents used by the various tribes.

Avatar MIA

Spirogyra wrote: »

http://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/quaran-state-earth-flat/ the world was 'rolled out like a scroll' ,mountains it was believed were 'pegs' to keep the earth down,just like tents used by the various tribes.

Link fail.

Pherekydes

http://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/quran-state-earth-flat/

fran17

Spirogyra wrote: »

http://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/quaran-state-earth-flat/ the world was 'rolled out like a scroll' ,mountains it was believed were 'pegs' to keep the earth down,just like tents used by the various tribes.

Oh dear.Ok atheists,as you were :pac:

Avatar MIA

fran17 wrote: »

Oh dear.Ok atheists,as you were :pac:

Would you prefer this source...

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=15&verse=19

Samaris

Well, it's a holy book. Giving it to the atheists to poke at is like giving a baby lamb to a pack of lions to mind

Islam will not just go away as a religion, it needs to be tamed and detoothed, much like Christianity was. I don't think most people, atheists included, really mind people having -beliefs-. Just not having the power to inflict them on others.

Islam hasn't had reformations and had to co-exist along with a state rather than control the state (or at least, not in a long-term manner. There's still a few branches of Islam that is utterly used to being in power).

I'm absolutely grand with Muslims doing the same gentling cognitive dissonance as progressive Catholics do, attempting to live by the spirit of their religion and politely glossing over the bits that mean Catholics don't go around murdering gay people or other such holy book staples.

It strikes me that one of the best ways to help this along (I'm reminded by various threads and the sort of thing said in the media) is not to call them on it. The rubbish of "well, -proper- Muslims believe this, otherwise they're not real Muslims" is kinda counter-productive.

Spirogyra

I think the origins of Islam do need challenge. Mohammed the man and the vast number of inaccuracies in the Quoran. When this 1400 year old book is used to justify hate and violence and simple prejudice, I think it should be open to criticism,just like everything else.

Samaris

Spirogyra wrote: »

I think the origins of Islam do need challenge. Mohammed the man and the vast number of inaccuracies in the Quoran. When this 1400 year old book is used to justify hate and violence and simple prejudice, I think it should be open to criticism,just like everything else.

It should be open to criticism, I agree. Same as any other holy book. But there's a subtle difference between whether the issue is down to it being a religion at all (as generally atheists/agnostics in here, we're probably going to lean towards it's a religion, thus it is full of nonsense), or whether we want people who do practice their beliefs to be allowed to come to terms with what beliefs are just plain not going to work out over here. Religion being subservient to the State, not the other way around, is the big one. But if you're talking to someone who's come from a background where not believing in the Quran is punishable by the -death penalty-, well, you're going to have an even harder work cut out than trying to convince a devout Catholic that their holy book has a lot of rubbish in it.

Personally, and as more of a policy than an atheistic view, I'd be more inclined to make it clear what portions of the religion that have made it into State law or cultural acceptance in various other countries -are not accepted in Europe-, and leave Mohammad and his wife and all the historical stories out of it. We don't need to convince Christians that Adam and Eve's story probably didn't go that way to convince them that murdering gay people is unacceptable!

Mosques, fine. Prayers, fine. The head-coverings and full-body coverings...not keen on, but it's not the hill I want to die on. Halal killing - my jury's out on still. Sharia courts - not legally binding whatsoever. Reducing the rights of a particular group of the population due to religious beliefs - gwan away out of that.

recedite

Samaris wrote: »

Halal killing - my jury's out on still. Sharia courts - not legally binding whatsoever. Reducing the rights of a particular group of the population due to religious beliefs - gwan away out of that.

But the rulings of Sharia courts are mentally binding on the people who believe that Sharia law trumps Kuffar law. And wherever their numbers are sufficient to impose the rulings on everybody else, that's exactly what they do.
So the question is not whether we allow such people to be ruled by Sharia courts, but whether we allow Sharia courts to be established on European soil. And if by preventing such things from being established we are accused of impinging on the rights of the people who believe in them, then so be it.

Samaris

recedite wrote: »

But the rulings of Sharia courts are mentally binding on the people who believe that Sharia law trumps Kuffar law. And wherever their numbers are sufficient to impose the rulings on everybody else, that's exactly what they do.
So the question is not whether we allow such people to be ruled by Sharia courts, but whether we allow Sharia courts to be established on European soil. And if by preventing such things from being established we are accused of impinging on the rights of the people who believe in them, then so be it.

Sharia law has no place in our society, in my opinion. If those of the Muslim faith want to get advice from a Sharia perspective, so be it, it'd be very hard to prevent them, but it must be made absolutely clear that nothing said there is legally binding and it has no place in the courts of European justice.

The issue of mentally binding is more problematic, but that has come about through various countries having Sharia law as absolutely backed up by the power of the State. It can and will fade off over time, as long as the States -here- make it very clear that the State's power is a) not going to back up Sharia decisions that have no basis in our legal system, and b) will absolutely overturn anything that goes against our laws and can and will arrest people that force illegal judgements onto people.

MrPudding

Samaris wrote: »

Sharia law has no place in our society, in my opinion. If those of the Muslim faith want to get advice from a Sharia perspective, so be it, it'd be very hard to prevent them, but it must be made absolutely clear that nothing said there is legally binding and it has no place in the courts of European justice.

The issue of mentally binding is more problematic, but that has come about through various countries having Sharia law as absolutely backed up by the power of the State. It can and will fade off over time, as long as the States -here- make it very clear that the State's power is a) not going to back up Sharia decisions that have no basis in our legal system, and b) will absolutely overturn anything that goes against our laws and can and will arrest people that force illegal judgements onto people.

This is difficult though. If the people that push for sharia law and tribunals also seek to restrict integration with the host country, and potentially limit those they might be subject to the rulings from even knowing there is another way, how exactly does one show the state's power is what matters?

To me this is the issue with allowing these tribunals in any form to deal with any matters. Simply allowing them give legitimacy. People may not understand the nuance and what the limits of its authority is. As a result, irrespective of what the governments intention is, these tribunals become the only legal system people are aware of, and typically those same people would be the ones most likely to be more negatively impacted by those tribunals.

On my phone at the moment, so searching and links are tricky, but there have been a few articles on this topic and how vulnerable people in the UK are simply not aware of their options, due to the environment they are in.

MrP

Samaris

On balance, I'm with you on that, MrPudding. But it would be very hard to prevent Muslim couples going to a Sharia interpreter to get an idea of what their religion demands of them, any more than it is quite possible to prevent Catholics talking things over with a priest. It's a bit what's practical compared to what's ideal.

But part of the issue is the immense power these courts have in some other countries, and making it absolutely clear to immigrants that have grown up with this simple fact of Sharia courts having absolute power over them, that here, that is not the case, and Sharia law interpretations will not be backed up any more than the word of the priest is, and both the interpreter (imams usually, isn't it?) and the priest would absolutely face consequences for attempting to enforce their views where they are contrary to the law of the state. You're absolutely not off the hook for (say) spousal abuse or female circumcision just because a religious authority says so, any more than you'd be off the hook if you beat up a gay man and the priest said it was okay, is what I'm getting at.

Mind you, I quite get that even allowing a Sharia expert to practice in Europe as an aid to Muslim immigrants has its issues. If an imam says that there's no such thing as marital rape (for instance, and I'm not 100% sure that that's allowed in Islam, but I think it is), it will be much harder for a wife suffering from it to get actual legal recourse if she's being stonewalled by the first port of call. Same issue happened with Catholic women in the period that this was becoming legally unacceptable. But in the same way that it would have been basically impossible to stop people going to the priests for advice, it would be extremely difficult to prevent Muslims going to their spiritual leaders for advice. All we can really do is make it clear as many times as needed that what he says is NOT the law here, and flatten any of them that get too far out of line on it until it is as commonly accepted within the Muslim community that they are first and foremost held to the secular standards of the country as it is accepted by modern Catholics.

Avatar MIA

Isn't there some accommodation of Sharia courts in the UK. Slippery slope.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

But the rulings of Sharia courts are mentally binding on the people who believe that Sharia law trumps Kuffar law. And wherever their numbers are sufficient to impose the rulings on everybody else, that's exactly what they do.
So the question is not whether we allow such people to be ruled by Sharia courts, but whether we allow Sharia courts to be established on European soil. And if by preventing such things from being established we are accused of impinging on the rights of the people who believe in them, then so be it.

I'd be troubled by the idea of forbidding people from coming together and arbitrating decisions between them, purely on the basis that such a decision would be based on something we don't agree with. You're stepping all over freedom of association and privacy there. At the end of the day, every judicial system is imposed by virtue of the fact that the number of people who support it are greater (or at least more powerful) than those who do not.

I'd rather see people permitted to adjudicate decisions between themselves as they see fit, whether it by by Sharia Law, Christian Canon Law, or Pagan Law, and make it known that nothing is legally binding other than civil law. If a person who loses a case in a Sharia Court feels bound by it that is their choice; they have the option of going to a civil court and receiving an actually binding decision if they wish. My feeling is only the truly devout will abide by a non binding decision, and as long as it is clear that those who don't wish to be bound by it cannot be, that's just fine. In that way both religious freedom and civil authority are maintained, at least until everyone decides they want the two combined. If that ever happens, I'm sure the true expression of democracy will be decried as the tyranny of the majority, but I'd say we'll have much worse to worry about at that stage anyway.