Why do Atheists defend Islam?

[Ben Davis]

The fact that not every Muslim is involved in Islamic terror is greatly overshadowed by their silence on terror, on genital mutilation, on oppressive misogyny, on bigamy, on the most barbaric excuses for justice since the 7th Century, the murder of "apostates", and fatwas to intimidate...CRITICISM OF ISLAM!!

While leaders of every other world religion jump to disassociate themselves wherever such atrocious horrors are known, Muslims implicate themselves through their apathy, regardless of how they practice their religion. They do this because they really don't respect the rights of people with ideas which are different from theirs, so rather than respond to distance themselves from the Paris attacks they do what they wish to, giving the world the finger. They know they can get away with it while stupid Western journalists enable them!

That's untrue in the UK. Check out the work done by the Muslim Council of Britain, the Association of British Muslims and even the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. Their work to eradicate extremism, speak out against atrocities carried out in the name of Islam and ensure the continued, successful integration of muslim immigrants (which has been working for decades BTW) is worthy of more than just appreciation. Between them, the MCB and the AoBM represent the overwhelming majority of British muslims. In addition to 'official' protests carried out by these organisations, there have been spontaneous demonstrations by British muslims in response to every terrorist action that occurred in western nations in the past 10 years.

You misrepresent muslims with our statements and make it clear that your view is not broad enough to understand the rifts between not only different sects but also different groups within each sect (often identified by nationality).

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Let me make something perfectly clear, because I think my actual stance on this is getting lost in the debate. 

I don't have anything against Muslim people. I don't think good, peaceful Muslims should stop being Muslim. I do think the Islam ideology, as it stands right now, has one major issue - and that is that it can be easily taken in a way that gets many people do many heinous things. It needs some sort of reform. And for those of you who immediately say "well Christianity blah blah blah," yes, I get it. Christians have killed many people too, in the past. Trust me, if Christians were running around right now killing thousands of people in the name of Jesus like the Islamic Jihadists are doing in the name of their god, I would be condemning the hell out of their behavior and saying the same thing I'm saying about Islam - that we need a reform and that this needs to stop. Like I said, I have nothing against good Muslim people practicing their faith peacefully. But I hold them to the same standard that I would hold my own Christian faith to and that I hold myself to: condemn every attack in the name of your faith.             

Seriously, I have no idea why the stance that...

1. islam needs a reform so that we don't have millions of its followers believing they need to commit heinous acts, and 

2. people should openly condemn/denounce horrible things being done in the name of their ideology (Christians and Muslims alike),   

...Is being met with so much hostility. Heaven forbid I think an ideology that is killing so many needs a reform. Heaven forbid I think we need to openly denounce murder being done in our name.

Hello, Catholic Lady!

You really do have a beautiful heart, and I can only agree there's a fundamental problem with Islam in need of reform, and failing that, perhaps exorcism.

Somebody earlier noted how different the central figures are between Christianity and Islam: Jesus is remembered as a friendly, and likeable sort of a hippie who was sympathetic to any woman about to be stoned to death for adultery, while Mohammad was a brutish, vindictive, and misogynistic pedophile. The latter being what he is would indeed make it difficult for Islamic reforms compared to reforming Christianity.

The personality traits of Jesus were probably not quite all which is said of him, if he actually existed, but those who wrote of him were Greek-educated Westerners with an eye to the future. 

The tale of Mohammad was told by people who inherited a vast, cruel desert, which their ancestors created through thousands of years of intense animal grazing without a thought for future preservation. At his time, Arabs were getting by much through the killing of each other for their animals, or selling each other off in slave markets.  Historical reports of Arabs carrying Korans into the northern Mediterranean during medieval times reflect a very negative attitude toward agriculturalists, who they regarded as lazy and craven. Yes, they were certainly the culture of machismo, and so became their religion, their god, and their prophet Mohammad. 

Because Muslims are unable to deny that Mohammad was such a dick, they would not be able to reform their religion without denying him as a true holy figure, which would bring their whole platform crashing down on their heads. Therefore, Islam most unfortunately cannot be reformed, and it will never enter the modern world without attempting to destroy it. Islamic leaders know that a strong Western society will always bring strong criticism of Islam, and they are in trouble because they have no positive way by which they can respond to this. Therefore, the desperation-fueled and ruthless tactics to silence any critics who draw attention to the problems of Mohammad!

---

The fact that not every Muslim is involved in Islamic terror is greatly overshadowed by their silence on terror, on genital mutilation, on oppressive misogyny, on bigamy, on the most barbaric excuses for justice since the 7th Century, the murder of "apostates", and fatwas to intimidate...CRITICISM OF ISLAM!!

While leaders of every other world religion jump to disassociate themselves wherever such atrocious horrors are known, Muslims implicate themselves through their apathy, regardless of how they practice their religion. They do this because they really don't respect the rights of people with ideas which are different from theirs, so rather than respond to distance themselves from the Paris attacks they do what they wish to, giving the world the finger. They know they can get away with it while stupid Western journalists enable them!

That's untrue in the UK. Check out the work done by the Muslim Council of Britain, the Association of British Muslims and even the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. Their work to eradicate extremism, speak out against atrocities carried out in the name of Islam and ensure the continued, successful integration of muslim immigrants (which has been working for decades BTW) is worthy of more than just appreciation. Between them, the MCB and the AoBM represent the overwhelming majority of British muslims. In addition to 'official' protests carried out by these organisations, there have been spontaneous demonstrations by British muslims in response to every terrorist action that occurred in western nations in the past 10 years.

You misrepresent muslims with our statements and make it clear that your view is not broad enough to understand the rifts between not only different sects but also different groups within each sect (often identified by nationality).

I probably should not have included terror on the list of fundamental problems with Islam, and Mohammad certainly had nothing to say of suicide vests, bombs, or other terror tactics.

Muslims do respond when terror attacks shock the world, but on social horrors which you would probably not wish to see practiced in your own neighborhood, very little is said. These fundamental problems relate directly to the personality of Mohammad, whose tale was written not by people who were not the product of Greek culture, but of desert raiding, horse-stealing, woman-beating, and slave-marketing machismo. Reform of a religion is much easier when you have a compassionate hippie dude like Jesus as your central figure to look to for behavioral standards, while a dick like Mohammad, remembered as he is, is keeping Muslims forever in the 7th Century. You cannot criticize what he did without denying him as your holy man, a serious threat to any faith in Islam, and this has the imams threatening with violence anyone who makes such criticism in defense of their job security.

[Mister Agenda]

South American Catholics are pretty homogenous compared to Shia, Sunnis, Sufis, Ahmadis, and Ismailis. Muslims are generally not running around killing people who agree with them either. DAESH ideology is so different from the typical Sunni's that it ought to be counted as a separate sect.

To pretend the European wars of religion (1524-1648) had absolutely nothing to do with the fundamental nature/culture of Christianity is just dishonest.

You kind of have to take them both or take neither, but you don't get to pick one or the other. If over a hundred years of bloody war between different Christian sects doesn't speak to the fundamental nature/culture of Christianity, the mere fact that the Islamist troubles are more current does not make them more relevant if the topic is fundamental nature/culture.

This argument would only kind of make sense if 100% of people in South America are Catholic. Then you could say "Of course Catholics in South America are not killing anyone - they're all the same religion!" I can assure you, the fact that there is no denomination amongst Catholics is not the reason why there is no "Catholic Isisi", if you will. 65% of people in Brazil are Catholic. The rest are protestants, Mormons, Jews, atheists, etc etc.  

I get that Christianity, which has been around for over 2000 years, has gone through its dark times. But they were just that - times. Every group has had its bad times with very bad people, including American history. It's only normal. But its the extent of how much it happens within Islam that causes pause. Christianity hasn't been non stop bloodshed and fighting since Jesus till now a days, like it is with Islam. Islam has existed for 1400 years. Since Mohammed himself until now, it's been violent.    

I don't have anything against Muslim people, let me make that perfectly clear. But I do think it's foolish to pretend that Islam, as an ideology, is not extremely problematic and a big part of the reason why there is so much violence amongst its members. I'm not saying good Muslim people should stop being Muslim, either. I just think Islam needs a major reform so that we can get to the point where we don't have all the non stop bloodshed anymore.

Maybe another ingredient is needed to make the comparison between South America and the Middle East and North Africa more congruent. Maybe if the Western Powers treated South America like their private sandbox full of oil wells, deposed governments at will, and financially and militarily supported the country that encouraged the most fundamentalist version of Catholicism throughout the region, Catholics might not be so peaceful. Or maybe if the West had killed 4 million South American Catholics since 1990.

[Mister Agenda]

That's South America. Different times and environments yield different patterns of behaviour. You want recent examples where Christians have killed in the name of Jesus, there's the Middle East (and specifically Lebanon, if you want a specific example). Even after the civil war long gone in Lebanon, Christian party members still have not gotten over their lust to fight and kill, and they have certainly done so "in the name of Jesus". For the record, in Lebanon, there is not much difference in privilege and rights between Christians and Muslims. And so it makes sense they do not really behave all that differently from each other there. Even Hizballah is not more extreme than, say, Lebanese Forces or SSNP (both Christian groups).

You don't think that Islam has shaped the environment and culture of the middle east?

I think history has shaped the environment and culture in the middle east, and that if Islam had never existed, meaning the region would probably be dominated by Orthodox Christianity, we would probably be having the same problems if the history was otherwise the same. The women would likely still be covering their hair, too.

[Mister Agenda]

Oh, please! This is really pissing me off, since it's that ignorant. Get some history lessons, damn it. Look at the Middle Ages and tolerance towards other religions. Want to make a bet where society was more tolerant in general? Towards jews, especially? Want to make a bet, where science flourished and where people were even too ignorant to keep the Roman aqueducts in shape? Do you have any idea what numbers you're yotting down and where they have their origin?

Also, since you're so proud of your South America - might want to look at all the conflicts, the Contras and every other brand of violent terrorists wanting to overthrow one government or the other. True, they don't do it in the name of Jesus, but the Contras, being as despicable as they come, fought the godless regime of the Sandinistas.

Maybe, just maybe, the spread of Islam, which was never a homogeneous mass, but a set of warrying kingdoms and territorries, was mainly political in nature too. But to understand that, one has to look over the rim of the comfy teacup of public opinion and get an informed opinion.

I don't know how you think it can be mainly political in nature and yet separate from Islam. Islam (Not all of them!) is a political system as well as a religion. There was never meant to be a separation of Church and State in Islam and in the early days there certainly wasn't. You guys always talk about it like Muslims (Not all of them!) just happen to come from these conflict areas and that Islam itself has nothing to do with it. That's just plain wrong. While some Muslim countries have separation of church and state, Islam has influenced the politics and culture of these areas for hundreds of years. It's not like they grew up somehow separate from one another and Islam and Muslims (Not all of them!) are just unforunate to have shitty cultures/economies/etc. Islam is essential to all of that and to act as though it isn't is pretty mind boggling.

There was never meant to be separation of church and state in Christianity, and there wasn't until the Enlightenment. We had to muzzle Christianity like a rabid dog to stop the bloodshed.

And the politics and culture and history of those areas has shaped Islam for hundred of years. None of this shit is happening in an Islamic vacuum. The West deposed the legally elected president of Iran and replaced him with a hated dictator which led to a revolution where he was replaced with a religious fanatic. The USA backed the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan in the eighties and continued to supply their schools with textbooks supporting Islamic extremism into the nineties. We back Saudi Arabia militarily and financially, a regime which compromised with fundamentalist clerics after a terrorist attack and became an active exporter of Wahabbist fundamentalism throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Ayaan Hiirsi Ali is no fan of Islam, but in her autobiography she notes how much more oppressive Islam became in Africa when the Saudi Imam/missionaries started showing up. Saddam Hussein was horrific, but when we deposed him, we thoughtlessly ousted the secular Baathist Party from their military and bureaucratic positions and basically threw them in the street...and many of them wound up in Syria forming the backbone of DAESH.

Our problems in the region don't require more than an understanding of blowback to account for them. Islam is just the flavoring.

[Mister Agenda]

Let me make something perfectly clear, because I think my actual stance on this is getting lost in the debate. 

I don't have anything against Muslim people. I don't think good, peaceful Muslims should stop being Muslim. I do think the Islam ideology, as it stands right now, has one major issue - and that is that it can be easily taken in a way that gets many people do many heinous things. It needs some sort of reform. And for those of you who immediately say "well Christianity blah blah blah," yes, I get it. Christians have killed many people too, in the past. Trust me, if Christians were running around right now killing thousands of people in the name of Jesus like the Islamic Jihadists are doing in the name of their god, I would be condemning the hell out of their behavior and saying the same thing I'm saying about Islam - that we need a reform and that this needs to stop. Like I said, I have nothing against good Muslim people practicing their faith peacefully. But I hold them to the same standard that I would hold my own Christian faith to and that I hold myself to: condemn every attack in the name of your faith.             

Seriously, I have no idea why the stance that...

1. islam needs a reform so that we don't have millions of its followers believing they need to commit heinous acts, and 

2. people should openly condemn/denounce horrible things being done in the name of their ideology (Christians and Muslims alike),   

...Is being met with so much hostility. Heaven forbid I think an ideology that is killing so many needs a reform. Heaven forbid I think we need to openly denounce murder being done in our name.

Here's the sad truth. This is what a Reformation looks like. People often overlook the violence involved in the Christian Reformation. It was bloody. It was people with this interpretation fighting that interpretation. It was the gradual elimination of factions too violent to be allowed to continue to exist.

[Mister Agenda]

You are aware, how many shades and colors Islam actually has? There is no islamic ideology, there are only more or less literal interpretations being at odds with each other. Right now, most of the more violent movements are Sunni, but that doesn't mean that Sunni is inherently more violent. Sunni, again, breaks down into many aspects, depending on region and culture.

That's the problem with blankets. They just don't fit.

Right. There I am being politically incorrect again. So, Islam does not need a reform. Everything is just fine and dandy as it is, no calls to change needed. 

Reform does not come from without. If anything, outside criticism makes people dig in harder to the views they already hold.

[Mister Agenda]

[quote pid='1135441' dateline='1449530533']
Muslims do respond when terror attacks shock the world, but on social horrors which you would probably not wish to see practiced in your own neighborhood, very little is said. These fundamental problems relate directly to the personality of Mohammad, whose tale was written not by people who were not the product of Greek culture, but of desert raiding, horse-stealing, woman-beating, and slave-marketing machismo. Reform of a religion is much easier when you have a compassionate hippie dude like Jesus as your central figure to look to for behavioral standards, while a dick like Mohammad, remembered as he is, is keeping Muslims forever in the 7th Century. You cannot criticize what he did without denying him as your holy man, a serious threat to any faith in Islam, and this has the imams threatening with violence anyone who makes such criticism in defense of their job security.

Mohammed was no worse than Moses, having a barbarian as the major figure of your religion isn't a key problem.

Iranian and Afghani women had their heads uncovered and their skirts up to their knees in the seventies. The West played a key role in changing that.

[Mechaghostman2]

I'll just say this: Nobody died over the movie The Life Of Brian by Monty Python. People did however die over a very cheap and poorly acted Innocence Of The Muslims film. As well, nobody has killed anybody over any movie being made against atheists like "God's Not Dead." You make a movie or you draw a cartoon that is satirizing any other religion or non-religion, and nobody is killed. You make a movie or draw a cartoon satirizing Islam, Muhammad, Muslims, etc., and people are killed.

It doesn't matter that the majority of Muslims don't want to kill you, because there are still a great many Muslims that do. The statement "not all Muslims" is fucking irrelevant, because there are enough Muslims who act in such a way to be a problem.

[Edwardo Piet]

The statement "not all muslims" is indeed relevant, if all muslims are being painted with the same brush.