Why do Atheists defend Islam?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Not a retardent?

Not necessarily a retardant. The point I've been making (quite clearly, I thought) is that there have been times (e.g. the Golden Age) when Islam has been an accelerant of progress, other times (e.g. now) when it's been a retardant. Clearly Islam is a contributor to both situations but not the sole driver. I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the other factors might be. All I seem to be getting in return is 'Nope, it's just that all Islam is bad!'.

Here's how that worked: Non-Muslims are your enemies, take them all over the world and give them either Islam or the sword if they reject it - that's the Koran for you!

But that's not all the Qur'an says. Like most other holy books, it contains good points, too. That's why I say that it's the archetypal interpretations which are key: are the leadership instructing "The Qur'an tells us to love everyone!" or are they saying "The Qur'an tells us to kill everyone!" and do the majority of adherents agree with the leadership? We have historic examples of the social, political and cultural impacts of both sides of that scenario.

Am I making sense to you?

My position is open, so let's talk about other factors behind ME woes besides Islam. But first, let's deal with why Islam isn't a major, if not the majority factor, because all I see for other reasons are because you or others say so. I've already dealt with pre-existing cultural traits which even the 7th Century Arab contemporaries would have had a problem with, and let's not lose site of the fact that however forward-thinking and intellectual the Arabs (and the Byzantines, can't lie here), social progress only applied to the high-born, while slavery was how the city got things done. Some women of high birth were known to teach men and women in co-ed classrooms in Alexandria, but they probably weren't among the Muslims who lived there. I'm pretty sure this was the Golden Age you refer to, so how in particular do you see Islam as "an accelerant to progress" then, or at any time? How do we know Islam had anything to do with any social or intellectual progress for those who happened to be Muslim? Where does the Koran encourage forward-thinking intellectualism and social egalitarianism (well, sorry, guess the latter is a non-starter)? If such holy words are still in that book, then why do you think they have been subsequently ignored to this day (or at least hat's how it appears for hundreds of millions of people who live under the terror of Sharia law, women living as chattel, and death threats to any who dare speak their minds)? How is Islam not responsible in a significant, and uniquely significant way for these problems, and in any way an inspiration for scientific and social progress?

---

Not necessarily a retardant. The point I've been making (quite clearly, I thought) is that there have been times (e.g. the Golden Age) when Islam has been an accelerant of progress, other times (e.g. now) when it's been a retardant. Clearly Islam is a contributor to both situations but not the sole driver. I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the other factors might be. All I seem to be getting in return is 'Nope, it's just that all Islam is bad!'.


But that's not all the Qur'an says. Like most other holy books, it contains good points, too. That's why I say that it's the archetypal interpretations which are key: are the leadership instructing "The Qur'an tells us to love everyone!" or are they saying "The Qur'an tells us to kill everyone!" and do the majority of adherents agree with the leadership? We have historic examples of the social, political and cultural impacts of both sides of that scenario.

Am I making sense to you?

And in fact, the Qur'an doesn't even say it the way God of Mr. Hanky said it. If anything, what it literally advocates is no different from what many Christians advocate: aggress against those who aggress against you.

Ok, my bad for thinking what the xtains taught me in their school was even a small part history, but my understanding has been that "holy wars", which they actually called their efforts to bring Islam to the world were inspired of Muck Ham Mad. This is not true? If it doesn't tell them to "kill the infidel", then who did? It this is what they teach, and it wasn't drawn from the Koran, then it must have been written by some recognized Muslim teacher while ISIS is attracting people who are not illiterate. I hate the thought that I myself will become behooved to read that shit, having no interest in it while life is so short.