Why do Atheists defend Islam?

[Amine]

Actually:

[23:5-6] ‘And who guard their modesty – Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy…’

Meaning they are allowed to possess and have sex with slaves (and not be blameworthy). But definitely not people who aren't their wives or their slaves!

First, the verses in correct literal translation would be :

( 5 )   And they who guard their private parts
( 6 )   Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed 

Second, "Molk al yameen" which is "possession of the right hand" which you translated into "slave", is something so different than slaves. Molk al yameen is more like a person whom agreed to serve you in exchange of safety and income.

Unlike the slave, who is bought and forced into slavery.

The "correct" literal translation? There are a number of translations, and you picked one. A controversial one at that. Not that it even makes a difference here.

Agreed to serve you in exchange of safety and income? Safety from who, you? Then why did they come from prisoners of war ("that Allah has given you")? Why were they only allowed to be set free under very limited circumstances, sometimes only as a punishment to the owner? Why were you still allowed to have sex with the "molk" al yameen even if she was married?

What about the fact that men are allowed to rape their wives, to say nothing for now of their (I'm going to keep calling them) slaves? 2:223: "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will"

And I'm trying to stick to just the Quran here. Looking at history and the very life of Muhammad, I think permission and encouragement of slavery is evident. I think you must be trying to find your information from apologists like Christians do with sites like answersingenesis. It is kinda ridiculous.. on a big-picture level, I simply don't believe that everything that originated from some silly cult in the 600s has some good, righteous explanation. Apologists distort, make things up, rationalize, omit things, and draw only from examples which help their case. Any reasonable person sees this stuff and it's entirely clear that it is about what you would expect from religious zealots around that time.

That is the kind of equivocation people need to stop committing. This is a very indirect call to violence at best. Really, it is more metaphorical, as he goes on to explain this "sword" will cause divisions in relationships.

The two simply do not compare. To do so is disingenuous. Jesus didn't go around raping children and beheading people. Yes, one time he metaphorically used a sword as an example. He tended to do that sort of thing. And then he let himself get crucified. Big difference. Might have something to do with the way things look in the world today.

Sowing hatred is the prerequisite for any bloodletting. Taking his sword comment with his demand that followers must be willing to abandon even family is a recipe for violence that has indeed been played out through history.

I'm not saying Jesus wasn't crazy or whatever. That's far from a direct call to violence though.

Where can I run from it? Uh, all the really violent verses? Everyone knows about the "no compulsion" verse. That there are contradictions by itself would not even be surprising. But if you read it closely it is talking about acceptance of the religion, i.e. whether or not someone believes in it, whether or not they are sincere. It's saying you can't actually believe it if you only believe it because you are forced to. You have to actually accept the truth because you genuinely accept it. Then the belief is true belief.

Also, as I'm sure you're aware, later verses abrogate earlier ones. As the Quran was "revealed to" Muhammad over a period of years, as the situation changed so did the message. As events unfolded and Muhammad gained more power it seems that he had no hesitation about forcing other religions to convert, forcing them to do all sorts of things, killing them, whatever.

The cherry-picking that must take place in following a book which contradicts itself seems to partially undercut the thesis that the religion itself is the cause of the violence.

I don't doubt at all that some iterations picking the ugly verses have much blame to shoulder for radical Muslim violence, but others, not so much.

It's like blaming Protestants for the Inquisition.

Yeah, and then you ignored the 2 reasons I gave as to why it isn't really cherry picking.