Why do Atheists defend Islam?

[Amine]

Even if I totally accepted your self-defense defense, that still wouldn't even touch things like the horrible attitude toward women. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jesus didn't go around saying men should rape their wives and their sex slaves when they please. Things like that.

Tribal acts. All are backed by Hadiths (which I don't believe in).
Instead, there is this one verse in the Quran that actually give men the right to not have sex with their wives.

And slavery is forbidden anyhow in the Quran. You can't take slaves because it's not authorized (not even in one verse).

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!

[WinterHold]

Tribal acts. All are backed by Hadiths (which I don't believe in).
Instead, there is this one verse in the Quran that actually give men the right to not have sex with their wives.

And slavery is forbidden anyhow in the Quran. You can't take slaves because it's not authorized (not even in one verse).

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This the same Jesus who said he didn't come to bring peace, but the sword?

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And by which evidence did you go, exactly ?
the same shitty sources that Sunnies and Shia use to justify their crimes ?

I mean where can you run from this verse in the Quran :

( Sura 2 Verse 256 )   There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

I mean, this is the doctrine and constitution of Mohammed; how did he expand religion by the sword if his own constitution included this ?

Please, don't throw the acts of Sunnies and Shia on Mohammed. The Islamic conquests took place after Mohammed's death.

Though, I do agree with you on that Jesus would never call for crusades, He too -Jesus- believed that there shall be no compulsion in the acceptance of the religion.

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.

[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.

[WinterHold]

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.

No, actually you missed that I'm an Arab (yes; Arabic is my native tongue  ) So my translations are quite literal.
As a small Arabic lesson : slave in arabic is written "Abd = عبد". While the verse speaks about "Molk al yameen = ملك اليمين".

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? 

Hello ? we're speaking about 1400 years ago ? people with no homes ? poor people who got overrun by raiders and gangs of cutthroats ? 
In the modern era, you have the homeless and...let's say millions of Africans ?

Or you're saying, that it's an unethical thing to agree with a homeless man to protect him from the cold and from hunger, in exchange of his service (maybe helping me organizing my office or watch an estate I posses?

Actually, think about the differences between this, and slavery.

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"

It can also refer strongly, to the allowance of the "banging act" at all times, including (for example) the holy month of Ramadan ? why does your mind jump immediately to rape ?

And please, quote the previous verse so the context becomes clear.
Actually it says : stay away from sex during menstruation, after that, your wives are tilth unto you, so approach your tilth whenever you want to.

( Sura 2 222 )   And they ask you about menstruation. Say, "It is harm, so keep away from wives during menstruation. And do not approach them until they are pure. And when they have purified themselves, then come to them from where Allah has ordained for you. Indeed, Allah loves those who are constantly repentant and loves those who purify themselves."
( Sura 2 223 )   Your wives are a place of sowing of seed for you, so come to your place of cultivation however you wish and put forth [righteousness] for yourselves. And fear Allah and know that you will meet Him. And give good tidings to the believers.

So in other words, honey bunny want to "tootoo" with me. But she's full of menses. So I'll tell her : dear, keep out for now, it's nasty even though I'm a vampire (if you get my meaning :p) . After her menses is over, it's fine to eat her private parts all year long ^_^. mmmm I don't see rape ?? Rather, a lovely description for women ?? , and a verse that prevents sexist from calling their wives names because of the menstruation. If you miss it, a lot of men used to view women as "lesser & filthy" due to menstruation.

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. 

If you stick to the Quran, I'm totally with that. It's full of verses calling to free slaves, anyhow.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

Nor did I say it was. It is, however, the logical conclusion.

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

Except that in a book filled with contradictory verses, choosing one which contradicts another is, by definition, cherry-picking.

It is the same cherry-picking done by Christians and Jews, and for the same reasons: the believer chooses those verses which best compliment the believer's outlook.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I believe I can flyyyyyyyyyy I believe I can touch the skyyyyyyyyyyyy

Everything above the ground is the sky.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Tell me, what is the penalty for leaving the Islamic faith?

It's the same as that for leaving the Christian faith.  

John 15:6 (NLT) = "6 Anyone who does not remain in me is thrown away like a useless branch and withers. Such branches are gathered into a pile to be burned."

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Also, there is a massive difference between "WWJD" and "WWMD". I'm not sure Christianity doesn't have a capacity to be reformed that Islam simply lacks. Jesus would never have called for the crusades. That was an actual case of religious people not really following their religion. Muhammad, on the other hand, was a guy who went around committing atrocities. The Muslims who don't spread Islam by the sword are the ones not really following their religion.

And by which evidence did you go, exactly ?
the same sources that Sunnies and Shia use to justify their crimes ?

I mean where can you run from this verse in the Quran :

( Sura 2 Verse 256 )   There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

I mean, this is the doctrine and constitution of Mohammed; how did he expand religion by the sword if his own constitution included this ?

Please, don't throw the acts of Sunnies and Shia on Mohammed. The Islamic conquests took place after Mohammed's death.

Though, I do agree with you on that Jesus would never call for crusades, He too -Jesus- believed that there shall be no compulsion in the acceptance of the religion.

Jesus condemned whole towns to hell fire because they didn't believe in him.  When he returns he will torture everyone, destroy the environment, kill all life, and blow up the Earth.  And if you didn't believe in him he will throw your butt into the lake of fire.  

He's not a nice guy at all.