From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon islam.svg

This Islam related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


1. on the articles on Avicenna there are few problem with some of the fact the writer wants to presents them they are: 1. it written that Avicenna "turned to his belief system, starting critizing Islam and in wider context religion". 2. it is written "he then became an atheist...". 3. it is also written "He did not cave in and fought back until the time came when the ruling caliph of his time was tipped off that Avicenna no longer believed in Islam, which was and remains a sin punishable by death in Islam, and that he had to kill Avicenna". is written "To escape imminent death, Avicenna had to write a poem stating his religiosity and that "if I am a Kafir (i.e., a person not believing in a god or gods), then there are no Muslims walking the earth" 5. the article then makes a final conclusion that Avicenna is a atheist and blaming that it is the muslims want you to make you believe them with the argument that it is because they are simply wrong and therefore the Avicenna is an atheist (instead of a humanist or a rationalist theist, with non overlapping magistrate concept)

2. now come with why this is a problem, on the first one, one should have known the political or even the religious debate that happened during the Abbasid caliphate where he lives, he was one of the thinker (a progressive one for his era) that advocates (sort of) for the separation of material science with religious science, not straight up hostile with islamic teaching, which is, during the time being an atheist itself is pretty tolerated, with some account even the caliph (nation wide ruler in islam) would let atheist, non muslim, and even rival Christian, to go into the court to talk matters and stuff, if, Avicenna would straight up go atheist there will be not many consequences, apart from social stigma maybe, but hes a known man, so that is unlikely, maybe he avoid it to keep up his social persona, but that is also unlikely, then the second, this is simply not true, using logic, empirical data, philosophy and even humanist thought does not make you an atheist, except well you follow the thought of fundamentalist, on the third, this part might go back to the first point i made, you need to know the political environment in the place at first, Avicenna live during an era where there was a huge rationalist movements (mostly in the government, and the clerics (and fundamentalist in general) as their opposition) this era has a rationalist branch (not that popular) called Mu'tazila basically think of a merging of cult of reason and cult of greated being during the french revolution except based on the abrahamic monotheism and, well of course, islam, there are even an inquisition like movement (perpetrated by the rationalist caliph) called mihna (think of a spanish inquisition, but instead of killing you because you are not Catholic enough, they would kill you because you arent rational enough, or because too much superstitious, or because you are too dogmatic, or even because you took everything in the Quran and hadiths literally instead of metaphorically) so it is highly unlikely that he writes this because he's too scared of imminent death. now the fourth ,it said that he wrotes that if he's an atheist then there will be no muslim walking on earth, i think the phrase is enough to say that hes a muslim because if he's not then everyone who call themselves muslim pretty much doesn't exist, now on the fifth part, the writer then concludes that what you see when a muslim say that Avicenna is a muslim is wrong, not because they wrongly give the fact, not because they use logical fallacy or because they are too dim to use their mental capacity to understand what they are talking about,no, the writer dont based his/her conclusion based on those, but instead it is simply because Avicenna is too great and influential and that muslims are just trying to get some credit, and therefore they are wrong, despite the fact that during his death and even during his later life and even from his youth to his death he still practices islam

3. i think you can conclude the conclusion based by what I've wrote,and regarding of the tone of the article, i get it this is a place for atheist, agnostics (like me) and rationalist and sceptics too (both also like me) but tuning down the tone and hostility so that reader outside the circle won't take it in a hostile way i think that would be better --Reamur123 (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)