Talk:Islam

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

This Islam related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

I'd like to add changes to the article..[edit]

Peace, I think I've left enough critisism in my edits.

Surely a rational wiki should include them.— Unsigned, by: 81.105.193.224 / talk / contribs 01:12, 19 September 2015

I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki! Drink! --Goatspeed. Fossil evidence of my evolutionCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 23:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Has somebody been dicking around with this article?[edit]

Seriously, I think someone has been seriously dicking around with this article. It's nowhere near as good as it was when I was last active, all the snark is gone, it has numerous grammatical errors... like wtf? Formerly cohesive and salient paragraphs have been replaced with broken-up stand-alone sentences, most having little to nothing to do with the others. Seriously, guys, quit dicking around with the article. QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 10:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

User HoboSapien has added a lot of good stuff in a very poor way. Someone, perhaps me, needs to do a pass at the article and RWfy it once again, keeping the new content. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd be willing to at least edit through the doctrinal parts of this article as well as add to them. I can't talk much about the politics, but the doctrine I know quite a bit on. For instance, I can add parts about Tawhid and Shirk (and how if you affirm Tawhid you commit Shirk) and about the early history of Islam (as well as the historicity of Muhammad), but I can't talk as much about the current state of politics because I don't know much about it. Anim (Carfa) 13:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Don't shirk your duty, buddy. Jump in. nobs 01:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

References[edit]

Is there any way to pull back a form that wasn't completed? My internet dropped for a couple seconds right after I tried to submit the action to edit the article and the changes didn't go through (cri). I had gone through and cleaned up all the references and it looked so clean and pretty D: and now I don't want to do all that work over again Anim (Carfa) 18:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Pressing "Back" and then "Resubmit data" works about half of the time... If that doesn't work, you may be screwed :C Take lesson from me... I NEVER press submit on even medium-extent changes without temporarily copying the entire article (or relevant segment) into notepad first. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
cri the lesson has been learned. I'll re-do it tomorrow QQ Anim (Carfa) 18:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
How would you like the references done?
Title of work, Publisher/Site/Author/Etc
or
Title of work, Publisher/Site/Author/Etc
Either way is fine by me (but I'd rather do it the right way the first time around) Anim (Carfa) 11:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Responses to criticisms[edit]

I noticed that the article sends a rather negative view of Islam. I would like to send common retorts and see how you respond:

On antifeminism: Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. (4:34)

This verse is probably one of the most misunderstood and misquoted verses of the Holy Quran. The Quran uses the Arabic word qawwamuna in the beginning of this verse, so it reads "Men are the qawwamuna of women." The word qawwamuna means to continuously stand over something (e.g. a guard or a caretaker) or to maintain something. The closest single word in English to qawwam is probably guardian. The grammatical form of qawwam combines the concepts of physical maintenance and protection as well as responsibility. The word denotes no superiority but responsibility. A correct translation of "qawwamuna a'ala aln-nisa" therefore would be "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women". To use "in charge" is quite a loose translation. This is a better translation:

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other..."

So a husband must be a protector and maintainer of his wife. It is important to note that the expression "men are qawwamuna over women" only describes the relationship between husband and wife within the family. The expression does not refer to the relationship between men and women in general. Now we can continue to look at the next part of the verse.

Why does God assign men the role to be the maintainer or guardian of the family? Men are financially responsible for the family because men and women both have different roles. It would be very difficult for a women to go through pregnancy and raise children at the same time as providing for the family. So men are to provide for the family. This does not mean that women cannot work, but due to the nature of women sometimes it can be difficult at times, so men are the maintainers, and are held financially responsible for the family.

Then the Quran says, "So the righteous are devoutly obedient, guarding in (the husbands) absence what Allah would have them guard." It seems as if the Quran is referring to those women who are obedient to their husbands, but the term is being used for those women who are devoutly obedient to GOD. When the husband is absent, a women is expected to guard her chastity. As for those women who cheat on their husbands and commit major sins, the Quran says how to deal with them. When a husband dislikes their wives, they are instructed: "Consort with them in a good manner for if you dislike them it be that you dislike something in which god places much goodness." (4:19)

In the verse 4:34 the Quran suggests three ways to stop family crisis. One, to remind them of God and his teachings, and to talk with them. The Quran uses the phrase izuhannawhich means to remind them of God's teachings. If that works then the matter is settled. If not, then the second step is to avoid sharing beds with such wives. The Quran says in Arabic "Wahjuruhunna fi'il madaiji" which means to leave them alone in bed or to not share their bed. Note, it is the man who is required to leave and not the women. The last option mentioned in the Quran in Arabic is wadribuhunna. The word Idrib is usually translated as "strike" or "hit". However, this does not mean physical abuse, in fact Islam condemns physical abuse against wife.

As one can see from the Prophet's statements: "It is strictly forbidden for a Muslim man to beat his wife violently, nor is he allowed to physically abuse her or strike her on the face for any reason. " Wadribuhunna is a way of stopping ones wife from doing evil, it is not to cause pain (this is why hitting on the face or any sensitive area is never allowed), it must not leave a bruise or a mark on the skin and it should not cause emotional problems. The Arabic phrase does not resembles violence or abuse.

If someone were to hit another person with a piece of string, it would still be called 'striking' but that does not mean it is physical abuse. In the same way when the Quran uses the word strike it does not mean physical abuse, as this is condemned by the prophet and the teachings of Islam. It is more of a gesture. You could also say that if someone physically stopped another person from doing something bad (within limits), is it considered abuse and violent? The Quran also tells us to imitate the prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and it is recorded in the hadiths that he never beat his wives. Anyone who uses this verse as an excuse for domestic violence is not following Islamic teaching. No Muslim wife-beater can possibly claim to imitate the Prophet.

The last part of this verse says:

"But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."

The verse ends by saying, "If they obey you, seek no means against them" - obey at any stage - and "obey", coming in its place here, means "refrain" from the act which caused this problem. Thus "obedience" here does not mean being submissive to the husband, but refraining from a serious offence. To refrain in this way is an obligation on every person.

Abu Hurayra narrated that the Prophet said: "The most perfect of the believers in their belief are those with the best manners, and the best of you are those who are best with their wives." (Sahih Bukhari)


On Aisha: The Hadiths are the recollections of Muhammad’s Companions. Some are strong and well documented and supported.

Others are weak because they are not supported, not witnessed by others, and contradict others that are supported. The Hadiths that talk about Aisha being a child when married, all fall in this later category. These weak Hadiths all were eventually traced to one old senile man from Iraq, and even he contradicts himself. He mistakes when Aisha went away to school and when she went away to the Prophet's house. Yet he also says Aisha fought battles and when

Here’s how we know Aisha was much older when married:

Aisha was always referred to as bikr, which literally means “an adult unmarried woman who is a virgin.” She was never referred to as a jariyah, which is a “young girl.”

These weak Hadiths contradict the Quran:

“And make not over your property (property of the orphan), which Allah had made a (means of) support for you, to the weak of understanding, and maintain them out of it, clothe them and give them good education. And test them until they reach the age of marriage. Then if you find them maturity of intellect, make over them their property...” (Quran, 4:5-6).

No seven year old, nor nine year old is mature enough to handle her own finances and property, yet Aisha was given hers at marriage. (That's her money, not her husband's).

Aisha’s exact birthday is unknown, but she was born before 610 CE when Islam was revealed.

Aisha is recorded as accepting Islam shortly after it was revealed. She could not have done so as an infant or toddler. The youngest she could have accepted Islam would be 7 y/o, but that’s a guess.

She was married in 622 CE 12 years after she accepted Islam. (7 + 12 =19 years).

Further, Aisha fought in the Battles of Badr and Uhud (624/5 respectively). No one under 15 fought in those battles, let alone be a leader of them.

Also, Asma, Aisha’s eldest sister (by ten years) died at age 100, 72 years after Aisha’s marriage.

“The Quran states a woman's consent is essential, and the Sunnah confirms that both Aisha's betrothal and consummation occurred with Aisha's enthusiastic agreement. In fact, some even imply she went against the initial wishes of her Dad!”

These are uncontested facts, well-supported by strong Hadiths.

Therefore, by process of elimination and mathematics, Aisha could not have been married before she was 14 and the consummation before she was almost 20.

By mathematical reasoning: Year of marriage: 622 Years after the marriage that Asma died: 72 Age when Asma died: 100 622+ 72 = 694 -100= 594 is the year of Asma’s birth.

622-594= 28 yr of Asma at Aisha’s wedding Asma is recorded as ten years older than Aisha. Therefore: 28-10= 18 Aisha’s age at wedding.

Using mathematics and undisputed facts, we can prove Aisha was 18-19 at the time of her wedding.

On witnesses: "O you who believe! When you contract a debt for a fixed period, write it down. Let a scribe write it down in justice between you. Let not the scribe refuse to write as Allah has taught him," until it reaches " And get two witnesses out of your own men. And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two woman, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her." (2:282)

This verse does not address the question of the status of the testimony. Rather it addresses the methods for verification and establishment of confidence about the transaction. If a contract is being made for a financial transaction, the Quran tells us to bring forth two men as witnesses, or one man and two women. This verse does not say that two women are equal to one man, or that the testimony of a woman is only worth half of a testimony of a man. The reason for having two female witnesses for this type of financial contract is given by the Quran.

"...and two woman, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her."

If one of the women forgets something or makes a mistake, the other can correct her. This is because in pre-Islamic Arabia before the Quran was revealed, very few women took part in business or financial matters. So they would have had less knowledge about financial transactions, therefore they would be more likely to make an error. This may still be the case in some areas today. However, if the first women does not make any mistakes and does everything correctly, the second women is not needed, so the testimony of the first women alone is enough. So in the end only one woman testifies and only one man testifies. This verse does not have anything to do with gender equality.

It is also important to note that having two women and one man as witnesses is only the case in certain situations, such as this case about financial transactions. In some cases the same number of man and women are used, and in other cases the women's testimony is worth more than that of a man. It all depends on the situation.

Edit: I should note that these arguments do not belong to me, put are taken from several quora answers online— Unsigned, by: Birdupptv / talk / contribs

It is not clear what you hoped to accomplish by presenting religious extracts from Quran describing the correct organization of human culture, if it can be so simply described as such. Let us not dispute about the comparative virtues of Western and Islamic civilizations. It is important to recognize that the dominant moral structures in Western civilization are consequences of the struggles of western people against tyrannical authority, culminating in systems of secular law first derived from the Anglo-Saxon tradition and later elaborated by the French Enlightenment. These systems have developed over time contemporaneous with long sequences of civil stability. By their very character, they are incompatible with postulations such as you have presented here. Is it then surprising to find a desultory treatment of Islam, here, in a wiki dedicated to ideas that are a consequence of western philosophy?Ariel31459 (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia - which has a much stricter rules than we do - has Aisha's age at the consummation of her marriage as nine or ten. If all the Muslim apologists who have fought that battle over there have had no success then I rather doubt you'll get much traction here.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
That is such a non argument. Just because wikipedia says its true, doesn't mean it is. That's an appeal to authority--Birdupptv (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
What kind of argument would you expect? Appealing to religious texts for substantiation is an awesome appeal to authority. It's just not effective.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
You misunderstand my point. It's about the futility of making this argument here. If all the high-powered Muslim apologists cannot persuade the relentlessly even-handed editors at Wikipedia that Muhammad was not a peddophole - then a drive-by Quran poster is not going to persuade a wiki made up largely of atheists here.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sufism[edit]

Sufism is not a separate denomination of Islam. It is a practice within Islam, and most Sufism throughout history has aligned with Sunni Islam. Mysticism is a practice and Sufism is literally just Islamic mysticism. Saying it's a denomination would be like saying all the legal schools of Sunni Islam are denominations too. — Unsigned, by: 31.205.10.107 / talk

Right, the different legal schools of Sunni Islam are merely differences in jurisprudence. It would be like equivocating the differences between common law and civil lawWikipedia's W.svg as "merely" being two separate denominations of the same "religion" that is Western law, it's false equivalency. Oxyaena Harass 02:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I dislike the current quote header[edit]

How come the page on islam starts with a quote AGAINST islam whereas the page on christianty starts with a neutral or loving quote about christianty? How do you guarentee impartialy and that christians do not become owners of the page and put a christian spin on a religion that does not belong to them?

Is this a reliable source for information or a youtube comment section? How come that much critics is placed under islam whereas christianty has little? Is this a political game thats being played here? Stop being dicks and impartial. — Unsigned, by: 185.210.123.52 / talk

agreed the quote at the top shouldnt be where it is. It should be in a criticisms section LurkingGnome (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@LurkingGnome, hello! I have just joined. When this is a Wiki for Rationalists, why should you agree to likely Islamists who don't sign in to put in their comments? Please make no mistakes! They lurk everywhere, drowning the gullible and the greedy with Petro Dollars (or should I say, Dirhams, Dinars, and what not!). If allowed equality with Rationalists, they will turn around, use the abrogation and Pretension surahs and kill rationalists when the time is right for them. I have a full compilation of the hostile, deceitful, vengeful and murderous verses of Quran. So I would know what they are up to. They treat non-muslims as Kafirs. Dar-Al-Kitab was a cunning pretence! You are a fellow Jesus loving Christian when things aren't right for them, non-believer when they are in power. Doesn't matter whether you are a Christian or an atheist.
Please ignore unsigned comments. Does Rational Wiki receive donations from Petro-extracting Islamic states? Please don't accept their donations unless unconditional. I thank you for putting the quote at the right place. Where it hurts.
Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay we don't really hate any religions here, despite making fun of them all, so honestly I would tone down the rhetoric a little. — Dysk (contribs) 12:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Dysklyver:
Yes, I understand the burden of rationalists. There is a subtle difference between hate and contempt. We should have contempt, not hate. But never to drop our guards. Physically, we can stir up far less aggression than the fanatics. Religions feed fanaticism. So we should always be careful, particularly about Islam. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Unhealthy obsessions also feed fanaticism. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)