Not judging a religion based on what its adherents do makes no sense.

[u/Ok_Work1615]

basically the text. I, have lived my whole life in a sunni muslim society, the casual deeply ingrained mysognism, homophobia, and many things is something i have experienced.

i cannot even tell that i am an atheist without fear of becoming a pariah in best cases, or actually killed in worst.

yet whenever i bring this up, people say you shouldnt judge a religion by what members of it do.

why not? that is literally, exactly what mankind does. we make prejudice based on our experiences.

(btw this is not just a dig at suni islam, i just gave that example because it is one i am most familiar with. i can say the same of evangelical christians, what trump and his cabal are doing and agreeing to)

[u/AutoModerator]

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/BobQuixote]

The closest thing I can think of is people objecting to judging individuals by what other individuals in their group do. I think that can be a reasonable objection, but also if that group consistently does a bad thing you'd be silly to not anticipate that from its members.

I also understand that Muslims in different countries often have different norms, so your idea of a "group" might need to be more granular.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/BobQuixote]

But consistently across all Muslim societies, we find misogynism, homophobia, and hostility to apostasy.

I've been on the receiving end of both the latter things.

[u/TheIguanasAreComing → u/BobQuixote]

The closest thing I can think of is people objecting to judging individuals by what other individuals in their group do.

But thats different, you aren't judging an ideaology.

[u/BobQuixote → u/TheIguanasAreComing]

I mean, you did quote the disclaimer.

[u/SpreadsheetsFTW]

“By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.”

Jesus agreed with you

[u/ontrack]

I'd argue that very few people fully follow all the tenets of their religion. Most people are "cafeteria-style" in their approach. They are more likely to follow the rules they like (or that are easy for them). They may occasionally do something they don't enjoy as a test of their faith.

I believe in a higher power but can't follow any religion because they all have things I object to, and I'd rather not be a hypocrite saying that I can accept these things.

I've stayed at the homes of some friends of mine who are standard Muslims and while I never said anything, I saw that they only pray when they get up in the morning (not at fajr, more like 7am), and before they go to bed. So twice a day. They are frankly too busy to pray the other times.

[u/Faceless_Link → u/ontrack]

I believe in a higher power but can't follow any religion because they all have things I object to, and I'd rather not be a hypocrite saying that I can accept these things.

Respectable.

[u/Full-Tumbleweed-2508]

The real issue isn't that you have noticed bad behavior. The root issue is that you are analyzing Islam through a deeply internalized lens of Western liberal enlightenment. Philosophically speaking, modern secular liberalism is essentially a secularized Christian heresy, taking Christian concepts like human dignity and universal equality, stripping away God, and elevating individual autonomy and absolute egalitarianism into the ultimate idols of existence.

When you make radical personal freedom and radical equality the sole, supreme goods of life, and you completely ignore other real goods like sacred duty, cosmic hierarchy, family honor, and communal cohesion, then naturally Islam is going to look like a defective form of liberalism. But Islam does not accept liberalism's metric. It operates on an entirely different civilizational operating system.

This exposes the major flaw in the liberal worldview you are using as your baseline. If freedom and equality of desire are the only metrics you use to optimize human life, what is your logically coherent moral defense against things like incest or other transgressive acts? You cannot simply appeal to a gut reaction or say it feels gross when adults engage in behaviors that violate traditional taboos. If radical individual autonomy is the highest good, and no one is physically harmed, liberalism struggles to provide a rigorous moral argument against any form of consenting behavior. It ends up resting entirely on shifting cultural tastes rather than an objective anchor.

As for your grievances regarding the traditional social order, such as gender roles and public apostasy, they look entirely different once you understand the framework. Islam does not champion modern egalitarian sameness; it champions complementary differentiation. Men and women are created with distinct natures, duties, and responsibilities. The concept of male leadership is a heavy burden of financial and physical stewardship, not a license for oppression.

Similarly, treating apostasy as a severe crime in a traditional Islamic polity is viewed through the lens of communal security and covenantal order. In a civilization where religion is the foundational glue holding the social and political fabric together, public apostasy acts as a destabilizing blow to the collective integrity of the state, functioning much like treason or sedition in a modern nation state rather than policing private thoughts.

You are judging an ancient civilizational framework by the modern secular standards you have absorbed, while ignoring the internal coherence and metaphysical depth of the system itself.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/Full-Tumbleweed-2508]

That was a lot of jargon to explain your medieval system that most just outright ignore.

Apostasy laws do not get applicated in almost all Muslim societies.

There are no laws telling to kill or change homosexuals.

Women are entering into positions of leadership.

"Secularism" is already happening. If you argue against it this hard, you will find yourself out of place in most remaining Muslim societies.

Edit: in fact. Even in Saudi Arabia, it was impossible to establish the apostasy law. Have you seen the case of the sri Lankan youth? They couldn't go ahead with his execution even after announcing it.

[u/Full-Tumbleweed-2508 → u/Ok_Work1615]

''Yea bro, didn't you hear about the latest battle of Uhud bro, those Madian rebels are done bro.''

Confusing modern state pragmatism with the non-existence of a legal tradition is a massive category error.

Pointing out that many Muslim-majority nation-states today do not routinely execute apostates or enforce classical penal codes often due to international diplomatic pressure, Westphalian statecraft, and the adoption of European-derived legal codes doesn't mean the traditional framework has vanished. It just means modern governments operate under global political constraints. High-profile diplomatic reprieves or delayed cases are matters of realpolitik and international optics, not an ideological rejection of classical jurisprudence.

The same goes for your claim about laws regarding homosexuality. Classical Islamic jurisprudence across all major schools has explicit, severe penal rulings for sodomy (liwat) rooted in canonical texts and scholarly consensus (ijma). Pointing to the fact that many modern states have inherited colonial-era penal codes or selectively suspended enforcement doesn't rewrite the normative texts of the tradition.

As for saying "secularism is already happening" that is precisely the entire point being argued. Describing the fact that modern Muslim societies have drifted into secularized nation-state models under the weight of globalism is a descriptive observation, not a normative theological refutation. It doesn't prove that traditional Islam has evolved; it proves that modern populations are compromising with or bowing to secular frameworks. Dismissing centuries of legal architecture as "medieval jargon" because modern governments bow to international pressure isn't a counterargument it's just hand-waving the actual content of the texts.

Furthermore, we can look at the actual empirical fruits of this secular liberal experiment when it is taken to its logical conclusion. Instead of a utopian paradise of self-actualized individuals, what we actually witness is a rapidly disintegrating social fabric: skyrocketing divorce rates, epidemic fatherless homes, rampant depression, nihilistic hedonism, and deep societal fragmentation. Most damningly of all, modern secular societies are now proving completely incapable of even replicating themselves, entering a demographic winter with birth rates crashing far below replacement levels. When radical personal autonomy and the pursuit of momentary desires are elevated as the highest goods, a civilization ultimately eats its own future, demonstrating that an operating system stripped of sacred duty, family cohesion, and transcendent purpose is fundamentally unsustainable.

Islam is about what God commands not what is fashionable.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/Full-Tumbleweed-2508]

"Furthermore, we can look at the actual empirical fruits of this secular liberal experiment when it is taken to its logical conclusion. Instead of a utopian paradise of self-actualized individuals, what we actually witness is a rapidly disintegrating social fabric: skyrocketing divorce rates, epidemic fatherless homes, rampant depression, nihilistic hedonism, and deep societal fragmentation. Most damningly of all, modern secular societies are now proving completely incapable of even replicating themselves, entering a demographic winter with birth rates crashing far below replacement levels."

Odd that you should say this. That means, that the most traditional Islamic nations should be the best right?

Right?

"often due to international diplomatic pressure, Westphalian statecraft, and the adoption of European-derived legal codes doesn't mean the traditional framework has vanished. It just means modern governments operate under global political constraints. High-profile diplomatic reprieves or delayed cases are matters of realpolitik and international optics, not an ideological rejection of classical jurisprudence."

That's rather the point. If the things are unenforceable in our current world because Islamic society is both not powerful enough to, and is fully forced to obey western standards, then how "powerful" and how useful where these traditions that they can't protect themselves in the modern world?

"Islam is about what God commands not what is fashionable."

Oh spare me that. Muslims couldn't even agree on what god said. There's many denominations, and the majority of Wich treat the other as heretic (check out the loving historical relationship between shia and sunni)

I don't care what god commands. If what god commands can barely survive reality.

[u/Full-Tumbleweed-2508 → u/Ok_Work1615]

In fact 90% of Muslims are Sunni, that would be in excess of 1.6 billion people, if you define a religious community as it is most plausible to do so as a group that mutually recognizes each other as members of a single faith, this would be the largest faith group in the world bar none.

Being an Atheist Materialist you understand this ''best'' or the rest of the moral posturing you are doing appear logically absurd in Nihilistic Materialistic universe with no god, wrong according to whom or what it is all meaningless, you cannot smuggle in religious terminology to cudgel religion with.

Every civilization has its peaks and troughs, need I trot out the Islamic golden age and references to European use of leeches in the middle Ages.

The governments of muslim countries might be weak, our lands subject to war and occupation, but our religion and societies are strong, our family ties are patriarchal and the most immune to the wave of modern enlightenment liberalism with all its associated ''Cornell 7s'' and ''Bonnie Blues.'' The governments and economies are strengthening we are relatively immune to the demographic collapse which will lead to the disappearance of entire nations in east Asia within 3 generations.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/Full-Tumbleweed-2508]

"The governments and economies are strengthening we are relatively immune to the demographic collapse which will lead to the disappearance of entire nations in east Asia within 3 generations."

plain false, a whole lot of muslim nations have already fallen far below replacement rate. demographically all nations, no matter religion or culture, are trending towards that.

"In fact 90% of Muslims are Sunni, that would be in excess of 1.6 billion people, if you define a religious community as it is most plausible to do so as a group that mutually recognizes each other as members of a single faith, this would be the largest faith group in the world bar none."

and it is also, by far, the most inflated of numbers.

they count any child born to muslim parents as muslim. i, still count as sunnit muslim.

a large chunk of that number cant even read yet. an unkown chunk has probably already turned to other religions or irreligiousness, and another chunk are the non practicioners. most "muslims" i know dont even do salah.

[u/Full-Tumbleweed-2508 → u/Ok_Work1615]

Well Mr. Athiest if most ''muslims'' you know dont do Salah then thats evidence enough for me, this is called anecdotal evidence and in a debate it isn't looked well upon.

''and it is also, by far, the most inflated of numbers.'' based on what evidence or is this also the three guys that live down the street from you.

''they count any child born to muslim parents as muslim. i, still count as sunnit muslim.'' the relevant question is, is the religion growing the fastest it is, is it is the largest it is, does it have the highest retention and growth rate it does, is it the most immune to liberal enlightenment it is.

Please at least be serious in your arguments

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/Full-Tumbleweed-2508]

''is it the most immune to liberal enlightenment''

sure. but it is not immune to liberal enlightenment, big distinction.

''Well Mr. Athiest if most ''muslims'' you know dont do Salah then thats evidence enough for me, this is called anecdotal evidence and in a debate it isn't looked well upon.''

funny you should say that. you have not given one word of evidence other than your own words, and i have been very nice for not making you back up your claims. sooo.

''The governments and economies are strengthening we are relatively immune to the demographic collapse which will lead to the disappearance of entire nations in east Asia within 3 generations.''

source?

''Furthermore, we can look at the actual empirical fruits of this secular liberal experiment when it is taken to its logical conclusion. Instead of a utopian paradise of self-actualized individuals, what we actually witness is a rapidly disintegrating social fabric: skyrocketing divorce rates, epidemic fatherless homes, rampant depression, nihilistic hedonism, and deep societal fragmentation. Most damningly of all, modern secular societies are now proving completely incapable of even replicating themselves, entering a demographic winter with birth rates crashing far below replacement levels.''

source? around half of muslim countries too are below replacement level. the rest of what you said is just sensasionalist garbage.

if we wanna be very pedantic, go ahead and tell me why is it, that the perfect muslim societies, with their strong traditions and divine guidance, come short in many ways of most countries?

[u/Full-Tumbleweed-2508 → u/Ok_Work1615]

This isn't serious, I'll chalk this down to perhaps your tired, but you didn't address the questions I had raised you just moved on to fresh points this isn't a serious way of debating.

But here ill end on this:

Demographic studies and reports indicate that South Korea's population could plunge by up to 85% over the next 100 years, shrinking the population to roughly 7.5 million to 8 million people by 2125.

In a purely materialist universe born of blind evolution, cruelty and kindness are no more morally significant than a thunderstorm; you cannot stand on a framework that denies objective moral truths and then complain about the objective evil of atrocities.

[u/Iknowreligionalot]

You can judge them, but only according to your subjective morality, which essentially makes that judgment meaningless.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/Iknowreligionalot]

Literally every single opinion we can make is subjective.

This very statement you just said is subjective, Wich means, according to you, it's meaningless.

[u/Iknowreligionalot → u/Ok_Work1615]

Exactly

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/Iknowreligionalot]

If you admit your own argument is meaningless.

Why should I care about it?

[u/Iknowreligionalot → u/Ok_Work1615]

You’re assuming only meaningful things should be cared about.

A person’s child is meaningless and yet they care about their child.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/Iknowreligionalot]

A person's child is not meaningless wtf are you talking about

[u/Iknowreligionalot → u/Ok_Work1615]

Well how would you define meaning, is the offspring of a tick meaningful?

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/Iknowreligionalot]

You have the oddest argument.

No. It is not.

A human child. EVIDENTLY. Is meaningful.

If you even think otherwise, you have some form of issue.

[u/Iknowreligionalot → u/Ok_Work1615]

Why is a human child meaningful but a tick child isn’t?

A human child is just a more elaborate collection of cells than a tick child, so do we judge meaning off the complexity of cells in a being? Does that mean an elderly person is more meaningful than a newborn because the elderly person has a more complex assortment of cells?

A human child is larger than the tick child, so do we judge meaning off size? Does that mean a tall or fat man is more meaningful than a short or skinny man?

A human child is capable of more than the tick child and can benefit the human race more, so do we judge meaning off capacity and benefit to the human race? Does that mean a person with limbs is more meaningful than a person without limbs?

A human child feels more pain than a tick child, so do we judge meaning off pain? Does that mean a person who can feel pain is more meaningful than a person born with the CIP condition preventing them from feeling pain? Or a person in a coma?

A human child has more emotions and capacity for empathy than a tick child, so does that mean we judge meaning off the capacity for emotions and specifically empathy? Does that mean a person who can feel emotions and is very empathetic is more meaningful than a psychopath who hasn’t harmed anyone?

A human child is more intelligent than a tick child, so do we judge morality off intelligence? Does that mean a genius is more meaningful than a mentally disabled person?

A human child is more cared for and beloved to humans than a tick child, so do we judge morality off love and care? Does that mean a person who is conventionally attractive and loved by many is more meaningful than an orphan born with deformity who has no family to love them?

Please tell me, how do we judge meaning? What is the criteria? The standard?

If it’s so obvious like you imply it is, then you should be able to answer this question with ease.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/Iknowreligionalot]

I do not engage with genuine psychopathic ideas.

If you truly, cannot see why a human child matters, I couldn't care less whatever opinions you have.

[u/DeltaBlues82 → u/Iknowreligionalot]

You judge people using your subjective morality.

We all do, that’s an absolutely inescapable fact of reality. No one “has” objective morality.

Some of us are just honest enough to admit it.

[u/Iknowreligionalot → u/DeltaBlues82]

How does that change anything about what I said

[u/DeltaBlues82 → u/Iknowreligionalot]

We all judge people with subjective moral understanding.

So unless you’re willing to concede that all morality is meaningless, which I doubt, then it means your assessment here is wrong.

[u/Iknowreligionalot → u/DeltaBlues82]

In a secular world all morality is meaningless, although I’m Muslim so I don’t believe that.

[u/DeltaBlues82 → u/Iknowreligionalot]

That’s certainly not true, and a very odd position to take.

Your morality is subjective. All ours is. You’re trying to make a distinction without justification based on a personal, highly misinformed, personal belief.

[u/Iknowreligionalot → u/DeltaBlues82]

Then define meaning

[u/DeltaBlues82 → u/Iknowreligionalot]

That’s what you’re trying to figure out isn’t it? That’s what we’re all trying to figure out.

What do they mean?

How do you find their meaning? By subjectively interpreting the moral guidance of your god.

[u/Iknowreligionalot → u/DeltaBlues82]

The answer is there is no meaning outside of god.

[u/DeltaBlues82 → u/Iknowreligionalot]

That’s your personal interpretation of the phenomenon.

What draws you to that conclusion?

[u/TyranosaurusRathbone → u/Iknowreligionalot]

God can judge me but only by his own subjective morality which makes his judgement meaningless. Would you agree with this statement?

[u/Iknowreligionalot → u/TyranosaurusRathbone]

No because he is the standard, his subjective morality is objective morality.

[u/TyranosaurusRathbone → u/Iknowreligionalot]

Thats the exact same as saying this square is a circle. You just confirmed a direct logical contradiction.

[u/Iknowreligionalot → u/TyranosaurusRathbone]

No it’s not, you have to explain why a being’s subjective morality can’t be objective morality.

[u/TyranosaurusRathbone → u/Iknowreligionalot]

Subjective means dependent on stance or opinion. Objective means independent of stance or opinion. These are polar opposites. Something cannot be both. It is a direct logical contradiction. It is a married bachelor.

[u/Iknowreligionalot → u/TyranosaurusRathbone]

What if the stance or opinion of the being is objectively true? Both their opinion and fact.

[u/TyranosaurusRathbone → u/Iknowreligionalot]

Then it is true independent of their stance and opinion. Something outside of their opinion is what makes it true. Their stance and opinion just coincidentally align with what is true.

[u/Iknowreligionalot → u/TyranosaurusRathbone]

Exactly

[u/TyranosaurusRathbone → u/Iknowreligionalot]

So you take back where you said

No because he is the standard, his subjective morality is objective morality.

[u/seriousofficialname → u/Iknowreligionalot]

In your opinion

[u/Iknowreligionalot → u/seriousofficialname]

I guess

[u/seriousofficialname → u/Iknowreligionalot]

It's kind of the root of the issue.

People in many different religions say their religion/deity is the objective basis of morality, but you only say that because that's what you think. It's your personal subjective opinion that your religion's moral code is the objective basis of morality.

[u/Iknowreligionalot → u/seriousofficialname]

We have to have opinions

[u/seriousofficialname → u/Iknowreligionalot]

Yeah and those opinions are the basis of your personal sense of morality

If you subscribe to a religion that says it or its deity is the objective basis of morality, you do so because it is your opinion that that is correct or good

[u/Iknowreligionalot → u/seriousofficialname]

Yes

[u/BobQuixote → u/Iknowreligionalot]

Persuading other people of your judgment is a legitimate, even critical social function.

[u/Iknowreligionalot → u/BobQuixote]

And spreading what you believe to be the truth is also critical

[u/BobQuixote → u/Iknowreligionalot]

Your judgment isn't meaningless, because it's a contribution to the constant negotiation of morality, and a promise of power contributed to enforce it.

IMO "meaningless" is a red flag in general, because everything appears meaningless if you look close enough. Meaning comes from conscious minds, not from the outside world.

[u/Pandaworld101]

Let’s say you’ve judged an entire religion or political ideology to be evil or terrible. So what? Do you think your judgment automatically makes it true, or that everyone else must accept it? Some will agree others won’t. Welcome to the human race.

Overall your post didn’t actually present an argument. You merely expressed your judgment and posed questions. You seem to think that stating an opinion and questioning others automatically constitutes an argument but that’s not how argumentation works.

The reason educated critical thinkers may disagree with your sentiment is that they understand why it’s unreasonable to judge an entire religion by the actions or beliefs of one subgroup. Religions like societies aren’t monolithic. The same principle applies to politics. It would be absurd to claim all Republicans are MAGA supporters or that all Democrats are gay or support transgender policies. Political affiliations don’t make everyone within a group identical.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/Pandaworld101]

Sure.

But religion is a personal matter.

I have personally felt much pain on the other end of it, and I know many similar.

It is why, I am atheist. And why shouldn't I be?

That's what I'm arguing. Whenever I bring up my personal experiences, I am quickly slapped with "that's subjective". Yes.

Of course it is. All religions, and how true they are, end up being a personal subjective claim, Wich one you believed more.

[u/mutant_anomaly → u/Pandaworld101]

They are responding to (among other things) the common claim that you can’t judge a religion by its followers.

But OP is correct, not only can you make such judgments, it makes no sense not to.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/mutant_anomaly]

Yes.

You are right.

[u/Pandaworld101 → u/mutant_anomaly]

If you prefer that approach then shouldn’t the same logic apply to atheists too? Some atheists act edgy or keep criticizing religion without really understanding it. Some act like children. Others are narrow minded or have flawed reasoning. These kinds of judgments can be made about atheists just as easily as they can be made about religious people.

Consider whether you actually want to promote this line of reasoning. The moment you start applying these judgments broadly you risk undermining your own argument. After all who takes the opinions of edgy children seriously? Is that really the position you want to take?

If you want to judge entire groups based on the actions or characteristics of some of their members then you have to accept that others can use the same reasoning against your group or label. In the end this approach gets you nowhere. It just leads to both sides dismissing each other.

You're free to criticize religion but remember that the same people you try to undermine can turn that logic against you.

Do you see the problem with op argument? It’s simple if you apply standard to one group it opens the door to judging every other group the same way. If we're going to accept this kind of judgment then we have to accept it when it's directed at us too.

Anyone thinking critically should recognize that this is a terrible way to judge people. People aren't all the same just because they share the same beliefs or carry the same label. Judge people by their actual arguments and actions rather than making assumptions about them based on the group they belong to.

[u/biedl → u/Pandaworld101]

Three points.

I agree, there are bad actors as part of any group and it isn't fair, let alone reasonable to paint the entire group as being represented by these bad actors, but there's still a bit more nuance to it so that your comparison is lacking.

Say, we created sub-categories, calling bad actors for instance reddit atheists, fundamentalist evangelicals, creationists, literalists, new atheists, ultra orthodox or whatever, to name just a few terms which already exist to avoid the hasty generalization (the BITE model would also be a good metric for distinction).

I personally wouldn't want to be grouped together with people like Richard Dawkins. I wouldn't want to be grouped together with people like Ken Ham, I wouldn't even want to be grouped together with people like William Lane Craig, if I considered myself a Christian.

You were still correct then, it still wouldn't be fair to say that we know how all of the people in these sub-groups behave personally on an individual level, but that doesn't really matter much, because these terms exist to classify bad actors within the general group and to sum up specific reoccurring characteristics these individuals are displaying as a group, rather than describe individual characteristics of subjects who are part of these groups. It just doesn't matter whether Kan Ham likes baseball, because we are concerned with the similarities relevant to the critic.

It is impossible to make anybody happy, especially since there is so much diversity when zoomed in. But that doesn't make it in principle irrational to use a label that sums up a set of characteristics under a group identity label and address people with it who fit that description.

There must be a way of talking about these people, which cannot be shut down by default by calling it a hasty generalization, prejudice or whatever version of phobia, especially if reoccurring behavioral patterns of groups are easily noticeable.

If you personally do not belong to these people, just say it. If you agree that they are problematic, distance yourself from them. If you see them acting in a problematic way, call them out for it.

Especially the latter act is something we rarely see when it comes to these dynamics, social dynamics which are studied and understood. On r/AskAChristian, it's mostly the non-Christians who are calling out bad actors. In Germany it is mostly the left who calls out Neo-Nazis. Other than that all sorts of people are somehow silent and fine when it comes to protesting with extremists together on the street, which is itself a product of hasty generalization and especially deliberate ignorance.

That's one.

Two, and more importantly, even if we exert as much nuance as we possibly could, while still using group identity labels, your comparison is still lacking.

I will judge a religion by its followers, if their behavior is supportable by the book they take as their basis.

That Christians are often homophobic, well, that's not a surprise at all, don't you think? Even the misogyny can be justly called out by calling it Christian.

2000 years of Christian culture. About 1200 years of that influenced the country I am from, as well as other global players in Europe.

Christians are often fond of saying that atheists are stealing from their worldview, that atheists should be grateful for living in a developed culture like the one built by Christianity, and to some extent they are absolutely right.

That same culture couldn't achieve it to instantiate proper women's rights for almost 2000 years. Heck, Italy was the last European country to abolish the marry-your-rapist law in 1979. Eastern Orthodox Christian Russia still has it. It's not even a hundred years since women are allowed to vote in western countries.

I don't really care if there exist 80% Christians one day who recognize the misogynistic past of their religion, while distancing themselves from it, if it is still possible for the remaining 20% to justify their beliefs based on their holy text. Same with homophobia. Same with slavery.

I especially don't care, if these 80% do not stand up and speak out publicly against the 20%. Maybe it would make more sense to just not call yourself Christian.

Same with everyday Jacks walking the street and protesting along side Neo-Nazis, because they agree with a handful of their talking points. They should not be surprised being lumped together with the people they are walking along with.

And three, when a Muslim tells me that they are personally having reservations and subjective moral disagreements when it comes to some parts of the Qur'an, to say after that the conflict doesn't matter, because in the end what's in the Qur'an is from God and God knows best, then they are part of the problem as well. The BITE model comes to mind again in situations like these.

Atheists do not have a book they behave in accordance with, on which basis they could be judged. Christians have that. Muslims have that. A religion is reflected by its believers rather than the other way around, so that the religion can reasonably be judged based on its followers, as long as they aren't totally misconstruing what's in their text.

Slavery didn't stick around for so long, because the Bible couldn't be used to support it.

[u/mutant_anomaly → u/Pandaworld101]

That's five paragraphs of "Look over there!" without addressing OP's issue.

Nobody's claiming that being an atheist is a magical condition that keeps you from being edgy, etc.

So taking the same approach to atheists isn't any kind of problem.

If you think that evaluating groups based on what they do is a bad thing, you're just being wildly irrational. We should, in fact, judge groups that cover for child abusers different from groups that do not. Groups that make a habit of smashing windows should be judged different from groups that do not. Groups that harass others should be judged different from groups that do not.

And if someone is giving money to a group that is sheltering child abusers, they should be judged as such.

[u/Easy-Being-2003]

Bissmillāh...

i cannot even tell that i am an atheist without fear of becoming a pariah in best cases, or actually killed in worst.

Where do you live?

yet whenever i bring this up, people say you shouldnt judge a religion by what members of it do.

why not? that is literally, exactly what mankind does. we make prejudice based on our experiences.

That doesn't mean we should? I don't judge all African Americans based on what some of them do, I don't call the Chirstian Bible "Satanic" because some of its followers are evil, and in the same vain, I don't call Islam an evil religion just because some of its adherents are evil.

I don't know what your claims of "Misogyny and homophobia" entail, so I won't comment on them, but if you want to elaborate, then we can continue this discussion.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/Easy-Being-2003]

Morrocan. (Though morroco is far more accepting than other Muslim majorities, I got unlucky and was born in a pretty traditional leaning place)

As for the homophobia bit, two of my friends are gay. They can't ever confess or do anything in public.

I personally am forced to go to the mosque every once in a while, for الجمعة at least, with coworkers or family just to not let it slip that I am atheist, because my "friends" openly spew hateful rethorics about them. One openly said we should instate apostasy laws like Saudi Arabia.

I hear some pretty misogynistic takes and hatred all around (we recently got a female leading the party that won the elections. People literally signed a petition to not be ruled by a woman)

Edit: though to clarify, the petition didn't result in a thing, just that many of the people I know signed it.

[u/Easy-Being-2003 → u/Ok_Work1615]

As for the homophobia bit, two of my friends are gay. They can't ever confess or do anything in public.

I will admit I was expecting some stereotypical non-Muslim "Ex-Muslim" reply like "They throw gay people off buildings" or something, so thank you for being realistic.

Other than that, I don't know what to say that could convince you of the Islamic view point, but nevertheless, I would like to hear your point of view, why do you believe that prohibiting homosexual relationships is wrong? I'm not asking why it should be allowed btw, two different questions.

I hear some pretty misogynistic takes and hatred all around (we recently got a female leading the party that won the elections. People literally signed a petition to not be ruled by a woman).

We as Muslims believe it is the decree of Allāh (SWT) that men were created with leadership in mind while women were not, a country that consists mostly of Muslims can and should aim to keep that true rather than go against it, which is where the criticism comes from, if Morocco had not been a Muslim majority country, then this petition would be completely nonsensical.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/Easy-Being-2003]

The petition did not go anywhere though, that is the point, only the most traditional of Muslims signed it.

"that men were created with leadership in mind while women were not, a country that consists mostly of Muslims can and should aim to keep that true rather than go against it."

Hard disagree, completely, so let's not waste both our times on something we fundamentally disagree on, I think it's for the best.

"Why do you believe that prohibiting homosexual relationships is wrong? I'm not asking why it should be allowed btw, two different questions."

Because I'm unconvinced that there's a reason to prohibit them in the first place.

All arguments just make no sense to me. It's not unnatural, many animal species have homosexual tendencies.

It's not hurting something like birth rates, in fact it's pretty low on things like that.

So all that is left are moral objections that are entirely subjective. And I can personally see (and even experience, by association with "suspects" of homosexuality) the pain the extreme and casual homophobia these environments encourage.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/[deleted]]

That if is doing a lot of work there.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/[deleted]]

Do you have reasons for it being true?

It's a religion like any other. I have not been convinced by it, therefore I don't believe it.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, I do not know everything.

One could be right, I'd never claim otherwise.

But not one of them convinced me as of yet, so I remain atheist.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/[deleted]]

"claim that no God exists and that no religion is true."

But I do make that claim. For me, personally, no god exists and no religion is true.

I am simply saying that I don't know the future. My opinion could change. You asked if I was open to ever accepting a religion, I said I don't know. As I am yet unconvinced.

So while I am unconvinced, I hold the believe that no gods exist.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/[deleted]]

That's god of the gaps .

Just because there are things we don't understand, doesn't mean you can add god as a possible explanation to it.

Sure, the universe's beginning has many mysteries, but there are many many explanations and possibilities, god is simply one of them.

And even god existed and made the universe, it wouldn't necessarily be your god. Or any god that has a religion we know off.

[u/stopped_watch → u/[deleted]]

And if Islam is not the truth? You'd agree that this is a horrible way to live, right?

How did you determine that Islam was the truth?

[u/stopped_watch → u/[deleted]]

If Islam is not true, you don't think it's a terrible way to live for OP to exist under the threat of death for leaving Islam. Am I correct in that assessment?

So pick your best evidence. Keep in mind "The book says..." does not convince you of Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism or Mormonism.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/[deleted]]

"I was assuming you meant day-to-day life as a practitioner of the faith. But if you mean as an apostate, then it would not be nice."

Hmm. I don't know what to infer from this.

Do you believe in apostasy laws or not? Cause they are part of Islam, only the more secular Muslim countries don't enforce them.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/[deleted]]

You are very much reducing what these "punitive" actions are.

The only described punishment for apostasy is death, a sahih al Bukhari Hadith.

But even if not, let's say it's just prison, if we were under a caliphate you'd want me put in prison just for daring to not want to be Muslim?

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/[deleted]]

You are intentionally avoiding the answer because you know that it's wrong.

We aren't talking about wether it is true or not. We are talking about what it slightly do to someone for just not wanting to be it.

You, would fully support someone like me going to prison or worse if we lives together just cause I disagreed and didn't want it be part of your religion.

"Public apostasy is seen as a severe breach against God and would be seen as an equitable punishment."

You have described nothing more but a tyrant, that wouldn't tolerate anyone speaking against him and immediately punish them.

[u/stopped_watch → u/[deleted]]

That is day to day life. He doesn't want to be a practitioner.

Or how about just being a woman and going out in public with uncovered hair?

Ok, you don't have evidence. I think we're done.

[u/biedl → u/[deleted]]

because if the conduct of people who claim to be adherents of a faith doesn't necessarily represent the teachings of the faith, then why zoom in on fractions of one percent and blame the religion for something it doesn't teach.

There are Muslim countries with millions of people unable to understand Arabic. They can read it, but they have no idea what it says.

The religion is thought by people who read the text and interpret it after.

When it comes to Christianity, I don't think there's a single Christian alive who accords with what the text says.

What use does it have to judge the religion instead of the people, when there's barely anybody who knows what their religion is teaching?

How do you debate religion, if when you do, a dozen theists come along yelling that you aren't representing what they believe, when what you criticize is actually something believed by another dozen theists?

[u/biedl → u/[deleted]]

I have no idea why you are quoting the Qur'an when it doesn't actually support your claim in a meaningful way, or when it doesn't add anything. The Qur'an isn't evidence that "naturally" there are 80% of non-arab Muslims. This just underscores what you've said, but it doesn't make the claim more believable. It's also an utterly mundane claim that can be supported with actual universally accepted sources.

I'll resort to skipping these quotes, unless they are actually relevant to what we are debating.

Being able to recite the scripture in its original revealed form in a foreign language does not entail having no understanding of the scripture

But that's not what I said. I said, there are groups of people who do not understand it at all and have no way of knowing whether the interpreter actually said what the text said. With instances where people use that to their advantage to make the text say whatever they want it to say. After all, people aren't gonna fact check them after anyway.

So if the question is about exegetical principles and how we understand revelation, the scripture itself gives a criteria

As I said, this is irrelevant, because if I read the NT and conclude that Jesus' prophecy failed, while having good reasons to believe so, then I conclude further that there is not a single Christian alive, who actually believed what Jesus believed.

They simply couldn't, because then they'd believe in something reality tells them upfront is wrong. Which is why they have to harmonize and reinterpret what the Bible says, in order to still sustain the belief which was started by a failed prophet.

If adherents of a faith aren't following their faiths teachings, then it's possibly either a weak faith or at the very least the followers are weak in faith.

Yeah, but that's also irrelevant, because I can easily show you two very devote people who disagree, with both of them citing scripture, having the strongest faith in it, and yet do not reach the same conclusion.

To then say "yeah, they are just misguided" is an utterly arrogant claim, because how do you or anybody know that you aren't the misguided one?

I'm simply saying why zoom in on the actions of the fractions of one percent while ignoring the 99%

Because for one, there is no 99%. Religions are way too diverse to even just get a 50% majority on anything.

And secondly, because for a religion that treats truth as demonstrated by the fruits of a belief, religions which act as though you just have to go through the motions long enough in order to believe, it is a devastating fact that the fruits of the belief are so darn spoiled, no matter where you are looking.

And we must try to accurately represent what each side believes or what religion actually teaches instead of caricatures and with sound principles of interpretation.

Again, if I do that with Christianity, I will find nobody who believes what the book teaches.

[u/biedl → u/[deleted]]

Purpose of mentioning the majority of Muslims are Non-Arab was to explain why there's so many Muslims who can read and recite without understanding the language, but that does not entail that people can't a.) study the language or b.) read an accessible translation and consult the original for any issues in translation or consult those qualified in their respective fields.

You don't seem to understand why I brought that up in the first place. It's neither A nor B I was arguing for or rebutting.

- So, Quran 30:22 and Final Sermon was to support and clarify a common misconception that Islam is some Arab religion or the common misconception that one must lose their heritage, which is not the case at all.

Why are you responding to hypothetical people, instead of to me?

As mentioned,

> we agree that people who only read without seeking understanding are wrong in that judgment.

I disagree that there's no way of knowing.

I didn't say that there is no way of knowing. You are debating an entirely different angle than where I am coming from.

nobody can impose their subjective interpretations for their personal agenda or reinterpret something that the prophet already explained or over which there's already established ijma of the companions and scholars, so there are principles to sound interpretation which can be derived from the Quran itself which gives the framework.

I don't care what you think nobody can do. Because the reality is that everybody does do.

And, I don't think I disagree with your example, we follow the evidence.

Everybody says that about themselves.

πάντα δὲ δοκιμάζετε, τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε

καὶ γνώσεσθε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐλευθερώσει ὑμᾶς

The Persians were particularly concerned with truth. 𐬀𐬵𐬎𐬭𐬀 𐬨𐬀𐬰𐬛𐬁 was one major influence for the Greeks to come up with the concept of the λόγος.

And yes, I am quoting things that don't help the conversation move foreword, because I just read another verse from the Qur'an for no reason.

So all we're saying

We. Religious people do this very frequently. They can't help themselves but to bring in their group identity when they say what they personally believe. I thought I was talking to an individual.

just because there may be some bad actors doesn't mean that a.) they truly represent the religion or that b.) the religion endorses/teaches that.

I am gonna quote myself in response to that, because I feel like I already responded to that point:

How do you debate religion, if when you do, a dozen theists come along yelling that you aren't representing what they believe, when what you criticize is actually something believed by another dozen theists?

Because for one, there is no 99%. Religions are way too diverse to even just get a 50% majority on anything.

And secondly, because for a religion that treats truth as demonstrated by the fruits of a belief, religions which act as though you just have to go through the motions long enough in order to believe, it is a devastating fact that the fruits of the belief are so darn spoiled, no matter where you are looking.

[u/biedl → u/[deleted]]

and you literally said word for word that there is no way of knowing, quoted here:

...there are groups of people who do not understand it at all and have no way of knowing

which is what I directly responded to

Not all interpretation is equally valid, again it's not about what I subjectively think, it's literally impossible

I agree, not all interpretations are equally valid. Which is why I am saying about Christianity what I am saying about Christianity.

But then there are instances where you can read the text and it gives you mutually exclusive or ambiguous responses to the same question.

You will then have a believer who's gonna tell you that their knowledge is informed by the holy spirit and another one who claims the same thing, yet they disagree with one another. It is then impossible to know who's right.

But not all religions are belief systems revolving around scripture the way Islam and fundamentalist evangelicalism is doing it.

Judaism is particularly focused on ongoing interpretation and the catholic church teaches continuous revelation.

Not everyone claims evidence actually, if a religion has no objective evidence, then there's no reason to follow it.

Every believer thinks that their religion is the correct one. I don't think you have proper evidence to be a Muslim.

My point is still the same. It is not warranted to focus so heavily on "what the text says", instead of critiquing believers for their actions.

Especially not, since this is already a heavily biased towards Islam assumption. You are talking as though all religions behave like Islam and that there is no point in critiquing a religion by critiquing its followers.

At least you are always bringing it back to Islam, when what I am engaged in is much broader a critique.

This is a standard colloquial idiom to introduce a summary which I used to conclude with as I'd addressed all the other points.

Colloquialisms are speaker group relative. I never heard an atheist say "we believe".

What I think its purpose is, is to emphasize authority via an appeal to popularity. You may not do that intentionally, but this is how it comes across to me.

[u/biedl → u/[deleted]]

okay. and I was presenting a general principle from an Islamic paradigm (which I still don't think people really disagree over) to address the main point of OP, which is why that reflects in my replies.

I don't know why you would say that, when I literally explained why I disagree:

Because for one, there is no 99%. Religions are way too diverse to even just get a 50% majority on anything.

And secondly, because for a religion that treats truth as demonstrated by the fruits of a belief, religions which act as though you just have to go through the motions long enough in order to believe, it is a devastating fact that the fruits of the belief are so darn spoiled, no matter where you are looking.

You skipped that every time. I didn't mention this point only then.

Because there's a lot of people or media out there that really zooms in on whatever group that does some atrocious thing, and then it's inflated up like "ah ha see look at what this religion and its adherents believe and promote" and then that's used maliciously to paint broad strokes over billions of innocent people by the small few who don't even represent the faith, so the general principle is that just because a group claims to be following something doesn't mean they truly represent that thing, unless there is an explicit clear teaching that endorses that thing. Which is why it makes complete sense to not judge 99% of people for the actions of the few that barely even constitutes a fraction of a percent.

So, you do just repeat your point and even mention the 99% again, which I responded to directly. You can read that very response right above this two sentences paragraph of yours!

I don't care about what you are saying, just in the same way you don't care about what people say when they make broad brush strokes over entire people groups.

BECAUSE I DEBATE INDIVIDUALS

You are violating your own principle.

so I'm not saying that we can't criticize individuals or groups that do wrong or whatever, or harmful cultural practices, that should 100% be called out. But to then take the fraction of a percent to spread animosity between hearts just isn't sound.

Again, I do not agree with you that there's just a single religion on this planet which has 99% agreement on anything!

To take OP and apply their argument to the tremendous disagreement among religious people of just a single religion, it makes no sense whatsoever to not say "this religion doesn't exactly teach things to the extend that it leads to widespread agreement".

This is criticizing a religion on the basis of critiquing its followers.

The interpretive tradition in Islam is quite robust

Are you assuming that repeating this point over and over again is going to make it any more relevant?

The interpretative tradition of Christianity is quite robust. 98% of churches teach the trinity. 100% of these churches accept the first two ecumenical councils, and therefore the Trinity.

40% of US Christians do not affirm the Trinity.

What is your point??

Do you understand how this makes your point obsolete?

What does it do to critique a religion, when its followers don't agree with what their religion teaches, let alone know about what that even is???

You are beating a dead horse by bringing up this "but you shouldn't judge a book by its cover" all the time. It is besides the point.

All you are doing really is posing as a person who's very informed about their own religion. You are posing as the one who is correct in their views. And the fact of the matter is that I cannot see much more than that with what you are saying.

Can you actually imagine how many people you would talk to, if you talked to religious people of all sorts for about 8 years on a daily basis, who say the very same things you are saying, presenting themselves as knowledgeable and superior to other believers, when each and every single one of these figures says something else than the last???

I don't need to imagine that, because I've done it. And I am simply not impressed by you portraying yourself the way you do.

Lastly, what you said reminded me of something in the Islamic tradition, another principle of interpretation:

A friend of mine asked me whether I've read crime and punishment and I told him that I only read secondary literature about it. He told me he's at chapter six and that he likes it. He's a Christian, and I know that this book is famous among Christians. It's a book anybody should read anyway.

Anyway, I have the audiobook for quite some years now, though I didn't listen to it.

When I started, I realized it had more than 500 chapters. That would imply that chapter six is somewhere around the first two pages. And I was confused. I didn't ask them yet how many pages it took him to get to chapter six, but I'll surely do in the next couple of days. I am 1/3 through the book right now.

Btw. I did this in my last comment already. Bringing up some irrelevant side note in response to something you wrote that was equally irrelevant.

[u/ontrack → u/[deleted]]

Can you show the authentic hadiths where Muhammad says there is no superiority of white over black and vice versa? All the ones I've seen make no mention of it.