Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on October 11, 2010 at 6:00pm

Islam: because the rights of people who died centuries ago are more important than the rights of millions of living people.

Permalink Reply by Hugh Kramer on October 11, 2010 at 11:07pm

It's not just idolatry, it's barbarous idolatry.

Permalink Reply by Stephen Moore on October 12, 2010 at 1:15am

Someone please explain to me how this isn't idolatry by their own definitions...

Veneration is different to idolatry.

So...if you are in Saudi Arabia, and you are Muslim and say something that the though police thinks is disrespectful to the idea of marrying children, you are an apostate.

Heresy is different to apostasy.

Muhammad's wives: mentioning that some were kids can get you killed

It is well acknowledged within Islam that Aisha was a child upon her betrothal, marriage, and consummation of marriage.

Hyperbole, used incorrectly, is a poor means of argument.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on October 12, 2010 at 3:58am

Heresy is different to apostasy.

And they don't kill you just as dead for heresy?

I think his point was that it sounds like this sheikh is speaking something similar to excommunication ... which I guess could then be turned around into apostasy, since the accused broke himself willfully from the true faith, by his disrespect of Muhammad ... or some crap along those lines. I can see someone cobbling together this argument if they want to kill someone for what they said. It sounds like that's sort of where this sheikh is going with his statement about someone being a non-believe if they say this.

Besides that though, yeah, he's a bit off. Idolatry deals with idols, kind of by definition. And my understanding is that Islam fully admits that Muhammad married a child, but implying that anything is wrong with this is very, very bad for your health.

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on October 12, 2010 at 6:12am

Heresy is different to apostasy.

The article specifically calls those who do not respect the wives "nonbelievers". If you were a Muslim, and then get labeled a non-believer, how isn't that being an apostate?

Someone please explain to me how this isn't idolatry by their own definitions.

That's a legitimate question. Please explain how it isn't idolatry.

Muhammad's wives: mentioning that some were kids can get you killed

Yeah, that's a title to grab attention. Although, how are people disrespecting the wives' lately? By referring to them as children and calling Mohammad a pedophile. As the article states:

The edict from the council has come in the wake of several incidents in Shiite scholars showed disrespect for Aisha.

That's the youngest one. I think the issue at hand is pretty clear. They think marrying children is okay. Pointing out otherwise is disrespectful.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on October 12, 2010 at 6:39am

That's a legitimate question. Please explain how it isn't idolatry.

Okay, I'll take it. Idolatry means making statues and worshiping them. Specifically, it's sort of a tradition that was going around in the middle-east, in those days. It's sort of similar to the Hindu tradition of household gods.

You would have the big god that you accept as your patron deity, and then families would create an idol of their own, family god.

This isn't completely out of step with early Judaism. They weren't even monotheistic. They were henotheistic, like the Greeks. They believed in other gods; Yahweh was just their god.

The pantheon of Yahweh is covered in several episodes of The Atheist Experience:

#464: Gods of the Old Testament & Hebrews

#466: The horrible god of the OT

#483: Old Testament Gods

I didn't see anything in the article about worshiping statues. That's why it isn't idolatry.

The second definition of idolatry is a bullshit one that has nothing to do with anything mentioned in the Old Testament. It's just something made up by modern fundamentalist preachers because they get pissy about anything that makes their congregation pay less attention to them.

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on October 12, 2010 at 6:43am

Hmm, I've never heard of idolatry being specific to just statues. Wiki defines it as "Idolatry is usually defined as worship of any image, idea, or object...".

I loves me some Atheist Experience, I have everything from 2004 til now on my MP3 player. Always fun when someone at work asks me what I'm listening to...

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on October 12, 2010 at 6:54am

Yeah, that's a more recent definition that wasn't intended by the Bible. Preachers just make handy use of it to try to drive people away from anything the preacher doesn't approve of.

It's the same sort of bullshit you see in lots of theist arguments. They make a connection to something with a word, which is a valid connection. Then, they attach another, unrelated meaning of the word to another thing or concept. Then, they say that since different meanings of the same word apply to the two concepts, they're thus linked.

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on October 12, 2010 at 7:32am

Fair enough...so the issue is I'm using the word in the more modern "abused" context. I'll buy that. So it isn't technically idolatry. It is still nonetheless hilarious coming from a religion that will riot over cartoons based upon a religious law meant to stop idolatry. I mean, drawings aren't exactly statues meant for worship, especially drawings meant to comment or ridicule.

Permalink Reply by Stephen Moore on October 12, 2010 at 3:06pm

A heretic is someone who claims to be a member of the faith but does not hold to the orthodoxy. For example, a Lutheran is a heretic according to a Catholic, even though both claim to be Christian.

An apostate is one who was a member of the faith but now rejects the faith. A Christian becoming a Muslim is an apostate according to other Christians.

Veneration is to hold something in high regard. Idolatry is to worship an object as divine. Neither Muhammed or his wives are worshipped.

The article does mention condemnation of Aisha by Shiite scholar. Specifically, that Aisha is an "enemy of God". But there's no context. However, a little thought (the clues are in the article), and perhaps some modicum of research, would reveal that this is part of the dispute between Shia and Sunni Muslims about the succession of Muhammed after his death.

Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on October 12, 2010 at 2:46pm

It is well acknowledged within Islam that Aisha was a child upon her betrothal, marriage, and consummation of marriage.


Yeah, but if you use Islam's own writings to point out something negative about it, they get pretty pissed off about that too.