Interrogating Islam

[Carleas]

While this takes place in the Chamber of Debate, it is not a traditional debate in which the participants take opposing positions on a question. Instead, it is a kind of competitive Q&A: with one participant interrogating Islam, with the goal of offering challenging substantive questions or thoughtful criticism of Islam, and the other attempting to fully respond – the winner is determined by the quality of the questions or criticisms, and the adequacy of the responses.

Participants: @LampAndNightingale vs. @ghatzige

• 5 rounds, one post per participant each round.
• @ghatzige posts first.
• 24 hours per post
• Max 1000 words per post

Challenge thread
Discussion thread

Good luck to our debaters; @ghatzige, you may proceed.

[ghatzige]

Thank you very much @Carleas for setting up the debate. I also thank my opponent, @LampAndNightingale for this discussion. I hope it will be productive.

I refined the wording of this text and those that follow in subsequent rounds with the assistance of ChatGPT; however, the arguments presented are entirely my own.

Before turning to the questions, I think it is more appropriate to briefly outline my philosophical position, so you know the perspective I am coming from.

In general, I would describe myself as a materialist, with the following clarifications:

1. Regarding the explanation of the physical world, my view is closer to an Epicurean perspective. In particular:

a) I do not believe in any form of special divine intervention in human life;

b) I do not believe in an afterlife;

c) I consider the universe to be non-deterministic, which, at least at the human level, leaves room for a certain form of free will.

2. With respect to concepts such as truth, morality, and the meaning of life, I adopt a subjectivist stance. That is, I do not believe in fully objective claims; any general statement ultimately depends on a given reference.
3. Although I reject the idea of divine will, I do recognize the social value of religion. Even if I do not personally feel the need to align my life with a particular faith, I acknowledge that many people do. Religions can play an important role in bringing people together and fostering a sense of community, provided they avoid fanaticism and claims of absolute truth. I come from a predominantly Christian country, and Christian traditions have been part of my upbringing. It would therefore be pointless to deny the influence they have had on me.

Returning to the main topic, my first question concerns Islam’s claim regarding an afterlife for humans. There are several issues that, in my view, are not addressed in a fully satisfactory manner in the religious texts - especially in light of the knowledge and scientific progress achieved since these teachings were conveyed to Muslims by the Prophet Muhammad.

Islam teaches that there is life after death - Jannah for the faithful and Jahannam for the evildoers. However, one may ask: why should we regard the state after death as fundamentally different from the state before birth? We have no recollection of our existence prior to being born, so on what basis should we expect a different kind of experience after death? What makes death such a decisive transition, beyond our natural fear of it?

Even if we set this question aside, several further issues arise. The notion of eternal life, as presented in religious texts, is not something the human mind can easily grasp. What would such a life actually be like? We tend to value our current lives precisely because they are finite and filled with goals, constraints, and a sense of urgency. Yet even within this limited timeframe, repetition often leads to boredom. If we extend this condition indefinitely - into an infinite duration - what form of fulfillment or joy could such an existence realistically sustain?

If the response is that this form of life will be fundamentally different from anything we can currently understand, then it would seem that our very selves would also have to be transformed into something entirely different. In that case, how would we be able to recognize this new self as ourselves? In other words, the individuals who enter Jannah or Jahannam would appear to be disconnected from the persons we were during our finite lives. If that continuity is lost, in what meaningful sense could reward or punishment still apply to us?

Of course, there is also the question of why humans should be granted a special status. According to our modern understanding of the universe, both our planet and our species occupy an insignificant place within the vastness of the cosmos. The observable universe is estimated to have formed around 13.8 billion years ago. If one accepts the religious claim that this marks the beginning of creation, it raises a further question: why would the Creator of everything wait over 13 billion years before bringing into existence the species considered to be of central importance?

In light of the points raised above, my first question can be more precisely formulated as follows:

Can Islam provide a convincing argument for the existence of an afterlife?

The common response I often receive - “believe in God, and you will find answers to your questions” - is not particularly convincing. In practice, what seems to happen is that those who rely purely on faith tend, over time, to stop asking such questions altogether, perhaps because they come to feel that no clear answers will be provided.

[LampAndNightingale (6 Points>6 Lines>6 Triangles, Between Nile & Euphrates)]

Hi there,

@ghatzige

c) I consider the universe to be non-deterministic

Re: your thread introducing yourself as an Epicurean after Lucretius - briefly: the flex is supernatural. Artificial random number generators scavenge e.g. Cloudflare using lava lamps for encryption: “flex” will always be outside of any formula for the universe.

@ghatzige

… state after death as fundamentally different from the state before birth? … should we expect a different kind of experience after death? What makes death such a decisive transition …?

The Prophet’s cousin Ali said that when we die, we wake up. The present reality is the aberration.

A lifespan fleshes out who we are.

I’m always incomparably wiser than 5 to 10 years ago. We undergo a paradigm shift every 10 years? 20? At 17 l felt noble but my virtues were actually just chapter headings with nearly vacant content. Look how benevolent elders are. They’re trying to right wrongs. A 25 year old man wouldn’t have the qualities of a 60 year old man.

Our Prophet (peace be upon him) said a person can have a wide trajectory in life, they may do good until they turn and become evil and fulfil their destiny of the Fire, and a person can do evil until something changes and they become good and fulfil their destiny of the Garden.

{It is generally held that babies and infants go to heaven.}

The transition from life to death is decisive because just as the point of life was to flesh out the soul with deeds, there are no more deeds when we die.

@ghatzige

… our current lives … are finite and filled with goals, constraints, and a sense of urgency. Yet even within this limited timeframe, repetition often leads to boredom … what form of fulfillment or joy could such an existence realistically sustain?

… how would we be able to recognize this new self as ourselves? … If that continuity is lost, in what meaningful sense could reward or punishment still apply to us?

It reminds me of the exiled Q in Star Trek TNG who got bored with immortality and just wanted to die.

BOREDOM:

I read, though l can’t find it, that: in Heaven there’s a drink that makes you soar and when you soar you then swoop down, and glide etc. the idea is: you pass seamlessly from one pleasure to another, like a bird soaring, hovering, diving, without flapping wings.

The Qur’an says once in Heaven, you’ll abide therein, with no desire to be removed.

Also: there are no more deeds in the Hereafter, nothing more to prove. No tension, fear, effort.

That doesn’t directly rule out boredom but bear in mind “boredom” and “mundane” are in the same ballpark, and Heaven is supramundane, there will be things we don’t get e.g. why a glimpse of God’s face is worth martyrdom. Because Heaven and Virtue contradict terrestrial reality, some rewards in Heaven surpass imagination.

Even with what we can presently grasp, we see there won’t be negatives. Believing it all, is faith, sorry!

CONTINUITY OF SELF:

Our new selves needn’t be recognisable. Heaven & Hell are infinite sequels. I’d expect people to be perfected in Heaven and getting evver more euphoric or smoothly changing from euphoric to relaxed and back. In Hell, l’d expect people to lose their minds and skin, and die repeatedly. There’s already a wide variation in form throughout earthly life but per Islam I’ve read our heavenly forms take their cue from our 30 or 33 year-old selves.

Congruence between this and the next life: That will be in the form of the level of Paradise or Hell we attain, plus add-ons like trees, wives, husband, servants, clothing (the clothing alone would outshine the present world).

AFTERLIFE STILL RELEVANT AFTER 1x10^23 YEARS:

Eternal reward / punishment stay congruous with our brief terrestrial biography because:

1. This life is high leverage, in the limited time available we must excel. Immediate suicide is the only logical conclusion to a finite material existence, even if life is pleasant: if the end result is zero why prolong it?
2. Any lifespan is infinitesimally brief versus infinity.
3. The Qur’an teaches that bad people would continue doing bad if they were reprieved and returned to earth. The skeptic always finds a way (think Last Thursday-ism, or the Golden Calf).

@ghatzige

why would the Creator of everything wait over 13 billion years …?

13 billion years is infinitesimally brief to God. One of God’s 99 Excellent Names (those scattered throughout the Qur’an) is As-Sabur - “The Patient”.

@ghatzige

… convincing argument for the existence of an afterlife?

Islam relies on faith, without knowing the afterlife. That makes moral deeds have aesthetic worth, and not mere quid pro quo transactions.

There is abundant evidence for the religion being true, in the revelation (Qur’an), the sayings of the Prophet (Sunnah), his life story (Seerah), his prophecies.

The afterlife can only be proven if it is showcased to you.

That said, as with death, your soul does in fact leave the body and migrate to God:
Qur’an 39:42: “Allah receiveth (men’s) souls at the time of their death, and that (soul) which dieth not (yet) in its sleep. He keepeth that (soul) for which He hath ordained death and dismisseth the rest till an appointed term. Lo! herein verily are portents for people who take thought.”

So, your soul does a mini afterlife-like journey each time you sleep! As the verse hints, there is a rabbit-hole of wisdom hidden here e.g. hormones related to sleep, and how they have been manipulated to produce psychedelics, the word “psychedelc” loosely translates as “Soul / spirit revealing”.

[ghatzige]

My second question concerns the Islamic conception of God as Creator. It is inspired by a classical philosophical and theological debate that took place during the Islamic Golden Age - namely, the exchange between Al-Ghazali and the Islamic philosophers.

By way of brief historical context: in the 9th and 10th centuries, philosophers such as Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina (Avicenna in Latin) argued in favor of the eternity of the cosmos, drawing on Aristotelian and Neoplatonic frameworks. Their position ultimately suggested that God could not be understood as a Creator ex nihilo. In the 11th century, Al-Ghazali responded critically to these claims in his work “The Incoherence of the Philosophers”. This critique was later challenged in the 12th century by Ibn Rushd (Averroes in Latin), who defended the philosophers in “The Incoherence of the Incoherence”.

The philosophers’ argument, as presented in the work of Al-Ghazali, can be summarized as follows:

The notion of creatio ex nihilo - that is, the temporal production of the world from nothing by an eternal being - is deemed philosophically problematic. If the world did not yet exist at some “stage”, then the reason for its non-existence must lie in the absence of a determining cause in God’s will; creation would thus remain a mere possibility rather than an actuality.

This raises a central question: what accounts for the transition from possibility to actuality? Why would God bring the world into existence at one moment rather than another? Two alternatives seem to follow. Either God was previously unable to create - which is clearly unacceptable - or a change occurred in the divine will, implying that God came to will creation after not having willed it before. Yet this latter option appears to conflict with the classical conception of divine immutability and the idea of an eternal will.

To frame this in terms of my philosophical position, the Epicurean thinker Lucretius poses the following question (here adapted to the singular “God,” rather than the original plural, given his polytheistic context):

« For what benefit could an immortal and blessed being derive from our gratitude, that He should undertake to do anything for our sake? What new occurrence could induce Him, after such ages of tranquillity, to desire to change His former mode of life? »

To address such questions, Islamic philosophers drawing on Aristotelian frameworks developed an account of God as Creator that does not rely on creatio ex nihilo. Thinkers such as Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina understood God as the necessary source of the universe - one who eternally sustains and orders the cosmos, whose existence is itself eternal. In this view, creation is not a temporal beginning but an eternal dependence of the cosmos upon God, grounded in what may be described as an eternal divine act or will.

In contrast, Al-Ghazali argued that God’s will is not bound by time, maintaining that God “wills” creation in a manner that is itself beyond temporal constraints. However, this raises unresolved conceptual difficulties. What precisely does it mean for an act of will to exist “outside of time”? If such a state implies the absence of change, motion, or succession, then it is unclear how willing - seemingly an act involving determination or differentiation - can be coherently ascribed at all. Moreover, if timelessness excludes all forms of change, this condition would appear to apply equally to God, raising further questions about how divine willing can be meaningfully distinguished.

For these reasons, one might find the critique advanced by Ibn Rushd more persuasive. From this perspective, much of Al-Ghazali’s response relies more on dialectical and rhetorical strategies than on a fully developed philosophical resolution of the problem.

In light of the above, my second question is:

How does Islam reconcile creatio ex nihilo with the idea of an eternal will?

[LampAndNightingale (6 Points>6 Lines>6 Triangles, Between Nile & Euphrates)]

PRECIS:

I suggest: not infinite will, but infinitesimally spaced.
Additionally: consider Al Ghayb and Verse of Light

COSMOS AS FILM REEL:

Each frame is the universe afresh. Natural laws are enacted without true fluidity, God creates each instant, frames aren’t contingent on each other.

EMANATIONS:

Angel Gabriel / Jibril (peace be upon him) is the First Intelligence / Emanation as per Neoplatonism.
Jibril is the Niche in the Verse of Light (Qur’an 24:35, below). Note: the Niche may instead be the Footstool (Kursiyy) of God mentioned in Qur’an 2:255 so, First Intellect may actually be downstream of the Logos.

ISLAMIC PRECEPTS TO SATISFY:

==> Allah says “Be!” and it is:
2:117 “… When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.”

==> Jesus (peace be upon him) was a Word from Allah - directly spliced into the storyline without continuity / biological conception:
3:45 “… O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from him …”
3:47 “… How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me? … If He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.”
Also 3:59 etc

==> No real continuity, Allah makes every frame e.g. fire would by natural law have burned Ibrahim (peace be upon him) but Allah stopped it:
21:69

==> Allah created beginning of mankind & everything:
32:7 “… He began the creation of man from clay;”

==> Allah creates individual babies per natural law, Cosmic continuity:
32:8

===> Allah directly involved with mankind every instant:
50:16 “… We are nearer to him than his jugular vein.”

==> Allah created with Truth (l infer: Logic, then Reason, then Justice - implying everything exists due to an active, discerning intellect - it selects from potential, to actualise one thing to the exclusion of its infinite variant forms):
15:85 “We created not the heavens and the earth and all that is between them save with truth”

==> The Verse of Light (perhaps describes the Logos, the Lamp, through which the Cosmos plays out as a projector plays a movie):
24:35 “Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth.
The similitude of His light is as a niche wherein is a lamp.
The lamp is in a glass.
The glass is as it were a shining star.
(This lamp is) kindled from a blessed tree, an olive neither of the East nor of the West,
whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself) though no fire touched it.
Light upon light.”

{ SOMEWHAT SPECULATIVE: ===> Two speeds of light, implying at least two realms, sublunar and heavenly:
The Qur’an encodes two values for light speed as the speed of angels (beings of light):
32:5 - Distance moon travels in 1,000 lunar years divided by time in 1 day = c (quite precise)
70:4 - Distance in 50,000 lunar years divided by 1 day = 50c

These speeds could relate to how time flows in two realms: sublunar, and heavenly i.e. up to the Logos but NOT within Godhead (which has an infinitely high speed limit) }

==> The 99 Names of Allah found in Qur’an e.g.:
“Al Hayy ul Qayyum” in Ayat al Kursiyy (Qur’an 2:255) means Allah is Ever-Living i.e. he is always actual

===> Inscrutability of Al Ghayb (The Unseen) inc. the Mind of God & Film Reel that is the Preserved Tablets:
6:59 “… the keys of the Invisible. None but He knoweth them … Not a leaf falleth but He knoweth it … in a clear record.”

===> Predestination (Qadr):
6:59 among many

===> Free Will (despite Qadr):
2:286 “… reward for that which he has earned … punished for that which he has earned.”

===> Du’a (begging God) can change Qadr i.e. the film reel can get stuff spliced out, the entire storyline can be altered “on the fly”:
“Nothing repels decree except supplication, and nothing increases life-span except righteousness.” (hadith: Tirmidhi 2139, graded Hasan).

SYNTHESIS:

THE GODHEAD, TIME IS BORN:

• Infinite Potential, where the archetypes reside - none actualised
• Infinite Actual, which is infinite energy (Allah is called Al Qadir, the Power, All-Powerful). This sets a fundamental timeline because energy has frequency, f=1/t . If f=infinity then we have a virtually timeless state nonetheless.
• The Mind of God

THE MIND OF GOD:

The Mind of God could exist as mediator between infinite potential and infinite actual

It either selects ad lib from infinite alreaady-actualised forms within Infinite Actual,
… or creates specific forms ad lib by knitting Infinite Actual energy, with Infinite Potential archetypes.
Either way, it is selective, and must lack nothing. It can act virtually instantly if Infinite Actual has infinite frequency.

LEAVING THE GODHEAD:

An illusion, thought, Niche (24:35), is formed like a virtual machine in computing, within Godhead.

Forms from the Godhead - e.g. the entire movie reel of the Cosmos - enter the Niche, translating as 2D waveforms entering in all directions, coalescing as a Lamp in the centre of the Niche, thus visible light begins and the Cosmos plays out as a lightshow. The Lamp processed the format into visible light.

The glass of the lamp diffracts, distorts the light, imparting nuances e.g. the EM spectrum. Either the Lamp or Lamp+glass is the Logos. Beyond this, light travels at speed c. Prior to this, light is 50c. The journey inverts from heading inward within the Niche, to appearing to head outward into sublunar reality.

Then further Intellects eventually give us our world replete with elementary particles, matter, imperfections. Unsure how close to the Mind of God the Quantum world is, it will have been heavily processed by Intelligences by this endpoint.

EXAMPLES OF CREATION:

• The initial injection of the Waveform into the Niche = the entire history of the Cosmos. It’s a film reel, each frame is the universe created anew by God.
• God creating the human species, the concept of humankind = The beginning part of the film.
• God creating a baby from a mommy and daddy by natural law = part of the storyline within the film.
• God creating Jesus as a Word = an idea formed within the Mind of God, is spoken into the Niche and thus spliced into the movie reel, picked up by downstream Emanations eventually to coalesce as matter, a human embryo that appeared without conception. All souls were created like this, independent of the present film reel though part of it. Souls continue frame to frame within this film reel, and from this movie to the Sequel (afterlife).

[ghatzige]

If I understood your answer correctly, you’re suggesting that the universe is created and destroyed by God in each “frame”, like a film reel repeating endlessly. Did I get that right? It is an interesting idea. It raises several further questions, but I will leave those for after the Q&A.

The third question concerns the universality of Islam.

Historically, Islam began with Prophet Muhammad in Mecca and initially spread throughout the regions conquered by the Arab Caliphates, including Spain for a limited period. Over time, it reached other parts of the world as well. Today, the majority of Muslims still reside in Asia and Africa, while only a minority are Arabs. Despite this, the Quran continues to be recited in Arabic, and translations are generally regarded as secondary to the original text.

My understanding is that in Islam, the Quran is traditionally recited in Arabic, as this is believed to bring greater spiritual benefit to the believers. This raises an interesting theological question: why would God, the Creator of all humanity, choose Arabic as the preferred language? Why can His Word not be conveyed in its full glory in other languages?

Of course, Muslims today are found all over the world, including in countries that are predominantly Christian. Yet, even when people in these regions read translations of the Quran in their native language, they are still expected to recite it in Arabic. This can create a tension with certain cultures, which prefer to engage with God in their own language. In my view, this is an advantage of Christianity, where there are no language restrictions for the Old and New Testaments, and all translations are considered equally valid.

In response to this point, I have heard several Muslim apologists claim that God sent prophets to every corner of the world, ensuring that His message was transmitted everywhere. However, I am not aware of any prophets appearing in regions such as India, China, Rome, Greece, or the Americas. The prophets of the Abrahamic religions appear to have been largely confined to specific regions in Africa and Asia. Furthermore, this argument does not address the fact that the final Word of God on earth - the Quran - is considered authentic only in Arabic, with translations regarded as secondary.

Thus, the third question is:

How can Islam make a convincing case for its universality when its holy scripture is considered authentic only in Arabic?

[LampAndNightingale (6 Points>6 Lines>6 Triangles, Between Nile & Euphrates)]

Welcome. The film reel has a defined start and end. But in my opinion: no genuine continuity from start to finish. Each frame is discrete.

Our souls are budded off from the infinite Actual. They are included within the film reel but are actually independent of it, like actors that can jump out of the TV set. They’ll feature in the infinite sequel of the Herefter too

Jesus was soul and body inserted into the film reel. Just as the film reel was fed to the Lamp, so was Jesus. I don’t know if he was bodily superimposed over the film or just abruptly bodily spliced into the film without biological preamble.

To continue:

1. Why Qur’an is best in Arabic: The Qur’an is said to have been the first ever Arabic book. It used some new words that not even the Arabs understood. It sometimes used meter that the Arabs considered unusual, sublime. In those days, clannish braggadocio was a cultural pastime, so the Arabs felt awe at the literary quirks. There are a handful of recitation modes and they sound excellent.

All this is lost in translation (e.g. meter), and societal context (e.g. a Vatican prophet bringing another book to eclipse the entire library).

Actually, l’ve also heard a modern fake “qur’an” being recited (an anti-Islamic polemic) and it sounded good to my untrained ear.

However, Arabic verse translated it into, say … Russian or English, would be tough to recite. The rhythm may be lost. The translated wording may get clumsy, especially with occasional parentheses. We are told to recite in a melodious tone and with the Qur’an it’s easy to invent a melody and maintain it across verses. That’s difficult with a translation, with verses ending awkwardly in the middle of the melody.

Also, you can end up with wild variations when translating!

I think God chose Arabic because he liked to be worshipped against great odds, and so selected a specific setting, and so Arabic language was the medium. So these odds were stacked against God’s plan succeeding:

• Lady Hajar was an Ethiopian slave
• She had a baby, and so was doubly weak, as a slave and because the uterus is a flimsy capsule, the mother is weakened by the baby and the baby is utterly helpless
• Hajar was cast out with her child Isma’il (peace be upon him)
• She ended up in a rocky tract of land, implored God for water - and a well sprung up (the Zamzam well in Makkah)
• Mother and child flourished and a monotheistic community (“Hanif”) grew in that place worshipping God
• Paganism took hold across millennia, and idol-intercessors were instated as assistants to, or maybe replacements of, God
• The pagans flourished (not as a trading centre as people wrongly state, but as a centre for traders, a safe place for the super-wealthy to hold stock), and pagan clergy probably profited from all the money sloshing around.
• Then amidst that sea of paganism, maybe a few decades after the Sleepers of Ephesus died and true religion was finally gone, the Prophet Muhammad was born and he instated Monotheism (Islam) against all odds, with the entire city against him except a few close family.

So, l think the circumstances for the story to unfold, including the location, meant that Arabic was the language to be used.

Finally, the Qur’an mentions a few times that it is “a Qur’an in Arabic.”

2. Accessibility of the Qur’an in translated form: I don’t speak Arabic, l often read the Qur’an in English translation (l dislike using the translations that are filled with parentheses, e.g. Hilali & Khan’s, l prefer Pickthall, he was an English headmaster, and others). I get the gist of it especially by trying multiple translations. I can uncover deeper meanings by asking myself why a particular phrasing was used, and comparing similar phrases, elsewhere in the Qur’an and comparing contexts etc.

Perhaps God presciently wanted new cultures to have a working usage of the Arabic Qur’an, by having about 12 short chapters at the end. Those 12 chapters are easily memorised and contain profound wisdom.

3. The worldwide brotherhood of monotheistic prophets: Every “nation” has received Prophets (peace be upon them). Their messages were all lost or corrupted. Only the Qur’an remains intact (there is some debate, l’ve checked the accusations and their refutations and am quite happy; there was notable divine abrogation by the way, it’s a dynamic text that unfolded across an epic saga just as a seed grows in vastly different phases) and only the Qur’an was meant for the whole world. Evildoers will try to murder a prophet (as happened quite often) and failing that, they’d wait til he died, then create a sect, secret societies, which at their core use the religious truth, as a pattern for evil, by taking the truth’s mirror image.

Also: polytheism (paganism) never had a prophet. At best, Dualism had Zardost and Mani.

We only have as remnants, mere rumours that Buddha, Plato, Agathodaimon, were prophets, but some Arab commentators said Plato was “a disciple of the goat” i.e. linked to materialist secret cults, not religion. We find Brahminism overlapping nicely with Sufism. Indian Sufis have done well in integrating the best native thought into Islamic spirituality. I have integrated some Hindu chakra lore. The Prophet said something good would come from India, he surely meant Indo-Pak Sufism, which was a paradigm shift in human thought.

4. Universality of Islam: So, l’d say: Islam is universal as it is intended for all mankind (unlike Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity which was meant to be Judaism plus Injil (the direct gospel of Christ, not letters according to […]). Also, enough of the Arabic Qur’an can be memorised to establish prayer and thus for non-Arabic speakers (like me) to practise Islam.

[ghatzige]

The fourth question primarily critiques the way Muslim apologists often engage in debates with non-religious individuals. At a deeper level, it also challenges the claim of Islam’s moral superiority.

Before arguing that apologists are not the same as Islam, it is important to recognize that both Christianity and Islam have historically been spread in part through such figures. Muslim apologists, in particular, often serve as a public face of the religion, and as a result, they inevitably become part of any critique directed toward Islam.

Both Christian and Muslim apologists often employ a similar rhetorical strategy. When responding to criticism, they insist that their religions be evaluated strictly on the basis of their sacred texts, rather than on the behavior or mistakes of individual believers. However, they do not always extend the same standard in return. Instead, they frequently group all non-religious individuals under a single label - “atheists” - and critique them collectively, drawing on statements or actions from a wide range of individuals as if they represented a unified position.

Some examples:

• For them, all non-religious people are often treated as if they were the same, even when individuals identify more precisely as agnostics, stoics, materialists, or hold other distinct philosophical positions. This tendency suggests a lack of engagement with what these different viewpoints actually entail. Yet, at the same time, they object when someone groups all religions together as if they were interchangeable, insisting on the importance of recognizing differences within religious traditions.

• The claim that “atheists believe the world was created out of nothing” is a common talking point among many religious apologists. Yet you will not find any serious philosopher - whether labeled “atheist” or otherwise - who has made such a claim in writing. More often, this statement reflects a misunderstanding or oversimplification of a range of diverse positions. But nuance tends to get brushed aside: details are ignored, and different viewpoints are treated as if they were all the same.

• The claim that “atheists cannot have moral standards” is another common argument. To support it, some point to examples from recent history - particularly abuses under certain communist regimes. But this reasoning is deeply flawed. Those regimes did not consistently follow the philosophical ideas they claimed to be based on; the gap between Marx’s writings and Stalin’s practices, for instance, is vast. It is therefore misleading to attribute the actions of such governments to Marx’s philosophy, let alone to extend that blame to all non-religious thinkers, many of whom have no connection to communism whatsoever. Yet, religious apologists resist applying the same standard consistently, insisting that Islam should not be held responsible for wars carried out in its name.

I could provide countless more examples, but the pattern is already unmistakable: the majority of religious apologists rely on a clear double standard. They hold non-religious individuals responsible for actions or ideas often unrelated to their actual philosophical beliefs, while simultaneously insisting that their own religion be exempt from comparable scrutiny or generalization.

To conclude, my fourth question is this:

If Islam claims moral superiority, how can it justify the double standards that many of its apologists employ when debating non-religious individuals?

Clearly, my question has deeper implications than it may appear at first glance. When religious apologists employ double-standard tactics to win debates and attract more followers to Islam, the credibility of the claim to moral excellence is seriously undermined. I am therefore seeking an answer that goes beyond the surface, addressing the deeper issue - specifically, how a claim of moral superiority can be reconciled with the use of manipulative tactics designed to gain followers.

Postscript: My critique is directed solely at the claim of “moral superiority”, I am not suggesting, in any way, that religion is immoral. Nor do I subscribe to the view - held by some prominent atheists - that religion is inherently harmful to society. Rather, my position is that religiosity does not confer moral superiority, even when considering scriptures alone. Valuable moral guidance can be found across many sources, both religious and secular.

[LampAndNightingale (6 Points>6 Lines>6 Triangles, Between Nile & Euphrates)]

INTRO:

Everybody has a Soul, a subjective Inner Criterion on which is imprinted an informal knowledge, a like/dislike, of right and wrong. As we age, we sometimes overthrow the Inner Criterion by unrepented bad deeds, and lose our souls to evil.

Muslims have an objective Outer Criterion (Volume of Sacred Law), the Qur’an.

We see Atheists as one objective bloc because: they are united in having Non-Criterion as their overarching objective Criterion for right / wrong.

We judge Atheists subjectively as individuals because: logic dictates that their Outer Criterion of Non-Criterion defaults to whatever each feels is subjectively okay.

DETAILS:

THE NUMBERS:

Islam teaches that most of mankind, either 99/100 or 999/1000, will be in Hell, though it is also said that most of mankind will be Gog and Magog.

HISTORY:

The Prophet Muhammad was betrayed several times by Pagans siding with Pagans, and Jews siding with Pagans (even betraying alliance with Muslims mid-battle), to form a vastly superior confederation, etc. e.g. Battle of Al Ahzab. Muslims learned hard lessons, many were tortured and killed before Islam took hold. We remember.

(Muslims who witnessed these events did not take a jaundiced view of Jews evenso - Caliph Umar lifted the near 500-year Christian ban on Jews settling Palestine.)

PERSONALITY:

People of all backgrounds come together for the right to free speech, the right to political incorrectness, when it comes to insulting Islam. Muslims generally take the high road, after the example of our Prophet - whom nobody has ** ever ** excelled in manners.

If l were to answer back in kind, insulters would be mortified, no irony. Political incorrectness is just an excuse for majoritarian hate. It is an attack on social correctness. I have experimentally been politically incorrect to the politically incorrect - they don’t like it.

Islam, among other faiths, engenders Fear of God and of Hell. This underpins our conduct. We may be no more decent than a non-Muslim, but we’re rarely going to be crueller, we’re modest and mindful of limits, we’re steeped in the traditions of our Prophet.

Muslims frequently feel the worst side of non-Muslims’ personality, due to media hype, but also because when Muslims and non-Muslims meet, the Muslims are often economic migrants, i.e. inferior social caste.

THEOLOGICALLY:

• Islam teaches that Non-Muslims can be one:

5:82 “Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians …”
8:73 “And those who disbelieve are protectors one of another”

• Atheists are a bloc inasmuch as lacking objective Sacred Law.

• Further, this means anything is theoretically viable with an Atheist, the empowered Atheist is their own law.

• When people deny Resurrection and Hellfire (Atheists and Deists) then their only Criterion is: State Law plus the Inner Criterion of the Soul. Muslims too obey state law and the Soul, but also have the Islam as Outer Criterion.

(i) In modernity, State Law is an ethical framework derived from Monotheistic morality, not a moral law.
(ii) The Inner Criterion of the Soul can get eroded as we age, from unrepented bad deeds.

(i) and (ii) combined mean a struggle to stay decent, especially when modernity encourages self-love, self-serving, cancel culture - i.e. empowerment: be your own law.

Islam inculcates in us objective values. God is infnite, infinity goes against vices. Infinity engenders Virtue. Our Prophet’s sayings, regular Prayer, Charity and Fasting engender virtues.

How would sacrificing nothing in religiosity, no Godfearing, no belief in Final Judgement, excel over Islam? We don’t assume our good deeds are accepted but prima facie the scales are in our favour whereas Atheist logic would insist worship is wasted.

• Why should an Atheist have any Greater Good than personal bodily pleasure?
  Answer: There could be the satisfaction of seeing a friend happy, whiskers on kittens, the afternoon golden hour, helping the homeless.

However: these are spiritual pleasures. The Atheist is materialist and cannot formally define spiritual joy / having a Soul (Inner Criterion). Would the Atheist, if they morally fall, fall further than the Muslim?

• BALANCING ALL THE ABOVE: I 100% believe Atheists can be prima facie as decent as Muslims. Also Muslims seem to be in intellectual torpor, Atheists are more stimulating. Religious Christians and Jews give daggers in their stare even if they call me “brother”.

OTHER POINTS RAISED:

Agnostics: [PERHAPS MY GREATEST CONTRIBUTION TO PHILOSOPHY:] Agnosticism is impossible. What the tongue declares, defines one’s belief, hence we have a profession of faith, and declare our prayer / fast before enactment. Everybody has doubt, hence Religion is Faith. For Agnosticism to exist, one must declare to be precisely 50:50. This is unthinkable especially as Belief cannot be quantified.

Stoics: Muslims, especially Sufis, are stoics. So, Atheism / Religion overarches Stoicism.

Materialists: Isn’t Atheism Materialism? Some claim spirituality. They should, because they possess a Soul made by God which materialism cannot explain. Yet they should not, because they declare Atheism.

Other Philosophical Positions: Religion (and logically, Atheism) overarches Philosophy.

Lack of Engagement: Agree. The Islamic world is in intellectual torpor since circa Ghazali’s Tahafut & the Mongol invasions.

Belief in the world created ex nihilo: Muslims believe it too. I’m aware Atheists are increasingly arguing for an infinite cosmos but it used to be “quantum fluctuations —> Big Bang”. Strangely like saying the Mind of God and Fiat Lux.

Atheist Moral Standards: Addressed above.

Manipulative Tactics: I don’t think these critiques against Atheism win followers. Maybe rarely. They seem to work on YouTube, as rare exceptions. The rule is: Nobody cares about the argument. It’s about who has more money and makes the best movies, the best dream. The Western Secular World is arguably winner there. People naturally gravitate toward Americanism. People even overlook Hispanic culture, which is Western and can be affluent, but its movies aren’t as captivating, thus nobody feels inclined to become secular-Roman Catholic and illegally migrate to Mexico.

[ghatzige]

My fifth question concerns the contemporary state of the Islamic world and the possibilities for its intellectual and social development.

I have recently begun exploring the early period of Islamic history, commonly referred to as the Islamic Golden Age. This was my first substantial engagement with the history of the region, and I was struck by the richness and dynamism I encountered. Despite some interruptions, this period is often characterized by a remarkable openness to scientific, philosophical, and theological inquiry. Thinkers engaged in sophisticated debates (such as the one discussed in my second question) that not only shaped the intellectual culture of the Islamic world but also had lasting implications for theology and philosophy.

Many of these debates engaged questions that, in other parts of the world at the time - particularly in medieval Christian Europe - were far more constrained or rarely addressed openly. This period of intellectual vitality, however, largely came to an end by the 14th century. A complex combination of historical, political, and social factors contributed to the decline of this openness, resulting in more restrictive intellectual climates in which space for philosophical inquiry and critical debate became increasingly limited. As I am still relatively new to this field of study, I would greatly appreciate further insight into the specific factors that drove this transformation.

In the contemporary Islamic world, one can observe considerable diversity in social and religious practices. In some countries - such as Malaysia - many Muslims live in relatively pluralistic or moderately religious societies, often adopting cosmopolitan approaches and demonstrating openness to discussion and debate. In contrast, in more conservative Muslim-majority countries, rigid religious frameworks frequently restrict open dialogue and impose strict social and intellectual boundaries.

By contrast, Christian Europe underwent, in the 16th century, what is known as the Reformation. This movement, despite its conflicts and upheavals, contributed to a gradual expansion of intellectual and philosophical freedom, eventually helping to pave the way for the Age of Enlightenment. While this period was often marked by violence and instability, it also played a significant role in fostering greater religious tolerance over time. In particular, it contributed to the abandonment of apostasy laws and encouraged a broader acceptance of diverse religious - and even non-religious - worldviews within European societies.

Thus, my next and final question can be stated as follows:

To what extent could the Islamic world benefit from a reform process?

To clarify, I am not advocating for a violent or conflict-driven process such as that which accompanied the Reformation in Europe. Rather, I am referring to the possibility of fostering open and constructive dialogue within the Islamic world, in which diverse interpretations of Islam can be discussed freely. Such an environment could allow space for intellectual exploration and the development of perspectives that engage more directly with the conditions and challenges of the modern world.

[LampAndNightingale (6 Points>6 Lines>6 Triangles, Between Nile & Euphrates)]

INTELLECTUAL TORPOR TODAY:

Unfortunately, Wahhabi “Quietism” has won over. It is overwhelmingly withdrawn from mundane reality, but on occasions, in fracture zones, it paradoxically fuels conflict by mixing religion with politics, via fundamentalism.

Let’s call the Wahhabi gloss on Islam “Modern Islam”.

Modern Islam frowns upon:

1. Ad lib recitation of the Qur’an, only traditional modes are considered. This has never been officially stated, it’s just a feeling l get.

2. Discussion of the Qur’an - it can only be done by clerics, who are certified by accredited colleges, but l’m unsure what gives them authority and anyway, the Qur’an encourages us to discuss Qur’an.

3. Discussion of Hadith - as above

Typical silencing techniques: Discussion of the Qur’an or Sunnah (Hadith) by laypersons is labelled as “not beneficial”. After all, what immediate objective material good comes of it? So why discuss it huh? And so Muslim intellectual life finally dies as we cannot even discuss our own core texts, let alone philosophy or spirituality.

Also, as stated, if you don’t have “ijaza” (certification) then you get no right to discuss anything.

[Admittedly, to tell a falsehood about the Prophet or Qur’an, carries a great penalty with God, so Muslims must think hard before discussing, but Islam doesn’t actually require certificates and clerical permits]

I feel this all began with the move away from philosophy prompted by Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyyah. I think Ghazali rightly exposed Neoplatonist philosophers’ flaws. I’m unsure how the latter defended themselves but apparently they denied bodily resurrection (Qiyamah) and predestination (Qadr) which thus nullify one’s faith.

As a result, we threw the baby out with the bathwater and now “Aflatun” (Plato) in my native language is an insult, approximating to “idiot”.

ANTECENDENTS:

The high middle ages were a time of great stress on the Islamic world, especially the 1200s CE. I cannot retrieve the hadith but there is one where our Prophet foresaw two dark “clouds” approaching, the second one being far worse than the first. It’s assumed the first one was the Crusades + Mongol Invasions.

In their wake, the Muslim world went into gradual foetal position and locked down not least because the Mongols physically destroyed our books. Religious dogmatism took hold, to exclude philosophy and forbid unauthorised commentary. Gradually spirituality was also forbidden (often rightly so, some Muslims had begun praying to dead Saints for the sake of Allah - which is “Shirk” - whereas praying to Allah for the sake of dead Saints would be more proper).

Then came Tamerlaine whom l count as probably an antichrist. He massacred millions despite claiming to be Muslim. Then came the betrayal of the Ottoman Empire by the Jewish refugees whom the Ottomans gave refuge to, which led to strings of major losses at the hands of Europe’s great empires. Also there was the rise of Imperial Russia, their shocking genocides in the Caucasus (e.g. Circassian genocide) were only rivalled by the genocides against Slavic and Turkish Muslims.

Check Anton Minkov - “Conversion to Islam in the Balkans” (search a PDF online?), you will understand the canards about Islam in Europe, and about the Ottoman Empire being “the Sick Man of Europe”.

Eventually came Napoleon Bonaparte (regarded by Christians as an antichrist, l’m inclined to agree). Observe how the French treated the Muslim armies and civilians on his campaigns, they were on a par with how the Frankish Crusaders acted. They massacred, they took no prisoners and would never treat other armies or civilians like that in Europe. Then came colonialism, the Transatlantic Slave Trade, indentured labour, Zionism and so forth.

At the end of all that, we have the current situation. Modern Islam, with slivers of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a zombified Islam where the innards have been scooped out and select rules kept in place, aka the “fundamentals”, and the rest has been filled in with nationalist politics. Some fundamentalists have even made suicide and terrorism okay, despite being direct routes to Hell. The Prophet told us to enter into Islam completely. Fundamentalism is not Islam. The only honest way forward is secularism, and so the more secularised Muslim societies you mention, have fared better. Also it helps that they did not have vast oil reserves for war and corruption to take root.

THE FUTURE:

Islam will never have a Reformation. I say this as a secular Muslim. The Orthodox (Sunni) are the main body, the saved sect, the vast majority of the Islamic world, as per hadith. It is not like in Judaism where Orthodox means strict observance. It is more akin to Christianity, where Orthodox means original, traditional.

I’d hope for Muslims to be fully secularised, especially when living abroad as migrants. It is the only honest way to be Muslim, keeping faith private, thus avoiding newspaper scandals and blame.

THE CRUX OF THE MATTER: As for education, enlightenent: apart from Modern Islam’s mistrust of philosophy and spirituality via Ibn Taymiyyah, Ghazali, l don’t think there’s anything Muslims can correct.

Muslims just need wars to stop, and cash to flow. Then we would surely flourish into the great civilisation we once were (and non-Muslims would strive to live in Muslim lands, as some Europeans once liked to do).

It was primarily Crusader and Mongol BRAWN that crushed the Islamic World’s BRAIN. Simple as that!

ADDENDUM: ESCHATOLOGY

If you want to know what Muslims believe will actually happen in the future: it is worth reading the eschatological ahadith, the Prophecies, e.g. Ibn Kathir’s “Signs Before the Day of Judgement” translated by Mrs. Huda Khattab (sadly only Salafist edited versions remain online) and many other hadith collections on the Tribulations.

Islam entered the world as something strange, and will leave the world as something strange.
One day the Qur’an will disappear from the pages - this was foretold long before the fading photo on Back to the Future!

[Carleas]

The debate is concluded. Thank you to @ghatzige and @LampAndNightingale for a thoughtful exchange.

A poll will be added to the discussion thread where others can vote on who made the better showing, and discussion of the subject matter will continue there.