Just got an anon from some muslim saying you have to be muslim to critique the quoran. And the reason why? An old post i dont even remember making. This common for you?
Itâs simply an attempt to pre-emptively dismiss valid criticisms. Such a rule could be applied to anything: you have to be a Xtian to critique the bible. You have to be a Scientologist to critique Diantics or the execrable Battlefield Earth. You have to be a scientist to critique On The Origin of Species. You have to be an American to critique the US Constitution. You have to be an atheist to critique The God Delusion. You have to be a pedophile to critique NAMBLA. You have to live in the UK to critique Brexit.
You can then forbid them from critiquing anything you like, based on what you know theyâre not affiliated with. Theyâre not a scientist, so they canât dismiss evolution. Theyâre not a Xtian, so they canât say the bible is wrong.
The entire notion is stupid. Itâs empty and devoid of merit. Islam is just an idea, a claim, same as Xtianity, same as flat Earth, same as âI think pizza would be good for dinner.â We evaluate and we accept or reject ideas all day long. Thereâs no reason to treat any idea or claim any differently. Even if itâs âdearly held.â Or maybe even especially if it is, since being held dearly probably means reduced objectivity.
Itâs a form of Special Pleading. The next question is for them to justify why, out of all the ideas in the world, Islam is the only one where you have to already be subscribed to it in order to analyse and evaluate it. That is, you have to have already bought the car before you can test drive it.
Iâve had this conversation several times before myself, and each answer was a non-answer that was simply about how dear and magical and true the belief is, that in turn required its own explanation, rather than being an actual explanation for the first notion. The same way a Xtian thinks âfeel god in my heartâ substantiates its existence, when itâs really just a whole new collection of questions and justifications.
It would be one thing if they actually did critique the Quran, as people who meet the self-declared criteria for doing so. But that doesnât happen at all. âThere are no scientific inaccuracy in Quran.â âThere are no historical inaccuracy in Quran.â You will hear these recited verbatim, as if programmed in. Because they have been. The indoctrination into Islam is thorough and pervasive, and itâs designed, as befits a belief system established through the self-insertion fan fiction of a con-artist warlord, to discourage critical examination. Allah says Muhammad, with his single-digit year-old âwifeâ, is the perfect human, and Allah says Muhammad should have anything he wants, and Allah says not to question Muhammad. How do we know this? Muhammad says Allah told him so. And Muhammad wouldnât lie because Muhammad says Allah says Muhammad wouldnât lie. So, there. Rock solid. Joseph Smith pulled the same scam centuries later with his hat.
By all means, you shouldnât be ragging on a French-language film when you donât speak French - and thereâs no subtitles - so you donât know what it says. But thereâs plenty of English-language translations of the Quran which are well-regarded direct translations by Muslims, or even open-source and open to correction. So you can see for yourself that the sun sets in a mud puddle, the Earth is flat, and the Moon was split in two.
You donât have to believe something to understand that particular something; you donât have to have cancer to study, understand and eradicate cancer, nor live on Mars to understand what a Mars colony would require or how to achieve it. We donât understand things purely by first-hand experience; if we did, our judicial system would never get anywhere. Ex-Muslims will tell you in detail what they were taught âwhen I was a Muslm.â (Iâm sure they werenât âtrueâ Muslims, though; somehow they never are.)
Ultimately, you wonât get anywhere. Youâll probably be called an âIslamophobeâ, be accused of spreading âhateâ and accused of following âthe false religion of atheismâ - which is sort of correct, but for different reasons. Donât take it personally. Itâs essentially plausible deniability on their part; they donât have to consider the critique because theyâve just created a scenario which justifies ignoring you.
Things that are true donât need to be protected from examination; the more a true thing is pulled apart, picked at and attacked - especially by a hostile party, not one simply mindlessly affirming it - the more we find out itâs true, because we discover why itâs true, by re-examining the reasons. This is the reason the scientific process works: testing, refining and, if necessary, discarding ideas and knowledge. Imagine what weâd think of our legal system, how much weâd trust it, if all the judgements were kept secret.
A thing youâre not allowed to criticize is probably not true, because itâs means declaring up-front that it canât support itself on its own merits.
dailybridgerton
vaporwave
2087
theartofmadeline
gamechangershow
romaincrisis
tangentwithtanner
