Hi Boaz,

I’m curious as to why you’ve specifically asked for my comments here. If it’s because my tell-it-how-it-is style has you curious about whether or not I’d still be willing to tell-it-how-it-is with Islam, then I’ll think you may be pleasantly surprised.

I didn’t need to read *13. I read 65:4 and knew immediately which part specifically would be concerning you.

<<would you mind commenting on how a fundamentalist might act in the light of the following opinion ?>>

To “spell out openly what this text is permitting and justifying” as you have challenged me to do:

The verse is clearly permitting and justifying paedophilia.

How might a fundamentalist Muslim act in light of the verse? They could potentially use it to justify raping a female child in a so-called “marriage” that would, thankfully, be illegal in Australia.

<<Do you see any weaknesses in his argument or understanding of the text as written ?>>

No, I think he has interpreted that passage quite (literally) accurately.

<<If there are no obvious weaknesses..then one would assume that this understanding forms part of the fundamentals of that faith correct?>>

Well, that would depend on the inclination of the fundamentalist. If they had paedophilic tendencies, then yes. But if they were a good person, then they would probably use similar excuses used by Christians to brush-off the bad parts of their holy book - that they’re just old instructions that were okay in that cultural time and context.

Theists of all religions pick and choose what they want from their holy book depending on their own personal agendas and bigotries.

Christians, luckily, aren’t burning heretics anymore because of the shifting moral zeitgeist, that Dawkins mentions, that appears to change (and so far - improve) the way theists interpret their holy books. Unfortunately though, Islam is still experiencing its Dark Age while Christianity was lucky enough to be dragged kicking and screaming out of theirs with the assistance of the secular values of Western societies.

Continued...

...Continued

<<If so.. and such values were embraced by say ...Grateful... would it be in order to criticize his faith on the above grounds in the interest of public order and social balance?>>

Absolutely. If there’s anyone on OLO who’s all for the criticizing of faith, it’s me. Criticising faith is important for a healthy society.

If I knew more about Islam; if Muslims were posting here on OLO as much as Christians are; if they were the ones with powerful lobby groups influencing our government; if they were the ones pushing their religion into our state schools; if they were the ones with big, rich, flashy cults like Hillsong that seem to like drawing in the youth by impressing the ones that like shiny things , only to pollute their minds; if they were the ones knocking on my door while I’m still asleep on a Saturday morning; if they were the ones opposing reforms in this country based on an unprovable and unfounded belief system; if they were the ones inventing Trojan horses like Intelligent Design to sneak religion into science classrooms; then I would be criticizing them more.

Don’t get me wrong... I think Islam is a violent and primitive religion and I have still confronted grateful when I felt he was committing crimes against logic. Heck, I even uploaded my own submission, for the first annual Everybody Draw Mohammed Day on 20th May, on the web and will continue to do so every May 20th from now on in defence of free speech.

But so long as Christians are the noisiest theists on OLO, and continue to throw their unjustifiably heavy political weight around, Christianity will remain my main focus.

Dawkins quoted by Foxy:

"Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that
unquestioned faith is a virtue. You don't have to make the
case for what you believe. If somebody annouces that it is
part of his 'faith,' the rest of society, whether of the
same faith, or another, or of none, is obliged, by ingrained
custom, to 'respect' it without question; respect it until
the day it manifests itself in a horrible massacre... "

Dawkins is wrong here. I tell my children to use reason, the Qur’aan and the Prophet tell us to use reason, so we use reason. Dawkins is apparently ignorant when it comes to Islam but does not hesitate to generalise based on his experience with Christianity.

Returning to my suggested definition:
<<Can we say that a fundamentalist someone who is prepared to uphold a view or belief despite reason or evidence to the contrary. The belief or view is non-negotiable.>>

The difference between this definition and that of Dawkins is that it does not refer tied fundamentlism to a religious belief, as Dawkins would. The reason is that i can see no justification for excluding atheists.

I think it is fair to ask those atheist who adhere to Dawkin’s definition, what would be the justification for excluding atheist beliefs? How could you justify DEFINING away the possibility of an atheist being a fundamentalist, in the above sense?

More generally, is there anyone here willing to characterise a fundamentalist from their own tradition. For example, if you are an atheist what would constitute a fundamentalist atheist, if a Protestant, what would be a fundamentalist Protestant and so on.

Its a challenging exercise because it requires one reflect on whether they would be willing to say: “Yes, if i was shown ‘this or that’ evidence then i would be prepared to admit that i was wrong."

I don’t really hold out to much hope of a constructive response, but its worth a try. :-)

stevenlmeyer: i'm aware of the issue but haven't given it much thought. besides its way off topic

AGIR (oh sour grapes) & AJ Phillips: Consult your wives, who will be able to explain to you a bit about irregularities in menstruation and menopause (http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=10&ID=4857&CATE=220). For example, my wife didn't have her period for at least 7 months after one of the pregnancies. In addition, in Islam the marriage can only be consummated after puberty. If married before puberty, the girl must remain with her parents. Is this 'primitive'? Yes, by our standards, but that was the norm in those days and obviously it is becoming increasing less common (in either Muslim or non-Muslim communities) as countries develop. The Shariah scholars obviously have had to lay done rulings cover all sorts of contingencies for innumerable societies over 1400 years. Is it paedophilia? Obviously not.

Back to topic please.

grateful wrote: "<<Can we say that a fundamentalist someone who is prepared to uphold a view or belief despite reason or evidence to the contrary. The belief or view is non-negotiable.>>

The difference between this definition and that of Dawkins is that it does not refer tied fundamentlism to a religious belief, as Dawkins would. The reason is that i can see no justification for excluding atheists."

Dear grateful,

If I was presented with any credible evidence of the existence of any supernatural being I would accept it and no longer be an atheist.

Religious believers confuse their belief with evidence.

Kant, the German philosopher, examined all the proofs for the existence of God and found them all faulty. However, he believed in God. There were no proofs that God didn't exist.

However, I think that the burden of proof for the existence of an entity rests upon those who assert that existence. There simply is no evidence for the truth of the assertion of the existence of any god or gods, and the proofs by reason are untenable. One can find them in any good philosophic encyclopedia.

Since neither reason nor evidence exists to challenge the stance of an atheist, an atheist by your definition cannot be a fundamentalist.

Dear AJ... that was most incredible :)

a) you actually read it
b) You arrived at the same understanding as I
c) You had the balls to SPEAK openly about it.
d) You agree the commentator did not 'misunderstand' the verse.
e) You say it justifies paedophilia.

It's the last one I would modify just a tad. Paedophilia is more about a person who 'prefers' children for his sexual focus (correct me if I'm wrong there) the term I would use in this case is 'child sexual abuse'
They amount to the same thing.

BUT NOTICE....how quickly 'Grateful' leaps/pounces/springs to the defense of his religion with the all to predictable "Islam" this and "Islam" that.

Which is standard truth-a-phobia by Muslims who have been caught up in this sick cult but didn't realize at the beginning just what it all mean't.

Grateful... you are misled.... it is patently rediculous to claim "Islam teaches" or... his exact words "Consult your wives about menopausal irregularities" :)

Ohhhhh Grateful.. you funny boy... that is also 'all2predictable' and is standard Islamic apologetics.

The Quran given to me by Da'wah missionaries specifially connected "Those who have not yet had their menstruation" (65:4) with the statement "Because they are immature".

I can even spell out where they get that explanatory note from...

It's a hadith which says as much.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.063

." 'And for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature). (65.4) And the 'Iddat for the girl before puberty is three months (in the above Verse).

So...here you have the saying of Muhammad..with some explantory bits referring to the SAME VERSE in the Quran.

So..on the basis of the evidence.. it is absolutely clear that "Islam teaches" that a man may 'marry,sexually consumate and then..horribly..DIVORCE a child who is prepubescent.

Gratefuls pleas and whinings and blurtings to the contrary will not shake this rock solid factual situation.

PERICLES ! read AJ's post..and weep..then apologise to me.(CJ..u2)