I probably agree with you on more things religious than not. Having said that, I was correcting OP, who strongly suggested that Islam was uniquely misogynist by quoting a couple passages from the Quran.
What I think is really interesting is that the some of the strongest currents in Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all converging on the subjugation of women, especially the control of their bodies and their sexuality.
> We can also do this with Islam too, a religion founded by a slaver war monger who had sex slaves, and whose teachings say women are a sexual reward.
A helpful reminder to you that Christianity was founded by a man who never married, never had children, and lived poor his whole life. Something literally no one within Christianity espouses today. It is ignorant to assume that Muslims all aspire to live like Mohammad when virtually no Christians aspire to live like Christ.
Islams founder's take differs quite a bit from Christianity's founder's take. We should be able to point that out without being called racist/bigot/receiving down votes. One had sex slaves, one did not marry and instead treated the world as his children.
Virtually every Christian I know aspires to be as Christ like as they can. You may not see that in their actions, but in their beliefs they definitely aspire to that. Are you saying Muslims don't hold their prophet in high regard? The prophet is just symbolic?
Christians believe you should wait until marriage for sex. So they very much preach item 2 you list.
Most Christians I know follow item 3 and literally espouse it. That you should not be greedy. You should not take advantage of others. You should live life for a moral purpose, for entry to heaven, not material gain.
Christianity teaches that you can't be Jesus, that is the point of the religion. You can't be a god. You can only be the best flawed human you can, and that is good enough, and you are forgiven for those flaws, IF you TRY to be better than your base nature. It teaches that Christs life was that of a god, and yet he still took time to take care of/see the lowest among us. Not that his life was one we can do, but definitely one we should aspire to. Does Islam not teach you should aspire to be like their prophet? That his morality should be an inspiration?
The west is freely accepting of calling out Christianity, Mormonism, Scientology. But we can't examine/be critical of Islam. That is not OK. I've known way more Muslims than Scientologists. It is not a foreign/abstract religion, but a real religion present in our communities. There is a lot in Islam that needs to be called out and processed by the Muslim faithful. Tom Cruise can be called out on his faith. Mitt Romney had his faith called out a ton and that was OK. Catholics get called out all the time for being Catholic. We can call out other religions too without it suddenly being racist/bigoted. No, it's calling out if a religion has some crappy beliefs/justifications and saying 'I'm not sure about a person who believes these things as a core part of their identity'.
All that said I would love to see Mamdani as mayor of New York. His religion/acts done under it shouldn't define him, just like with Tom Cruise, Mitt Romney. We're all people making our way, not caricatures defined externally.
> Virtually every Christian I know aspires to be as Christ like as they can. You may not see that in their actions, but in their beliefs they definitely aspire to that.
This is a nonsense statement. It's trivially obvious how to be "Christ like": Live poor, help the disenfranchised, feed the hungry, heal the wounded, don't marry, don't have kids, and preach the gospel, if only to a small number of people.
If the Christians you know don't live like that, then they are not being "Christ like." To say they are while they do the opposite -- work to get rich, get married and have big families, confine their spiritual work to Sunday mornings, occasionally giving to charity (or only to their own church) -- is to believe that words have no meaning at all.
I'm sure the people you think of as "Christ like" are by and large perfectly wonderful human beings. But this whole discussion was sparked by a powerful man at Sequoia making reductive statements about all of Islam based on a few quotations from the Quran. At some point we have to admit that the way people practice religion does not necessarily follow what's written in their texts. And to suggest, as others have in this very thread, that because Mohammad married had multiple wives means that all of his followers want to as well, is as ignorant as assuming that all Christians want to live like Christ actually lived.
The Quran is held by Muslims as 'the perfect word of God'. It is treated much differently than the Christian bible which gets somewhat loosely translated into many languages.
As the perfect word of God, quotations from it ARE THE PERFECT WORD OF GOD. How is talking about what someone believes is the exact and perfect words of God off limits/racist/bigoted? How is saying that 'Gods perfect representative on earth' having sex slaves makes me call the beliefs of followers of Islam in to question racist/bigoted? I want to know if someone is OK with sexual slavery. A religion that talks about when it gives out sex slaves/sex as a reward to good men makes me have questions about how someone who believes that sees women. Believe me, I struggle with it. The founders of my country were awful men who raped female slaves themselves. I struggle with how do I incorporate 'good parts' of their ideology when they were vile human beings. But I think it is important to challenge that, to ask that question, especially of myself and my nation. I can't imagine if that was my founding religious leader.
Asking 'what about Thomas Jefferson raping his understage slave' isn't being racist. It's legit 'how do you reconcile these things'. It's hugely informative.
Islam is a much more mainstream American religion than Scientology. There are only maybe 50,000 Scientologists in the US. There are around 3.5 million Muslims. I should be able to talk about Islam with at least the same criticality.
Please understand my culture is to challenge religions/religious people/politicians/admired figures, not just Muslims. Muslims, because they believe the Quran is the perfect word of God, are in a tough spot when their perfect word of God says things like lying or sexual slavery are OK. Just like Americans when their 'freedom fighter' founders also had literal sex slaves. But that does not mean we should not challenge. I get it's really hard for Muslims because they can't challenge 'the perfect word of God' but that doesn't make it bigoted/racist to say 'this person's religion says it is the perfect word of god that they can lie about this how do I know they are telling the truth'.
In the US, we reformed, we did away with slavery. We condemn the actions of our founders. Islam being the perfect word of God with it's perfect messenger on earth can't really condemn nor phase these things out. So how public political figures reconcile these things is very valid to bring up.
> The Quran is held by Muslims as 'the perfect word of God'. It is treated much differently than the Christian bible which gets somewhat loosely translated into many languages.
Biblical literalism isn't exactly common, too, and people who self-identify as Christian use it to justify things like killing gay people, corporal punishment, not allowing divorce except in certain cases, denying scientific consensus on things like biology or climate change, unconditionally back the actions of the Israeli government based on eschatological theories, etc.
I think there’s an argument that mainstream Christianity is less stringent than mainstream Islam on this but it’s very much a question of degree and appears to be moving backwards. We just had a rather heated national debate over what exactly Charlie Kirk meant by using a very similar phrase (“God's perfect law”) in a negative context so it’s very hard for me to see this as a Muslim problem rather than a problem common to all fundamentalist religious traditions.
Yes exactly! Thank you! We just had a national debate on Christianity so we could understand the takes that certain people were coming from (which were in fact horrible positions, so it's very important that they defined their position). Certain segments of Christianity have views that to me make them unelectable. And that is super important to know/understand. But I don't get to understand/we don't get to challenge a Muslim person's belief like that because it is somehow racist to ask.
I'm not claiming it's a Muslim problem. I talk about Christians, Scientologists, Mormons, heck even Americans and understanding how to reconcile our founding as a nation versus our beliefs now. I do understand how awkward it is because their religion literally says it is the perfect word of God. I understand that makes it complex for them. But that doesn't mean we don't need to understand. I don't know what it means to be a follower of Islam. But I do know what their perfect word of God says, and some of it is really bad stuff (just like the pre-Jesus Christian old testament stuff, yikes). I do know some horrible things about their founder, and I think it's reasonable to ask what those horrible things mean to a follower, just like calling out that my nation of freedom was founded on racism and slavery by men who raped their underage slaves. There is a taint to both, but I don't get to ask how a Muslim reconciles that taint, while I can challenge American taint. I don't know how to operate without being able to challenge, and get responses, and understand. Just like we had a Christian debate, or we debate what the founding of our nation means we should encourage the discussion and deeper understanding.
I just want the debate you yourself reference that we just had on Christianity. It's fair to want to understand, but for some reason we don't get to ask/challenge Muslims like we do the Christians, Scientologists, etc. Even though as you point out the discussion can be very eye opening.
Until we can have these discussions, people are going to have questions about followers of a religion that says the perfect word of God is that you can lie to people of other religions. People are going to question a religion that teaches sex, sex slaves, the inability of the being you desire in heaven to say no being rewards for men.
> Certain segments of Christianity have views that to me make them unelectable. And that is super important to know/understand. But I don't get to understand/we don't get to challenge a Muslim person's belief like that because it is somehow racist to ask.
I don't see anyone saying it's unfair to talk about the beliefs a specific Muslim candidate has expressed but Maguire wasn't talking about anything Mamdani has said. He made a sweeping claim about an entire culture, saying they considered it a virtue to lie when that is in fact broadly condemned. He almost certainly based that belief on propaganda about the concept of taqiyya which has been swirling around right-wing circles for the last couple of decades. That concept refers to a narrow exception allowing Muslims to conceal or disavow their religious beliefs when they fear for their safety. The term is derived from a root meaning of caution or fear, and dates back to when Islam was a minority religion whose followers had real examples of recantations forced under torture. Christians active in right-wing politics have claimed that it is both broadly practiced and interpreted to allow lying to spread Islam itself despite limited evidence and strident disagreement by actual scholars – there's a good summary here with a lot of links:
This is about as fair as finding a Seven Mountains Dominionist preacher who says that Christians need to control all aspects of society, claiming that they speak for all Christians, and then claiming that belief is secretly shared by a Christian political candidate who has never voiced supported for that sect and must override all of their stated views or past actions.
I'm an atheist now so I don't have a god in this fight but I've known enough people of each of the Abrahamic religions that I wouldn't make a general criticism of any individual except based on things they personally said or did.
> Because we can't ask Muslims politicians about their religion or their positions/interpretations, we depend on others than the actual individual we know about to try and explain, which ends up worse and potentially misinformed.
Who specifically is saying that we can’t ask them? You’ve made that claim repeatedly but I don’t see anyone saying it’s inappropriate to ask a candidate what they believe on topics relevant to their office. The condemnation is about sweeping assertions about large heterogeneous groups.
What I think is really interesting is that the some of the strongest currents in Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all converging on the subjugation of women, especially the control of their bodies and their sexuality.
> We can also do this with Islam too, a religion founded by a slaver war monger who had sex slaves, and whose teachings say women are a sexual reward.
A helpful reminder to you that Christianity was founded by a man who never married, never had children, and lived poor his whole life. Something literally no one within Christianity espouses today. It is ignorant to assume that Muslims all aspire to live like Mohammad when virtually no Christians aspire to live like Christ.