Debater Slayer and TashaN: On Sam Harris!

[TashaN]

In The Name of Allah, The Most Beneficent, The Most Merciful.

This is i guess my first one-on-one debate if i'm not mistaken, lol.

The topic of this thread will be Sam Harris's views on Islam.

The post below was written by you in the other thread:
Washington Post: An Organized Campaign to Silence Debate on Islam | Page 3 | ReligiousForums.com

Some of his views are explained in detail in his speeches, but there are also some explanations on his website. Here are a few of them, including one where he responds to controversies about his statements:

Islam or Islamophobia? : Sam Harris

Response to Controversy : : Sam Harris

Who Are the Moderate Muslims? : : Sam Harris

In the first article linked above, he didn't even say much; he merely posted a video where a group of educated Muslims in a very prosperous and peaceful country showed clear support for extremist views. We often hear that extremism is merely the result of poverty or lack of education, but when one considers that most Muslims even in Western countries view homosexuality as a grave sin, as you probably know, among other things, it becomes clear that the issue is far more complicated than that.

Pointing out the beliefs that hundreds of millions of Muslims hold is not Islamophobic. A lot of Muslims won't even argue with you that they don't view homosexuality as a crime or that they are against stoning, and they may actually take pride in doing so. I was kind of skeptical of claims like Harris's at first as well, but when I did ask most Muslims I know about such issues and see the results of elections in several Muslim countries favoring the application of punishments like stoning and the widespread support for such things by Muslims in those places--Muslims who are otherwise peaceful people--it became clear to me that extremism beliefs are not an exclusive commodity of terrorists or fringe minorities.

In one of the linked articles, he also talked about the response that millions of Muslims showed to satirical cartoons. Not only do many Muslims who are supposedly moderate advocate the censorship of any such cartoons on the grounds that they are offensive, but many also support violence against the creators of the cartoons. And you only need to look at polled opinions of Muslims on issues like stoning or the rights of minorities to see at least part of the picture that Sam Harris is talking about. Even election results that brought Islamists to power after the "Arab Spring" revolutions point to the same picture.

We also need to consider the term "Islamophobia" itself. A phobia is a fear of something, meaning that Islamophobia is, from a purely linguistic viewpoint, a fear of Islam. Fear of certain ideas or beliefs is only a problem if it is unjustified or if it leads to harming or hating people. There's a difference between the two, although the term seems to have turned into a reference to both fear of the religion and fear or hatred of Muslims themselves--the latter being harmful and in need of being fought with reason in many places, in my opinion.

I do think that some of Sam Harris's views, especially political ones, are pretty extreme, and I don't agree with him on some issues. But when it comes to his views on religion in general, I think many of them are blown out of proportion and criticized as being hateful to Muslims merely because he doesn't try to be politically correct while expressing them--and because all too many people associate criticism of any given religion with hating the followers of that religion, which is an unwarranted conclusion in many cases.

I said in the other thread that Sam's views were extreme and i claimed that he was an islamophobic. In this thread we are going to rationally discuss Sam's claims to see if his views are valid or not.

I think it's only appropriate to define the "Moderate Muslim" in Sam's dictionary before we go through what he sees in Islam as extreme.

According to Sam Harris:

One sign of religious moderation is not being too sure about the divine origin of any book.

Who Are the Moderate Muslims? : : Sam Harris


And in here he defines religious moderation:

Religious moderation is the result of not taking scripture all that seriously. So why not take these books less seriously still? Why not admit that they are just books, written by fallible human beings like ourselves?


So @Debater Slayer do you agree or disagree with these definitions of moderation and why?

To me this is not being moderate, but rather being secular or anything but moderate. If this is how he define moderation then if i said i believe the Quran to be the word of God so i'm being extreme.


Thank you.

 

[Debater Slayer]

In The Name of Allah, The Most Beneficent, The Most Merciful.

This is i guess my first one-on-one debate if i'm not mistaken, lol.

The topic of this thread will be Sam Harris's views on Islam.

The post below was written by you in the other thread:
Washington Post: An Organized Campaign to Silence Debate on Islam | Page 3 | ReligiousForums.com



I said in the other thread that Sam's views were extreme and i claimed that he was an islamophobic. In this thread we are going to rationally discuss Sam's claims to see if his views are valid or not.

I think it's only appropriate to define the "Moderate Muslim" in Sam's dictionary before we go through what he sees in Islam as extreme.

According to Sam Harris:

One sign of religious moderation is not being too sure about the divine origin of any book.

Who Are the Moderate Muslims? : : Sam Harris


And in here he defines religious moderation:

Religious moderation is the result of not taking scripture all that seriously. So why not take these books less seriously still? Why not admit that they are just books, written by fallible human beings like ourselves?


So @Debater Slayer do you agree or disagree with these definitions of moderation and why?

To me this is not being moderate, but rather being secular or anything but moderate. If this is how he define moderation then if i said i believe the Quran to be the word of God so i'm being extreme.


Thank you.

I strongly agree with his definition of religious moderation.

I think that taking any book literally or believing with certainty that it is the eternal, incontrovertible guide for humanity stifles if not entirely closes the door to religious reform. The main reason beliefs like creationism, the sinfulness of homosexuality, and the punishment in Hell for non-believers, among other things, are still so common among Muslim communities is precisely that they take the Qur'an so seriously that they can't accept new scientific facts such as the theory of evolution and the naturalness of homosexuality.

It is not just an issue among uneducated Muslims or ones living in poverty either. In fact, it is also an issue among a lot of educated Muslims. For example, Tariq Ramadan, a professor of Islamic studies at Oxford University, explains with full confidence that Muslims including himself don't believe in same-sex marriage's being legal or allowing adoption for homosexuals:

What his argument boils down to is nothing more than what die-hard fundamentalists believe: the "lifestyle" of homosexuals is sinful, they shouldn't have equal rights when it comes to marriage or adoption, and their right to express their natural desires and love shouldn't be recognized before the law. This is someone who, unlike many fundamentalists, is educated and speaks with such polished language that he may seem moderate to a lot of people at first glance.

So, yes, I agree with Sam Harris's definition of religious moderation: if someone doesn't recognize that scriptures were written by human beings who were prone to error and that it is possible—not even necessarily likely—for religious texts to be inaccurate when it comes to certain things, then they are not really moderate.

I think that, at best, one could argue that a lot of the Muslims who take the Qur'an literally and absolutely reject the possibility that scripture may contain some errors are milder than fundamentalists who don't tolerate people of other beliefs at all. To argue that they are moderates, however, seems to me to require that we water down the definition of moderation so much that it doesn't become meaningful anymore—much like what I believe to be the case in most Muslim-majority countries, where extremist beliefs are so common that most Muslims don't consider them shocking anymore and view people who hold them as "moderate."

 

[TashaN]

@Debater Slayer, you have talked about two different things and lumped them up under one umbrella.

You said since Muslims take the Quran seriously and literally, therefore ..... , and you mentioned things which you feel are a result of their belief in the Quran. i disagree with the things you mentioned that ALL Muslims believe in and i'm going to address each one of them one by one. Things like hell, homosexuality, creationism, etc.

Before that i want to know something. Let us first deal with the cause before we deal with the effect.

In principle, do you believe if myself, TashaN believed the Quran to be the literal word of Allah, not men, so you are going to label me as "extreme"?

If that's what you believe then you should say it straight to my face without dodging the question and without justifying your stance. We can get back to the justification later.

 

[Debater Slayer]

@Debater Slayer, you have talked about two different things and lumped them up under one umbrella.

You said since Muslims take the Quran seriously and literally, therefore ..... , and you mentioned things which you feel are a result of their belief in the Quran. i disagree with the things you mentioned that ALL Muslims believe in and i'm going to address each one of them one by one. Things like hell, homosexuality, creationism, etc.

Not all Muslims, but many of them--a majority, if polls and trends in the Muslim world are taken into account.

Before that i want to know something. Let us first deal with the cause before we deal with the effect.

In principle, do you believe if myself, TashaN believed the Quran to be the literal word of Allah, not men, so you are going to label me as "extreme"?

If that's what you believe then you should say it straight to my face without dodging the question and without justifying your stance. We can get back to the justification later.

No, I wouldn't label you as extreme, but depending on what followed from your belief that the Qur'an is the literal word of God, I might label some of the ideas you support as extreme.

Does that answer your question?

 

[TashaN]

Not all Muslims, but many of them--a majority, if polls and trends in the Muslim world are taken into account.

No, I wouldn't label you as extreme, but depending on what followed from your belief that the Qur'an is the literal word of God, I might label some of the ideas you support as extreme.

Does that answer your question?

It does answer my question, and as a result that means you don't agree with Sam Harris's definition of what an extreme is. We can now agree that he is not allowed to accuse people like me to not be moderate Muslims.

Now since we are done with his definition of moderation, what do you suggest our next step should be? should i address the points of homosexuality, creationism, and hell to non-believers? or you prefer that i address first his second link with the video?

 

[Debater Slayer]

It does answer my question, and as a result that means you don't agree with Sam Harris's definition of what an extreme is. We can now agree that he is not allowed to accuse people like me to not be moderate Muslims.

In practice, I do agree with his definition of moderation. I'll explain why when you touch on the topics you listed below.

Now since we are done with his definition of moderation, what do you suggest our next step should be? should i address the points of homosexuality, creationism, and hell to non-believers? or you prefer that i address first his second link with the video?

Both, since the video is also about the beliefs of supposedly moderate Muslims who hold extreme beliefs.

 

[TashaN]

I'll start with the points you raised in this post then will jump to that video in his link.

The main reason beliefs like creationism, the sinfulness of homosexuality, and the punishment in Hell for non-believers, among other things, are still so common among Muslim communities is precisely that they take the Qur'an so seriously that they can't accept new scientific facts such as the theory of evolution and the naturalness of homosexuality.

In my personal opinion, i believe in the theory of evolution. I believe that homosexuality is natural. I believe that we can't judge who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. Everything i say doesn't contradict even one bit with the Quran. I accept all well established scientific facts unless there was still a debate about it then i can't decide for sure.

It is not just an issue among uneducated Muslims or ones living in poverty either. In fact, it is also an issue among a lot of educated Muslims. For example, Tariq Ramadan, a professor of Islamic studies at Oxford University, explains with full confidence that Muslims including himself don't believe in same-sex marriage's being legal or allowing adoption for homosexuals:

What his argument boils down to is nothing more than what die-hard fundamentalists believe: the "lifestyle" of homosexuals is sinful, they shouldn't have equal rights when it comes to marriage or adoption, and their right to express their natural desires and love shouldn't be recognized before the law. This is someone who, unlike many fundamentalists, is educated and speaks with such polished language that he may seem moderate to a lot of people at first glance.

He is free to believe whether homosexuals are to be treated legally just like heterosexuals or not for many reasons. Many countries around the world if not most still don't allow same-sex marriage. No one accused them of being extreme as far as i know. That include--but not limited to--an entire continent as big and as diverse as Asia.

 

[TashaN]

Until you get back to me i'll go on to address the video. My honest opinion is something which you personally can relate to. Imagine young people in the presence of a supposed authority and he questions, not their reasoning and personal opinion, but their loyalty to the religion and to the Muslim community.

Please go back and watch the video. You will see many of them in the first row looking at each other, and this will force many of them or the majority to confirm what that speaker was saying. That's peer pressure.

I assure you, that speaker is ****ing idiot. At the beginning he says i'm not a scholar then he goes and act like one. They should kick him out rather than allowing him to be the speaker or moderator of an Islamic conference.

Now assuming that the entire hall agreed with what the man said, that doesn't mean in anyway that more than 1 billion around the world will agree with them.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'll start with the points you raised in this post then will jump to that video in his link.



In my personal opinion, i believe in the theory of evolution. I believe that homosexuality is natural. I believe that we can't judge who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. Everything i say doesn't contradict even one bit with the Quran. I accept all well established scientific facts unless there was still a debate about it then i can't decide for sure.

Then you are different from an alarming number of Muslims. The linked statistics show that not only do most Muslims support stoning, for example, but they also believe that homosexuality is immoral, that women must always obey their husbands (emphasis on "always," which opens up many doors to domestic abuse), and that leaving Islam is a capital offense.

This is why I think Sam Harris is absolutely right about his definition of religious moderation: the number of Muslims who hold such views is so large that one can only wonder why those beliefs are so common among them even in developed countries. If a perfect, eternal book of truth teaches against hateful beliefs, then why do so many Muslims hold those views? Wouldn't such a book have the potential to at least affect the majority of them so that they don't have incorrect or intolerant opinions?

He is free to believe whether homosexuals are to be treated legally just like heterosexuals or not for many reasons. Many countries around the world if not most still don't allow same-sex marriage. No one accused them of being extreme as far as i know. That include--but not limited to--an entire continent as big and as diverse as Asia.

His freedom to believe what he does isn't in question here; what I'm bringing up is that his views point to a worrying trend in Muslim communities where even educated people like Tariq Ramadan can have a lot of incorrect and intolerant beliefs and yet still be viewed as moderate.

As for other countries, I think that's an appeal to the masses. Russia has been internationally criticized for its anti-LGBT laws. Brunei has been criticized and faced boycotts for the same reason. The U.S., among other countries, cut funding to Uganda for the same reason as well.

I do think there's relatively little condemnation of the fact that same-sex marriage is not allowed in so many countries, however. In my opinion, this is evidence that another one of Sam Harris's statements was also correct:

Tolerance, openness to argument, openness to self-doubt, willingness to see other people's points of view - these are very liberal and enlightened values that people are right to hold, but we can't allow them to delude us to the point where we can't recognize people who are needlessly perpetrating human misery.

I think the lack of strong international sanctions on countries like Brunei and Iran for their violations of human rights is evidence that a lot of people, including ones with power to cause change, are all too tolerant of such violations even if they themselves don't commit them.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Until you get back to me i'll go on to address the video. My honest opinion is something which you personally can relate to. Imagine young people in the presence of a supposed authority and he questions, not their reasoning and personal opinion, but their loyalty to the religion and to the Muslim community.

Please go back and watch the video. You will see many of them in the first row looking at each other, and this will force many of them or the majority to confirm what that speaker was saying. That's peer pressure.

I assure you, that speaker is ****ing idiot. At the beginning he says i'm not a scholar then he goes and act like one. They should kick him out rather than allowing him to be the speaker or moderator of an Islamic conference.

Now assuming that the entire hall agreed with what the man said, that doesn't mean in anyway that more than 1 billion around the world will agree with them.

I think a relatively small number of people attending a speech by a non-scholar isn't absolute evidence of anything, but it can be cited as a precursor to a larger trend. In my previous post, I linked to an article citing several Pew polls from the Muslim world to explain what I'm talking about here.

 

[TashaN]

Then you are different from an alarming number of Muslims. The linked statistics show that not only do most Muslims support stoning, for example, but they also believe that homosexuality is immoral, that women must always obey their husbands (emphasis on "always," which opens up many doors to domestic abuse), and that leaving Islam is a capital offense.

My job involves data analysis and i know for sure how these things work. Anyone can direct statistics in anyway he/she see fit. I'll only believe it if i have access to a sample of the precise series of questions and the precise answers that were given. Many loaded questions can be used to manipulate a study.

Moreover, in many topics, lay men can have a saying while those in authority have something else to say. For example if you go to the south of America, what they might wish for might be different than what the federal law says. Don't you agree with me?

This is why I think Sam Harris is absolutely right about his definition of religious moderation: the number of Muslims who hold such views is so large that one can only wonder why those beliefs are so common among them even in developed countries. If a perfect, eternal book of truth teaches against hateful beliefs, then why do so many Muslims hold those views? Wouldn't such a book have the potential to at least affect the majority of them so that they don't have incorrect or intolerant opinions?

First of all, i already voiced my opinion of these polls. Secondly, i think you need to double check what Sam Harris is saying. He is not saying some or many, but ALL of those who believe a text to be the word of God is not moderate, just like me. He didn't say if you believe in so and so you are an extreme but rather if you believed in a text to be the absolute word of God, which makes me extreme in his opinion.

How can you explain that?

His freedom to believe what he does isn't in question here; what I'm bringing up is that his views point to a worrying trend in Muslim communities where even educated people like Tariq Ramadan can have a lot of incorrect and intolerant beliefs and yet still be viewed as moderate.

How do you define incorrect and intolerant beliefs? He is being honest. He said he does respect homosexuals and their choice of life but he believe it is against Islam. How is that intolerant or an incorrect thing to say?

As for other countries, I think that's an appeal to the masses. Russia has been

internationally criticized for its anti-LGBT laws. Brunei has been criticized and faced boycotts for the same reason. The U.S., among other countries, cut funding to Uganda for the same reason as well.

US should be the last country to speak about this since many states still don't recognize same sex marriage.

I do think there's relatively little condemnation of the fact that same-sex marriage is not allowed in so many countries, however. In my opinion, this is evidence that another one of Sam Harris's statements was also correct:

I think the lack of strong international sanctions on countries like Brunei and Iran for their violations of human rights is evidence that a lot of people, including ones with power to cause change, are all too tolerant of such violations even if they themselves don't commit them.

If there were a single Muslim state, and the entire world legalized same sex marriage, and that Muslim state didn't, i don't see why would that Muslim state be intolerant.

 

[Debater Slayer]

My job involves data analysis and i know for sure how these things work. Anyone can direct statistics in anyway he/she see fit. I'll only believe it if i have access to a sample of the precise series of questions and the precise answers that were given. Many loaded questions can be used to manipulate a study.

Moreover, in many topics, lay men can have a saying while those in authority have something else to say. For example if you go to the south of America, what they might wish for might be different than what the federal law says. Don't you agree with me?

Yes, but then one has to look at the current state of the Muslim world after the "Arab Spring" and what people themselves chose freely after previous regimes were ousted. Let's look at them one by one.

Tunisia: Possibly the only country in the Arab world where secularists beat Islamists in elections.

Egypt: Islamists dominated parliamentary elections. Islamist president was elected afterward. Majority of people voted in favor of a religiously dominated constitution, which contained these conditions:

• Sharia remains the main source of legislation
• Al-Azhar, Sunni Islam's leading authority, to be consulted on "matters related to Sharia"
• Christianity and Judaism to be the main source of legislation for Christians and Jews
• Right to beliefs protected; state's obligations limited to Islam, Christianity and Judaism
• Limits president to two four-year terms of office

Libya: Secular parties won parliamentary elections. Secular parliament later dissolved by a ruling of Libya's supreme court. Civil war erupted until president was killed. War still ongoing between factions in the country.

Syria: Civil war erupted mainly between Islamist factions and the army of al-Assad's regime, with al-Assad using chemical weapons and internationally recognized terrorist groups joining the fight against him. War crimes on both sides of the conflict.

And then there are the opinions of many widely venerated Muslims scholars. For example:

• Yusuf al-Qaradawi, chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars—emphasis on international, i.e., not limited to undeveloped or poor countries—holds this belief about homosexuality:

On 5 June 2006, on the Al Jazeera program Sharia and Life, al-Qaradawi (a regular on the program) reiterated orthodox views on homosexuality.[103] When asked about the punishment for people who "practise liwaat (sodomy) or sihaaq (lesbian activity)", al-Qaradawi replied: "The same punishment as any sexual pervert – the same as the fornicator." (MEMRI translation).[104] The punishment for fornication is lashing.

• Muhammad Mutawalli Ash-Sha'raawi, one of the most venerated Qur'anic scholars in the Arab world, stated that leaving Islam was a capital offense even for people who were born into Islam.

• When asked about his opinion regarding Osama bin Laden and 9/11 in a television interview, Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, one of the most supported Islamist politicians in Egypt, refused to call Bin Laden a terrorist and said, "May Allah have mercy on him."

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There have been many protests against satirical cartoons depicting Muhammad, as you know, but I have yet to hear of any protests against the following events that took place in Muslim countries:

• In 2010, Waleed Al-Husseini, Palestinian blogger, was arrested on charges of blasphemy. He spent months in prison and faced disownment by family members. He later fled the country and currently resides in France.

• In 2011, Aliaa al-Mahdy, Egyptian blogger and secular activist, received death threats, was kidnapped, and escaped a rape attempt for publishing a nude photo of herself on her Blogspot page. She now resides in Sweden as a refugee.

Her boyfriend, Kareem Amer (also a blogger and secular activist), fled to Norway after being threatened for his secularist views.

• In 2012, Hamza Kashgari, Saudi blogger, was arrested on charges of blasphemy. He faced the possibility of being executed according to the country's penal code. He was later released after two years of imprisonment, during which he supposedly "repented" from what he had said before.

• In 2014, Raif Badawi, Saudi blogger, was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for openly expressing his secular views.

Considering how many protests there have been in the Muslim world over satirical cartoons, I think it is reasonable to conclude that if any significant number of people there had an issue with any of the above incidents, they would protest against them as well. The lack of such protests should be an indication of the ideological inclinations of most of the Muslim world, as far as I can see.

First of all, i already voiced my opinion of these polls. Secondly, i think you need to double check what Sam Harris is saying. He is not saying some or many, but ALL of those who believe a text to be the word of God is not moderate, just like me. He didn't say if you believe in so and so you are an extreme but rather if you believed in a text to be the absolute word of God, which makes me extreme in his opinion.

How can you explain that?

If you don't believe that eternal punishment for non-belief is an Islamic teaching or that humans descend from Adam and Eve, then I don't think you're one of the people Sam Harris was talking about, i.e., those who take scripture literally.

Since you can read Arabic, I assume the verses concerning eternal punishment as well as Adam and Eve are very clear to you; if you interpret them in a way that allows for a perspective other than non-belief being punishable by residing in an eternal hell or other than belief that humans directly descend from Adam and Eve rather than sharing a common ancestor with apes, then I don't think you're interpreting the texts absolutely literally.

At least to my understanding, the text of the verses about Hell in particular is so clear that it requires one not to read it literally if they don't believe in eternal punishment.

How do you define incorrect and intolerant beliefs? He is being honest. He said he does respect homosexuals and their choice of life but he believe it is against Islam. How is that intolerant or an incorrect thing to say?

It is incorrect because it goes against the medical consensus that homosexuality is as healthy as heterosexuality and intolerant because it is no different from saying that black people shouldn't have the legal right to marry or adopt but that they should be "respected as people."

US should be the last country to speak about this since many states still don't recognize same sex marriage.

At least the U.S. has taken many steps toward giving LGBT people equal rights, but I do agree. Not only does the U.S. still have issues with LGBT rights, but I also think it does very little in the way of imposing sanctions or boycotting countries that clearly violate human rights—in fact, it outright supports them in many cases.

If there were a single Muslim state, and the entire world legalized same sex marriage, and that Muslim state didn't, i don't see why would that Muslim state be intolerant.

It would be intolerant in much the same way a state would be intolerant if it denied people of any given race or skin color the right to marry. You said that you believe homosexuality is natural. Consequently, saying that being homosexual is grounds for not allowing marriage is logically equal to saying that being black—another natural trait—should be grounds for not allowing marriage.

 

[TashaN]

Yes, but then one has to look at the current state of the Muslim world after the "Arab Spring" and what people themselves chose freely after previous regimes were ousted. Let's look at them one by one.

Tunisia: Possibly the only country in the Arab world where secularists beat Islamists in elections.

Egypt: Islamists dominated parliamentary elections. Islamist president was elected afterward. Majority of people voted in favor of a religiously dominated constitution, which contained these conditions:


Libya: Secular parties won parliamentary elections. Secular parliament later dissolved by a ruling of Libya's supreme court. Civil war erupted until president was killed. War still ongoing between factions in the country.

Syria: Civil war erupted mainly between Islamist factions and the army of al-Assad's regime, with al-Assad using chemical weapons and internationally recognized terrorist groups joining the fight against him. War crimes on both sides of the conflict.

Come on man. I don't think the Muslim world is at its best condition right now. You can't ignore more than 1400 years and sum it up in couple of decades or even an entire century.

The Muslims are just human beings. They are not angels. Europeans were living in the dark age in the past and they had their share of hatred, racism, enslavement, imperialism, and destruction of so many nations. Blood is all over their hand. When it comes to the Muslims, they had their bad moments but overall we were the most merciful, the most peaceful, and the most tolerant, and that's by judging the entire 1400 years period, not just the last couple of decades.

You can easily tell me look around you, how miserable Muslims are, and i would agree with you, but i won't allow anyone to judge Islam itself because of our recent history alone. That would be dishonest and an act of ignorance at best.

By the way, my parents fled to Saudi Arabia because of christian Ethiopian colonization and massacres they have committed. Before that, my grandfather fled Timbuktu in Mali because of the French colonization, shutting down Arabic schools and forcing them to learn French, not to mention the horrible things they did there. Before that our ancestors fled Al-Andalus/Spain because of Christian persecution of Muslims and forcing them to either convert or get killed, and at times when they were tired of killing they forced them to leave. I guess you know what happened there.

This was my personal history. Now let's go to the bigger picture and what happened to the Muslims. Hmmm, where do i start? do i start from Sykes–Picot and the forced creation of Israel, or to recent events like invading Iraq, Afghanistan. Or how about the drones killing people by the dozen in couple of countries like Yemen? or how about recent invasion of France of Mali and fighting one side over another?

Even after all of this, only us Muslims are responsible for being weak, but i accept this fact and i don't blame the others for being winners.

You know what? i also don't blame those who are impressed by the winners of today, the West. Ibn Khaldun said in his book Al Moqadima that the losing nations follow the winning nations. It's only natural that they have the upper hand and they only can define what is right and what is wrong.

And then there are the opinions of many widely venerated Muslims scholars. For example:

• Yusuf al-Qaradawi, chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars—emphasis on international, i.e., not limited to undeveloped or poor countries—holds this belief about homosexuality:

This is Islamic law which punish those who do sexual acts out of marriage like fornication and sodomy. I don't understand your question.

• Muhammad Mutawalli Ash-Sha'raawi, one of the most venerated Qur'anic scholars in the Arab world, stated that leaving Islam was a capital offense even for people who were born into Islam.

He is a Tafseer scholar but not a Figh فقه scholar, nor a judge. Anyhow i'm interested to read what he said exactly. Do you happen to have the source?

• When asked about his opinion regarding Osama bin Laden and 9/11 in a television interview, Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, one of the most supported Islamist politicians in Egypt, refused to call Bin Laden a terrorist and said, "May Allah have mercy on him."

That's his opinion.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There have been many protests against satirical cartoons depicting Muhammad, as you know, but I have yet to hear of any protests against the following events that took place in Muslim countries:

• In 2010, Waleed Al-Husseini, Palestinian blogger, was arrested on charges of blasphemy. He spent months in prison and faced disownment by family members. He later fled the country and currently resides in France.

• In 2011, Aliaa al-Mahdy, Egyptian blogger and secular activist, received death threats, was kidnapped, and escaped a rape attempt for publishing a nude photo of herself on her Blogspot page. She now resides in Sweden as a refugee.

Her boyfriend, Kareem Amer (also a blogger and secular activist), fled to Norway after being threatened for his secularist views.

• In 2012, Hamza Kashgari, Saudi blogger, was arrested on charges of blasphemy. He faced the possibility of being executed according to the country's penal code. He was later released after two years of imprisonment, during which he supposedly "repented" from what he had said before.

• In 2014, Raif Badawi, Saudi blogger, was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for openly expressing his secular views.

Considering how many protests there have been in the Muslim world over satirical cartoons, I think it is reasonable to conclude that if any significant number of people there had an issue with any of the above incidents, they would protest against them as well. The lack of such protests should be an indication of the ideological inclinations of most of the Muslim world, as far as I can see.

I'm really sorry, but i already have explained that we are not at our best situation right now in term of freedom, knowledge, independence, etc. So i hope we will focus on Islam itself, not Muslims.

I don't want to justify why Muslims do this or that. I know we have many ignorant Muslims. let's not forget that Sam Harris's issue is not with Muslims, but rather with Islam itself, and i hope we will focus on that since it's our topic. Threads about Muslims actions are all over the forums and i rarely participate in them. My main focus now is revival of Islam itself and the validity of Islam itself as Deen, a way of life.

If you don't believe that eternal punishment for non-belief is an Islamic teaching or that humans descend from Adam and Eve, then I don't think you're one of the people Sam Harris was talking about, i.e., those who take scripture literally.

Since you can read Arabic, I assume the verses concerning eternal punishment as well as Adam and Eve are very clear to you; if you interpret them in a way that allows for a perspective other than non-belief being punishable by residing in an eternal hell or other than belief that humans directly descend from Adam and Eve rather than sharing a common ancestor with apes, then I don't think you're interpreting the texts absolutely literally.

At least to my understanding, the text of the verses about Hell in particular is so clear that it requires one not to read it literally if they don't believe in eternal punishment.

I take the scriptures literally, very literally. Let me give you examples of what i believe in.

ِAbout hell (In Arabic):

Regarding Adam and Eve, what do you think that Quran says about them? and why you think it contradict with the theory of evolution?

It is incorrect because it goes against the medical consensus that homosexuality is as healthy as heterosexuality

Did he say it was medically proven to be unhealthy?

and intolerant because it is no different from saying that black people shouldn't have the legal right to marry or adopt but that they should be "respected as people."

It's not the same thing. There is no racism in Islam, but there well known restrictions in eating, sexuality, etc. For example, i can't do fornication--hetrosexual act--because it's against islamic faith and law. We also don't eat pork and many other non halal food. We don't consume alcohol. We don't hate all these things. It is just Allah's intention for Muslims. If one doesn't wish to obey these things then he can choose any other religion, and live in a non-Muslim country.

At least the U.S. has taken many steps toward giving LGBT people equal rights, but I do agree. Not only does the U.S. still have issues with LGBT rights, but I also think it does very little in the way of imposing sanctions or boycotting countries that clearly violate human rights—in fact, it outright supports them in many cases.

It would be intolerant in much the same way a state would be intolerant if it denied people of any given race or skin color the right to marry. You said that you believe homosexuality is natural. Consequently, saying that being homosexual is grounds for not allowing marriage is logically equal to saying that being black—another natural trait—should be grounds for not allowing marriage.

Fornication is natural too, but it's not allowed in Islam as you know.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Come on man. I don't think the Muslim world is at its best condition right now. You can't ignore more than 1400 years and sum it up in couple of decades or even an entire century.

The Muslims are just human beings. They are not angels. Europeans were living in the dark age in the past and they had their share of hatred, racism, enslavement, imperialism, and destruction of so many nations. Blood is all over their hand. When it comes to the Muslims, they had their bad moments but overall we were the most merciful, the most peaceful, and the most tolerant, and that's by judging the entire 1400 years period, not just the last couple of decades.

You can easily tell me look around you, how miserable Muslims are, and i would agree with you, but i won't allow anyone to judge Islam itself because of our recent history alone. That would be dishonest and an act of ignorance at best.

By the way, my parents fled to Saudi Arabia because of christian Ethiopian colonization and massacres they have committed. Before that, my grandfather fled Timbuktu in Mali because of the French colonization, shutting down Arabic schools and forcing them to learn French, not to mention the horrible things they did there. Before that our ancestors fled Al-Andalus/Spain because of Christian persecution of Muslims and forcing them to either convert or get killed, and at times when they were tired of killing they forced them to leave. I guess you know what happened there.

This was my personal history. Now let's go to the bigger picture and what happened to the Muslims. Hmmm, where do i start? do i start from Sykes–Picot and the forced creation of Israel, or to recent events like invading Iraq, Afghanistan. Or how about the drones killing people by the dozen in couple of countries like Yemen? or how about recent invasion of France of Mali and fighting one side over another?

Even after all of this, only us Muslims are responsible for being weak, but i accept this fact and i don't blame the others for being winners.

You know what? i also don't blame those who are impressed by the winners of today, the West. Ibn Khaldun said in his book Al Moqadima that the losing nations follow the winning nations. It's only natural that they have the upper hand and they only can define what is right and what is wrong.

I think one of the most overlooked facts about the Islamic Golden Age is that the rulers back then believed in a lot of the same things that people like Sam Harris criticize today. It's not like Muslim scholars didn't believe that non-believers would go to Hell back then or that homosexuals shouldn't be given equal rights to heterosexuals.

Personally, I always make sure to maintain a distinction between scientific progress and ethical or philosophical progress. China, for example, is scientifically advanced compared to many countries, but its ethical progress is just abysmal. It is an example from the extreme end of the spectrum, but I think it illustrates the distinction rather well.

As for what you said about Christian countries and the invasion of other countries by the U.S., France, etc., I don't have a particularly high opinion of the history of Christendom either. In fact, I view it as one of the bloodiest and most shameful track records of any culture. I also generally view the Pentagon as a glorified terrorist organization, quite literally. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were an affront to human rights in every possible way.

All of the above, however, doesn't change what people like Sam Harris criticize about religion. Since you said you would like to focus on the religion itself, I'm going to do that in my upcoming posts. I think that would actually be easier for me because I can quote Qur'anic verses to illustrate my points much faster than I can dig up statistics about Muslim countries.

This is Islamic law which punish those who do sexual acts out of marriage like fornication and sodomy. I don't understand your question.

But Islam itself doesn't even recognize same-sex marriage. This effectively means that every homosexual act is going to be considered out-of-marriage fornication.

Furthermore, I don't see the problem with consensual relationships between adults out of marriage. Why should they be punished for engaging in such relationships in the first place?

He is a Tafseer scholar but not a Figh فقه scholar, nor a judge. Anyhow i'm interested to read what he said exactly. Do you happen to have the source?

I'm more interested in the fact that he's still so revered in the Muslim world despite expressing such an opinion.

I wanted to avoid posting the video because it's in Arabic and this is an English-speaking forum, but here's the source:

That's his opinion.

I never said otherwise. It's his opinion, and a very telling one at that.

I'm really sorry, but i already have explained that we are not at our best situation right now in term of freedom, knowledge, independence, etc. So i hope we will focus on Islam itself, not Muslims.

I don't want to justify why Muslims do this or that. I know we have many ignorant Muslims. let's not forget that Sam Harris's issue is not with Muslims, but rather with Islam itself, and i hope we will focus on that since it's our topic. Threads about Muslims actions are all over the forums and i rarely participate in them. My main focus now is revival of Islam itself and the validity of Islam itself as Deen, a way of life.

As I said above, focusing on the religion itself would actually be easier for me, so I'm fully ready to do that if you would like to take the discussion in that direction. It would be helpful if you listed the opinions of Sam Harris that you consider to be Islamophobic so that we can discuss them.

I take the scriptures literally, very literally. Let me give you examples of what i believe in.

ِAbout hell (In Arabic):

The scholar in the video categorizes those who don't accept Islam into four types: those who never heard of Islam before death, and those can go to Heaven, according to him; those who received a distorted image of Islam before death, and those can also go to Heaven; those who sought the truth and reached the conclusion that God exists but didn't follow Islam, and those can go to Heaven as well; and those who received Islam's message and "saw all the evidence, facts, and signs that Islam is true yet rejected and denied them," and those go to Hell, according to him.

What he didn't consider, however, is that there are people who do understand the teachings of Islam but find the religion unconvincing and don't think it has enough evidence for them to follow it. What he considers evidence that couldn't possibly be unconvincing is actually and genuinely unconvincing to many people. I think that's where his argument falls flat, especially when he implies that anyone who honestly seeks truth necessarily ends up believing in a deity.

Regarding Adam and Eve, what do you think that Quran says about them? and why you think it contradict with the theory of evolution?

I think the Qur'an is clear in its teaching that the verses about them are not metaphors or allegories but rather a description of events involving actual people. Surat al-Baqarah (second Surah of the Qur'an) particularly relates the story of Adam in detail.

Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was.

And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know."

And He taught Adam the names - all of them. Then He showed them to the angels and said, "Inform Me of the names of these, if you are truthful."

They said, "Exalted are You; we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. Indeed, it is You who is the Knowing, the Wise."

He said, "O Adam, inform them of their names." And when he had informed them of their names, He said, "Did I not tell you that I know the unseen [aspects] of the heavens and the earth? And I know what you reveal and what you have concealed."

And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate before Adam"; so they prostrated, except for Iblees. He refused and was arrogant and became of the disbelievers.

And We said, "O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise and eat therefrom in [ease and] abundance from wherever you will. But do not approach this tree, lest you be among the wrongdoers."

But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that [condition] in which they had been. And We said, "Go down, [all of you], as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time."

Then Adam received from his Lord [some] words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, it is He who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.

We said, "Go down from it, all of you. And when guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows My guidance - there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.

(All translations from The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم )

Did he say it was medically proven to be unhealthy?

I think saying that he disapproves of the legal equality of LGBT people implies that he either believes their "lifestyle" is unhealthy or that it is harmful merely because his beliefs state so. If he believes that it is unhealthy, then he's empirically wrong. If he doesn't believe that it's unhealthy but opposes it anyway, then his position is utterly irrational.

It's not the same thing. There is no racism in Islam, but there well known restrictions in eating, sexuality, etc. For example, i can't do fornication--hetrosexual act--because it's against islamic faith and law. We also don't eat pork and many other non halal food. We don't consume alcohol. We don't hate all these things. It is just Allah's intention for Muslims. If one doesn't wish to obey these things then he can choose any other religion, and live in a non-Muslim country.

For one thing, Tariq Ramadan and many other scholars don't just disapprove of the freedom to engage in acts they consider sinful for Muslims only; they disapprove of that freedom for anyone. When Tariq Ramadan stated his opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage, for instance, he didn't specify whether he was talking about Muslims only or non-Muslims as well. Being that he lives in a non-Muslim country, I can only wonder if he would support restriction of the freedoms of homosexuals in the country he lives in.

For another thing, living in a non-Muslim country is not a possibility for everyone. There are those who can't afford to leave the countries they were born in. There are also those who wouldn't want to leave all of their family and friends behind to have basic rights. This, again, is like saying that a black person should leave his or her country if he/she doesn't want to live under a law that forbade his/her right to marriage or equality under the law.

Fornication is natural too, but it's not allowed in Islam as you know.

Then that brings up the question of why it's not allowed to begin with. Why is sex outside marriage not allowed in Islam, and why are all homosexual acts considered sinful according to Islam?

 

[TashaN]

I think one of the most overlooked facts about the Islamic Golden Age is that the rulers back then believed in a lot of the same things that people like Sam Harris criticize today. It's not like Muslim scholars didn't believe that non-believers would go to Hell back then or that homosexuals shouldn't be given equal rights to heterosexuals.

Personally, I always make sure to maintain a distinction between scientific progress and ethical or philosophical progress. China, for example, is scientifically advanced compared to many countries, but its ethical progress is just abysmal. It is an example from the extreme end of the spectrum, but I think it illustrates the distinction rather well.

As for what you said about Christian countries and the invasion of other countries by the U.S., France, etc., I don't have a particularly high opinion of the history of Christendom either. In fact, I view it as one of the bloodiest and most shameful track records of any culture. I also generally view the Pentagon as a glorified terrorist organization, quite literally. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were an affront to human rights in every possible way.

All of the above, however, doesn't change what people like Sam Harris criticize about religion. Since you said you would like to focus on the religion itself, I'm going to do that in my upcoming posts. I think that would actually be easier for me because I can quote Qur'anic verses to illustrate my points much faster than I can dig up statistics about Muslim countries.

Awesome! let's have a go at it.

But Islam itself doesn't even recognize same-sex marriage. This effectively means that every homosexual act is going to be considered out-of-marriage fornication.

Furthermore, I don't see the problem with consensual relationships between adults out of marriage. Why should they be punished for engaging in such relationships in the first place?

If i gave you some reasons, will that change your opinion?

I can give you many reasons but then that won't change the fact at the end that this is how Allah wanted it to be. Those who believe in Islam will follow Allah's teachings.

I'm more interested in the fact that he's still so revered in the Muslim world despite expressing such an opinion.

I wanted to avoid posting the video because it's in Arabic and this is an English-speaking forum, but here's the source:

He is just a human being, after all. He has great knowledge and wisdom from the Quran, but he is not expert in Figh nor studied the law or ever became a judge since these things are treated on a case by case basis in courts only.

By the way, even many companion of Prophet Mohamed had their share of bad decisions or opinions but they are still the elite and great examples for us to follow in term of their faith and being sincere.

I never said otherwise. It's his opinion, and a very telling one at that.

Ok then.

As I said above, focusing on the religion itself would actually be easier for me, so I'm fully ready to do that if you would like to take the discussion in that direction. It would be helpful if you listed the opinions of Sam Harris that you consider to be Islamophobic so that we can discuss them.

One sign of religious moderation is not being too sure about the divine origin of any book.

Who Are the Moderate Muslims? : : Sam Harris

Religious moderation is the result of not taking scripture all that seriously. So why not take these books less seriously still? Why not admit that they are just books, written by fallible human beings like ourselves?

Sam Harris vs. Andrew Sullivan : : Sam Harris

And when they asked him why he doesn't criticize Israel and Jews he said:

Now, this is an incredibly boring and depressing question for a variety of reasons. The first, is that I have criticized both Israel and Judaism. What seems to have upset many people is that I’ve kept some sense of proportion. There are something like 15 million Jews on earth at this moment; there are a hundred times as many Muslims.
Why Don’t I Criticize Israel? : Sam Harris

He mean since Muslims are more than Jews, let's go for the Muslims. That is the lamest excuse ever!

In this video he says that 9/11 is not about terrorists but about Islam, the faith itself and he expanded how all these acts are because of the faith itself.

I noticed that his problem is that he FIRMLY believe that he already knows Islam but he doesn't.

The scholar in the video categorizes those who don't accept Islam into four types: those who never heard of Islam before death, and those can go to Heaven, according to him; those who received a distorted image of Islam before death, and those can also go to Heaven; those who sought the truth and reached the conclusion that God exists but didn't follow Islam, and those can go to Heaven as well; and those who received Islam's message and "saw all the evidence, facts, and signs that Islam is true yet rejected and denied them," and those go to Hell, according to him.

What he didn't consider, however, is that there are people who do understand the teachings of Islam but find the religion unconvincing and don't think it has enough evidence for them to follow it. What he considers evidence that couldn't possibly be unconvincing is actually and genuinely unconvincing to many people. I think that's where his argument falls flat, especially when he implies that anyone who honestly seeks truth necessarily ends up believing in a deity.

Let me give you an example of what an understanding mean. In our exchange, how many times did you think that you already understood certain things about Islam which turned out to be something else other than what you understood?

Allah will judge people in the *correct* understanding, not just assuming that they understood. Let me give you an example of someone who knows the truth then reject it from the Quran itself.


{95} قَالَ فَمَا خَطْبُكَ يَا سَامِرِيُّ
(Musa) said: "What then is thy case. O Samiri?"

{96} قَالَ بَصُرْتُ بِمَا لَمْ يَبْصُرُوا بِهِ فَقَبَضْتُ قَبْضَةً مِنْ أَثَرِ الرَّسُولِ فَنَبَذْتُهَا وَكَذَلِكَ سَوَّلَتْ لِي نَفْسِي
He replied: "I saw what they saw not, so I took a handful (of dust) from the footprint of the Messenger, and threw it (into the calf): thus did my soul suggest to me."

{97} قَالَ فَاذْهَبْ فَإِنَّ لَكَ فِي الْحَيَاةِ أَنْ تَقُولَ لَا مِسَاسَ وَإِنَّ لَكَ مَوْعِدًا لَنْ تُخْلَفَهُ وَانْظُرْ إِلَى إِلَهِكَ الَّذِي ظَلْتَ عَلَيْهِ عَاكِفًا لَنُحَرِّقَنَّهُ ثُمَّ لَنَنْسِفَنَّهُ فِي الْيَمِّ نَسْفًا
(Musa) said: "Get thee gone! but thy (punishment) in this life will be that thou wilt say, 'Touch me not'; and moreover (for a future penalty) thou hast a promise that will not fail: now look at thy god, of whom thou hast become a devoted worshipper: we will certainly (melt) it in a blazing fire and scatter it broadcast in the sea!"

Surah 20.

Below is the Tafseer for it:
تفاسير وتراجم القرآن - القرآن الكريم - موقع الإسلام

Al Samiri knew what he was doing. The same can be said about Satan. He knew who was God, but he didn't approve the superiority of Adam over him in the well known story in the Quran.

So, if you think you understand what Islam is, but according to Allah it appeared that you didn't, then you easily fall in the category of those who are sincere but didn't reach to the truth.

I think the Qur'an is clear in its teaching that the verses about them are not metaphors or allegories but rather a description of events involving actual people.

Surat al-Baqarah (second Surah of the Qur'an) particularly relates the story of Adam in detail.
(All translations from The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم )

I totally agree. Again, i don't understand how does it contradict with the theory of evolution. Re-read the verses you posted and let me know please.

I think saying that he disapproves of the legal equality of LGBT people implies that he either believes their "lifestyle" is unhealthy or that it is harmful merely because his beliefs state so. If he believes that it is unhealthy, then he's empirically wrong. If he doesn't believe that it's unhealthy but opposes it anyway, then his position is utterly irrational.

He didn't say these things, so they are just nothing but mere assumptions. He said he respect their choice but it's against Islam. That's all.

For one thing, Tariq Ramadan and many other scholars don't just disapprove of the freedom to engage in acts they consider sinful for Muslims only; they disapprove of that freedom for anyone. When Tariq Ramadan stated his opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage, for instance, he didn't specify whether he was talking about Muslims only or non-Muslims as well. Being that he lives in a non-Muslim country, I can only wonder if he would support restriction of the freedoms of homosexuals in the country he lives in.

Again, just assumptions. If he can't ask non-Muslims to pray, fast, and do zakat, etc then why would he ask them not to do fornication or sodomy? it doesn't make sense.

For another thing, living in a non-Muslim country is not a possibility for everyone. There are those who can't afford to leave the countries they were born in. There are also those who wouldn't want to leave all of their family and friends behind to have basic rights. This, again, is like saying that a black person should leave his or her country if he/she doesn't want to live under a law that forbade his/her right to marriage or equality under the law.

It's not the same. A black person can't hide his skin. On the other hand, a homosexual can simply engage in a homosexual life without having to make it public and no one will care.

In fact, there is a law in Islam which states that spying is against Islam and anyone who get caught for doing let's say fornication or sodomy after being spied on inside their house so they shouldn't be punished nor should any legal action be done against them. In Islam people are free to do whatever they want inside their private property and that include drinking alcohol, fornication, sodomy, and anything which doesn't harm the society but rather is a personal violation of Islam.

There is a story about the second Caliph knowing about someone drinking alcohol but he didn't do anything to him because he was doing it inside his house, and there is no way of knowing for sure unless he spied on him, so he didn't do anything.

وقد ذكر القرطبي أن عبد الرحمن بن عوف قال: حرست ليلة مع عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه بالمدينة إذ تبين لنا سراج في بيت بابه مجاف على قوم لهم أصوات مرتفعة ولفظ فقال عمر: هذا بيت ربيعة بن أمية بن خلف وهم الآن شرب فما ترى؟ قلت أرى أنا قد أتينا ما نهى الله عنه قال تعالى: ( ولا تجسسوا ) وقد تجسسنا فانصرف عمر وتركهم. فإذا ثبتت هذه الرواية عن عمر فليس فيها ما يدل على أن عمر ارتكب خطأ . فهو لم يثبت عنده أنهم يشربون الخمر غاية ما في الأمر أنه ظن ذلك ظناً، ولا يستطيع التأكد منه إلا بطريق التجسس وقد نهى الله عن التجسس. ولو ثبت عند عمر أنهم شربوا خمراً لما توانى في إقامة الحد عليهم وهو المعروف بقوته في الحق وحرصه الكامل على إقامة الحدود. والله أعلم.

So you wouldn't think i'm just being politically correct, below you can find the evidence and sources from Quran and hadith which proves my point.

الدرر السنية - الموسوعة العقدية - المطلب الثالث: أن يكون المنكر ظاهراً من غير تجسس

Nevertheless, if what you are looking for is a public recognition and legalizing same sex marriage then that's not gonna happen because it's against Islam.

Then that brings up the question of why it's not allowed to begin with. Why is sex outside marriage not allowed in Islam, and why are all homosexual acts considered sinful according to Islam?

There are many reasons. Again let me ask you as i asked you before. Will the reasons that i might provide be sufficient to accept it or no reason will change your stance and objection for why it's not allowed in Islam?

 

[Debater Slayer]

If i gave you some reasons, will that change your opinion?

I can give you many reasons but then that won't change the fact at the end that this is how Allah wanted it to be. Those who believe in Islam will follow Allah's teachings.

It's not necessarily about changing my mind. If there's enough evidence for a position, I will accept it and concede that I was wrong about it. I have done so before, actually, but I just don't see that kind of evidence to warrant changing my mind here.

I think the main problem is when those who don't believe in Islam are required to follow Islamic laws, which is what Tariq Ramadan was implying when he said that he was against legalizing same-sex marriage.

He is just a human being, after all. He has great knowledge and wisdom from the Quran, but he is not expert in Figh nor studied the law or ever became a judge since these things are treated on a case by case basis in courts only.

By the way, even many companion of Prophet Mohamed had their share of bad decisions or opinions but they are still the elite and great examples for us to follow in term of their faith and being sincere.

Fair enough.

One sign of religious moderation is not being too sure about the divine origin of any book.

Who Are the Moderate Muslims? : : Sam Harris

Religious moderation is the result of not taking scripture all that seriously. So why not take these books less seriously still? Why not admit that they are just books, written by fallible human beings like ourselves?

Sam Harris vs. Andrew Sullivan : : Sam Harris

I think he is quite right here.

As I said earlier, if one is certain that they have the eternal, unchangeable truth about the universe and how life should be governed, their openness to reform or change their opinions is greatly compromised. This is why we see educated religious people being perfectly fine with believing that a deity sent plagues and pests to punish an entire people in the past, or that animals were packed into a ship when a flood happened as a punishment for not believing in a deity.

Admitting that religious texts can be wrong and that they were written by human beings who were prone to error doesn't mean one has to abandon their faith; it just means that their faith is flexible enough to accept new facts and evidence rather than being fixed on just one static point of view.

And when they asked him why he doesn't criticize Israel and Jews he said:

Now, this is an incredibly boring and depressing question for a variety of reasons. The first, is that I have criticized both Israel and Judaism. What seems to have upset many people is that I’ve kept some sense of proportion. There are something like 15 million Jews on earth at this moment; there are a hundred times as many Muslims.
Why Don’t I Criticize Israel? : Sam Harris

He mean since Muslims are more than Jews, let's go for the Muslims. That is the lamest excuse ever!

That's not what I understood from his response. As I understood it, he is merely saying that Islamic extremism poses a greater threat overall because the number of Muslims is much larger than that of Jews. If 5% of all Jews are terrorists (this is just an arbitrary number to give an example), we are looking at 750,000 terrorists. On the other hand, if 5% of all Muslims are terrorists, then we have 75,000,000 terrorists. I think it definitely makes sense to consider proportion when looking at an issue like this.

In this video he says that 9/11 is not about terrorists but about Islam, the faith itself and he expanded how all these acts are because of the faith itself.

I noticed that his problem is that he FIRMLY believe that he already knows Islam but he doesn't.

I think he's partially right and partially wrong in the video.

He's right that those terrorists mainly did what they did because they believed that they were serving their religion and committing an act of jihad. I mentioned earlier that an Islamist politician and preacher refused to call Osama bin Laden a terrorist; he's not the only scholar who refused to do so. In fact, there are many Muslims, including some scholars, who consider Bin Laden a martyr. They wouldn't tell you that saying that the suicide bombers were Muslim is Islamophobic; they would confidently boast that fact.

Essentially, the fact that the suicide bombers were Muslim is conceded by many Muslims. What is under contention here is what conclusions one should draw from that fact. Sam Harris is primarily criticized not because he stated that they were Muslims, but because the conclusion he drew from that fact is that their faith inspired them to commit such an act.

Where I think he is wrong, however, is his opinion that Islam teaches that jihad entails committing terrorism. I don't think it makes sense to speak of Islam as a monolithic entity; at most, we can say that most sects of Islam hold certain views, but there's no way we can say for certain that all Islamic sects share the same beliefs.

Let me give you an example of what an understanding mean. In our exchange, how many times did you think that you already understood certain things about Islam which turned out to be something else other than what you understood?

Allah will judge people in the *correct* understanding, not just assuming that they understood. Let me give you an example of someone who knows the truth then reject it from the Quran itself.

I know this might sound arrogant, but I believe the number of times I've misunderstood something about Islam in this discussion is nil. I have researched every single issue we are talking about in this thread because I struggled with them before, and I actually researched them because I wanted to accept them. What I found both from reading a lot of scholars' opinions as well as the Qur'an and hadith led me in the opposite direction.

{95} قَالَ فَمَا خَطْبُكَ يَا سَامِرِيُّ
(Musa) said: "What then is thy case. O Samiri?"

{96} قَالَ بَصُرْتُ بِمَا لَمْ يَبْصُرُوا بِهِ فَقَبَضْتُ قَبْضَةً مِنْ أَثَرِ الرَّسُولِ فَنَبَذْتُهَا وَكَذَلِكَ سَوَّلَتْ لِي نَفْسِي
He replied: "I saw what they saw not, so I took a handful (of dust) from the footprint of the Messenger, and threw it (into the calf): thus did my soul suggest to me."

{97} قَالَ فَاذْهَبْ فَإِنَّ لَكَ فِي الْحَيَاةِ أَنْ تَقُولَ لَا مِسَاسَ وَإِنَّ لَكَ مَوْعِدًا لَنْ تُخْلَفَهُ وَانْظُرْ إِلَى إِلَهِكَ الَّذِي ظَلْتَ عَلَيْهِ عَاكِفًا لَنُحَرِّقَنَّهُ ثُمَّ لَنَنْسِفَنَّهُ فِي الْيَمِّ نَسْفًا
(Musa) said: "Get thee gone! but thy (punishment) in this life will be that thou wilt say, 'Touch me not'; and moreover (for a future penalty) thou hast a promise that will not fail: now look at thy god, of whom thou hast become a devoted worshipper: we will certainly (melt) it in a blazing fire and scatter it broadcast in the sea!"

Surah 20.

Below is the Tafseer for it:
تفاسير وتراجم القرآن - القرآن الكريم - موقع الإسلام

Al Samiri knew what he was doing. The same can be said about Satan. He knew who was God, but he didn't approve the superiority of Adam over him in the well known story in the Quran.

So, if you think you understand what Islam is, but according to Allah it appeared that you didn't, then you easily fall in the category of those who are sincere but didn't reach to the truth.

Well, how many people would actually choose to suffer in Hell for eternity if they knew that they could avoid such fate? If such a category is so small, why does the Qur'an stress it so much and contain so many verses about the fate of those who fall into that category?

I totally agree. Again, i don't understand how does it contradict with the theory of evolution. Re-read the verses you posted and let me know please.

Based on current scientific knowledge, we know that humans didn't come from just two people. Believing that Adam and Eve were real people and that all humans descended from them contradicts this scientific fact.

He didn't say these things, so they are just nothing but mere assumptions. He said he respect their choice but it's against Islam. That's all.

And he also stated that he and other Muslims were against legalizing same-sex marriage. There's a difference between believing something and letting that belief influence one's actions in the real world.

Again, just assumptions. If he can't ask non-Muslims to pray, fast, and do zakat, etc then why would he ask them not to do fornication or sodomy? it doesn't make sense.

Good point. That's the main reason I find his statements quite worrying and inconsistent.

It's not the same. A black person can't hide his skin. On the other hand, a homosexual can simply engage in a homosexual life without having to make it public and no one will care.

In fact, there is a law in Islam which states that spying is against Islam and anyone who get caught for doing let's say fornication or sodomy after being spied on inside their house so they shouldn't be punished nor should any legal action be done against them. In Islam people are free to do whatever they want inside their private property and that include drinking alcohol, fornication, sodomy, and anything which doesn't harm the society but rather is a personal violation of Islam.

This essentially boils down to saying that homosexuals should remain closeted and not be able to live like heterosexual people do. If a homosexual couple walk together into a supermarket, for example, are they making their "sin" public? Should they be required not to walk together so that they don't get punished for making their relationship known in public?

There is a story about the second Caliph knowing about someone drinking alcohol but he didn't do anything to him because he was doing it inside his house, and there is no way of knowing for sure unless he spied on him, so he didn't do anything.

وقد ذكر القرطبي أن عبد الرحمن بن عوف قال: حرست ليلة مع عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه بالمدينة إذ تبين لنا سراج في بيت بابه مجاف على قوم لهم أصوات مرتفعة ولفظ فقال عمر: هذا بيت ربيعة بن أمية بن خلف وهم الآن شرب فما ترى؟ قلت أرى أنا قد أتينا ما نهى الله عنه قال تعالى: ( ولا تجسسوا ) وقد تجسسنا فانصرف عمر وتركهم. فإذا ثبتت هذه الرواية عن عمر فليس فيها ما يدل على أن عمر ارتكب خطأ . فهو لم يثبت عنده أنهم يشربون الخمر غاية ما في الأمر أنه ظن ذلك ظناً، ولا يستطيع التأكد منه إلا بطريق التجسس وقد نهى الله عن التجسس. ولو ثبت عند عمر أنهم شربوا خمراً لما توانى في إقامة الحد عليهم وهو المعروف بقوته في الحق وحرصه الكامل على إقامة الحدود. والله أعلم.

So you wouldn't think i'm just being politically correct, below you can find the evidence and sources from Quran and hadith which proves my point.

الدرر السنية - الموسوعة العقدية - المطلب الثالث: أن يكون المنكر ظاهراً من غير تجسس

Nevertheless, if what you are looking for is a public recognition and legalizing same sex marriage then that's not gonna happen because it's against Islam.

I'm well aware of that story. I find the lashing of someone for drinking alcohol to be too much. While I think the ruling against spying is beneficial, the part that many people seem to overlook is that even if someone were caught drinking alcohol, punishing them by lashing would be too severe and unjustifiable.

What you're saying about same-sex marriage proves my earlier point: in an Islamic state—even the one many Muslims envision as the "ideal" Islamic state—non-Muslims' rights would inevitably be compromised due to things like what you mentioned above. Islamic laws, by their very nature, require at least to some degree that they be applied to non-Muslims as well. Making same-sex marriage illegal is an example of this.

There are many reasons. Again let me ask you as i asked you before. Will the reasons that i might provide be sufficient to accept it or no reason will change your stance and objection for why it's not allowed in Islam?

I believe the reasons you may provide might be similar to what I've read before, but if I think they have enough evidence to back them up, I'll change my mind. I think it is extremely improbable that there's enough evidence for them, however.

 

[TashaN]

It's not necessarily about changing my mind. If there's enough evidence for a position, I will accept it and concede that I was wrong about it. I have done so before, actually, but I just don't see that kind of evidence to warrant changing my mind here.

I think the main problem is when those who don't believe in Islam are required to follow Islamic laws, which is what Tariq Ramadan was implying when he said that he was against legalizing same-sex marriage.

He didn't say so, even if that was what he meant, he is free to personally vote against it. The others who support it can vote in favor of it. What's the problem?

Fair enough.

I think he is quite right here.

As I said earlier, if one is certain that they have the eternal, unchangeable truth about the universe and how life should be governed, their openness to reform or change their opinions is greatly compromised.

I believe that the Quran has the eternal, unchangeable truth about the universe and how life should be governed.

Therefore, that would makes me an extreme in your view and in Sam's view.

This is why we see educated religious people being perfectly fine with believing that a deity sent plagues and pests to punish an entire peoples in the past, or that animals were packed into a ship when a flood happened as a punishment for not believing in a deity.

What's wrong in believing in that?

Admitting that religious texts can be wrong and that they were written by human beings who were prone to error doesn't mean one has to abandon their faith; it just means that their faith is flexible enough to accept new facts and evidence rather than being fixed on just one static point of view.

Quran is never wrong, ever! But i still consider myself very flexible to accept new facts and evidence. Try me!

That's not what I understood from his response. As I understood it, he is merely saying that Islamic extremism poses a greater threat overall because the number of Muslims is much larger than that of Jews. If 5% of all Jews are terrorists (this is just an arbitrary number to give an example), we are looking at 750,000 terrorists. On the other hand, if 5% of all Muslims are terrorists, then we have 75,000,000 terrorists. I think it definitely makes sense to consider proportion when looking at an issue like this.

Fair enough.

I think he's partially right and partially wrong in the video.

He's right that those terrorists mainly did what they did because they believed that they were serving their religion and committing an act of jihad. I mentioned earlier that an Islamist politician and preacher refused to call Osama bin Laden a terrorist; he's not the only scholar who refused to do so. In fact, there are many Muslims, including some scholars, who consider Bin Laden a martyr. They wouldn't tell you that saying that the suicide bombers were Muslim is Islamophobic; they would confidently boast that fact.

Essentially, the fact that the suicide bombers were Muslim is conceded by many Muslims. What is under contention here is what conclusions one should draw from that fact. Sam Harris is primarily criticized not because he stated that they were Muslims, but because the conclusion he drew from that fact is that their faith inspired them to commit such an act.

Where I think he is wrong, however, is his opinion that Islam teaches that jihad entails committing terrorism. I don't think it makes sense to speak of Islam as a monolithic entity; at most, we can say that most sects of Islam hold certain views, but there's no way we can say for certain that all Islamic sects share the same beliefs.

Most of the scholars around the Muslim world denounced terrorism clearly, and they don't agree with Bin Laden. Why ignore the majority and address the few, using them to generalize?

I know this might sound arrogant, but I believe the number of times I've misunderstood something about Islam in this discussion is nil. I have researched every single issue we are talking about in this thread because I struggled with them before, and I actually researched them because I wanted to accept them. What I found both from reading a lot of scholars' opinions as well as the Qur'an and hadith led me in the opposite direction.

How about your understanding of apostasy? and about who supposed to enter to hell and who doesn't?

Well, how many people would actually choose to suffer in Hell for eternity if they knew that they could avoid such fate? If such a category is so small, why does the Qur'an stress it so much and contain so many verses about the fate of those who fall into that category?

Most parents warn their children and try to guide them so they can be better. Why would that be so bad if Allah wanted to guide humanity to the truth and success in this life and the hereafter?

People don't necessarily choose that fate but it just happen. For example, many Muslims will enter to hell because they might do shirk, they might be thieves, criminals, etc and many of those while doing these bad things don't put that much attention on what is waiting for them in the hereafter but rather focus too much in this life and the benefit and losses based on this life alone.

It's a matter of having faith in the hereafter rather than choosing to whether or not to go to hell. I hope you got what i mean.

Based on current scientific knowledge, we know that humans didn't come from just two people. Believing that Adam and Eve were real people and that all humans descended from them contradicts this scientific fact.

Yes, they are real people, but did the Quran said all humans came from Adam and Eve?

And he also stated that he and other Muslims were against legalizing same-sex marriage. There's a difference between believing something and letting that belief influence one's actions in the real world.

ood point. That's the main reason I find his statements quite worrying and inconsistent.

Why not? in the same manner France wanted to protect secularism by banning Niqab, why not doing some effort toward the opposite? to protect Muslim values by proposing the ban of same sex marriage.

This essentially boils down to saying that homosexuals should remain closeted and not be able to live like heterosexual people do. If a homosexual couple walk together into a supermarket, for example, are they making their "sin" public? Should they be required not to walk together so that they don't get punished for making their relationship known in public?

How will people know they were homosexuals?

I'm well aware of that story. I find the lashing of someone for drinking alcohol to be too much. While I think the ruling against spying is beneficial, the part that many people seem to overlook is that even if someone were caught drinking alcohol, punishing them by lashing would be too severe and unjustifiable.

Then they shouldn't drink in public. As easy as that. Like that the community won't be harmed by them. No drunken drivers, no funny behavior in public, etc.

What you're saying about same-sex marriage proves my earlier point: in an Islamic state—even the one many Muslims envision as the "ideal" Islamic state—non-Muslims' rights would inevitably be compromised due to things like what you mentioned above. Islamic laws, by their very nature, require at least to some degree that they be applied to non-Muslims as well. Making same-sex marriage illegal is an example of this.

Yes. That's why it's called an Islamic state. I don't see people objecting to a Jewish state.

I believe the reasons you may provide might be similar to what I've read before, but if I think they have enough evidence to back them up, I'll change my mind. I think it is extremely improbable that there's enough evidence for them, however.

I feel you already have read too many arguments and too many reasons, so i will just stick to "because Allah said so", and Muslims are required to obey Allah and his messenger.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think our responses to each other are getting divided into too many pieces, which makes them harder to follow for someone who hasn't read the entire thread. I'm going to keep my responses whole for this reason.

He didn't say so, even if that was what he meant, he is free to personally vote against it. The others who support it can vote in favor of it. What's the problem?



I believe that the Quran has the eternal, unchangeable truth about the universe and how life should be governed.

Therefore, that would makes me an extreme in your view and in Sam's view.



What's wrong in believing in that?



Quran is never wrong, ever! But i still consider myself very flexible to accept new facts and evidence. Try me!



Fair enough.



Most of the scholars around the Muslim world denounced terrorism clearly, and they don't agree with Bin Laden. Why ignore the majority and address the few, using them to generalize?



How about your understanding of apostasy? and about who supposed to enter to hell and who doesn't?



Most parents warn their children and try to guide them so they can be better. Why would that be so bad if Allah wanted to guide humanity to the truth and success in this life and the hereafter?

People don't necessarily choose that fate but it just happen. For example, many Muslims will enter to hell because they might do shirk, they might be thieves, criminals, etc and many of those while doing these bad things don't put that much attention on what is waiting for them in the hereafter but rather focus too much in this life and the benefit and losses based on this life alone.

It's a matter of having faith in the hereafter rather than choosing to whether or not to go to hell. I hope you got what i mean.



Yes, they are real people, but did the Quran said all humans came from Adam and Eve?



Why not? in the same manner France wanted to protect secularism by banning Niqab, why not doing some effort toward the opposite? to protect Muslim values by proposing the ban of same sex marriage.



How will people know they were homosexuals?



Then they shouldn't drink in public. As easy as that. Like that the community won't be harmed by them. No drunken drivers, no funny behavior in public, etc.



Yes. That's why it's called an Islamic state. I don't see people objecting to a Jewish state.



I feel you already have read too many arguments and too many reasons, so i will just stick to "because Allah said so", and Muslims are required to obey Allah and his messenger.

• Tariq Ramadan and others who share his belief are free to vote against equal rights for others. Actually, the very fact that they can do so is evidence that the kind of laws they believe in give less freedom than secular ones. A lot of self-described moderate Muslims would find the idea of a non-Muslim voting against equality for Muslims unconscionable, yet many religious moderates don't bat an eye at other religious people's voting against equal rights for homosexuals and dismiss criticism of fundamentalists by saying that fundamentalists are well within their rights to vote against equality for others.

This is why I believe the argument that a lot of moderates lend credence to fundamentalists, whether directly or indirectly, has quite a bit of merit. You would be very hard-pressed to find a moderate Muslim who would say, "It isn't bigotry to vote against giving Muslims equal rights." As you know, many Muslims believe that all Muslims are brothers and sisters in faith. So many of the average moderate Muslims wouldn't reject to embrace fundamentalists as their brothers and sisters in religion.

Sam Harris argues that self-described religious moderates protect religious extremists in one way or another mainly because they condemn criticism of faith without hesitation—and in my opinion, they sometimes do so more than they condemn religious fundamentalism.

I think he has a point, especially when we look at how views like Tariq Ramadan's aren't nearly as condemned by most Muslims as, say, satirical cartoons or a lot of the statements by people like Sam Harris.

• The scholars who state with confidence that Osama bin Laden was a martyr and refuse to call him a terrorist may be a minority, but they're not people who don't have any influence on some Muslim communities. A minority is not necessarily insignificant or unnoticeable; the people who flew planes into buildings on 9/11 were a drop in the ocean compared to the number of people in the country they lived in, but the kind of impact they caused is by no means insignificant.

• My understanding of the issue of apostasy in Islamic doctrine is that there are differing opinions regarding it. Some schools of thought within Islam consider it a capital crime, while others state that anyone should be free to leave Islam if they want. Based on what I know about the different madhhabs of Islam, I don't think this understanding is incorrect.

I have expressed why I think that the Qur'an clearly teaches that people who don't hold certain beliefs will go to Hell—not only based on my own reading it but also based on what a majority of Islamic scholars teach.

• What I find wrong with believing that a perfect, all-merciful deity sent plagues on an entire people to punish them is that revenge is attributed to a concept that many religious people, including moderates, hold to be absolutely perfect, merciful, and omniscient. We can talk about religions like Buddhism and try to find texts that glorify revenge in them, but I think it is very clear that the Abrahamic religions' texts contain far more of those texts than other religions.

Even if some Muslims interpret the texts of their religion in a way that doesn't encourage intolerance against people of other beliefs, the texts themselves do have more potential to allow extremist beliefs being extracted from them. We don't find many Buddhist teachings, for instance, that promote beliefs like this:

Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses - We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise.

(Source of translation.)

At best, one could argue that those who fly planes into buildings in the name of their god misinterpreted their religion's texts, but I definitely think that not all religions' texts have equal potential to be interpreted in ways that would allow one to believe with unwavering conviction that they should discriminate against people who don't share their beliefs or that they shouldn't fly planes into buildings because they would be harming other humans.

• You have said that, according to Sam Harris's opinion that I share, I would consider you an extremist like he would because you believe the Qur'an is the literal, eternal word of God and that it is absolutely free of error. What I would examine is what kind of ideas you derive from that belief.

For instance, I would ask you if you believe that gruesome posthumous torture of certain people would be ethically tenable. While I wouldn't necessarily call you an extremist yourself, I might argue that you do hold extremist ideas depending on what conclusions you draw from your belief that a particular book is the literal word of God.

• A lot of Muslims put a lot of emphasis on the importance of believing in an afterlife and view salvation of humans as being contingent on whether or not one believes in an afterlife. I think that places more emphasis on metaphysics than on the world we live in and the practical effects of people's beliefs. It wouldn't be hard to find a lot of Muslims, including moderate ones, who believe that someone's lack of belief in an afterlife could result in that person's going to Hell even if that person were helpful and charitable toward others in this life. I don't think that kind of belief makes sense or has any positive impact on the actions of people.

• I think the verses I quoted earlier clearly mention or at least imply that Adam and Eve were the first humans, especially in this verse:

And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know."

• In your post, you said this:

Why not? in the same manner France wanted to protect secularism by banning Niqab, why not doing some effort toward the opposite? to protect Muslim values by proposing the ban of same sex marriage.

I believe that France's banning the niqab is completely unjustified and discriminatory. Other developed countries allow it and are still secular, so it seems to me that France violated personal freedoms for no good reason by banning the niqab.

As for protecting values, I would ask why values have to be protected if they have no rational or logical basis in the first place. Values are only worth protecting if they are beneficial or have logical merit to them. In what way does banning same-sex marriage benefit anyone? And, more importantly, in what way does allowing it harm anyone?

• To quote another part of your post so that the context of my answer is clear, you said this:

How will people know they were homosexuals?

In the same way people usually infer that a man and woman are a couple when they see them together even though there's no definite indication that they are. Furthermore, other everyday occurrences would likely make the fact that two homosexuals were in a relationship—an example of those occurrences being expressing attraction toward someone of the same sex, much like how heterosexuals occasionally express that in casual conversations.

• Actually, secular values are inherently at conflict with the concept of a religion-based state regardless of what religion it is based on. Such a state would, as I mentioned earlier, compromise the freedoms of religious minorities. It doesn't matter if it's a Jewish or Islamic state; the concept remains the same.

 

[TashaN]

I think our responses to each other are getting divided into too many pieces, which makes them harder to follow for someone who hasn't read the entire thread. I'm going to keep my responses whole for this reason.

How about we take it topic by topic?

Let's start with the easiest part so we won't confuse each other by debating different topics at the same time. I'm going to start using your post as a basis for our upcoming discussions here.

For now allow me to start with this part. After we are done with it, i'll quote other portions of your post as a start to the next point of discussion.

• I think the verses I quoted earlier clearly mention or at least imply that Adam and Eve were the first humans, especially in this verse:

Does this understanding of yours comes from a pure independent reading for the verse or what you believe the verse meant?

Is "making a successive authority" the same as or even imply "making the first human"?

Please re-read and think more about it. Although i know it may be hard for you to do this but try as much as you can to disregard any prior understanding for that verse and focus on what does the verse itself is saying. I think that's the least we can do to be fair to the scripture.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Does this understanding of yours comes from a pure independent reading for the verse or what you believe the verse meant?

Is "making a successive authority" the same as or even imply "making the first human"?

Please re-read and think more about it. Although i know it may be hard for you to do this but try as much as you can to disregard any prior understanding for that verse and focus on what does the verse itself is saying. I think that's the least we can do to be fair to the scripture.

My understanding comes both from an independent reading of the verse and considering it in light of other verses, such as these:

O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women. And fear Allah , through whom you ask one another, and the wombs. Indeed Allah is ever, over you, an Observer.

It is He who created you from one soul and created from it its mate that he might dwell in security with her. And when he covers her, she carries a light burden and continues therein. And when it becomes heavy, they both invoke Allah , their Lord, "If You should give us a good [child], we will surely be among the grateful."

It seems clear to me that the verses are describing the origin of all humans as being two "souls," with one being created from the other. This is if we consider the verses completely in isolation of hadith, so even a Qur'anist could find a basis in the Qur'an for their belief that all humans originated from a literal Adam and Eve that were created in Heaven and were then brought out of it by Allah for not obeying him.

Since you have said that you believe the Qur'an is the literal word of God and that you accept the theory of evolution, I'm particularly interested to know how you interpret "created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women." Unless one believes that Adam and Eve were not the first humans—which would be different from the mainstream Islamic view held by most scholars and Muslims—I think it requires a rather non-literal reading of these verses to make room for acceptance of the fact that humans evolved over time rather than being created in their current state and that they didn't originate from just two people.

As for disregarding any previous understanding, I have actually done that a lot of times when I was researching different Qur'anic interpretations because I found evolution too reasonable to dismiss in favor of a literal reading of Islamic texts. The interpretations that I found that reconciled both were as rare as they were unconvincing. It seemed to me that a lot of them required far too many mental gymnastics to make sense of and, more often than not, far too much inconsistency to maintain.