Found an interesting video from the vlogger Harris Sultan recently on the subject of a survey done by the Ex Muslims of North America about those people who have left Islam. I’ve looked at his sources and although the news isn’t all positive with large numbers of ex Muslims being thrown out of families and facing violent threats,there’s one massive piece of good news. That is that those who are educated to degree level and above are far more likely to leave Islam than those who only have an American High School education.
Other positive findings from this survey show that it is the 17 to 25 age group that is rejecting Islam the most and that, surprisingly, the growth in those who are leaving Islam are those who have immigrated to the United States. This is unusual as it would be normal to expect that those who have immigrated from Islamic cultures will hold on to them rather than leave them.
A lot of people seem to be rejecting Islam because of its incompatiblity with human rights and the inability of Islam and its clerics to incorporate the scientific knowledge of the centuries after Islam was created into Islam.
There are a few caveats about this survey in my opinion. The first caveats that I’d like to give is that the survey sample was pretty small (500) and not only might be somewhat self selecting as it is done via questions from the Ex Muslims of North America group. The other issue that I’d like to question is that this is only really polling ex Muslim atheists, I’d like to know more about the numbers of ex Muslims converting to other less destructive monotheistic faiths such as Christianity or Judaism.
Despite the small sample, the questions about sample selection and the apparent leaving out of those who may have swapped Islam for a more sensible religion, I think that we can say that it does represent good news. The rejection of Islam by the young and the educated, despite some having problems with being cast out of their families or facing threats of violence, is in my view a really good sign.
We should always remember that the main problem with Islam is not individual Muslims but the ideology itself. The Muslim you see on the street might be someone yearning to be free of the oppressive yoke of Islam and be nothing to do with Islamic religious extremism. It’s a good point to remind people of something that I saw on the Religion of Peace site which is this: ‘don’t judge Muslims by the Islam you know and don’t judge Islam by the Muslims you know’. There are without a doubt, probably many thousands of Muslims that want to be out but have to hide from communal disapproval or even violence and that these ‘hidden apostates’ in the Islamic community, people who are in a similar ‘closeted’ position to gay men in 1950’s Britain. We owe it to ourselves, our society and to the individual ex Muslim to do we can to assist them from getting free from Islam and staying away from it.
I think that there may be a sort of natural atrophy happening too, the kind of fading away that has happened to Christianity over my lifetime (born 1958). My daughter’s housemate is someone who I would describe as Muslim in name only. Her parents are immigrants from the middle east, Lebanon I think. I don’t really know them that well so I’m not sure how religious they are. Housemate appears to be just non religious so, not really a Muslim at all really. Not so much an apostate as just not bothered.
I agree about the natural atrophy and usually this is the way that people leave religions and become secular or more secular although this can vary. I think this is what may be happening in the examples given by the Ex Muslims of America group. I believe that it’s more likely that this will happen if the surrounding culture has high expectations of those who move into it or can demonstrate that the indigenous way of life is superior to the life that the person lived whilst involved in their religion. This would definitely apply to the USA.
It’s quite possible that there could be a difference between those cultures that have a ‘FIFO’ (fit in of fuck off) attitude and are confident in themselves. They, like the USA, might have more religious atrophy than societies that are explicitly multicultural. At a pinch it’s probably easier to be a secular Muslim, a Muslim in name only or a Muslim reformist in a society that encourages integration rather than one that encourages ghettoisation. When I travel through Muslim areas in the UK I can’t help but wonder how many of these Muslims would leave Islam if they had the chance and it was safe to do so? The problem with creating ghettos is that they create more pressures on individuals who might want to leave their faith than if these ghettos did not exist and there were not so many people living in minority monocultures.
I joke sometimes about being ‘the only Jew in the village’ but there are advantages to it as well as disadvantages. OK I can’t walk half a mile down the road to the Synagogue, but I can do the vast majority of the things that are required to fulfil the covenant between G-d and myself. I can know that G-d exists and honour him, keep Kosher, observe the Sabbath, love my neighbour and try not to be a twat because I want to do them and because I believe that this is what G-d requires of me. If I lived in a Jewish area I’d be surrounded by other Jews who might be more observant than me and it’s possible that they would enforce these things on me (not with violence of course) but by social pressure get me to do what is required not by voluntary decision.
I suspect that there are many nominal Muslims who do Muslim things not because they want to or because they feel it makes them a better person or because it enhances the world, but because social pressures force them to conform.
One of the things that first taught me that Islam is ‘different’ was running an info stall for a small charity at a meeting of gay Muslims. I’d done similar things at Gay Christian events but the Muslim one was the only one that needed an armed police officer standing outside, not to protect the attendees from the far right,but from other Muslims. My experience backed up a statement that I often see which is that when it comes to violent extremism, Muslims are often the first victims of these violent extremists.
Because Islam is so violent the pressure to conform for Muslims who might want out must be horrific.
It’s an interesting story of yours about your daughters housemates and how they seem to wear religion lightly. I do wonder if they would be able to do that if they lived in a heavily Islamic area with immense social pressures to conform?
I have been told that, and I quote, “…. we [Jews] believe that in God’s eyes all people are equal….”
As the only Jew in the village known to me, can you please explain the basis for this belief.
Thanks
Of the top of my head these passages speak of equality. Deut 16:19 https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/16-19.htm Exodus 23:9 Do not oppress the stranger https://biblehub.com/exodus/23-9.htm Genesis 1:27 The Eternal One created the entirety of humanity https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1:27&version=CEB Deut 16:20 Follow justice and justice alone https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/16-20.htm
Thanks for your reply, unsatisfactory though I find it.
What follows is just a high-level overview of my objections.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1:27&version=CEB
(The Eternal One created the entirety of humanity)
The claim “the eternal one created the entirely of humanity” does not prove that “in God’s eyes all people are equal”.
Deut 16:19
https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/16-19.htm
And
Deut 16:20
https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/16-20.htm
(Follow justice and justice alone)
These verses say how humans should behave in the context of a human justice system. It proves nothing about how god behaves outside of the human justice system. The verses do not prove that “in God’s eyes all people are equal”.
Exodus 23:9
https://biblehub.com/exodus/23-9.htm
(Do not oppress the stranger)
Advice from God to humans “not to oppress the stranger” does not prove that “in God’s eyes all people are equal”.
––
Maybe you have shown some reasons why “…. we (Jews) believe that in God’s eyes all people are equal….”.
You have not however shown any rational justification for that belief.
Until and unless you can show such a justification, then this belief may be nothing more than a self-serving claim to deflect attention from the true beliefs of God, and thereby Jews, about the people whom God has not “chosen”.
So now, if you don’t mind, please give me a rational justification for the claim “…. we (Jews) believe that in God’s eyes all people are equal….”
Thanks
First of all although some believe otherwise I tend to take the view that Jews are not the ‘chosen’ people but instead the ‘choosing’ people because we were faced with a choice to follow the Commandments or not. OK it was a choice made at a point of stress but it was the people who chose rather than were chosen. One origin of the Chosen idea is that Abraham became elevated in the Eternal One’s sight because he rejected idolatry and didn’t backslide regarding this, even at great cost to himself and his family.
As regards the ‘all are equal’ claim then this derives from the idea that the Eternal One created all humanity. The EO didn’t create Jews then the rest of humanity or vice versa but just humanity.
The Tanakh does contain what Reform Rabbonim call ‘troubling passages’ such as those concerning the stoning of adulterers, the treatment of idolators, harsh treatment for gays and those who breach the Sabbath rules amongst other things. However we interpret these passages differently now or gloss over them or treat them as strictures for then not now. Judaism is radically different today than it was in the time of the Temple in Jerusalem, even Orthodoxy would be difficult to recognise for a second century BCE Temple Jew, not least because prayer has replaced animal sacrifice.
There are instructions in the Bible that are designed to set Jews apart such as the Sabbath rules and the dietary laws etc, but this was as I see it a way of keeping the community together during the times that the Jews were exiled from the Land of Israel. If you can keep the tribe together then the tribe doesn’t dissipate in exile or captivity.
*….Abraham became elevated in the Eternal One’s sight… *
Really?
Would that have anything to do with the Jew Abraham who conspired with the god of the Jews (the eternal one?) to kill Abraham’s son, in complete contradiction to the second commandment of the self same god? Was that the Abraham, a good Jew, who raised no objection to taking part in god’s murderous conspiracy? Was that the Abraham who showed no emotional response to the intended death of his son? Was that the Abraham who then lied to those around him, thus bearing false witness?
Was it the Abraham who was prepared to sacrifice his own human son, instead of the usual animal sacrifice? Abraham who, on god’s command, was prepared to substitute a human, his son no less, for an animal? Are humans no better than animals in god’s eyes.
Was it that Abraham?
But then, can you really blame Abraham?
After all, he was only doing the bidding of god, the perfect being who claimed to have created humanity. It wasn’t Abraham’s fault that this “perfect being” turned out to a lying hypocritical sadistic psychopath. [Although he might have guessed if he had known what god had done after Eve ate the fruit in the garden. Or maybe he did, and he just didn’t care.]
Or maybe Abraham was just an image of the psychopath called god, as god had created all humans in his image. But then you can’t blame Abraham for that either, although he doesn’t seem to be a good role model for the rest of humanity, does he?
Perhaps Abraham was elevated by the eternal one because he saw in Abraham’s behaviour a kindred spirit, who would commit any sin no matter how heinous if god asked him?
PS Good luck to all those Christians who believe that they will be treated justly by this psychopathic god after they are dead, however much time they waste in this life metaphorically sucking god’s dick.
Can a psychopath such as their god (and they say the god of the jews) really change?
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – George Orwell
This is me telling the truth that jews and Christians might not want the hear.
Without a doubt the Akeda or the Binding of Isaac is one of the most troubling passages in the Bible. If if was a test of loyalty by the EO of Abraham then it was an extremely harsh one. Although the Ram magically appeared to replace Isaac when you read between the lines you can see or perceive how earth shattering this incident was for Abraham and his family. Isaac disappears from the story for a while and Sarah eventually dies. The implication is that Sarah was none too pleased with Abraham and her heart was broken by Abraham’s unwavering and possibly inhumane loyalty to the EO and Isaac ran off to live his own life.
There are lots of troubling passages in Bible but unlike some other faith paths Jews and Christians now often reinterpret them to take into account later knowledge and later advances in morality. Rules laid down for the management of a Bronze Age tribe can’t always be taken on face value, other and often better meanings have to be found in these rules.
You are indeed entitled to voice your views on these matters and it’s a damned good thing that you are.
By reading between the lines, you mean making it up or saying something you do not know to be true.
No it’s drawing an inference from what someone has said or written but not exactly quoting them.
Nonsense.
You can only draw an inference from what is there, and only then by applying logic. There is nothing between the lines to draw an inference from. You can’t just drag in other unquoted statements to support the argument without revealing them, and allowing them to be subject to the same rigour as the original claim.
If it was so earth shattering, why was that not written down.
**Rules […] can’t always be taken on face value.
That is their truth is unreliable, at best,
If it was a test, why wasn’t that explanation written down so that we dumb human beings would be absolutely certain to understand?
But, then you can’t claim, or even suggest, that it was a test if you can’t provide the argument that proves it was a test, and also explain why EO chose this particular test. [harsh is an understatement.]
I would be interested to see any proof that shows it was a test.
Anyway, I thought EO was omniscient, so wouldn’t “it” have already known that Abe would do what he was told to do? For EO, there was absolutely no need to do this test as a test.
“Reading the lines”, but not between the lines, I see a sadist at work.
Yeah the binding of Isaac has often been used by secularists to call the EO a sadist. It is a very harsh test of Abraham and although the EO provided an animal to replace Isaac it was at the very last minute. I wonder whether the test would be any less effective had this swap been done prior to Abraham and Isaac reaching the top of the mountain?