freediver wrote on Jun 8
th, 2014 at 12:18pm:
And yet somehow Abu came to replace Malik as Islam's representative here, with Malik's consent.
And that makes Malik a carbon copy of Abu? It is strange that for all the hundreds of quotes/misquotes of Abu and Falah, and your constant efforts to lump Malik into the same group, you have never even attempted to quote or paraphrase him to make him into the caricature of muslims you create.
Malik was the most dignified person I have ever seen on this forum. He was nothing but polite and respectful to everyone he conversed with, and presented all his views in the most sensible and logical manner. You are really stooping low here FD.
freediver wrote on Jun 8
th, 2014 at 12:18pm:
I'm not going to bother myself
Yes, we all could have guessed that.
freediver wrote on Jun 8
th, 2014 at 12:18pm:
but there is a classic example that was introduced by one of the Muslims here. It was of a non-Muslim writer who was critical of Islam, and the Muslims hold him up as evidence of a tolerant society. Yet one of his main criticisms was that he couldn't say the same things he was writing down because of the lynch mobs. This was right in the middle of the "golden age". Someone else should remember the details. That's all I recall.
You don't remember the details - yes FD, thats why you cite it, because you don't know the details, because if you did you would know it has nothing to do with what you are talking about.
The discussion was about al-Razi, one of the many great polymaths in the muslim world. Baron attempted to present him as an atheist, but this is wrong. He was a free thinker (note the word "free") - a believer in the the God of islam, but refused to be a slave to dogma and doctrine.
Where you are so wrong about this "example" is that in the quote in question, al-Razi wasn't even talking about islam. If you knew anything about al-Razi, you would know that he wrote a powerful critique of religion in general, not just islam.
Quote:According to Abu Hatim, Razi offered harsh criticism concerning religions, in particular those religions that claim to have been revealed by prophetic experiences.
[...]
Concerning the link between violence and religion, Razi expressed that God must have known, considering the many disagreements between different religions, that "there would be a universal disaster and they would perish in the mutual hostilities and fighting. Indeed, many people have perished in this way, as we can see."[43]
He was also critical of the lack of interest among religious adherents in the rational analysis of their beliefs, and the violent reaction which takes its place:
If the people of this religion are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed.
The last paragraph is the quote you are referring to.
Razi was writing about all three abrahamic religions, and across all history. He was clearly using rhetoric to make a point - and that point had nothing to do with him being scared to say out aloud the things he writes down. You are simply recalling you previous fabrication you made on this.
The obvious point in all this (which I made the last time this was brought up), is that if Razi was so fearful about criticising islam, he would not have criticised islam, he would have shut up about it and focused on his many other areas of intellectual expertise. Instead he was able to openly criticise islam
and remain a celebrated and most respected scholar.
The reality is that during the golden age the muslim world was an oasis of free thinking and open criticism:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/10/islam-freedom-expres...
Forum
Pages: 
