Islam is the most misunderstood religion in contemporary society

[Altfish]

This is not the subject of this thread, if you wish to discuss contradictions start your own thread, otherwise, I rather not indulge in ad hominems.

You mean facts get in the way?

 

[LuisDantas]

My entire ancestral history disagrees with you......

If you say so. Generally, though, how do you think the two doctrines compare?

Particularly at the present time?

 

[illykitty]

Note it does not say that.....again the Qur'an was revealed in pieces during specific events during the time of the prophet Muhammad.

The Qur'an says thus:

“Come to a common principle between us and you: That we worship none but God; that we associate no equals with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God.” (3:64)

"It was We who revealed the Torah; therein was guidance and light. By its standard the Jewish people have been judged by the Prophets who surrendered to God’s will, as well as by the Rabbis and the doctors of Law, for to them the protection of God’s book was entrusted: If any do fail to judge by what God has revealed (including the Torah), they are (no better than) unbelievers." [5:44]

"Likewise, Jesus, too, is given great respect, and is even referred to as “a Word from God”, and his sincere followers are described in very complementary terms. Relationships with the followers of other traditions should be characterized by more than mere tolerance, but rather by respect, compassion, peace and the fostering of coexistence and cooperation. The Qur’an instructs Muslims to show respect to the religious people of previous traditions and says: 'Amongst these are people devoted to learning and people who have renounced the world and are not arrogant.' [5:82]"

"Finally, respect for all sincere human beings is enjoined upon Muslims: 'O you who keep the faith! When you go abroad in the way of God, be clear and circumspect and say not to anyone who offers you a greeting of peace: “You are not a believer!” [4:94]

According to the Qur'an, Can Jews and Christians 'Partake in the Blessings of Heaven and Earth?' | HuffPost

And does that leave everyone else? Atheists, polytheists, other religions? Some people don't need monotheism to be good people. What if an Atheist is more moral than a lot of Abrahamic people? Does that mean nothing because they don't worship god?

 

[sealchan]

"The secular mind is deeply entrenched with the idea that Islam is a system of beliefs where fanaticism and moderate devotion to a supernatural deity is indistinguishable."

-Epic Beard Man


I began that quote from listening to an hour and twenty-three minute video of Karen Armstrong giving a lecture regarding the secular views of Islam today. According to Karen Armstrong, the "bed rock message of the Qur'an is it is good to share your wealth fairly, and wrong to horde a private fortune, and the aim of life is to build a just and decent society where vulnerable people are treated with equity and respect." In Ms. Armstrong's lecture, she brings up a good point where in viewing other religions we tend to view them through the lens of Protestant Christianity, where religion is considered as a separate activity. Hence in the west we see Protestant Christianity as a benchmark in which we judge all others. This is why Buddhism and Confucianism are considered "secular ideologies" but according to Armstrong, the Buddha and Confucius would have not understood secularism as we see it.

Unfortunately, throughout the years (actually centuries) Islam has been presented by the west as a blood thirsty religion bent on Holy War, or Jihad to commence the campaign of Dar al-Islam. The western viewpoint of Jihad is the misunderstanding (whether intentional or unintentional) of Quranic interpretation of a holy struggle of the self. Jihad is the constant battle from within and in fact according to Islam, the constant battle from within is the greatest form of Jihad. Jihad appears in the Qur'an only 44 times and in 10 of those does it refer to warfare. Jihad is a struggle. Ms. Armstrong cites some examples regarding what it means to struggle such as for instance it being a struggle to give someone something to eat because they are hungry when you yourself are hungry. Do you give in to your own senses and biological desires or do you transcend beyond that and do the selfless act and give to the starving person.

In the west we turn on our television and watch news outlets of ISIL (or ISIS) or other terrorist organizations who commit acts of violence such as bombings and suicide bombings and the fervor or these groups who vehemently believe what they're doing is for God. It is historical fact that suicide bombings was not invented by Muslim extremists in fact, it was an invention by the Tamil Tigers, an extremely secular organization. According to Armstrong, though we see the early bombings happening in Lebanon committed by Shi'ites, most attacks during the 1980's in Lebanon and Jordan were done by secularists and socialists and secularists from Syria 7 suicide bombings were done by Muslims and 27 were done by secularists. Suicide bombings is strictly unIslamic and many Muslim scholars cite several verses but one verse is more popular when responding to critics concerning suicide bombings:

“Whoever kills a person [unjustly]…it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.” (Qur’an, 5:32).

When it comes to violence of this type in looking at the actions of these Muslims who commit these violent acts, we must look at the root cause of these actions. Because what we see are people who believe that their country is invaded by a power more advanced in weaponry than the people. Coupled this with doctrinal ignorance, low education, hopelessness, limited resources, desperation, and a fiery and fanatical Imam, you have a recipe for disaster. There is something inherently wrong when a child who has never lived life expresses glee in the manner that some of these kids do, when they see their violent causes as something for "The Lord of the Worlds." The problem I see when people examine Islam is that we tend to see Islam from a Western perspective. I mean, we do this with a lot of people. Instead of asking why, we need to be asking how? How does the psychopathology of someone who is desperately trying to kill themselves and others develop? Where do people get these ideas?

People do not examine the perspective of the other by stepping outside themselves, and even though some do, they still place their western perspective in scenarios like "even if I was in that situation I would do such and such, and such and such." No, you wouldn't because if you were in that scenario you would not be having a western perspective on life or having the perspective of life that you have now, you'd have their perspective. I tend to ask myself when looking at the violence that is happening in the world in that sector I wonder what is compounding the violent ideologies? I firmly believe it is the socio-political infrastructures that over time have become unstable and paralyzed in time due to a collective effort of outside forces (western influences of warfare e.g. think CIA influence on the Taliban fighting Russians).

When it comes to the religious interpretation of he Qur'an like Judaism and the reading of the Talmud, the Qur'an is read through a filtration system such as the Imam or the Hadith. People often ask "what is the correct interpretation of Islam?" I would answer from an outsider's perspective it depends where you are in the world. For many impoverished Palestinians, their interpretation of Islam is a lot different than the perspective of Muslims who live in Detroit or New York. Just as the perspective of an Irish Christian would be different religiously than the perspective of a Taiwanese Christian. Our environment can be our x-factor in how we see ourselves in the world from a religious perspective.

What is the correct way to look at Islam?

Any faith that promotes good, justice, and equality, and promotes self-growth and excellence and the fair treatment of others which is the baseline of Islam, is the correct way of looking at Islam.

If you want to educate Americans, make a major motion picture...unfortunately Islam doesn't allow for images of Muhammed...seriously!

For me that is why Islam is likely the one major religion I know the least about...I want to see the motion picture!

 

[Milton Platt]

"The secular mind is deeply entrenched with the idea that Islam is a system of beliefs where fanaticism and moderate devotion to a supernatural deity is indistinguishable."

-Epic Beard Man


I began that quote from listening to an hour and twenty-three minute video of Karen Armstrong giving a lecture regarding the secular views of Islam today. According to Karen Armstrong, the "bed rock message of the Qur'an is it is good to share your wealth fairly, and wrong to horde a private fortune, and the aim of life is to build a just and decent society where vulnerable people are treated with equity and respect." In Ms. Armstrong's lecture, she brings up a good point where in viewing other religions we tend to view them through the lens of Protestant Christianity, where religion is considered as a separate activity. Hence in the west we see Protestant Christianity as a benchmark in which we judge all others. This is why Buddhism and Confucianism are considered "secular ideologies" but according to Armstrong, the Buddha and Confucius would have not understood secularism as we see it.

Unfortunately, throughout the years (actually centuries) Islam has been presented by the west as a blood thirsty religion bent on Holy War, or Jihad to commence the campaign of Dar al-Islam. The western viewpoint of Jihad is the misunderstanding (whether intentional or unintentional) of Quranic interpretation of a holy struggle of the self. Jihad is the constant battle from within and in fact according to Islam, the constant battle from within is the greatest form of Jihad. Jihad appears in the Qur'an only 44 times and in 10 of those does it refer to warfare. Jihad is a struggle. Ms. Armstrong cites some examples regarding what it means to struggle such as for instance it being a struggle to give someone something to eat because they are hungry when you yourself are hungry. Do you give in to your own senses and biological desires or do you transcend beyond that and do the selfless act and give to the starving person.

In the west we turn on our television and watch news outlets of ISIL (or ISIS) or other terrorist organizations who commit acts of violence such as bombings and suicide bombings and the fervor or these groups who vehemently believe what they're doing is for God. It is historical fact that suicide bombings was not invented by Muslim extremists in fact, it was an invention by the Tamil Tigers, an extremely secular organization. According to Armstrong, though we see the early bombings happening in Lebanon committed by Shi'ites, most attacks during the 1980's in Lebanon and Jordan were done by secularists and socialists and secularists from Syria 7 suicide bombings were done by Muslims and 27 were done by secularists. Suicide bombings is strictly unIslamic and many Muslim scholars cite several verses but one verse is more popular when responding to critics concerning suicide bombings:

“Whoever kills a person [unjustly]…it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.” (Qur’an, 5:32).

When it comes to violence of this type in looking at the actions of these Muslims who commit these violent acts, we must look at the root cause of these actions. Because what we see are people who believe that their country is invaded by a power more advanced in weaponry than the people. Coupled this with doctrinal ignorance, low education, hopelessness, limited resources, desperation, and a fiery and fanatical Imam, you have a recipe for disaster. There is something inherently wrong when a child who has never lived life expresses glee in the manner that some of these kids do, when they see their violent causes as something for "The Lord of the Worlds." The problem I see when people examine Islam is that we tend to see Islam from a Western perspective. I mean, we do this with a lot of people. Instead of asking why, we need to be asking how? How does the psychopathology of someone who is desperately trying to kill themselves and others develop? Where do people get these ideas?

People do not examine the perspective of the other by stepping outside themselves, and even though some do, they still place their western perspective in scenarios like "even if I was in that situation I would do such and such, and such and such." No, you wouldn't because if you were in that scenario you would not be having a western perspective on life or having the perspective of life that you have now, you'd have their perspective. I tend to ask myself when looking at the violence that is happening in the world in that sector I wonder what is compounding the violent ideologies? I firmly believe it is the socio-political infrastructures that over time have become unstable and paralyzed in time due to a collective effort of outside forces (western influences of warfare e.g. think CIA influence on the Taliban fighting Russians).


When it comes to the religious interpretation of he Qur'an like Judaism and the reading of the Talmud, the Qur'an is read through a filtration system such as the Imam or the Hadith. People often ask "what is the correct interpretation of Islam?" I would answer from an outsider's perspective it depends where you are in the world. For many impoverished Palestinians, their interpretation of Islam is a lot different than the perspective of Muslims who live in Detroit or New York. Just as the perspective of an Irish Christian would be different religiously than the perspective of a Taiwanese Christian. Our environment can be our x-factor in how we see ourselves in the world from a religious perspective.

What is the correct way to look at Islam?

Any faith that promotes good, justice, and equality, and promotes self-growth and excellence and the fair treatment of others which is the baseline of Islam, is the correct way of looking at Islam.

So, what is "unjustly" killing, then? It depends upon who is doing the interpreting, does it not?

 

[Revoltingest]

what disagreement? Who is disagreeing what popular scholar disagrees or what scholars are disagreeing?

Are only scholars to define the religion....not the lay adherents?
Looking at the differences between Muslims of various sects in
various countries, don't you think that each has scholars on their side?

But setting aside those questions, the disagreements among
Muslims is proof that even they largely misunderstand their
own religion.

 

[Kenny]

Next time try quoting everything instead of quoting stuff you want to present...Knowing that you are intellectually dishonest I'm good on you.

So let me get this straight...

You are saying that it is the West's fault that Sunni's are killing Shiites and visa versa, blowing up themselves in Mosques and marketplaces, that ISIS did not kill in the name of Allah to set up the 12 Imam as Islam predicts is coming?

And you are saying that I am dishonest and that the Iman's don't say that the US is the Big Satan and that we shouldn't look into the possibility that it is a radical muslim terrorist if a Muslim attacks innocent people?

And that all of these things that muslims have done doesn't cause people to wonder about Islam?

Would you like me to quote where these things happen?

Remember, I did say that it would be equally true on Christians part when we did the same.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Wrong.

Stunning rebuttal.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

If you want to educate Americans, make a major motion picture...unfortunately Islam doesn't allow for images of Muhammed...seriously!

For me that is why Islam is likely the one major religion I know the least about...I want to see the motion picture!

What can going to a local mosque and discussing Islam NO do what a motion picture can?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

So, what is "unjustly" killing, then? It depends upon who is doing the interpreting, does it not?

In combat someone who is unarmed, as well as someone who even in combat surrenders. Taking a person's life who is not placing you in immediate danger is a sin.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Are only scholars to define the religion....not the lay adherents?
Looking at the differences between Muslims of various sects in
various countries, don't you think that each has scholars on their side?

But setting aside those questions, the disagreements among
Muslims is proof that even they largely misunderstand their
own religion.

No it is not even a misunderstanding of the actual text it is who is interpreting and what school of thought they're interpreting from. The system is complex and depending upon the geographical location you may have a scholar who may interpret a word or a verse one way verses a scholar from a different country in another way. This is why I mentioned earlier, how an Irishman practices their form of Christianity is different than a person from Detroit practices their Christianity. This is how sects begin. The formation of socio-political structures with individual agendas can influence how one views a particular religious text. Many racists justified slavery using the Biblical text such as the story of Noah. It is not saying they misunderstand it, it is the intentional misinterpretation of what the text actually means. This is true for Islam as well. If I have an agenda and I want to make it holy and if I have unlearned people around me, what better way to make my cause Holy then manipulate the meanings of verses?

Now I keep repeating this to you and others several times now, if you simply disagree with how I'm presenting it (which is actually true of all religions) then say so.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

So let me get this straight...

You are saying that it is the West's fault that Sunni's are killing Shiites and visa versa, blowing up themselves in Mosques and marketplaces, that ISIS did not kill in the name of Allah to set up the 12 Imam as Islam predicts is coming?

And you are saying that I am dishonest and that the Iman's don't say that the US is the Big Satan and that we shouldn't look into the possibility that it is a radical muslim terrorist if a Muslim attacks innocent people?

And that all of these things that muslims have done doesn't cause people to wonder about Islam?

Would you like me to quote where these things happen?

Remember, I did say that it would be equally true on Christians part when we did the same.

Ok

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Stunning rebuttal.

Wrong.

 

[Milton Platt]

In combat someone who is unarmed, as well as someone who even in combat surrenders. Taking a person's life who is not placing you in immediate danger is a sin.

What about this?

“When the sacred months have passed, then kill the Mushrikin wherever you find them. Capture them. Besiege them. Lie in wait for them in each and every ambush but if they repent, and perform the prayers, and give zacat then leave their way free.” 9:5

“When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.” 47:4

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has made one superior to the other and because they spend to support them from their means. Therefore, righteous women are obedient and they guard in the husband’s absence what Allah orders them to guard. And, as to those women from whom you fear disobedience, give them a warning, send them to separate beds, and beat them.” 4:34

“Oh you who believe, fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you and let them find harshness in you.” 9:123

“They wish that you would reject faith as they have rejected faith unless that you would all be equal. So, don’t take protectors from them unless they emigrate in the way of Allah but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them.” 4:89

 

[Revoltingest]

No it is not even a misunderstanding of the actual text it is who is interpreting and what school of thought they're interpreting from. The system is complex and depending upon the geographical location you may have a scholar who may interpret a word or a verse one way verses a scholar from a different country in another way.

Assuming that all the different variants of Islam cannot simultaneously be the
inerrant truth, this means that some are wrong, & are therefore misunderstood.
Your explanation that Islam is complex actually supports my claim that many
misunderstand their own religion..

Now I keep repeating this to you and others several times now, if you simply disagree with how I'm presenting it (which is actually true of all religions) then say so.

I have no idea whether the version of Islam you present is indeed the
singular true one of the many. But that doesn't matter. The existence
of so many conflicting Muslim beliefs is evidence of misunderstanding.
Looking at how vague the Koran is, this should be expected.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Okay beard. I guess you're right about everything because.

 

[sayak83]

Note it does not say that.....again the Qur'an was revealed in pieces during specific events during the time of the prophet Muhammad.

The Qur'an says thus:

“Come to a common principle between us and you: That we worship none but God; that we associate no equals with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God.” (3:64)

"It was We who revealed the Torah; therein was guidance and light. By its standard the Jewish people have been judged by the Prophets who surrendered to God’s will, as well as by the Rabbis and the doctors of Law, for to them the protection of God’s book was entrusted: If any do fail to judge by what God has revealed (including the Torah), they are (no better than) unbelievers." [5:44]

"Likewise, Jesus, too, is given great respect, and is even referred to as “a Word from God”, and his sincere followers are described in very complementary terms. Relationships with the followers of other traditions should be characterized by more than mere tolerance, but rather by respect, compassion, peace and the fostering of coexistence and cooperation. The Qur’an instructs Muslims to show respect to the religious people of previous traditions and says: 'Amongst these are people devoted to learning and people who have renounced the world and are not arrogant.' [5:82]"

"Finally, respect for all sincere human beings is enjoined upon Muslims: 'O you who keep the faith! When you go abroad in the way of God, be clear and circumspect and say not to anyone who offers you a greeting of peace: “You are not a believer!” [4:94]

According to the Qur'an, Can Jews and Christians 'Partake in the Blessings of Heaven and Earth?' | HuffPost

Yes, when Muslims are abroad, they should be circumspect and polite. But otherwise the Quran says something very different:-
Say to the disbelievers, “You shall be vanquished and gathered unto Hell, an evil resting place!”
See house of Imran Surah verse 12.

The Quran also forbids Muslims from having friendship or any social contract of any kind with Nonbelievers. Same chapter.

Let not the believers take the disbelievers as protectors apart from the believers. Whosoever does that has no bond with God, unless you guard against them out of prudence. And God warns you of Himself, and unto God is the journey’s end.


Commentary

In this context, protectors renders awliyāʾ (sing. walī), a multifaceted word that can mean “protector,”“ruler,”“ally,”“client,” or “friend” depending on the context. The subject matter here is not friendship in the ordinary sense, but allegiance and group alignment in which the political stakes go beyond mere confessional identity.


Prudence translates tuqāh, which some read as taqiyyah; the latter is more widely known and often translated “dissimulation,”


Also see 3: 118: O you who believe! Take not intimates apart from yourselves; they will not stint you in corruption. They wish you to suffer.

So in general Nonbelievers ought to be told that they are going to hell, unless prudence and security concerns dictates otherwise. And Nonbelievers should not be made part of a Muslims social or political or professional connections.


Am I misunderstanding something here?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

What about this?

“When the sacred months have passed, then kill the Mushrikin wherever you find them. Capture them. Besiege them. Lie in wait for them in each and every ambush but if they repent, and perform the prayers, and give zacat then leave their way free.” 9:5

“When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.” 47:4

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has made one superior to the other and because they spend to support them from their means. Therefore, righteous women are obedient and they guard in the husband’s absence what Allah orders them to guard. And, as to those women from whom you fear disobedience, give them a warning, send them to separate beds, and beat them.” 4:34

“Oh you who believe, fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you and let them find harshness in you.” 9:123

“They wish that you would reject faith as they have rejected faith unless that you would all be equal. So, don’t take protectors from them unless they emigrate in the way of Allah but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them.” 4:89

As mentioned before, the Qur'an was revealed at particular times and events during the formation of the Muslim community and their conflict with the Quraysh tribe.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Assuming that all the different variants of Islam cannot simultaneously be the
inerrant truth, this means that some are wrong, & are therefore misunderstood.
Your explanation that Islam is complex actually supports my claim that many
misunderstand their own religion.

Something complex does not equate to a misunderstanding it means there can be variant perspective. This is what I said earlier (ironic I'm consistently repeating myself and I know understand by doing so it just means people rather being open minded to another viewpoint, rather settle for their own biases) that Islamic text (Qur'an) are usually filtered through lectures by the Imam via interpretations of the Hadith just as the Torah is filtered through the lectures of the Rabbi or the Talmud. The idea of doctrinal interpretations as you know, is to make distinctions in the messages of the text from the literal, metaphorical, or the allegorical. So it really doesn't support your claim in your misdirection of this thread by proclaiming that Muslims fail to understand their text, this is my response to show you that like Judaism, the understanding of Quranic text is filtered through various scholars. Now, do those scholars disagree? Yes. Again this goes back to Islamic Jurisprudence. Can scholars manipulate text for their own agenda? Yes. This is something that is cross-religions.

I have no idea whether the version of Islam you present is indeed the
singular true one of the many. But that doesn't matter. The existence
of so many conflicting Muslim beliefs is evidence of misunderstanding.
Looking at how vague the Koran is, this should be expected.

The Qur'an is not vague although it has a complex formation of messages but given that scholars have demonstrated that the revealed text relate to various periods in time it makes sense:

"Each chapter of the Qur'an is a well structured unit. It is only lack of consideration and analysis on our part that they seem disjointed and incoherent... Each chapter imparts a specific message as its central theme. The completion of this theme marks the end of the chapter. If there were no such specific conclusion intended to be dealt with in each chapter there would be no need to divide the Qur'an in chapters. Rather the whole Qur'an would be a single chapter... We see that a set of verses has been placed together and named 'sura' the way a city is built with a wall erected round it. A single wall must contain a single city in it. What is the use of a wall encompassing different cities?"

-Mahmoud, T. (2008). Exordium to coherence in the Qur'an an English translation of Fatihah Nizam al-Qur'an

The conflict that resides in the beliefs as you say is ont necessarily theological, but the disagreements among the Muslims are the result of socio-political structures that over time influence certain powers the interpret doctrine differently. This is the fate of all major religions. Buddhism is no exception. Considering that Buddhism's doctrine had nothing to do with the Buddha being a deity, the subsequent admission of the deification of the Buddha, is the result of the interpretations of Buddhist scholars.

 

[sayak83]

No it is not even a misunderstanding of the actual text it is who is interpreting and what school of thought they're interpreting from. The system is complex and depending upon the geographical location you may have a scholar who may interpret a word or a verse one way verses a scholar from a different country in another way. This is why I mentioned earlier, how an Irishman practices their form of Christianity is different than a person from Detroit practices their Christianity. This is how sects begin. The formation of socio-political structures with individual agendas can influence how one views a particular religious text. Many racists justified slavery using the Biblical text such as the story of Noah. It is not saying they misunderstand it, it is the intentional misinterpretation of what the text actually means. This is true for Islam as well. If I have an agenda and I want to make it holy and if I have unlearned people around me, what better way to make my cause Holy then manipulate the meanings of verses?

Now I keep repeating this to you and others several times now, if you simply disagree with how I'm presenting it (which is actually true of all religions) then say so.

But Bible supports slavery. They were not misrepresenting anything. Quran also allows one to have slaves.