What are the mistakes Muslims do when informing others about Islam?

[Abu Rashid]

May I ask you how exactly Muslims feel about us Atheists?

I ask because I often feel, if not disrespected, at least misunderstood by Muslims.

Since Islam and atheism are diametric opposites, I guess there's an automatic hostility there of sorts. Atheists/Secularists have worked quite diligently over the past century to try and dismantle Islam and to eradicate it, so it's no wonder Muslims dislike and oppose it.

Since Islam is absolute belief, it's no wonder atheism will want to eradicate it. Christianity is no threat, since it was easily pacified, but Islam will not accept to submit to any other than the creator and sustainer.

 

[Tiapan]

Response: Only in the eyes of Agnostics is it clear that the truth is Agnosticism. But in islam, muslims acknowledge that the truth is in fact, islam.

Most muslims recognise their are at least two islamic sects, Shia and Sunni, in contradiction to the prose of the quaran. So I would question the validity your statement, I believe it would be more correct to state.

Only in the eyes of Agnostics is it clear that the truth is Agnosticism. Only in the eyes of muslims is it clear that the truth is Islam. Only in the eyes of jews is it clear that the truth is Judaism. Only in the eyes of Christians is it clear that the truth is Christianity. In my particular case as an atheist is it clear that the truth is Science.

Are we not equally correct or equally wrong? There is no "in fact" as it is all subjective opinion not objective fact.

Bit like saying "You may think your great, but I know I am perfect". An obvious fallacy, and intolerably arrogant IMO.

I think Luminous makes a valid point. If you know how to use Venn diagrams, you would see every human is in fact born with and falls within the super-set of Agnostics with subsets of the various religions contained within the umbrella of Agnosticism. All religions must be learned as the child grows - it is not an innately natural process, religion is a manmade construct. Right on the fringe of agnosticism and mutually exclusive to most of the other groups is atheism (ie where the probability of God existing approaches zero).

I believe it requires the most learning and thinking to attain atheism. It is therefore beyond religion. At the other end of the scale, right in the center of our agnostic circle are the fanatically religious, those, I fear, that have a low ability to question the universe and yet accept fully what they are fed by mass, I feel sad for those particular flocks.

Humanity spans the entire circle of agnosticism with a fair degree of overlap of the various subsets, but some by definition are mutually exclusive. They are all humanity, the differences are irrelevant and anthropocentric and tend to inhibit a global holistic approach to world problems.

Cheers

 

[LuisDantas]

Since Islam and atheism are diametric opposites, I guess there's an automatic hostility there of sorts.

Is that at all true, however? Atheists are people just like anyone else. I certainly don't see any more need to have "automatic hostility" towards you than I have towards anyone else.

After all, I don't believe that there is a God. That means, among other things, that I am not inimical to it, much less to my fellow humans who happen to believe in Him. I don't usually oppose people or things that I don't believe to exist. And in part because I doubt there is a Higher Power watching for our sake, I happen to believe that we people should do our best to live together in harmony.

I just don't see why I would need to believe in God to seek that goal. I never denied anyone the right to believe in God, either. I will not accept such a belief as a pass to commit acts that would otherwise be wrong, that is all that I demand.

I know who I am. I know that I am not such an horrible person as to know that an all-loving, all-powerful God does exist and to choose to deny it. In fact, I wonder if such a person even exists; it looks a bit contradictory to my eyes.

So please at least consider that maybe, just maybe, disbelief in God isn't quite on the same level as stomping on Its work and grace, but instead simply a matter of spiritual honesty with no greater consequences.

Atheists/Secularists have worked quite diligently over the past century to try and dismantle Islam and to eradicate it, so it's no wonder Muslims dislike and oppose it.

I simply don't know what you are talking about here.

Since Islam is absolute belief, it's no wonder atheism will want to eradicate it.

Actually, it would be quite weird, if true.

We Atheists have such a hard time agreeing on most anything, much less forceful acts that would bring us no benefit and much ill will.

Christianity is no threat, since it was easily pacified, but Islam will not accept to submit to any other than the creator and sustainer.

In other words, we are your enemy even if we don't want to be, because unlike (some) Christians you will not settle for peaceful coexistence? Is that indeed what you claim?

If so, does that also imply that after you've supposedly trounced Atheism out of existence with your all-powerful faith and hostility you will then set your aims on those weak, "easily pacified" Christians so that they will behave better?

I guess what I am asking is: why do you insist in seeing hostility between Islam and Atheism as a given when it is in fact anything but at least from Atheism's side? What does it mean exactly that Christianity is "easily pacified" and why would that be a bad thing? Are we supposed to think of Islam and Christianity as threats if they become strong and influent enough? Is it therefore your opinion that God - who after all supposedly created us Atheists - wants us to oppose the People of the Book or else be "pacified" by them?

Is it even possible for a "proper" Muslim to see an Atheist as anything else but a potential convert, a subhuman to be despised, or a threat to be feared? Should it be possible? If not, why?

Please tell me. If I must denounce Islam as a religion of hate and despise for those who simply don't know of a God, then I guess there is no point in postponing it any. And if such a sorry scenario is not to be, then I guess we all are better for knowing it sooner rather than later, as well.

Peace. All the Best,
Luis.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Muslims being honest about Islam is Islam's best critic.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Luis, you spelled it out much better than I could. :yes:

Thanks bunches. I wound up using music metaphors, and likely not very effective ones either.

 

[Autodidact]

Thank you. I have the same appreciation and respect for you too.



I think he said that because he felt that Fatihah have been under attack or slander here, so he responded like that. I disagree of course with what he said, but i don't think he really meant that.

The part about that this attitude being consistent with Muslim. I think it is safe to say that this judging attitude is consistent with some believers or religionists in general. There are some, who always generalize against atheists and judge them in this way. Just like some (not all) atheists also generalize against religionists being irrational or any other thing that other atheists usually also criticize believers of, but in a much nicer way. So, it is just a bad thing that people do(judging).

I don't think judging is bad in itself. We all judge, and we need to and should. We need to be able to distinguish good from evil.

For example, the post we are discussing is immoral. It claims that Muslims are "more valuable" or "worth more" than non-believers. This way of looking at the world causes endless harm--it is the root of so much violence, oppression, injustice. It should be combated wherever it is found.

There is a tendency for some adherents of some religions not only to think this way, but to reduce their religiosity to this tribal mentality, which is actually not only not good, but a source of evil.

Again, the fact that an entire group of Muslims found nothing to comment on, sadly, comports with my predisposition that many Muslims are of this mentality. As I say, I think this mentality is a source of harm in the world, so apparently the way many Muslims practice Islam is a source of harm.

And we see this in practice. We see actual Muslims actually slaughtering people, including other innocent Muslims, based on their view of their religion.

I think this is what many non-Muslims find abhorrent, and, to get back to the OP, what anyone trying to explain or present Islam must content with. If you don't address it AND REPUDIATE IT, you're not going to get anywhere with overcoming our resistance to Islam.

 

[Fatihah]

Most muslims recognise their are at least two islamic sects, Shia and Sunni, in contradiction to the prose of the quaran. So I would question the validity your statement, I believe it would be more correct to state.

Only in the eyes of Agnostics is it clear that the truth is Agnosticism. Only in the eyes of muslims is it clear that the truth is Islam. Only in the eyes of jews is it clear that the truth is Judaism. Only in the eyes of Christians is it clear that the truth is Christianity. In my particular case as an atheist is it clear that the truth is Science.

Are we not equally correct or equally wrong? There is no "in fact" as it is all subjective opinion not objective fact.

Bit like saying "You may think your great, but I know I am perfect". An obvious fallacy, and intolerably arrogant IMO.

I think Luminous makes a valid point. If you know how to use Venn diagrams, you would see every human is in fact born with and falls within the super-set of Agnostics with subsets of the various religions contained within the umbrella of Agnosticism. All religions must be learned as the child grows - it is not an innately natural process, religion is a manmade construct. Right on the fringe of agnosticism and mutually exclusive to most of the other groups is atheism (ie where the probability of God existing approaches zero).

I believe it requires the most learning and thinking to attain atheism. It is therefore beyond religion. At the other end of the scale, right in the center of our agnostic circle are the fanatically religious, those, I fear, that have a low ability to question the universe and yet accept fully what they are fed by mass, I feel sad for those particular flocks.

Humanity spans the entire circle of agnosticism with a fair degree of overlap of the various subsets, but some by definition are mutually exclusive. They are all humanity, the differences are irrelevant and anthropocentric and tend to inhibit a global holistic approach to world problems.

Cheers

Response: Your entitled to question the validity of my statement. However, the truth is not based on consensus, but facts. So whether two parties disagree on what a certain truth is does not change the fact that something is true. So I would question the validity of your statement as well.

Furthermore, to state that it is not an innate natural process to learn religion is irrelevant to being born a muslim. For the definition of a muslim is not "an innate natural process to learn religion". Islam is the submission to the will of Allah. A child when born acts according to the will in which he or she was created and not their own will, thus the child is born a muslim.

 

[Autodidact]

i would like to say that it is not friendly to focus on certain people and start a personal bashing on them. i would refuse to join cos i think it is primitive and unnecessary. i might disgree with some Muslims but it is a disagreement nothing more or less. why would some non-Muslims want us Muslims to fight each other? i don't want to fight anyone. we sometimes disagree and you see it. why do you want us to fight like enemies to each other? would it make our disagreement more real or what? it makes no sense to me

.

Evil is evil, whether perpetrated by a Muslim or non-Muslim. If you can't or won't call it out and combat it, then there's a moral problem, IMO. The issue isn't whether he's Muslim, it's whether what he's saying is correct. Truth matters. Compassion matters. Good matters. What you say affects what happens in the world. 301's post was just one more little drop in the ocean that terrorism floats in. "Oh, Allah wants me to kill these unbelievers, because they are worth less than the toenail of a single believer." This is not wild speculation--it's actually going on in the world. And again, if you want to advance Islam, you have to repudiate evil done in its name. Otherwise people will assume that Islam accepts such evil.

 

[Autodidact]

Why must you insist on this simplistic push to demand that either someone's words be taken as the absolute representation of an entire religion and all it's adherents, or that they be denounced as astray and misrepresenting??

See above posts. If your religion makes you unable to recognize and denounce evil, it's a bad religion. This thread is about how to explain Islam to non-Muslims. One important thing that would help would be to distinguish Islam from the evil that is presented as Islam. If 301's post is consistent with Islam, and if Islam makes you unable to recognize and denounce it, then reasonable, compassionate, rational people are going to continue to view Islam as evil.

Oh, and your response completely distorts my question.

 

[Autodidact]

You state this because you don't understand the word involved. Islam/Muslim have a meaning that is completely pre-existing to the religion that you associate them with. They mean surrender/submission. Nobody is stating a child is born praying 5 times a day, fasting ramadan and wearing a jalabiyyah, you've completely missed the point of my entire post.

Like most religionist arguments, it assumes what it's trying to prove, and proceeds from there as if it were proven.

 

[Fatihah]

It depends on what you would call an "attack". There is such a thing as legitimate, disrespectful disagreement. Even when one of the parts involved is a Muslim and the other one is not.

Far as I can tell, Muslims are people. People who believe in God and the Quran, of course, but still people. Still fallible. Still capable of commiting unfair behavior, even. And therefore, still eligible to occasionally being called on such unfair behavior, exactly as is the case with non-Muslims.

Or are you talking about some sort of actual attack? Because I sure have a hard time recalling any Muslim being "attacked" here in this forum. There were some proud, bold statements, and there was some attempt at calling their bluffs and cutting them to proper measure.

To consider that "attacks" is, well, not terribly wise. And it certainly doesn't reflect well on Islam. We non-Muslims aren't claiming that Islam will meet ruin or anything, but we have actually seen threads created claiming literally that "Islam will dominate!" and the like, not to mention some very incendiary and unprovoked statements.

That some people, myself included, eventually decided to give our accusers a level of consideration more in line with that given us is only fair and to be expected. Being a Muslim is no grounds to being disrespectful with non-Muslims.



That is true. And yet it is exactly what a few Muslims have been doing time and again, apparently expecting to be commended for their "efforts". That is silly and destructive and deserves prompt reproach, of course. It has nothing to do with being Muslim, and everything to do with failing to behave respectfully.

Unless, I suppose, you'll disagree on grounds that by definition a Muslim can't be wrong when he insults a non-Muslim. If so, well, you are simply wrong. Faith in the Quran does not make a person morally superior, although it certainly can help in making her a better person if she has the proper mindset and the proper moral courage.



Except when it comes to actual comprovable fact. Not4me linked to a very good article on the matter not long ago, and I comment him for that.

Response: I'm referring to the actual definition of the word "attack". Whatever definition you choose, no one should ever be attacked because one disagrees with them.

 

[Autodidact]

Just as I'm sure you believe the laws of your society/belief system/ideology/whatever should be implemented also. Does that mean all of you need to be clones of one another? Come on, you're not making a lot of sense.

There is a huge distinction from advocating a society where everyone is free to believe as they choose (secularism) and one where everyone is required to believe or act as if they believe the same thing (Islamic theocracy.)

 

[Fatihah]

Why the divide?

Response: What divide are you referring to?

 

[*Anne*]

I'm curious. What mistakes do non-Muslims make when debating Muslims about Islam?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm curious. What mistakes do non-Muslims make when debating Muslims about Islam?

Assuming debate is possible with Muslims.

 

[Fatihah]

I'm curious. What mistakes do non-Muslims make when debating Muslims about Islam?

Response: The number one thing I would say is simply not being open-minded enough. Instead of actually reading the qur'an to learn islam, they rather read the newspaper and make a generalisation. I can probably say for sure, that of every critic of islam and non -muslims, even the non-muslims participating in this very thread, have never read the qur'an in its entirety and tried to understand it. Not only that, but they never have studied the hadiths and its chain of narrations. This is the biggest mistake. Not even having the courtesy to even read the qur'an and the sunnah fully before making a judgment of islam.

 

[Kerr]

Response: What divide are you referring to?

The divide between Muslims and non-Muslims. It is a generalization and not a very accurate one.

 

[Autodidact]

Since Islam and atheism are diametric opposites, I guess there's an automatic hostility there of sorts. Atheists/Secularists have worked quite diligently over the past century to try and dismantle Islam and to eradicate it, so it's no wonder Muslims dislike and oppose it.

Since Islam is absolute belief, it's no wonder atheism will want to eradicate it. Christianity is no threat, since it was easily pacified, but Islam will not accept to submit to any other than the creator and sustainer.

I just want to highlight and focus on this post, because I think it encapsulates our differences quite well.

Atheists as a rule do not combat people's right to believe or practice, they focus on the belief itself. We believe that Islam (and other religions) are incorrect, and argue as to why we believe that. We defend our right to do so--do you?

Because I defend your right to argue in favor of Islam. In fact, I defend it passionately and vociferously. That right is secularism.

What we resist and combat is the idea that anyone should be required to follow Islam or any other religion or lack of religion. As a rule, we do not advocate required atheism, at least, I certainly do not, and doubt that anyone here does.

If Islam seeks to impose Islam anywhere, then we are forced to resist it. Does it?

For example, when discussing homosexuality, Muslims stated that Islam could not accept it, could not accept my right to love and be loved by my beloved in the way we see best, despite the fact that we're not doing anything to you. Well, obviously, you put us in a position where we must combat Islam.

And in fact we saw an actual case of a woman who is in danger of being killed by an Islamic government for this very reason. That is pure evil.

Now, if you said your religion prohibits you from practicing homosexuality, but you have no problem with a society that permits it, and in fact advocate society permitting it to those who don't follow your religion, then I have no problem with Islam, and advocate in favor of people both practicing it and preaching it to others.

In short, I can respect your right insofar as it doesn't infringe on mine. Can you say the same?

 

[.lava]

Evil is evil, whether perpetrated by a Muslim or non-Muslim. If you can't or won't call it out and combat it, then there's a moral problem, IMO. The issue isn't whether he's Muslim, it's whether what he's saying is correct. Truth matters. Compassion matters. Good matters. What you say affects what happens in the world. 301's post was just one more little drop in the ocean that terrorism floats in. "Oh, Allah wants me to kill these unbelievers, because they are worth less than the toenail of a single believer." This is not wild speculation--it's actually going on in the world. And again, if you want to advance Islam, you have to repudiate evil done in its name. Otherwise people will assume that Islam accepts such evil.

wow wait a minute! he never said anything about killing non-Muslims. i am afraid you are making this calculation within your mind and act as if he did. this is not fair. he might love -any- Muslim more than any non-Muslim. it is not necessarily evil. evil would not try to communicate, in case you did not know

.

 

[Kerr]

wow wait a minute! he never said anything about killing non-Muslims. i am afraid you are making this calculation within your mind and act as if he did. this is not fair. he might love -any- Muslim more than any non-Muslim. it is not necessarily evil. evil would not try to communicate, in case you did not know

.

I would have to agree that it is not "evil" to love one group over another... wouldn´t say it is a good though, though. People are individuals and should be loved for who they are and not what faith they are of. In my opinion, at last .