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

[YmirGF]

so thanks for the understandable reply

Indeed, Badran is certainly refreshing.

 

[Badran]

Theoretically it is not important what you believe as Islam is described as being perfect by Allah himself. The thoughts of trifling humans, on the matter, are of no consequence.

Of course It is important. Because i didn't believe that, just because it says so in the Quran. I explained in another thread, that part of the reason i came to this belief, was due to my personal opinion that i have not found any errors or contradictions in the Quran. Also, it doesn't advocate evil things, and it has a great effect on me in Arabic. So, i do agree that it is perfect. If i found errors in it, i wouldn't have remained a Muslim.

 

[Badran]

It makes sense if thats what you want it to be. Thanks for being clear, i've had this kind of discussion before and been told i shouldn''t be asking such questions and that i'm too secular to understand etc. so thanks for the understandable reply

No problem at all .

 

[Badran]

Indeed, Badran is certainly refreshing.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate you saying that, while completely disagreeing with my opinions.

 

[Caladan]

Did anyone respond to post #12?

 

[Abu Rashid]

Then do you think what the Islamic empires did (invasion, occupation and slavery) are not "Islamic"?

Some of it's aspects were Islamic, some were not. The measure of if something is Islamic or not, is whether or not it conforms to the Islamic texts. Not just by saying about things/people "Is X Islamic? If so, then everything X does represents Islam, and Islam is completely defined by X". Your point of view is flawed since it attempts to establish a parity between Islam and something else. Islam is Islam is Islam, period.

Many Muslims would claim that Islam and Islamic Empire are one and the same, hence no separation of state and religion. If the empire invaded another country, then Islam is responsible for the invasion.

The Khilafah (Ang. caliphate) was most definitely Islamic in the sense that it was a state that implemented Islam and carried the Islamic way of life. But again, your flaw is in trying to equate two things which are not the same thing and which cannot even be compared since they are not even the same on a conceptual level. It's like saying that the colour orange and the fruit orange are the same thing and totally represent one another, they do not. One is merely an attribute of the other and this is the relationship they share, nothing more nothing less. You need to learn how to identify relationships between things, and especially how to recognise the limits of those relationships.


It's rather simplistic thinking to just equate things with one another, since you managed to identify a relationship between them. It demonstrates a very base and unsophisticated mode of analysis.

Many Muslims would claim that Islam (or the Qur'an) is responsible for the so-called "Islamic" science instead of giving due credits to Muslim scientists who made the discoveries.

That's right, but I don't know any Muslims who'd claim that science 100% represents Islam, nor that Islam is 100% represented by that science.

And do you think Islamic law (sharia) and law court of today used the same law and court back in the day of the Islamic empire's days?

Shari'ah was what was implemented throughout the history of the Khilafah, but today it is not implemented. There simply is no place on earth where it is implemented, since at least the abolition of the Khilafah (in 1924), and probably for some time before then also.

 

[Abu Rashid]

Do you forget that they destroyed the Byzantine capital - Constantinople, which you called Istanbul?

1) We did not destroy it, we restored it, when it was in a complete state of ruin and decline. The Byzantine state was a rotting corpse of a state when the Ottomans arrived and took Constantinople. It imposed extremely heavy taxes on it's subjects and was basically just holding it's own people prisoner. It was surrounded on all sides by Ottoman territories.

2) We did not change it's name to Istanbul. This is one of the most widely held misconceptions. Up until the early-1920's it was still called Constantinople (actually: Qustantaniyya, the Arabic rendering), it was the British puppet Kemal Ataturk who renamed it Istanbul when he took it from the Muslims to establish his atheist state. I have coins here minted in the early 1900's and they all say "darb fi qustantaniyya" (struck in constantinople), not a single mention of Ataturk's "Istanbul".

 

[gnostic]

Some of it's aspects were Islamic, some were not. The measure of if something is Islamic or not, is whether or not it conforms to the Islamic texts. Not just by saying about things/people "Is X Islamic? If so, then everything X does represents Islam, and Islam is completely defined by X". Your point of view is flawed since it attempts to establish a parity between Islam and something else. Islam is Islam is Islam, period.

Thank you for responding.

I supposed we see thing in different way. I see Islam, not just religion and nothing more than religion. Without the empires and all the followers from Muhammad's time to today, then Islam doesn't exist whatsoever.

The followers are integral part of any religion. I have explained in the past (possibly in my 1st year as member, though I don't know where this explanation is now), that I see Islam as a system. Muhammad only make one part of Islam. The Qur'an makes up of another part. Then there are other literature, like the hadiths for example. Then there is the history of Islam, with what people have done since Muhammad. And I think the most important part is the followers, because without them, there is no Islam. Islam is more than just a prophet or a book. It is about the followers too, and how they acted or reacted.

Regardless whether you or I like or not, Islam has a history, and people have done many things in the name of their religion and for their religion. And since Islam has followers and a history, ignoring it.

It is like the Germans denying the Holocaust ever happened, which some of Muslims here have done too. Some Muslims actually deny the Germans ever send Jews to camps, where they were tortured, experimented upon and gassed. It is bad enough that the Germans deny it ever happening, but it is disgusting when some Muslims used the same propaganda from Iran, Palestine and other Muslim-populated countries, in order to forward their anti-Israel or anti-Semitic bigotry.

 

[gnostic]

1) We did not destroy it, we restored it, when it was in a complete state of ruin and decline. The Byzantine state was a rotting corpse of a state when the Ottomans arrived and took Constantinople. It imposed extremely heavy taxes on it's subjects and was basically just holding it's own people prisoner. It was surrounding on all sides by Ottoman territories.

That's propaganda that Muslims like to play.

It all has to do power. The Byzantine empire was already weakened when the so-called Crusade had captured and loot the city. The city had already lost many of territories (to the Venetic and to the Ottoman), so it lost lot of economic resources, so if taxation were higher than it is quite understandable. But it was also had to deal with the plagues which continued to cause havoc in Europe, from what was known as the Black Death of the 14th century.

The Ottoman Turks took more of their territories. Eventually they captured the city after it was heavily bombarded by cannon-fire.

To say the Greeks of Constantinople wanted to be rescued by the Ottoman because of tax is complete B.S.

What rights do the Ottoman Turks have to interfere with another kingdom?

The Muslims don't like it when Israel took the Palestine land, don't you think the Byzantine Greeks would have felt the same way?

Ottoman Empire is only interested in one thing and one thing alone. Power. And this is gain by expanding its territory. Why do you think Ottoman continue to push westward? More liberation of people from taxes? Whether the people are being taxed by their native rulers or by the Ottoman, the people are still taxed. Or that happened, is that they have traded one native master for a foreign master.

Again, I have to ask. Why did Ottoman continue to expand empire further westward into Central Europe? Are you that naive to think the Ottoman emperors were not thinking about lands and money?

 

[gnostic]

2) We did not change it's name to Istanbul. This is one of the most widely held misconceptions. Up until the early-1920's it was still called Constantinople (actually: Qustantaniyya, the Arabic rendering), it was the British puppet Kemal Ataturk who renamed it Istanbul when he took it from the Muslims to establish his atheist state. I have coins here minted in the early 1900's and they all say "darb fi qustantaniyya" (struck in constantinople), not a single mention of Ataturk's "Istanbul".

I have to admit, I don't know when the name had changed with regards to Constantinople.

I have never been a fan of modern history. Most of my interest in history have always being ancient history and medieval history. Anything after the Renaissance, I had only passing interests. Too many things were going on around the world, so I had concentrated on ancient history. But even ancient history was just a passing interest too. I had been more interested in mythology and legend.

 

[Abu Rashid]

Thank you for responding.

No problem.

The followers are integral part of any religion. I have explained in the past (possibly in my 1st year as member, though I don't know where this explanation is now), that I see Islam as a system. Muhammad only make one part of Islam. The Qur'an makes up of another part. Then there are other literature, like the hadiths for example.

This is not necessarily different to how I view it either. Islam is the message revealed in the Qur'an, lived in the life of Muhammad (pbuh) and documented in the hadith. The Qur'an is the blueprint, and Muhammad (pbuh) is the implementation. The hadith are the reports from which we know about Muhammad (pbuh) and his implementation, they are basically his documented speech/actions/approvals.

But that is where the entity that is Islam stops. If Ahmad such and such does something contrary to Islam, that is not part of Islam, and therefore cannot be attributed to Islam.

Then there is the history of Islam, with what people have done since Muhammad. And I think the most important part is the followers, because without them, there is no Islam. Islam is more than just a prophet or a book. It is about the followers too, and how they acted or reacted.

Although the implementation of a system of living is indeed an example of it, you cannot take it to the extreme and say anything that anyone with a Muslim name does is Islam, since it is not. I agree the 1300 (or so) years of implementation of Islam can be taken as an example of Islam being implemented, no problem, but not the wholesale claim that any and every individual from a Muslim background is the epitome of Islam.

You need to find the middle ground there I think. You do have a valid point in that a system needs to be gauged by it's implementation, but you can't go overboard and claim even those clearly not implementing it are representative of it too.

It is like the Germans denying the Holocaust ever happened, which some of Muslims here have done too.

What exactly do you think is like this? What are you likening this too?

Some Muslims actually deny the Germans ever send Jews to camps, where they were tortured, experimented upon and gassed. It is bad enough that the Germans deny it ever happening, but it is disgusting when some Muslims used the same propaganda from Iran, Palestine and other Muslim-populated countries, in order to forward their anti-Israel or anti-Semitic bigotry.

I don't think they seriously believe that. They are most likely just stating it to expose the hypocrisy of the West. Like Ahmedinejad with his holocaust cartoon competition. He clearly exposed the hypocrisy of the Western nations, who cry out about freedom of speech when it comes to mocking Islam in cartoons, but when it approaches their own "sacred cows" like the holocaust, all of a sudden freedom of speech is silenced.

Look at France for instance, where it's against the law to deny the "holocaust" against the Armenians, yet not a single word is mentioned of the 2 million odd Ottoman Muslims liquidated by the Christian states around the same time. Let alone France's own record in places like Algeria, where it caused about 1/3 of the population to just "disappear" off the face of the earth back in the early 1800's.

Also the hypocrisy of the Jewish state itself. A racially based stated, which does much the same to the Palestinians as the Nazis did to them. I think a lot of it is clearly a reaction to the Jewish/Western denial of what they're doing to the Palestinians.

 

[Abu Rashid]

To say the Greeks of Constantinople wanted to be rescued by the Ottoman because of tax is complete B.S.

Since I didn't state that, I'll leave that one.

What rights do the Ottoman Turks have to interfere with another kingdom?

The Byzantines had been fighting the Ottomans for years. They called other Europeans to wage crusades against the Ottomans, and they even called on the Mongols to attack the Ottomans, which almost completely wiped the Ottomans out. So there was definitely a mutual hostility there, was certainly not one sided.

The Muslims don't like it when Israel took the Palestine land, don't you think the Byzantine Greeks would have felt the same way?

That was the age of empires. It was 'consume or be consumed'. Today we live in a very different world, and I personally don't advocate a return to usurping the land of others through military conquest. The supporters of Israel apparently do though, and sadly they may one day get a taste of it themselves, since they've insisted on persisting with such a system.

Ottoman Empire is only interested in one thing and one thing alone.

Is? Or you mean was? Either you're not aware the Ottoman Caliphate was abolished about 90 odd years ago, or you don't seem to distinguish between past and present.

Why do you think Ottoman continue to push westward? More liberation of people from taxes? Whether the people are being taxed by their native rulers or by the Ottoman, the people are still taxed. Or that happened, is that they have traded one native master for a foreign master.

They went to carry Islam to the world. Islam spread and required protection, and so they expanded to protect it. As the frontier regions became more and more Muslim, the Ottomans (like other Caliphates before them) had an obligation to advance and protect them. In case you aren't aware of the situation back then, Muslims were not permitted to live as far as Christian Europe was concerned. If Muslims were in a land exposed to the Europeans, they used to just execute them or force them to convert. This is a fact! Islam on the other hand tolerated Christians, even when the same was not given in return.

People often forget this state of affairs, and recount only the part of the historical equation that matches up with their propagandous aims.

Just look at how many mosques (or any other non-Christian place of worship) remain standing in the European lands. Very few, and the ones left standing were only the very recent ones. Any earlier ones were demolished by the Europeans or converted to churches. Even the oldest synagogue in Europe was built in al-Andalus (Muslim Spain), since most other parts of Europe would not tolerate "houses of evil" to stand within their domains. How many druid temples remain in Europe? How many pre-Christian religions? Absolutely none! Every single trace of non-Christian religion was meticulously eradicated by the Europeans. The same cannot be said for the Islamic lands.

I have to admit, I don't know when the name had changed with regards to Constantinople.

Well here's a coin struck in 1293 H. (that's about 1876 C.E).

I'm sure any other Arabic reader in this thread will confirm for you that it says "darb fi Qustantaniyya" (struck in Constantinople).

 

[Abu Rashid]

Actually here's an official date (is later than even I thought):

"Constantinople as the name of the city was officially deprecated in favor of the Turkish name Istanbul in 1930 with the Turkish Postal Service Law, as part of Atatürk's national reforms." (Source: Wikipedia: Constantinople)

 

[Commoner]

People are not perfect, they do mistakes. There attempts to follow their religion will have downfalls and they will do mistakes, always. the Quran doesn't make someone perfect.

However, since i understand your point here, i'll rephrase. Our belief, is that Islamic teachings, in the Quran are perfect. As in, they don't contradict, and they don't advocate evil things, and they don't contain false information. So, it is our belief, that the Quran hasn't been corrupted through time.

Do you believe there is nothing in the Qur'an that could be taken out or nothing that could be added to make it better or at least, not make it worse?

Perfection is a funny thing - especially when it comes to things that do not have to be taken literally. I find it hard to imagine anything that could be considered false in every aspect, in every possible interpretation. How could it not be perfect?

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you believe there is nothing in the Qur'an that could be taken out or nothing that could be added to make it better or at least, not make it worse?

In a way, that is what the Haddiths are - commentary and additions to the Qur'an.

 

[Peace]

Islam is the message revealed in the Qur'an, lived in the life of Muhammad (pbuh) and documented in the hadith. The Qur'an is the blueprint, and Muhammad (pbuh) is the implementation. The hadith are the reports from which we know about Muhammad (pbuh) and his implementation, they are basically his documented speech/actions/approvals.

Masha'Allah beautifully put brother!

 

[Abu Rashid]

In a way, that is what the Haddiths are - commentary and additions to the Qur'an.

Seems you've really read them to know... Come on, who are you trying to kid?

The vast majority of hadith are merely first hand accounts and quotations of Muhammad's (pbuh) speech, and in some cases descriptions of his actions by his closest of companions and family members. Many hadith are reports of people approaching him and asking him to explain a verse or an issue to them.

 

[LuisDantas]

Seems you've really read them to know... Come on, who are you trying to kid?

No, I haven't read them directly, nor on any direct translations. I'm indeed making an educated guess from various bits and pieces I gathered along the way.

Why do you think I'm trying to kid anyone, I can't guess, however. After all, by posting in this thread I know for a fact that there will be Muslims ready to correct me if need be.

That is sort of the point of the whole thread, isn't it?

The vast majority of hadith are merely first hand accounts and quotations of Muhammad's (pbuh) speech, and in some cases descriptions of his actions by his closest of companions and family members. Many hadith are reports of people approaching him and asking him to explain a verse or an issue to them.

I fail to see how that makes my previous statement less true.

 

[Abu Rashid]

In other words what we should take from this example is that rather than conveying to us your wisdom about issues you have some knowledge about, you just doubtfully guess at the unknown? And then pass it on...

I figured this was the case much earlier on, nice to see it confirmed though.

 

[LuisDantas]

In other words what we should take from this example is that rather than conveying to us your wisdom about issues you have some knowledge about, you just doubtfully guess at the unknown? And then pass it on...

I figured this was the case much earlier on, nice to see it confirmed though.

I wish I knew why you have such a beef with me. I have no idea.

Look, this is a thread aimed at promoting a better understanding about Muslims and non-Muslims. If you would rather seek pretexts to insult non-Muslims, perhaps you shouldn't post here.

Or maybe you could at least answer the question I just directed to you. Namely, in which sense, if any, the Hadiths are not comments and additions to the Qur'an. You gave me a lot of bravado but no substance at all, and I noticed it.