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

[Wotan]

Even with all your capitalisations and whatnot, I still don't see how it makes the case that all Muslims must either be clones of one another, or Islam is false.

More of the defective reasoning Autodidact was using i think.



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.

You are quite (deliberately?) missing the point.

When we speak of math we all agree 2+2=4. Anyone who says otherwise is immediately regarded as wrong.

According to your mythology this Koran thing is perfect in every way w/o error or possibility of error. Like math what is says is beyond challenge.

Yet you guys - like your christian cousins- can't agree on exactly what it says. For a perfect in very way document it is clearly - UNclear.

Why is that?

 

[Commoner]

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.

You really are turning out to be a great example of a bad example.

Turn down the intensity a few notches, if you don't mind.

 

[.lava]

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".

Ataturk was not a puppet

.

 

[Caladan]

Ataturk was not a puppet

.

Indeed. Ataturk is one of the most respected figures of the modern era, one of the leaders who understood the challenges of his society, Europe, and the orient to the core.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

Speculating on how this might relate to the worry on which Hadiths are legitimate, I will ask: are you implying that Hadiths are valid only if their authory is closely related to Muhammad?

Do you believe, perhaps, that the Islamic doctrine of Muhammad's time is perfect and ultimate, and we can not improve it in any way, despite all the advances in social and human sciences since?

I have a hunch that you will dislike me saying that, but there is no shame in learning and wanting to reach better religious understanding. I want to believe that Muslims feel no duty to settle for what was possible to write, understand and do over 1400 years ago. I very much doubt that Muhammad himself would.

 

[Badran]

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?

Make it better in what way? It contains the teachings of God to us. Changing any of it would make it untrue to start with. I mean this is not a literature book. However, if you mean just literature wise, disregarding it's nature, i still don't think any addition can make it better, and i do think it will make it worse. In Arabic especially, the Quran is very unique in it's style.

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?

I don't understand this part.

 

[Commoner]

Make it better in what way? It contains the teachings of God to us. Changing any of it would make it untrue to start with. I mean this is not a literature book. However, if you mean just literature wise, disregarding it's nature, i still don't think any addition can make it better, and i do think it will make it worse. In Arabic especially, the Quran is very unique in it's style.

Well, you say it's perfect - not only by definition (being from god), but in the sense that you have not found any incorrect information in it and so forth. That it is not only perfect, but that you also recognize it as perfect.

I wonder in what way you recognize it as perfect? It does not contain all knowledge, does it? So, it does not seem to be perfect at least in that respect...or is it?

I don't understand this part.

Well, some things in the Qur'an are meant to be taken as metaphore, or at least not literally, no? Or does the sun set in a puddle of mud*? If it is to be taken as "correct", it must be taken as poetry, not as conveying factual information, right?

So, basically, what I'm wondering is - can you think of anything, in any literature, that can be taken as "incorrect" if one allows for these types of interpretations. Because when you say that you have not found anything incorrect in the Qur'an, is that not a rather meaningless statement, unless you mean factually incorrect?

I might have misunderstood what you meant.

*just an example...

 

[Wotan]

Make it better in what way? It contains the teachings of God to us. Changing any of it would make it untrue to start with. I mean this is not a literature book. However, if you mean just literature wise, disregarding it's nature, i still don't think any addition can make it better, and i do think it will make it worse. In Arabic especially, the Quran is very unique in it's style.



I don't understand this part.

According to your mythology this Koran thing is perfect in every way w/o error or possibility of error. Like math what is says is beyond challenge.

Yet you guys - like your christian cousins- can't agree on exactly what it says. For a perfect in very way document it is clearly - UNclear.

Why is that?

 

[LuisDantas]

Make it better in what way? It contains the teachings of God to us. Changing any of it would make it untrue to start with.

While I can see where you come from, I respectfully disagree, Badran. It is no disrespect - or even doubt about its divine nature - to want to complement and improve on the Qur'an, at least in the sense that while the Qur'an is the teaching of God, Islamic society itself is the work of God. Regardless of how transcendental the Qur'an may be, its understanding and the application of its teachings are palpable and factual.

To put it in another way, the Qur'an may be the precious root of Islam, but it is not its ultimate and final fruit. That would be Islamic society itself. Islam, after all, had its final revelation in the Qur'an, but it did not finish its history there.

 

[Autodidact]

So, aside from the story about Solomon. What does this have to do with anything?

You complained in the next post about people blaming certain things on secularism or Atheism, and then you used the exact same tactics? Telling biased stories about Muslims, and this should prove that Islam is bad.

Nobody claimed that Muslims were perfect, or that they are always good or all of them are good. So, what are you trying to prove?

Remember what he's refuting--the concept that Islam is perfect. That's why he's saying, "No, Islam is not perfect; it's far from perfect..." and then lists just a few of the many, many atrocities committed by Muslims in the name of Islam.

One response I have seen to that here at RF is that none of that is True Islam, because Islam is perfect, and that is bad, so that's not True Islam. To which I reply there is no such thing as True Islam, and the Fake Islam we actually have here on Planet Earth appears to be the exact opposite of perfect, so let's talk about Fake Islam. There's no point in discussing True Islam, because it has never existed, and all attempts to bring it into existence result in the deadly, violent, horrible Fake Islam.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Well when I give it a try in English, I always come across a whole bunch of violent threats that really turn me off. I mean, looking at things neutrally, if something is true or good, you don't have to threaten me with eternal torment (or promise me eternal reward) to get me to believe it or do it. As far as I can tell, an elaborate system of post-death reward and punishment seems to be a key feature of Islam. Which I find childish, silly, disgusting, primitive and, at a minimum, unverifiable. In fact, again in general, if you have to threaten me to get me to believe something, it's a huge red flag that you have no evidence with which to persuade me.

As far as not advocating evil things, there are certainly a lot of passages that millions of Muslims have understood to mean they should do extremely evil things, and we have seen that view expressed right in this thread. Again, you may disagree with their interpretation, but I as a non-Muslim am in no position to argue with them. At a minimum, the world would be a better place if those passages were not there or were more clear.

There are other moral systems in the world that are so much more advanced, that don't emphasize revenge, that encourage us to treat all people with compassion, even those who have committed evil against us. I don't find this view in the qur'an, do you?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

This is a good example of what I'm complaining about. Today, as I type, people are being oppressed, discriminated against, beaten, unjustly incarcerated and tortured in the name of Shariah law. Here Abu merely declares it's not the real deal and washes Islam's hands of it. Nifty, that. But if attempts to implement Shariah have these results, then the world will be a better place if countries please, please cease to try. Let us have no more Irans or Saudi Arabias.

It doesn't help the poor woman in Saudi Arabia who is beaten for not fastening her walking-tent tightly enough to tell her that her punishment is not really Islamic. It might help if you could persuade the religious police there of that.

Whatever you call it, it's a very, very, bad thing, and should be fought, resisted, eliminated as much as possible.

 

[Abu Rashid]

This is a good example of what I'm complaining about. Today, as I type, people are being oppressed, discriminated against, beaten, unjustly incarcerated and tortured in the name of Shariah law.

Show me a single country that implements Shari'ah law.

And just because it claims it's so on the books doesn't make it so. Anymore than it makes democracy (and all it's supporters) responsible for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

 

[Abu Rashid]

You are quite (deliberately?) missing the point.

When we speak of math we all agree 2+2=4. Anyone who says otherwise is immediately regarded as wrong.

According to your mythology this Koran thing is perfect in every way w/o error or possibility of error. Like math what is says is beyond challenge.

Yet you guys - like your christian cousins- can't agree on exactly what it says. For a perfect in very way document it is clearly - UNclear.

Why is that?

Well scientists can't agree on whether light is a particle or a wave, therefore all science is false. Good reasoning... I'll have to try that some time

 

[Abu Rashid]

Ataturk was not a puppet

Caladan already answered this one:

Indeed. Ataturk is one of the most respected figures of the modern era, one of the leaders who understood the challenges of his society, Europe, and the orient to the core.

 

[Autodidact]

Show me a single country that implements Shari'ah law.

You seem to have missed the point of my post. I didn't say they have. What I said is, any attempt to do so leads to oppression and violence, so the world will be a better place of no one tries.

And just because it claims it's so on the books doesn't make it so. Anymore than it makes democracy (and all it's supporters) responsible for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

so your claim is that the only thing that today's Islamic governments have in common with Islam is the name? The people of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen and Syria are not Muslim? The people in charge in Iran are not Muslim clerics? They are not doing their best to implement Sharia law?

 

[Autodidact]

Well scientists can't agree on whether light is a particle or a wave, therefore all science is false. Good reasoning... I'll have to try that some time

The qur'an is perfect.

A perfect book would be clear and understandable, not subject to wildly different interpretation.
The qur'an is not clear and understandable, and is subject to wildly different interpretation.

Therefore the qur'an is not perfect.

*hint* An analogy is not an argument, especially if it is inapposite. Science is supposed to be tentative, provisional and subject to future discovery. Is the qur'an?

 

[Abu Rashid]

o your claim is that the only thing that today's Islamic governments have in common with Islam is the name? The people of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen and Syria are not Muslim?

Are the people of North Korea precluded from believing in Democracy just because their tyrannical government misuses it's name? Pretty shallow thinking.

The people in charge in Iran are not Muslim clerics?

Considering Islam spoke against the very idea of clergy and forbade the Muslims from implementing one, yes, quite obviously, they are frauds.

 

[Commoner]

Well scientists can't agree on whether light is a particle or a wave, therefore all science is false. Good reasoning... I'll have to try that some time

Science is not perfect.

EDIT: again, I was too late

 

[Abu Rashid]

commoner, nowhere did I state there that science is perfect.