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

[Abu Rashid]

Science is supposed to be tentative, provisional and subject to future discovery. Is the qur'an?

Yes. In fact the very word shari'ah in it's linguistic meaning refers to a neverending source.

 

[Commoner]

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

No, what I was trying to get at is that you cannot use the same logic for something that is supposed to be perfect and for something that is not supposed to be. Your analogy is therefore not valid.

 

[Autodidact]

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

So your claim is that the people of Iran never had an Islamic revolution, and did not try to govern their country according to Islamic law?

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

What do you mean here by "Islam," do you mean the qur'an? So are the people of Iran Muslims?

In any case, as I say, the problem is not True Islam, since apparently it does not exist. The problem is any attempt to implement Islam, which results in oppression, poverty and violence. The conclusion is that the world will be a better place if people do not try to implement Islamic rule, as they did in Iran. Disastrous for the people of Iran, not to mention everyone else they've caused trouble for.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes. In fact the very word shari'ah in it's linguistic meaning refers to a neverending source.

So we can change shariah law at any time?

Not Sharia--the quran. Is the qur'an perfect, complete and clear? Or is it subject to constant revision, tentative and provisional?

 

[301ouncer]

Mistake like 301ouncer's topic - Islam will dominate.

Bashing secularism.

Not at all. I am not bashing secularism. It looks like bashing just because secularisim is intellectually banckrupt.

I know that secular society may not be "perfect", but are there any such thing as a "perfect society"?

There is some close to "perfection society" but here unfortantly secularisim is going compeletly the other direction.

I rather lived with imperfect secular law than a brutal Islamic law that are clearly biased against non-Muslims.

Islamic law was over 1300 years of its existance a beacon of hope and an example to follow. Please refer to the chinese emperors communicae' with the khalif of the state. Also the famous jewish historian who proclaimed it to be the "Golden age".

Secular law now in existance of just over 246 years and the furstration of its fruits can be seen by both muslims and christains alike.

And 301ouncer kept ignorantly confusing secularism with atheism.

No ignorancy whatsoever. I have provided the solid prove of secularisim and atheism link just now on my thread. unless you are correct but I have not been rebutted yet.

 

[Wotan]

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

You are quite good at evading and obfuscating. A pretty good sign you have no evidence.

Science does not CLAIM to be perfect.

Your religion DOES. So why don't ALL of you agree on what it says?

 

[Wotan]

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



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

So there is not supposed to BE Islamic clerics? This is news. :cover: And rather odd since such clerics exist EVERYWHERE Islam is practiced.

Wa happened?

 

[Wotan]

"Secular law now in existance of just over 246 years and the furstration of its fruits can be seen by both muslims and christains alike."

What happened in 1764?

 

[YmirGF]

Not at all. I am not bashing secularism. It looks like bashing just because secularisim is intellectually banckrupt.

Oh.... the irony in your comments. And dare I ask, are you by chance, representative of the kind of folks in a society that is superior to secular society?

There is some close to "perfection society" but here unfortantly secularisim is going compeletly the other direction.

And what is that "perfection society" in your esteemed view, 301...

Secular law now in existance of just over 246 years and the furstration of its fruits can be seen by both muslims and christains alike.

No ignorancy whatsoever. I have provided the solid prove of secularisim and atheism link just now on my thread. unless you are correct but I have not been rebutted yet.

Well that's the thing about secular society, 301. It doesn't claim to be perfect, but it is, in my opinion, far better than any existing alternatives.

 

[LuisDantas]

Caladan already answered this one:

By agreeing with .lava in that you are wrong.

BTW, are you going to give a decent answer to my questions?

 

[Badran]

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 view it in the context, that i agree with the teachings, they all seem fair and just to me. Also, it doesn't include any contradictions, Which was what i meant by errors. It is also very strong, as in it's effect on me is very strong. So, in that context i view it to be perfect. It is not claimed that the quran is a book which contains everything, or all knowledge. It is a revelation from god telling us the things we need to know, and giving us these words to follow him through it.

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...

Like i said what i meant was that it doesn't include contradictions for example. As in to give a rule, and then oppose it.

 

[Badran]

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?

Yes this is true, but that doesn't mean it's unclear. For two reasons:

1) That the majority do agree on the interpretations of the Quran, so just because some others disagree,doesn't necessarily mean that it is unclear.

2) That the disagreements are only on some parts, not all or most parts, at least as far as i'm aware.

 

[Badran]

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.

There are two parts:

1) We can't improve God's work. Such concept can only be acceptable if god said that we should or can. Otherwise, we are basically doing what we want, regardless of the fact(from our view) that these words are his, and that we are supposed to followed it as it is. Also, the Islamic society is not the work of God. It is the work of humans trying to make an Islamic society.

2) We could however improve our stance to things that have been decided by us. In other words, our stance from anything that we decided on our selves, we can modify that because it is human work.

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.

Yes, very true. but still doesn't mean we should change the Quran. It means that when we face changes that needs reconsideration in any matter, we should revise our stance from it. And make sure we understand the Quran correctly regarding it. However, the very concept of changing or improving the words of the Quran can't be an option. For the reasons i told you. Because then it is just a matter of opinion. The Quran is the very reference on which we judge things, so how can we change it.

 

[Badran]

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.

Again this is using the faulty argument that just because some Muslims do bad things, means that Islam is bad. Or that just because they say it is done in the name of Islam means they are right in what they say. Which we already discussed in another thread, that the right thing to do, is actually viewing the religion's teachings. If you still find it wrong, or bad or a religion you don't like, that's okay, in the end it is up to you. Of course your opinion that it's bad won't make it so, just like my opinion that it's good won't make it so. But please don't use the same method that is criticized when used against secularism. Or the other argument, which only shows you are unfair, because you based on the acts of the bad, that the religion is bad, while their are others that do beautiful things also 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.

That is, once again, your opinion. Only in some people's eyes, including you, this is the case. That doesn't make it so. There is True Islam, and there is wrong actions that are not parts of Islam. Not just based on the argument that "Islam is perfect, therefore anything that is bad, is not part of it". No, it is based on that every action done by bad examples of Muslims, directly contradicts the teachings of Islam. That is of course in my opinion and my view of Islam, as well as millions of other Muslims.

For your other post:

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.

The Quran warns, or gives warnings, as well as it gives promises to those who do good, and those who do bad, that they will be dearly rewarded for their lives and what the good they have done in it, and will be punished for there wrong doings. It is my duty to warn you if i know that something bad will happen to you, if you keep doing what you are doing. It is also my duty, to promise you great rewards, to encourage you to do the right thing. It is just one of many methods to encourage people to keep away from bad things, and do good. Other ways, is praise of good, and condoning bad. And there are other ways too. So it is not a key feature, it is just one of the ways in which God teaches those who believe in him what is good and what is bad, and that they should do good things and not do bad things.

Which I find childish, silly, disgusting, primitive and, at a minimum, unverifiable.

Thanks, that sure is a very nice thing to say about Islam, when discussing it with a Muslim.

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.

Another take on this, which i found to be very fair(It was said by Revoltingest), was that you are entitled in this case to view Islam as risky. Because while some do what you say, millions of others do the exact opposite. So, since as you said, you can't as a non-Muslim argue with them, then at least don't assume that they are correct in their view, or suggest to remove these verses. You only say that from your prospective, because you don't believe the Quran to be the direct word of the creator of the universe, so it is easier to you to say just remove it. It is not correct, that anything that cause good and bad should be removed. Also, i believe, that those who claim that these verses say so, are lying. Not all of them of course, but most of those who advocate this interpretations. Like the heads of radical groups for example.

And once again, the best way to find out, is to actually view all the teachings of the religion.

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.

Of course, in your opinion, which you are very much entitled to.

I don't find this view in the qur'an, do you?

Yes, I do find them in the Quran, and more great stuff too.

 

[gnostic]

There is some close to "perfection society" but here unfortantly secularisim is going compeletly the other direction.

Secularism was never aimed at setting up a perfect society or perfect system.

Do you seriously think that secularism is about creating an utopia, 301? If you are then you are completely ignorant about what secularism is all about.

For one, secularism is to separate state from religion. People can still choose to follow any religion they wish to do, but the religion doesn't govern the country. Do you understand this?

The second thing is the secular law. Everyone will have the same basic civil rights. These rights include:

• The right to seek legal representation and get fair trial from impartial judge and jury.
• The right to vote.
• Everyone get the right for everyone to get an education. If people can't pay for their children private schooling, then they can use the public school. But there need to be distinction between public school and religious school. The public school should be run by government funding, without interference from religion or religious organisation. Religious school can teach what they want, but public school is not a religious school.

If you don't like secular society, with secular political constitution and secular law, then I suggest that you move to a country that have theocracy and religious law (in your case, a country that practice and enforced Islamic law).

I value my freedom and individuality, and I find Muslim-majority-populated countries around the world, to be quite oppressive. I have no desire to live in such country.

I lived in Australia. It is not perfect, but I am not looking for perfection. The law doesn't always work, the way our community, but many of us preferred the current system than a Christian or Islamic system.

All I want is a "fair go". An opportunity to do what I want (of course, with the legal parameter or legal boundary), and not have stupid Christian clergy or Islamic cleric telling me what I am doing is a sin or other hypocritical preaching and double-standard. If you want to listen archaic and barbaric teaching, then that's your problem.

Does any Muslim-populated or Muslim-governed country (I am talking about theocracy) in this world today, have a perfect legal, social or educational system, 301?

I doubt every much there is a single such country.

 

[Kerr]

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

You need to read up on that, you know. It is both. Just like all matter (you can make all forms of matter act like a wave if you do things right). At last that is what I remember from my physics lessons a couple of years back, my memory may be fuzzy.

EDIT:

Ok, maybe I misunderstood what you where trying to get across, lol.

 

[gnostic]

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

If you can't grasp that it can be both, then considered water.

Water or more precisely H20, usually have liquid state at room temperature. At freezing point, water can be solid state, hence ice. And finally, water can be evaporated, hence it is a gaseous state. The property of H20 are the same.

Science allow us to understand that other elements and molecules have

Science allow us to understand, which is more than I can say about the gibberish verse of the Qur'an that sprout nonsense repeated from ancient myth of Sumerian myth about creating man out of clay. This showed that neither Allah nor its all-knowing prophet Muhammad know that clay is absolutely useless materials to make flesh and bone. None of the human tissues has a single clay molecule.

 

[Commoner]

I view it in the context, that i agree with the teachings, they all seem fair and just to me. Also, it doesn't include any contradictions, Which was what i meant by errors. It is also very strong, as in it's effect on me is very strong. So, in that context i view it to be perfect. It is not claimed that the quran is a book which contains everything, or all knowledge. It is a revelation from god telling us the things we need to know, and giving us these words to follow him through it.

Ah, yes...but is that not the case with a great deal of texts, both technical, religious and poetic? Authors always try very hard not to contradict themselves and often, they succeed, but I would hardly call those works "perfect", even if I were in full and emphatic agreement with the author - the term just seems a bit too strong and too easily misinterpreted (even, it would seem, by your fellow Muslims). But that's just semantics...

What I've always found a hard problem to solve - and maybe you've had better luck - is why a message from god, supposedly perfect, is not perfect in its function. That is, why does it not convey its message a bit more perfectly? Why, when someone who does not reject god honestly looks at the Qur'an, does he not always come to the same conclusion - at least on the main points, it being a message of peace, for instance? (and btw, this is an issue all religions have imho). You cannot say they are being disingenuous, or can you? Do you think the message was only meant for some people? How do you solve this issue?

 

[neves]

If you can't grasp that it can be both, then considered water.

Water or more precisely H20, usually have liquid state at room temperature. At freezing point, water can be solid state, hence ice. And finally, water can be evaporated, hence it is a gaseous state. The property of H20 are the same.

Science allow us to understand that other elements and molecules have

Science allow us to understand, which is more than I can say about the gibberish verse of the Qur'an that sprout nonsense repeated from ancient myth of Sumerian myth about creating man out of clay. This showed that neither Allah nor its all-knowing prophet Muhammad know that clay is absolutely useless materials to make flesh and bone. None of the human tissues has a single clay molecule.

"Clay minerals are formed by water alteration of silicate minerals. As soon as liquid water appeared in the surface of the primitive Earth, clay minerals probably accumulated and became suspended in the primitive ocean. The importance of clay mineral in the origins of life was first suggested by Bernal [6]. The advantageous features of clays for Bernal were (i) their ordered arrangement, (ii) their large adsorption capacity, (iii) their shielding against sunlight, (iv) their ability to concentrate organic chemicals, and (v) their ability to serve as polymerization templates. Since the seminal hypothesis of Bernal, many prebiotic scenarios involving clays have been written and many prebiotic experiments have used clays. So far, the most impressive results have been obtained by Ferris at al. [7]. Oligomers up to 55 long were obtained for both nucleotides and amino acids in the presence of montmorillonite for nucleotides and of illite for amino acids."

http://www.dlr.de/me/PortalData/25/Resources/dokumente/strahlenbiologie/astrobook/P2_05.pdf

 

[Commoner]

"Clay minerals are formed by water alteration of silicate minerals. As soon as liquid water appeared in the surface of the primitive Earth, clay minerals probably accumulated and became suspended in the primitive ocean. The importance of clay mineral in the origins of life was first suggested by Bernal [6]. The advantageous features of clays for Bernal were (i) their ordered arrangement, (ii) their large adsorption capacity, (iii) their shielding against sunlight, (iv) their ability to concentrate organic chemicals, and (v) their ability to serve as polymerization templates. Since the seminal hypothesis of Bernal, many prebiotic scenarios involving clays have been written and many prebiotic experiments have used clays. So far, the most impressive results have been obtained by Ferris at al. [7]. Oligomers up to 55 long were obtained for both nucleotides and amino acids in the presence of montmorillonite for nucleotides and of illite for amino acids."

http://www.dlr.de/me/PortalData/25/Resources/dokumente/strahlenbiologie/astrobook/P2_05.pdf

How does that equal creating humans from clay?

BTW, you'll know this better than I do - but were not animals supposed to be created only from water according to the qur'an? Was not "clay", if you can call it that, reserved only for humans? (and really, I don't know if this is even the case, it's just something I seem to remember from another thread...)