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

[neves]

If it is a book of signs, then I would agree with you.

But you have bunch of Muslims quoting some gibberish from the Qur'an stating that it has scientific values in the Science vs Religion debates.

If your Qur'an is so perfect, then it would explain natural phenomena, scientifically. But it doesn't.

would a perfect book give all the answers, without the reader doing any intellectual work...? Also look at the purpose of the book...

 

[YmirGF]

so you are saying clay was not apart of origins of life than?

Are you saying that copious bursts of lightning are also not a part of the whole deal? Sorry you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[gnostic]

would a perfect book give all the answers, without the reader doing any intellectual work...? Also look at the purpose of the book...

It means that Allah knows about nothing about the natural phenomena and the fundamental knowledge of that phenomena. Allah wouldn't know what science if it hit him in his divine head.

 

[Caladan]

So I take it non of our fellow Muslim members are going to address post #12?

 

[neves]

Here's one mistake in your line of thought, which is the automatic linkage between Christians and Westerners. western and central Europe which are in the middle of an interaction with Muslims, have much secularism in them, so beyond the Western Christianity-Islam equation, many Muslims are simply not aware that many 'Westerners' do not follow a religious line of thought to begin with, a healthy 'western' thinker, is not interested in Islamic theology arguments that Jesus was a prophet and not the 'son of God', but is interested about what social and demographic baggage does the interplay between 'East and West' carries, for example, many Europeans are not worried that Muslims reject Jesus as the savior, but are instead concerned about the cultural baggage and potential confrontation and demographic changes that Muslims bring into Europe, on another level, not only are they not worried that Muslims reject Christian beliefs, but they are more worried that Muslims bring a baggage of religious (or cultural) issues which are at odds with the way of life Europeans have established.


I can tell you what we dont want to know.
we do not want to know if you believe that the Qur'an is a treasury of scientific miracles.
Instead we want to understand about the 'real' issues, some of which are gender issues, radicalization vs reform or moderation, human rights issues, constructive political information vs the slogans about a one Ummah, instead of preaches about 'true Islam' we want to hear the opinions of Muslims about real issues of current events that take place in the Muslim societies.
in short, we want less preaching and more open debate and dialogue without the dichotomy of a decadent West infront of a righteous religion, think about it this way, even if Muslims do believe that Westerners live a life of corruption, there's nothing you can do about it, the Western societies have a history of their own, they have their own spirit of things, people from secular societies have a completely different experience of sexuality, gender roles, philosophies, etc. acting as if Islam is the magic forumla to an unrighteous Western way of life, is the completely wrong approach and shows a great amount of ill-communication, not only do most Westerners are not looking for a new religion, but instead Muslims should worry about the image of Islam as it is seen today in the West before even thinking that Islam is a religion westerners are looking for, there are real problems and strife between Western societies and Muslims, they are more worthy of discussion than hearing which religion is the right one for everyone.

I live in the west, so I don't make the mistake of (Western=Christians)...to be honest Christians are becoming to equal less and less West...

You are right I think the best way to change a system is gradually... This is how Islam spread in so many places... Through gradual contact and integration... I believe action and the way we live life is the best way to spread Islam... this mean being apart of the current system and working with that system for change...

 

[Caladan]

I live in the west, so I don't make the mistake of (Western=Christians)...to be honest Christians are becoming to equal less and less West...

You are right I think the best way to change a system is gradually... This is how Islam spread in so many places... Through gradual contact and integration... I believe action and the way we live life is the best way to spread Islam... this mean being apart of the current system and working with that system for change...

Do you realize that as long as your aim is to spread your religion, you are considered the enemy and a hostile alien in the system?

 

[neves]

Do you realize that as long as your aim is to spread your religion, you are considered the enemy and a hostile alien in the system?

yes I do realize this... that is why it is gradual... fear accompanied by hate is always first is it not... then more reasonable reactions will follow...

 

[Caladan]

yes I do realize this... that is why it is gradual... fear accompanied by hate is always first is it not... then more reasonable reactions will follow...

Very disturbing, indeed. thanks for answering.

 

[neves]

Very disturbing, indeed. thanks for answering.

No problem... But it is also important to note that I think no one should be forced to do anything... after all there is no compulsion in religion...

 

[Caladan]

after all there no compulsion in religion...

Of course..

 

[Badran]

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?

There is something you need to put in mind. That is, why was the Quran supposedly inspired, and what is it's goal...

The point is, this book, is the words of God to people, assumably to teach certain things, and to give them through it enough reasons to believe it is the word of God, which will also help them in believing in the idea of the existence of a God. You need to put in mind that there is no evidence or proof for the existence of God, and assumably in my belief, that is done on purpose.

So, the Quran is perfect concerning it's goal. It conveys the teachings of god, in a great manner, as in the beauty of the words, and it's effect on the person reading it. Also, it doesn't include any contradictions. However, like everything else, there is room for you to take it otherwise. In other words, i don't think it is meant to leave no shadow of a doubt in any one's head once they read it.

Of course, the message is for all people, and of course, someone who doesn't find the Quran special or good, doesn't have to be disingenuous. There is room for misunderstanding. But i honestly believe, that these misunderstandings can be easily cleared. For example, there are some verses addressing certain times, when certain groups were enemies of Islam. So, when someone reads that, the generalizing will struck him, and it will make him disagree with the idea that Islam is a religion of peace. However, such misunderstandings can be cleared. Now, if someone cleared all the misunderstandings, and now understands the Quran just like i do, and yet still doesn't believe it is the word of God, that means this is the same situation, as that i believe there is a God and others don't. In other words, it is the same concept as someone believing in God, and another don't, while in my belief there is enough reasons to believe in him.

 

[Commoner]

There is something you need to put in mind. That is, why was the Quran supposedly inspired, and what is it's goal...

The point is, this book, is the words of God to people, assumably to teach certain things, and to give them through it enough reasons to believe it is the word of God, which will also help them in believing in the idea of the existence of a God. You need to put in mind that there is no evidence or proof for the existence of God, and assumably in my belief, that is done on purpose.

Why would a God want me to believe something, for which there is no evidence? What is the added value of that kind of belief? Wouldn't you say we generally want to avoid believing in things for which there is no evidence, or against which there is evidence.

So, the Quran is perfect concerning it's goal. It conveys the teachings of god, in a great manner, as in the beauty of the words, and it's effect on the person reading it. Also, it doesn't include any contradictions. However, like everything else, there is room for you to take it otherwise. In other words, i don't think it is meant to leave no shadow of a doubt in any one's head once they read it.

Of course, the message is for all people, and of course, someone who doesn't find the Quran special or good, doesn't have to be disingenuous. There is room for misunderstanding. But i honestly believe, that these misunderstandings can be easily cleared. For example, there are some verses addressing certain times, when certain groups were enemies of Islam. So, when someone reads that, the generalizing will struck him, and it will make him disagree with the idea that Islam is a religion of peace. However, such misunderstandings can be cleared.

Well, all of these things are true of many great works of literature. I just don't see how you are able to draw the line between the "earthly" and the divine authorship. If it's how it makes you feel, I don't find that a particularly compelling reason - we're demonstrably bad at judging the true nature of things, when we do it based on our "gut feeling".

And if I tell you the Qur'an had no such effect on me, what will you say to me? Was the translation poor? The Qur'an to me is as I imagine the Bible is to you. You have more than a billion people claiming that it is the word of God, that it has been inspired by God and has inspired them, once they've read it, they have no doubt of its origins.

They describe the same kind of process you've described - yet, clearly - to both of us - they have made a great error in judgment. So, it's not just that they have misunderstood the Qur'an, it's much more than that - they've found another divinely inspired book and they're sure of it. What do you make of this? Would that not, at minimum, imply that that's a very unreliable way of establishing the authorship of a holy book?

How can you claim that the Qur'an conveys the teachings of God effectively, when there are so many different interpretations - some on very minor matters, some on crucial point - of what the teachings are? Which teachings is it conveying effectively? And is not beauty in the eye of the beholder? Do you believe some things are beautiful in an absolute manner, regardless of point of view? Not just beautiful to me or you, or to us or them, but beautiful beyond interpretation, regardless of interpretation, inspite of interpretation?

 

[Kerr]

dualy noted...

Qur'an, Surah 23: AL-MUMENOON (THE BELIEVERS)-verse 12:

YUSUFALI: Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay);
PICKTHAL: Verily We created man from a product of wet earth;
SHAKIR: And certainly We created man of an extract of clay,

We are not created from an accelerator, we are "created" with help from accelerators. There is a huge difference.

Also, there is a difference is stating the first organisms where created with clay as an accelerator and to state man was.

 

[YmirGF]

Also, there is a difference is stating the first organisms where created with clay as an accelerator and to state man was.

Ding! Hence my comment about cake and eating it to.

 

[neves]

We are not created from an accelerator, we are "created" with help from accelerators. There is a huge difference.

Also, there is a difference is stating the first organisms where created with clay as an accelerator and to state man was.

either way without clay there would be no life.... without life there would be no man...its simple to understand... well at least for me... but i guess I am not that bright...

 

[Commoner]

either way without clay there would be no life.... without life there would be no man...its simple to understand... well at least for me... but i guess I am not that bright...

Where did you get "without clay there would be no life" from?

 

[Breathe]

Where did you get "without clay there would be no life" from?

Who knows..?

 

[neves]

Where did you get "without clay there would be no life" from?

" If free nucleotides are combined in solution, they do not react at all. Therefore, many scientists have been searching for what types of activating groups and inorganic catalysts must have been involved in the polymer bonding process. Dr. Ferris, of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, has discovered one inorganic material which facilitates this reaction: montmorillonite clay. The particular structure of this clay serves to provide a medium in which the individual activated RNA units combine to form larger chains.5 "

Segment 2 - Clay and the Origins of Life

 

[Walkntune]

i think it is silly, sorry, Autodidact. though i find that post unnecessary and heart breaking, i would not think someone wants to kill all mothers just because he loves his mother more than rest. there are tons of way to praise someone, hundreds of ways to express your love, while doing it so if you tend to insult others, you are either revengeful or very clummsy. i don't need to insult one to praise another.

evil communicates? we all do silly things and mistakes. we all sometimes drift in anger and say things we would not prefer to say in a calm mood. so to speak we all speak "evil" once in awhile but that's not being a evil-man. evil only has a agenda and if he speaks he only speaks for his agenda. i don't believe 301 has a agenda. he is sharing his opinions and how he sees stuff and you don't like what you are hearing. as a Muslim i would not feel proud of what i am hearing when a Muslim degrades existence of a non-Muslim just to praise his beloved Muslim friend. though i don't think it is evil. it only shows how much he loves and cares for his fellow Muslim brother. and no, of course he could have expressed the very same love without breaking your heart or disturbing your mind. but he did not. so go ask him whatever you want to know. just don't try to pull me into a personal stuff of yours. i already share what i think and feel when i want to. if you think it is not enough, then forgive me because real evil is in Muslim nations killing Muslims, stealing their future. it has become normal after all, isn't it? as if there is no war at all

.

You just don't have any ego, do you?

 

[Kerr]

either way without clay there would be no life.... without life there would be no man...its simple to understand... well at least for me... but i guess I am not that bright...

Which would be the same as saying that we where created from the sun, since without its light life would not exist.

EDIT:

And I am not saying you aren´t bright. You can very well be a very intelligent individual. To be honest I understand what you mean, but it is as I see it a rather huge stretch.