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

[Commoner]

Which by the way is already there, the bible is very close to the case of the Quran, and you already know why i don't accept it, so there is no contradiction here.

Exactly - it's very close. Make a couple of corrections and prest-o change-o, you've got a problem. I'm sure it did take a lot of effort to write scripture, it's not really on the same level as a Nigerian Princ's email or a one-liner in an internet forum.

What I'm wondering is not - why you accept the Qur'an over the Bible or the Qur'an over Auto's offer, I'm wondering why accept any of them as being authored by god at all - whether or not you believe in one. Yes, I understand - no contradictions, has an effect on you, seems in line with what you already believe to be true, etc... But surely there is nothing divine about that alone, is there?

You're playing a sort of Pascal's Wager - you said to yourself - I'll study different religions and the texts they claim come from God and I'll find the one that is most likely to fit the bill - and you've found that the Qur'an seems to be the one that's most likely to be the word of god. But you seem to have disregarded the possibility that none of them are from god (whether or not one exists). Is that a fair assessment?


In other words - I understand, why, if you had to chose, you'd choose the Qur'an. But since you don't have to, why do it?

 

[Commoner]

There is a huge difference between eternal salvation, and believing in my creator or not, and between all the rest of the examples you gave.

Sure, I meant, there is really no limit to what one could come up with, right?

First, i didn't say all humans are not trust worthy, i said some of them are, and i don't know her, so she might be one of them.

I agree.

Second, she didn't present anything except a promise. From a human that i don't know. She didn't provide any additional information to make me inclined to trust the offer, or trust her.

I agree - it was meant as an example, I'm sure she can do better than that, right?

Third, The Quran is a book, which is claimed to be the word of God. It is a big book, and contains lots and lots of stuff, so i can read it and decide for myself.

Claimed by...?

She didn't claim to be a god so my objection was valid. You are criticizing an objection, that was made on different grounds than those you are saying now. Also, i don't believe any body who claim to be a God, not anyone who says he/she is a god must be believed in by me, otherwise i would have believed in other gods of other religions. I only believe in the one who is most likely true, based on the standards i already told you.

Ok, but consider if you haven't read the Qur'an - then you would still accept the one most likely to be true, right? Have you read all of them, all books people claim are divinely inspired?

Because both claims are not the same. If you want to make a similar case to the case of the Quran, then it would require a lot more effort than this. Your example is not at all the same as the case here. So, my rejection of one and acceptance of another is very understandable.

No, your rejection of this offer is simply more resonable - and I completely agree that it is. Whether it's resonable to acccept any of them is the real question...

 

[Badran]

Sure, I meant, there is really no limit to what one could come up with, right?
I agree - it was meant as an example, I'm sure she can do better than that, right?

True, of course she can come up with much better, I'm not so sure she could compete with eternal salivation and the idea of wether i believe in my possible creator though.

Claimed by...?

By Muhammad (pbuh) who claimed that he had been inspired this by an angel sent from god. I can test his claim by reading the Quran. Of course, since he is also human, i will not be able to trust his word for it, also i will not be sure 100% that the Quran is indeed the word of God even if it meets the standards, but it will make it much more likely.

Ok, but consider if you haven't read the Qur'an - then you would still accept the one most likely to be true, right? Have you read all of them, all books people claim are divinely inspired?

Not all i think, i'm not even sure how many are claimed to be so, but i've read some, and so far this is what i decided. I' still reading, and i'm not done yet.

No, your rejection of this offer is simply more resonable - and I completely agree that it is. Whether it's resonable to acccept any of them is the real question...

This is a much better and easier way to put it, i will answer this with the last part.

What I'm wondering is not - why you accept the Qur'an over the Bible or the Qur'an over Auto's offer, I'm wondering why accept any of them as being authored by god at all - whether or not you believe in one. Yes, I understand - no contradictions, has an effect on you, seems in line with what you already believe to be true, etc... But surely there is nothing divine about that alone, is there?

You're playing a sort of Pascal's Wager - you said to yourself - I'll study different religions and the texts they claim come from God and I'll find the one that is most likely to fit the bill - and you've found that the Qur'an seems to be the one that's most likely to be the word of god. But you seem to have disregarded the possibility that none of them are from god (whether or not one exists). Is that a fair assessment?


In other words - I understand, why, if you had to chose, you'd choose the Qur'an. But since you don't have to, why do it?

I tried the other possibilities, and i didn't accept them for many reasons. I explained why in another thread "why won't god give undeniable evidence for his existence". I think it would be best if you read it there, if you want the explanation for why i refused the other possibilities.

But to answer your question here, like i said, there either is or isn't a God(s). Non of these options can be verified now. Or proven for a fact to be the case. So, i chose the right one for me, and the one i feel most likely to be true, and the one that gives me peace and comfort in my live. Also, the one that explains life the best way, and the one that leaves me with the least amount of questions, and makes more sense.

 

[Commoner]

But to answer your question here, like i said, there either is or isn't a God(s). Non of these options can be verified now. Or proven for a fact to be the case. So, i chose the right one for me, and the one i feel most likely to be true, and the one that gives me peace and comfort in my live. Also, the one that explains life the best way, and the one that leaves me with the least amount of questions, and makes more sense.

Ok, I'll have a look at your thread (might take me a while).

So, in essence - the reason you chose a god rather than no god (or no god yet) is more of a practical choice? I'm sure I do the same thing regarding a great deal of things, but I would not necessarily advocate that as a "good idea".

 

[Badran]

Ok, I'll have a look at your thread (might take me a while).

So, in essence - the reason you chose a god rather than no god is more of a practical choice? I'm sure I do the same thing regarding a great deal of things, but I would not necessarily advocate that as a "good idea".

Kind of yes. Also because it makes more sense, or just feels completely right. This alone of course doesn't always sound like a great way to approach things, but this is what i'm faced with. (The thread is not mine by the way, i just posted the explanation there).

 

[Commoner]

Kind of yes. Also because it makes more sense, or just feels completely right. This alone of course doesn't always sound like a great way to approach things, but this is what i'm faced with. (The thread is not mine by the way, i just posted the explanation there).

Ah, I understand.

Do you think your decision might be considered irrational (or not rational)? For instance - I dislike spiders, even though I know the vast majority of them are completely harmless. I'll avoid them even though I know it's not a rational choice - but neither is it really harming anyone if I behave in such a way - and who knows, I might run into one that's poisonous.

But I think there is harm in choosing to believe in things without evidence (regardless of what they eventually turn out to be). Not necessarily direct harm - not for the person who believes it (for whom there can even be benefits), but in the sense that it allows others to justify their beliefs, some of which can be very dangerous. For instance, depending on where you live, your (potential) children might not get to learn about evolution in school...

That is, of course, unless you keep it to yourself...

 

[Luminous]

I would without a shadow of doubt say both of your sayings are nothing but the corrupted fruits of secular satanic and its flawed educational system and media.

301: "those damned secularists"
any person with any sense of understanding and love: "poor 301"

 

[Luminous]

I think 301 said the negative exchange between the two friends is a result of the secular culture.

yes, in lighter terms.
he also opiniated that secularism was corrupted and satanic. and the systems that it fosters are thus verily flawed. which is really insulting when one thinks about it.
He forgets to mention that the exchange would never have happened that way had it not been that one was christian and the other was muslim. and it is very easy to surmise that both of them were intolerant of secular culture and science and mutual understanding. IMO

 

[Luminous]

You mean sliver tongue? yes with concerete evidence to backup my reasoning. Promise no hate and no hearsay.
.

NO, silver tongue would require that some people like what you are saying and that it moves them. A sharp tongue is one that is bitter and lashes out

 

[LuisDantas]

Has Abu Rashid ever replied to posts #338, #340, #345, #370 and #438?

 

[301ouncer]

301: "those damned secularists"

Is this a qoute from me or just your own fabricated qoute?

I never damned any person in my life. I might damn a system but never individuls. I am not as shallow as that.

 

[301ouncer]

yes, in lighter terms.
he also opiniated that secularism was corrupted and satanic. and the systems that it fosters are thus verily flawed. which is really insulting when one thinks about it.
He forgets to mention that the exchange would never have happened that way had it not been that one was christian and the other was muslim. and it is very easy to surmise that both of them were intolerant of secular culture and science and mutual understanding. IMO

I have without a shadow of doubt produced everything I said with conceret backup. Yes in my opinion it is flawed man-made system with full of fallacies and I have never been disrespectable or insulting to any particular individual in persons.

 

[301ouncer]

NO, silver tongue would require that some people like what you are saying and that it moves them.

Yes you have for once said something really good here. I probably have a copper tongue and does not move anything. It is all jibrish.

A sharp tongue is one that is bitter and lashes out

I am never bitter of this flawed and full of fallacy secular system. I speak on behalfe of all the muslims and nonmuslims that are so bitter all because of the fires that has touched them and their families.

I do not adhere to the secular fruits of selfeshness. I am the sharing kind. I share the suffering and the anguish of the social bankruptcy as well as the economical and financial bankruptcy inflicted upon mankind.

 

[gnostic]

First, i didn't say all humans are not trust worthy, i said some of them are, and i don't know her, so she might be one of them.

But that's the whole point, badran. How do you trust something that was written over 1400 years ago? You are basing it on pure, blind faith, because no one can prove the Qur'an to be a real scripture or not.

You can't testify that your prophet is a real prophet. And you don't know if god is really the god it claim, satan, or simply Muhammad's great con job.

I am not badging you and your religion, because the very same thing can be said about Christianity and Judaism, and all the prophets, apostles and messiah. Everything is based on faith and faith only on some writings, which some times defy logic and simple common sense. You are basing on something that you cannot possibly prove, unless this god appeared before you all.

Then should the next prophet come along, perform whatever miracles he needed to you. What do you do? Do you reject him as a prophet, simply because Muhammad claimed to be the last one?

 

[Badran]

Do you think your decision might be considered irrational (or not rational)? For instance - I dislike spiders, even though I know the vast majority of them are completely harmless. I'll avoid them even though I know it's not a rational choice - but neither is it really harming anyone if I behave in such a way - and who knows, I might run into one that's poisonous.

But I think there is harm in choosing to believe in things without evidence (regardless of what they eventually turn out to be). Not necessarily direct harm - not for the person who believes it (for whom there can even be benefits), but in the sense that it allows others to justify their beliefs, some of which can be very dangerous. For instance, depending on where you live, your (potential) children might not get to learn about evolution in school...

I can't understand what you are saying to be honest. I can't see why my belief is irrational, and why is it dangerous, especially when it is based on a situation that doesn't leave me any other choice. In other words, this the best choice and the most that makes sense. It is also encouraged by the certain attributes of the Quran, which i told you. So, if you could elaborate more, i'd aprecciate it.

I'm faced with choices that neither of them can be verified in anyway. So, i choose the one that is most reasonable in my view, and the one which also feels right.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can see where Commoner comes from. But it can be hard to explain (or at least to make palatable) for someone who is used to think of belief in God and in its messengers as a normal, perhaps even necessary, part of life.

Truth is, even for moderates, belief in God can indeed be dangerous. It is valid in and of itself, but it can easily lead people to foolish and even violent mistakes if it is not balanced with a degree of realism and skeptcism.

 

[Badran]

But that's the whole point, badran. How do you trust something that was written over 1400 years ago? You are basing it on pure, blind faith, because no one can prove the Qur'an to be a real scripture or not.

You can't testify that your prophet is a real prophet. And you don't know if god is really the god it claim, satan, or simply Muhammad's great con job.

I am not badging you and your religion, because the very same thing can be said about Christianity and Judaism, and all the prophets, apostles and messiah. Everything is based on faith and faith only on some writings, which some times defy logic and simple common sense. You are basing on something that you cannot possibly prove, unless this god appeared before you all.

Then should the next prophet come along, perform whatever miracles he needed to you. What do you do? Do you reject him as a prophet, simply because Muhammad claimed to be the last one?

Yes everything is based on faith. I never claimed that it can be proven. The point is, that this faith, i chose to have it for good reasons, which i explained some of them here.

As for the new prophet part. Assuming this happens, i wouldn't react that way. In other words, i understand what you are saying, that blind faith causes some people sometimes to deny reality, but i try to balance that, and always think things through, i don't just rely on what i'm told without thinking about it.

 

[Badran]

I can see where Commoner comes from. But it can be hard to explain (or at least to make palatable) for someone who is used to think of belief in God and in its messengers as a normal, perhaps even necessary, part of life.

Truth is, even for moderates, belief in God can indeed be dangerous. It is valid in and of itself, but it can easily lead people to foolish and even violent mistakes if it is not balanced with a degree of realism and skeptcism.

Yes i understand the point now. It can be dangerous. But, i'm not in favor of having faith in the way that would cause someone to stop using their heads. Or in other words, i like questioning things, and i think it's a healthy practice. However, questioning doesn't always lead to rejection. So, i do question things always, that's how i came to conclusion about the parts that i told you i don't believe to be a part of Islam.

I also believe this habit is of people, not really with believers only. As in i believe that when people grow up on something, or come to certain conclusions on their own, they usually remain on it and it takes a lot of effort to overcome it if it turns out to be wrong. It's easier to think or act that way. So, this irrational approach i believe to be an attribute of people in general.

 

[Commoner]

I can't understand what you are saying to be honest. I can't see why my belief is irrational, and why is it dangerous, especially when it is based on a situation that doesn't leave me any other choice. In other words, this the best choice and the most that makes sense. It is also encouraged by the certain attributes of the Quran, which i told you. So, if you could elaborate more, i'd aprecciate it.

I'm faced with choices that neither of them can be verified in anyway. So, i choose the one that is most reasonable in my view, and the one which also feels right.

Why do you think you have no choice? I just don't get that at all...

What I was getting at is that a moderate believer - such as yourself - enables those who (mis)use their faith to justify their actions and demand the same respect that you get (and deserve), no matter how insane their claims are. Moderate theists create a sort of social climate in which it is acceptable to make claims without evidence to back them up - a climate in which faith (that is - belief, without evidence) is supposed to be respected and valued practically to the same extent as facts.

What you then get is people demanding (and almost succeeding) to have equal time in school curriculums to propagate their creation myth along-side science. You get teachers scared of mentioning evolution. You get people stopping stem cell research. l Long brain-dead people not being left to die, wreaking havoc on their families... must I go on?

Is it unfair for me to think that you (we) should sacrifice the comfort you get from our faith, just to solve a problem you did not create in the first place? Maybe. But that's what the situation is right now, at least in my view.

 

[Commoner]

I also believe this habit is of people, not really with believers only. As in i believe that when people grow up on something, or come to certain conclusions on their own, they usually remain on it and it takes a lot of effort to overcome it if it turns out to be wrong. It's easier to think or act that way. So, this irrational approach i believe to be an attribute of people in general.

Exactly, but only when it comes to "faith" and religious claims, do we find it necessary to tolerate such irrationality. A Christian thinks gays are sinners, what can you do about it, it's his faith? There is no evidence that they aren't sinners. The Pope thinks using condoms is a sin what can you do? It's his faith... Meanwhile, thousands are dying because of it...and billions praise him as god's emissary on earth.

And the same is true of any religion...