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

[Badran]

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.

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...

Well, this is something i don't deny, that religion is used sometimes as a cover or shelter for people to commit, and publish, unspeakable things, and get away with it, and sometimes get praised for it.

The problem is, that if it were just a comfort to believe in what i believe, i might have given it up, because it's not worth all this trouble. But i could argue that this applies to other things as well. Like politics. Lots of people use politics to do and publish unspeakable things. So, i'm not sure we should give up anything that is used in both good and bad way. This applies to lots of stuff.

It might be right sometimes to give it up. However, there is another problem. That is, my religion or belief isn't only a great comfort in my life, and something that gives me peace. But it is also the truth of things, or the true explanation for what's going to happen when we die, and who made us, and lots of other stuff, that I belief, that Islam is the true answer for, or that it is indeed the creator's teachings. So, how can i give that up? It is not something that i can do. Especially, because i believe all these great problems you addressed, can be solved or dealt with in other ways. I believe that this can be fought in other ways, especially by believers who don't misuse religion that way. They can help to try and advise or encourage or convince other believers against such things. (By the way, thanks for the great way you worded that first post).

What i meant by no choice, is that this is the circumstances i'm in. I am in a world, with a couple of possible explanations for things, and none of them can be verified. So, i must choose this way. All people struggle with this choice.

 

[Commoner]

Well, this is something i don't deny, that religion is used sometimes as a cover or shelter for people to commit, and publish, unspeakable things, and get away with it, and sometimes get praised for it.

The problem is, that if it were just a comfort to believe in what i believe, i might have given it up, because it's not worth all this trouble. But i could argue that this applies to other things as well. Like politics. Lots of people use politics to do and publish unspeakable things. So, i'm not sure we should give up anything that is used in both good and bad way. This applies to lots of stuff.

No, no, there's a bit difference - no evidence, Badram - for faith, you require no evidence. In politics, you at least have to fabricate some.

It might be right sometimes to give it up. However, there is another problem. That is, my religion or belief isn't only a great comfort in my life, and something that gives me peace. But it is also the truth of things, or the true explanation for what's going to happen when we die, and who made us, and lots of other stuff, that I belief, that Islam is the true answer for, or that it is indeed the creator's teachings. So, how can i give that up? It is not something that i can do.

Wait, wait - just a couple of posts ago there wasn't any evidence that a god exists, now claims of an afterlife are true? It's one thing to believe something is the most likely answer and taking that on faith "for the time being", it's quite another thing to assert that it is true.

Especially, because i believe all these great problems you addressed, can be solved or dealt with in other ways. I believe that this can be fought in other ways, especially by believers who don't misuse religion that way. They can help to try and advise or encourage or convince other believers against such things. (By the way, thanks for the great way you worded that first post).

Yeah, but who is to say that they are the ones that are in the wrong and not you? Have you got any evidence that using condoms is not a sin? Or that I'll spend eternity in Hell for not being a Muslim? I hear that being said, Badram, and it's causing me real harm - I click my mouse button at least twice as fast for at least two minutes after reading that so that I can respond to it immediately. One day, I might get carpal tunnel syndrome. No evidence - no claiming what the truth is - that's how it should work, but it doesn't seem to. Even you can't get around it...

What i meant by no choice, is that this is the circumstances i'm in. I am in a world, with a couple of possible explanations for things, and none of them can be verified. So, i must choose this way. All people struggle with this choice.

Well, that's not true at all. You absolutely do not have to choose, just because only two possibilities exist. The truth is, you do not know what the truth is - so the only really bad decision you could make is pick one of them and assert that it is true, without a shread of evidence. "I dont' know" is not a sin, you know?

 

[Badran]

No, no, there's a bit difference - no evidence, Badram - for faith, you require no evidence. In politics, you at least have to fabricate some.

I wasn't aiming to say that politics have the same authority, or power to make such things(although, the difference isn't that big). But what i meant was that some people also use it in a bad way, and that that doesn't mean that we should discard politics.

Wait, wait - just a couple of posts ago there wasn't any evidence that a god exists, now claims of an afterlife are true? It's one thing to believe something is the most likely answer and taking that on faith "for the time being", it's quite another thing to assert that it is true.

It was so a couple of posts ago, and it is still so now. I didn't say anything about evidence. What i meant is, based on my belief in this explanation to be true, as in i have faith in it, to be true. Not that it is proven to be true. So, my point was, that just because it is a faith, doesn't mean i can easily discard it. Because i believe it. For me it is the truth, i have found enough reasons to put my faith in that. But i don't call it proven.

Yeah, but who is to say that they are the ones that are in the wrong and not you? Have you got any evidence that using condoms is not a sin? Or that I'll spend eternity in Hell for not being a Muslim? I hear that being said, Badram, and it's causing me real harm - I click my mouse button at least twice as fast for at least two minutes after reading that so that I can respond to it immediately. One day, I might get carpal tunnel syndrome. No evidence - no claiming what the truth is - that's how it should work, but it doesn't seem to. Even you can't get around it...

If a matter is addressed in the Quran or Hadiths, then this is the bases we will judge things on. To prove who is right and who is wrong. If the case is not addressed, and is new, then all the scholars of this religion or the authority of that religion will say their say in it, and people should decide wether or not they agree with them. If a religion gives a limitless authority to a special figure, then others who don't adhere to that religion, must argue against him, and people in the end will be able to choose.

Well, that's not true at all. You absolutely do not have to choose, just because only two possibilities exist. The truth is, you do not know what the truth is - so the only really bad decision you could make is pick one of them and assert that it is true, without a shread of evidence.

I already considered this position like i explained in the other thread, and it did not convince me at all. It is also not necessarily right to stick to waiting and not choosing to believe, because there is no evidence. Because there is a possibility, that we are not supposed to have evidence. which is the whole idea of faith. In other words. i will either believe or not. I considered both paths, in every way, and found mine to be the best for me, in so many ways. It makes more sense, it makes me feel better, it convinces me. The rules are all fair. So, i decided to take this path, and i believed it to be the most likely one to be true. So, i put my full faith in it.

So what i meant is, i have to choose between believing or not.

 

[Commoner]

I wasn't aiming to say that politics have the same authority, or power to make such things(although, the difference isn't that big). But what i meant was that some people also use it in a bad way, and that that doesn't mean that we should discard politics.

Yeah, but that wasn't the point. Everything can be misused - the point was, with religion, we tolerate it. We have to, the second we accept that faith is to be taken into account. I don't think religion should be discarded - I think it should absolutely not be ok to make any sort of faith based claims as if they were true.

It was so a couple of posts ago, and it is still so now. I didn't say anything about evidence. What i meant is, based on my belief in this explanation to be true, as in i have faith in it, to be true. Not that it is proven to be true. So, my point was, that just because it is a faith, doesn't mean i can easily discard it. Because i believe it. For me it is the truth, i have found enough reasons to put my faith in that. But i don't call it proven.

I get that, and I don't really want you to discard your faith. What I was actually trying to show you was why one shouldn't take things on faith to begin with.

If a matter is addressed in the Quran or Hadiths, then this is the bases we will judge things on. To prove who is right and who is wrong. If the case is not addressed, and is new, then all the scholars of this religion or the authority of that religion will say their say in it, and people should decide wether or not they agree with them. If a religion gives a limitless authority to a special figure, then others who don't adhere to that religion, must argue against him, and people in the end will be able to choose.

No, you cannot look at the Quran and decide, that's the whole point, Badran. You cannot use faith to prove who's right or wrong, because both sides have an equal amount of evidence - none. That's exactly how the problem started in the first place - a couple of "schollars" looked at a bunch of scripture and decided - "Aha! Condoms are a sin!". And now you're saying you're going to look in your scripture and decide whether that's true or not? That's no good, Badran.

And how far are you willing to go? Would you reject science, were it to find something that contradicts the Qur'an?

I already considered this position like i explained in the other thread, and it did not convince me at all. It is also not necessarily right to stick to waiting and not choosing to believe, because there is no evidence. Because there is a possibility, that we are not supposed to have evidence. which is the whole idea of faith.

Yeah, Badran, there's also a posibility that a god would be smart enough not to want people believing in things without evidence. So where does that leave you? Is it hard to imagine a god that does not demand worship, that values those who do not profess knowledge where they have none? A god that rewards those who are skeptical where skepticism is appropriate?

Would you want to be worshipped?

In other words. i will either believe or not. I considered both paths, in every way, and found mine to be the best for me, in so many ways. It makes more sense, it makes me feel better, it convinces me. The rules are all fair. So, i decided to take this path, and i believed it to be the most likely one to be true. So, i put my full faith in it.

Yeah, I see that as a problem. Because, once you've done that, you have to make all sort of assumptions. If you decided to put "all your faith" in the fact that God created man, you cannot possibly consider the possibility that it didn't.

 

[Badran]

Yeah, but that wasn't the point. Everything can be misused - the point was, with religion, we tolerate it. We have to, the second we accept that faith is to be taken into account. I don't think religion should be discarded - I think it should absolutely not be ok to make any sort of faith based claims as if they were true.

If you mean, that we shouldn't rely on our beliefs, and not attempt to find out anything, or discard anything that contradicts with our beliefs, even if it was real, or it is representing reality, then i completely agree. I'm not in favor of such mentality. I agree that this outlook on things should be fought. I don't think what's needed is to fight faith, or the idea of faith, but what should be fought is the misuse of it.

I get that, and I don't really want you to discard your faith. What I was actually trying to show you was why one shouldn't take things on faith to begin with.

Yes i see what you are saying. But faith isn't a bad idea, sometimes it is, but not always or most of the time. Also, like i said i believe that what should be argued against is the misuse of faith like you put it. Not faith itself in general. If that's what you are saying, then again i agree.

No, you cannot look at the Quran and decide, that's the whole point, Badran. You cannot use faith to prove who's right or wrong, because both sides have an equal amount of evidence - none. That's exactly how the problem started in the first place - a couple of "schollars" looked at a bunch of scripture and decided - "Aha! Condoms are a sin!". And now you're saying you're going to look in your scripture and decide whether that's true or not? That's no good, Badran.

And how far are you willing to go? Would you reject science, were it to find something that contradicts the Qur'an?

I'm talking about proving wether or not their claims are true in terms of wether or not it is found in the Quran. If it's not addressed, then the judgment should be approached like any new matter, that people face, and make a decision in regard of it, with respect to their views/beliefs. In the case of condoms here, my view will be that of course it is not a sin, especially considering the reason for wearing them in this case.

I'm not in favor of denial or fight against science in order to maintain my religious views and make god happy. Because in that case it would just be views, not religion for me. Because it has been proven wrong. If i face such situation i will not reject it.

Yeah, Badran, there's also a posibility that a god would be smart enough not to want people believing in things without evidence. So where does that leave you? Is it hard to imagine a god that does not demand worship, that values those who do not profess knowledge where they have none? A god that rewards those who are skeptical where skepticism is appropriate?

Would you want to be worshipped?

Yes this is all possibilities. That's my whole point. None of them are verified. It has been so for ever. So, it is not necessarily the right thing to do to wait and not choose. Because it's also possible that we will never have a verification. Since all my requirements have been met through one of the possibilities, and that path allows me to be fair and just with others, and doesn't contradict with advancement in my opinion, and is the one most likely to be true, i chose it.

Yeah, I see that as a problem. Because, once you've done that, you have to make all sort of assumptions. If you decided to put "all your faith" in the fact that God created man, you cannot possibly consider the possibility that it didn't.

I could have full faith in my friend, but when he betrays me, or when i see and find a proof that my trust have been wrong, because he is not what i though he is, i will no longer have faith in him.

So, what i mean is, if i find that this is not the case, i will change my view. Faith is not blindness, faith is the belief in what you can not prove, once it's proven your faith will be either proven right or wrong. In either cases i will embrace the outcome.

 

[Octavia156]

The mistake Muslims make when informing people about Islam is LYING to everyone that their religion is based on the principle of Peace, and feigning ignorance of the true goal of Islamic political ideology.

 

[Commoner]

If you mean, that we shouldn't rely on our beliefs, and not attempt to find out anything, or discard anything that contradicts with our beliefs, even if it was real, or it is representing reality, then i completely agree. I'm not in favor of such mentality. I agree that this outlook on things should be fought. I don't think what's needed is to fight faith, or the idea of faith, but what should be fought is the misuse of it.

I'm saying, never, ever should anyone, anywhere assert anything that is based on faith alone. Not that condoms are a sin, not that there is an afterlife, not that God loves me, not that the spirit of my dead grandfather is with me, not that God created everything, not that one man's voice is worth the same as x-amount of women's voices...nothing, nada, nil, nix, zero, zilch.

Any faith based proposition is, at most, a hypothesis - and usually not even that, unless it's falsifiable. Yes, you can "run with it" very, very carefully, but that's about it.

Yes i see what you are saying. But faith isn't a bad idea, sometimes it is, but not always or most of the time. Also, like i said i believe that what should be argued against is the misuse of faith like you put it. Not faith itself in general. If that's what you are saying, then again i agree.

Again, I'm saying, any time any faith based proposition is asserted as being true, faith is misused, any time it's used as an argument, it's misused.

I'm talking about proving wether or not their claims are true in terms of wether or not it is found in the Quran. If it's not addressed, then the judgment should be approached like any new matter, that people face, and make a decision in regard of it, with respect to their views/beliefs. In the case of condoms here, my view will be that of course it is not a sin, especially considering the reason for wearing them in this case.

And if the Quran said condoms are a sin? Would you reject the Quran? Would you seek an alternative explanation for why it says so? Would you blame it on the translation? Or would you accept that using a condom is a sin?

I'm not in favor of denial or fight against science in order to maintain my religious views and make god happy. Because in that case it would just be views, not religion for me. Because it has been proven wrong. If i face such situation i will not reject it.

But it's not about proving anything, Badran. The whole reason for you choosing faith over "no faith" is because you have no evidence either way in the matter. You do not have to be "very sure" that something is the case to prefer it to pure faith, you just need a bit of evidence. Isn't that so?

Yes this is all possibilities. That's my whole point. None of them are verified. It has been so for ever. So, it is not necessarily the right thing to do to wait and not choose. Because it's also possible that we will never have a verification. Since all my requirements have been met through one of the possibilities, and that path allows me to be fair and just with others, and doesn't contradict with advancement in my opinion, and is the one most likely to be true, i chose it.

But you do know that I can make up numerous such examples, right? Where something could not be verified...Did you know, for instance, that the effect we call "gravity" is actually tiny, little, invisible pixies pulling on the space time continuum?

Are you going to assess how likely each scenario is and decide whether that is the case or not? There simply is no good reason to even consider it, because my claims are complete bollocks - how do you know my claims are complete bollocks? Because I have, and could not possible ever have, any evidence for my proposition. Neither is there any evidence, and could never be any evidence against it. It's not falsifiable - there is nothing that could ever occur, no argument ever made, no discovery made that would invalidate my assertion.

That's why you should not be answering the question at all and assuming all those who assert an answer are full of it - including any "literature" on the matter.

I could have full faith in my friend, but when he betrays me, or when i see and find a proof that my trust have been wrong, because he is not what i though he is, i will no longer have faith in him.

No, no, I'm sorry, that's not the same thing. You have a reason to assume that your friend is trustworthy and - it's a testable proposition. You have no reason to assume that anything, for which you have no evidence, is true - that's the "faith" I'm talking about. You cannot know whether or not something is a sin - and you can never say it isn't. There is nothing that could ever happen, that would demonstrate that condom use isn's a sin. Nothing - it's not falsifiable. Neither is the proposition that a god exists.

I hope you don't mind me being so persistant on this issue, but I really think it's very important. And btw, of the theistic members here on RF that you've seen, how many do you think do not misuse faith in the way I've described? I would say, at most, one in a hundred.

 

[.lava]

The mistake Muslims make when informing people about Islam is LYING to everyone that their religion is based on the principle of Peace, and feigning ignorance of the true goal of Islamic political ideology.

thank you for showing once more one of the mistakes Western do when it comes to "Islam"

.

 

[Commoner]

thank you for showing once more one of the mistakes Western do when it comes to "Islam"

.

Hey, that's off-topic!!!

:run:

 

[Autodidact]

It's not the same. The goal or outcome here isn't worth taking that leap of trust.

The more important the outcome, the more important to proceed carefully based on evidence.

I also don't need to do this, or in other words i have other choices than making this leap.

You don't have a choice as to whether to be Muslim?

Also, you are a human, and humans has shown that some of them are not trust worthy to put it lightly.

Whereas Gods have a better track record?

What you have done is chosen one area of your life and decided to not use evidence in it. In all other areas, you agree the most prudent and moral way to the truth is to look for evidence. But when it comes to your soul, you suddenly decide to just randomly follow what you were brainwashed to believe, without using evidence.

 

[Badran]

I'm saying, never, ever should anyone, anywhere assert anything that is based on faith alone. Not that condoms are a sin, not that there is an afterlife, not that God loves me, not that the spirit of my dead grandfather is with me, not that God created everything, not that one man's voice is worth the same as x-amount of women's voices...nothing, nada, nil, nix, zero, zilch.
Any faith based proposition is, at most, a hypothesis - and usually not even that, unless it's falsifiable. Yes, you can "run with it" very, very carefully, but that's about it.
Again, I'm saying, any time any faith based proposition is asserted as being true, faith is misused, any time it's used as an argument, it's misused.

But this is all based on your inclination that these faith based claims are false. If they were true, then basing my opinion on them won't be wrong in general. Only in the behavior we described earlier.

Also, you are forgetting that i believe in a scripture, which includes rules. How am i supposed to believe in it and follow it, and not take anything said in it as a reference.

And if the Quran said condoms are a sin? Would you reject the Quran? Would you seek an alternative explanation for why it says so? Would you blame it on the translation? Or would you accept that using a condom is a sin?

I would first understand why is it a sin, then if i'm not convinced i would make sure i interpret that part correctly. If it is a sin, and i don't agree at all with that, for good reasons, then i would not follow the religion. This situation have never happened with me with the Quran. That's the point. I agree with all it's rules. And the ones who stroke me as wrong at first, was because i misunderstood them. When i read the interpretations i understood everything and i agreed.

There is something you need to put in mind though. Opinions differ all the time. So, i might disagree with the Quran on something, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong, because i could be wrong too. So, since i believe in the Quran, i try my best to understand why it says that thing that i disagree with, and i try my best to find a way to agree. I will take time too, and keep thinking about it. If in the end, there was no way that i would agree, and i just find that wrong, for solid reasons, then i wouldn't believe in it. I won't kid myself and try to change my thinking to fit with the Quran, because i always put reality into account.

But it's not about proving anything, Badran. The whole reason for you choosing faith over "no faith" is because you have no evidence either way in the matter. You do not have to be "very sure" that something is the case to prefer it to pure faith, you just need a bit of evidence. Isn't that so?

Yes, but i don't have any. That's the point. Also, i didn't just choose the most likely, although it doesn't convince all that well. No, it makes perfect sense. It makes my life much better, and it doesn't include anything that i disagree with, like other religions. I do think it is the most reasonable explanation for things.

But you do know that I can make up numerous such examples, right? Where something could not be verified...Did you know, for instance, that the effect we call "gravity" is actually tiny, little, invisible pixies pulling on the space time continuum?

Are you going to assess how likely each scenario is and decide whether that is the case or not? There simply is no good reason to even consider it, because my claims are complete bollocks - how do you know my claims are complete bollocks? Because I have, and could not possible ever have, any evidence for my proposition. Neither is there any evidence, and could never be any evidence against it. It's not falsifiable - there is nothing that could ever occur, no argument ever made, no discovery made that would invalidate my assertion.

But your assertion doesn't include much information. In other words, Islam contains tons of information, which makes it much easier and more likely to be proven wrong. Also, if i choose to remain neutral to your assertion, there is nothing at stake here.

That's why you should not be answering the question at all and assuming all those who assert an answer are full of it - including any "literature" on the matter.

I don't take that mentality in general like i said. For example, the possibility that aliens exist. No proof or evidence suggests either in my knowledge. So, i don't think there are aliens, but i don't think it's impossible that there are aliens.

No, no, I'm sorry, that's not the same thing. You have a reason to assume that your friend is trustworthy and - it's a testable proposition. You have no reason to assume that anything, for which you have no evidence, is true - that's the "faith" I'm talking about. You cannot know whether or not something is a sin - and you can never say it isn't. There is nothing that could ever happen, that would demonstrate that condom use isn's a sin. Nothing - it's not falsifiable. Neither is the proposition that a god exists.

I have a reason because it makes perfect sense, because there is a book that is claimed to be something and it is, the other options doesn't convince me, and my life is much better choosing this path.

Please put these two points in mind again:

1) I don't agree with the rest of options. I agree with this one.

2) There is a lot at stake on this choice.

Why wouldn't i choose?

I hope you don't mind me being so persistant on this issue, but I really think it's very important. And btw, of the theistic members here on RF that you've seen, how many do you think do not misuse faith in the way I've described? I would say, at most, one in a hundred.

No i don't mind. For your question, I think there are more theists who misuse than theists who use it well. But i honestly think this the case with people in general. As in, that people who control themselves, and don't misuse things and don't let their feelings control their judgments, are less than people who don't.

 

[Badran]

The more important the outcome, the more important to proceed carefully based on evidence.

Yes, of course, if there is evidence to rely on.

You don't have a choice as to whether to be Muslim?

I meant i have to choose between all the possibilities.

Whereas Gods have a better track record?

He doesn't have one. Humans do, which inclines me away from putting such faith in them.

What you have done is chosen one area of your life and decided to not use evidence in it. In all other areas, you agree the most prudent and moral way to the truth is to look for evidence. But when it comes to your soul, you suddenly decide to just randomly follow what you were brainwashed to believe, without using evidence.

Not decided not to use evidence, there is none.

 

[Commoner]

But this is all based on your inclination that these faith based claims are false. If they were true, then basing my opinion on them won't be wrong in general. Only in the behavior we described earlier.

No, no, faith based doesn't mean false. Faith based means you have no way of knowing if they are true, so to assert that you do is false. It's a bit like flipping a coin and not seeing which side it lands on, then claiming that it's fallen on "heads". Yes, you might even be right (in fact, you'll be right, on average, half of the time), but that does not mean you were right to claim that knowledge - that's how faith is misused.

You're not satisfied by simply saying, "well, I don't know which side it fell on, so if I have to choose in order to win the bet, I'll choose 'heads'." No, you're trying to say that it is "heads", and that's just silly. You don't have to assert it as true in order to make the choice.

Also, you are forgetting that i believe in a scripture, which includes rules. How am i supposed to believe in it and follow it, and not take anything said in it as a reference.

You're not supposed to follow them. You're supposed to have actual reasons for the way you behave, not simply rely on authority. And that goes double if you want to tell others what they should do. If you think that eating pork is a sin, don't eat pork. But unless you have an actual reason why it would be bad to eat pork - don't assert that belief to others. And if you have actual reasons, then you don't need scriptural support, you simply say - it's not good to eat pork because "insert good reason". Because we certainly do have an ability to test such a suggestion - if your reason is valid, fine, if not - you should concede the point and move on.

I would first understand why is it a sin, then if i'm not convinced i would make sure i interpret that part correctly. If it is a sin, and i don't agree at all with that, for good reasons, then i would not follow the religion. This situation have never happened with me with the Quran. That's the point. I agree with all it's rules. And the ones who stroke me as wrong at first, was because i misunderstood them. When i read the interpretations i understood everything and i agreed.

Sure, and so do the Christians. Or do you think they come about their belief in a different way? The point is not what you, as a Muslim, should do when faced with a claim that condoms are a sin, the question is - what should you do about it from the standpoint of someone who thinks faith is a valid argument?

I understand that you can look at scripture and decide for yourself whether or not using condoms is a sin. But what is your response to that claim in light of the problems it creates for other people? Their claims have just as much validity as yours do, so you can either accept that they have no validity at all (except for the individual who ascribes to them), or you must accept them as valid.

There is something you need to put in mind though. Opinions differ all the time. So, i might disagree with the Quran on something, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong, because i could be wrong too. So, since i believe in the Quran, i try my best to understand why it says that thing that i disagree with, and i try my best to find a way to agree. I will take time too, and keep thinking about it. If in the end, there was no way that i would agree, and i just find that wrong, for solid reasons, then i wouldn't believe in it. I won't kid myself and try to change my thinking to fit with the Quran, because i always put reality into account.

But, look - if you start off going out of your way to find a way to explain something, then you will - that's how our minds work - if we wanted to, we could justify believing in virtually anything. It is exactly for that reason that science works in the oposite way - you go out of your way to find something wrong with your explanation, to find any error, anything that would even hint at your hypothesis being wrong. If you're interested in the truth - that's how you establish it. If you're interested in feeling good and holding on to your beliefs, then you do what you just described. It's not that only after you find no way to agree with something, no way in which it can be true that you abandon it. That's a recipe for disaster, friend.

Yes, but i don't have any. That's the point. Also, i didn't just choose the most likely, although it doesn't convince all that well. No, it makes perfect sense. It makes my life much better, and it doesn't include anything that i disagree with, like other religions. I do think it is the most reasonable explanation for things.

What would you call all the evidence that we have of the world around us, that it works without any divine intervention? What would you call the evidence that prayer does not work? What would you call the evidence that our minds are prone to exactly such errors that would produce religions, superstition, that would find patterns where none exist?

What are those, if they are not evidence against a god that intervenes?

But your assertion doesn't include much information. In other words, Islam contains tons of information, which makes it much easier and more likely to be proven wrong. Also, if i choose to remain neutral to your assertion, there is nothing at stake here.

Well, no, Badran - the whole theory of gravity is my assertion - plus, the bit of fairy dust that I added. Don't you realize that the majority of scripture deals with things that have nothing to do with the supernatural? Every now and then, there's a miracle or a mention of something intangible, such as "spirit". But other than that, it's fables and stories, some with a moral message, some with practical advice. There's nothing to confirm or disconfirm, it's not like you'll find Earth's distance from the Sun (in km) in the Quran. And when you do find something that is factually incorrect - like the Sun setting in a puddle of mud, you shrug it off as poetic language. Well - you cannot disprove anything in such a way, you cannot disprove Lord of the Rings in that way.

And the point that there is nothing at stake...what does that matter? Are you honestly trying to tell me that you choose to believe because you fear what might happen if you don't? That would be a really bad reason to do it, Badran. And don't you think, if I wanted to, I could give you a scare card. If you're afraid of eternal damnation, than how about eternal damnation not only for you, but also for anyone you love, unless you believe my theory? That's simply absurd...

I don't take that mentality in general like i said. For example, the possibility that aliens exist. No proof or evidence suggests either in my knowledge. So, i don't think there are aliens, but i don't think it's impossible that there are aliens.

That's the point - that's exactly it, Badran. In any other example, you're perfectly fine not having a conclusive answer. Yet, when it comes to god, you can't seem to do that. Is it fear? Is it social pressure? What?

I have a reason because it makes perfect sense, because there is a book that is claimed to be something and it is, the other options doesn't convince me, and my life is much better choosing this path.

What would make it false? Give me an example of something that would falsify your beliefs?

Please put these two points in mind again:

1) I don't agree with the rest of options. I agree with this one.

2) There is a lot at stake on this choice.

Why wouldn't i choose?

The stakes are fixed, Badran. It's like if I were to say to you that, unless you send me money, I'll reach through your computer screen and strangle you. It doesn't matter what the threat is - there is no (natural) way that I could do it. It's impossible. Yet when it comes to hell, you just accept it? Fear is not a good reason, Badran, and fear is the only thing that's relevant as far as the "stakes" go - because there is no evidence that a threat exists, or that such a threat even could exist. There is nothing at stake, not before you accept one of the answers. Without accepting that god exists, there is no punishement, and there are no rewards, so that should have absolutely no sway in your decision - none at all.

You should not choose if you care about what is true more than you care about what makes you feel comfortable and safe. If you don't, then choose whatever you'd like, but I couldn't do that. And you should also consider that, if it is the case that a god would demand worship of you and would threaten to punish you for all eternity if you did not, would such a god be worthy of it? Not for me.

 

[Badran]

No, no, faith based doesn't mean false. Faith based means you have no way of knowing if they are true, so to assert that you do is false. It's a bit like flipping a coin and not seeing which side it lands on, then claiming that it's fallen on "heads". Yes, you might even be right (in fact, you'll be right, on average, half of the time), but that does not mean you were right to claim that knowledge - that's how faith is misused.
You're not satisfied by simply saying, "well, I don't know which side it fell on, so if I have to choose in order to win the bet, I'll choose 'heads'." No, you're trying to say that it is "heads", and that's just silly. You don't have to assert it as true in order to make the choice.

There is a claim that someone had revelations, and that he is a prophet, he has a message. This is a claim, i can check or revise this claim, and decide. There is no evidence, but there is reasons that would make me inclined towards one of the sides. Following your explanation here, i shouldn't make the choice because there is no evidence. But returning to my first point, since there isn't evidence that assures any of the possibilities, and what's at stake, i should choose with what i've got. (I'll explain later in this post what i mean with at stake, but in response to the part where you ask about it).

You're not supposed to follow them. You're supposed to have actual reasons for the way you behave, not simply rely on authority. And that goes double if you want to tell others what they should do. If you think that eating pork is a sin, don't eat pork. But unless you have an actual reason why it would be bad to eat pork - don't assert that belief to others. And if you have actual reasons, then you don't need scriptural support, you simply say - it's not good to eat pork because "insert good reason". Because we certainly do have an ability to test such a suggestion - if your reason is valid, fine, if not - you should concede the point and move on.

I'm not relying on anybody's authority. I'm following what i personally believe to be the teachings of Islam, the teachings of God. I agree though, with the part about pork for example, and anything like that. If i don't have a good explanation as to why it is assumably wrong, i shouldn't tell others who don't even adhere to my belief and religion not to do it. For the followers of that religion, of course they will approach this in a different manner.

Sure, and so do the Christians. Or do you think they come about their belief in a different way? The point is not what you, as a Muslim, should do when faced with a claim that condoms are a sin, the question is - what should you do about it from the standpoint of someone who thinks faith is a valid argument?

I understand that you can look at scripture and decide for yourself whether or not using condoms is a sin. But what is your response to that claim in light of the problems it creates for other people? Their claims have just as much validity as yours do, so you can either accept that they have no validity at all (except for the individual who ascribes to them), or you must accept them as valid.

I'm not sure what you mean in this part, but if you mean, that there is nothing that separates our different interpretations of what a certain verse says, then yes of course. But, each will try to convince others why they are right, and people get to choose, just like anything else. So, we will be fighting those who make up rules, or misinterpret verses and cause harm to others, by clarifying so to people.

But, look - if you start off going out of your way to find a way to explain something, then you will - that's how our minds work - if we wanted to, we could justify believing in virtually anything. It is exactly for that reason that science works in the oposite way - you go out of your way to find something wrong with your explanation, to find any error, anything that would even hint at your hypothesis being wrong. If you're interested in the truth - that's how you establish it. If you're interested in feeling good and holding on to your beliefs, then you do what you just described. It's not that only after you find no way to agree with something, no way in which it can be true that you abandon it. That's a recipe for disaster, friend.

I can see what kind of impression you got here and i understand and felt that you would get such an impression, i assure you it is not the case though. For example, there are a couple of rules that i don't believe to be a part of Islam, although most muslims believe in them, because it is presented to them and was presented to me as a given. I came to a conclusion about them independently, and refused them. And later on, was happy to find out, that there are certain Muslim scholars refuse such rules as well. I convinced every body i know that these rules are not part of Islam. My point is, i don't strive to fit my thinking with my beliefs. But i put in mind, that impressions and opinions are sometimes wrong, so i just take my time, and try my best to understand why is the case so.

What would you call all the evidence that we have of the world around us, that it works without any divine intervention? What would you call the evidence that prayer does not work? What would you call the evidence that our minds are prone to exactly such errors that would produce religions, superstition, that would find patterns where none exist? What are those, if they are not evidence against a god that intervenes?

The part about divine intervention, we are not even sure in what way exactly does God operate the universe, or at least i don't know, there are so many possibilities, and the possibility which i'm in favor that he operates it in a way beyond our comprehension.

For the prayer part, prayers have conditions. I mean, to start with, there are certain prayers that are a given not to work for example. Also, not all Gods are perceived like the Abrahamic religions.

Well, no, Badran - the whole theory of gravity is my assertion - plus, the bit of fairy dust that I added. Don't you realize that the majority of scripture deals with things that have nothing to do with the supernatural? Every now and then, there's a miracle or a mention of something intangible, such as "spirit". But other than that, it's fables and stories, some with a moral message, some with practical advice. There's nothing to confirm or disconfirm, it's not like you'll find Earth's distance from the Sun (in km) in the Quran. And when you do find something that is factually incorrect - like the Sun setting in a puddle of mud, you shrug it off as poetic language. Well - you cannot disprove anything in such a way, you cannot disprove Lord of the Rings in that way.

What would make it false? Give me an example of something that would falsify your beliefs?

It's not as hard. I know what you mean about the interpretation part though. I'll give you a very simple example about what would have been enough for me to be not a Muslim. If certain rules which are mentioned in Hadiths which are accustomed to the prophet (pbuh) was mentioned in the Quran, i wouldn't have been a Muslim today.

And the point that there is nothing at stake...what does that matter? Are you honestly trying to tell me that you choose to believe because you fear what might happen if you don't? That would be a really bad reason to do it, Badran. And don't you think, if I wanted to, I could give you a scare card. If you're afraid of eternal damnation, than how about eternal damnation not only for you, but also for anyone you love, unless you believe my theory? That's simply absurd...
That's the point - that's exactly it, Badran. In any other example, you're perfectly fine not having a conclusive answer. Yet, when it comes to god, you can't seem to do that. Is it fear? Is it social pressure? What?
The stakes are fixed, Badran. It's like if I were to say to you that, unless you send me money, I'll reach through your computer screen and strangle you. It doesn't matter what the threat is - there is no (natural) way that I could do it. It's impossible. Yet when it comes to hell, you just accept it? Fear is not a good reason, Badran, and fear is the only thing that's relevant as far as the "stakes" go - because there is no evidence that a threat exists, or that such a threat even could exist. There is nothing at stake, not before you accept one of the answers. Without accepting that god exists, there is no punishement, and there are no rewards, so that should have absolutely no sway in your decision - none at all.
You should not choose if you care about what is true more than you care about what makes you feel comfortable and safe. If you don't, then choose whatever you'd like, but I couldn't do that. And you should also consider that, if it is the case that a god would demand worship of you and would threaten to punish you for all eternity if you did not, would such a god be worthy of it? Not for me.

It's not about fear. It's about this, If there is a creator, if there is a god, that created me, i'm going to make sure i give him his dues. After checking all possibilities, i found that it is much more likely that there is a God. Islam met all the requirements i expect of the religion which would be from a god. And i already told you what kind of difference does that have on my life.

 

[Sahar]

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.

The Sunnah/hadith basically is the detailed practical application of the Qur'an. Authenticity of hadith is determined according to certain criteria; I hope the following link will help you:
post about hadith

Believing in the perfectness of the Qur'an and the Prophet's way doesn't mean we can't learn and advance in science and knowledge. Here I should say that the Qur'an gives us the basics with some examples but not the details because the details will change from time to time and from place to place depending on the different circumstances. The Qur'anic verses and hadiths are limited in number and have a say in limited number of issues but the circumstances and situations in the different places and times are limitless and that's why Islam draw the broad lines for us and we are going to work our minds in the details based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah guidance.
That's why Islam is a dynamic religion. There are clear Islamic basic principles that are not subjected to change and there are branches and secondaries that are subjected to change and to the different understandings and opinions.

 

[Commoner]

There is a claim that someone had revelations, and that he is a prophet, he has a message. This is a claim, i can check or revise this claim, and decide. There is no evidence, but there is reasons that would make me inclined towards one of the sides. Following your explanation here, i shouldn't make the choice because there is no evidence. But returning to my first point, since there isn't evidence that assures any of the possibilities, and what's at stake, i should choose with what i've got. (I'll explain later in this post what i mean with at stake, but in response to the part where you ask about it).

On the contrary, I'm saying - choose, if you really think you have to, but don't assert that you have any knowledge that you could not possibly have.

I'm not relying on anybody's authority. I'm following what i personally believe to be the teachings of Islam, the teachings of God. I agree though, with the part about pork for example, and anything like that. If i don't have a good explanation as to why it is assumably wrong, i shouldn't tell others who don't even adhere to my belief and religion not to do it. For the followers of that religion, of course they will approach this in a different manner.

Isn't God the ultimate authority? So, if you agree with me about the pork, then may I ask when it would be appropriate, in your opinion, to use any argument based purely on faith?

I'm not sure what you mean in this part, but if you mean, that there is nothing that separates our different interpretations of what a certain verse says, then yes of course. But, each will try to convince others why they are right, and people get to choose, just like anything else. So, we will be fighting those who make up rules, or misinterpret verses and cause harm to others, by clarifying so to people.

But interpretation shouldn't matter - either there are actual reasons to do something or there aren't. It's completely irrelevant what scripture says about it, because - as you've said - you don't follow scripture because it's the word of god, you think it's the word of god becuase you agree with everything it says, right?

Even if the Quran is the word of god, you still cannot rely on it on its own, since your interpretation might be wrong. So, at most, it gives you a list of things you should try and understand the best you can, but it can never be used as an argument on its own - in my opinion. And therefore, faith cannot be used as an argument...ever.

I can see what kind of impression you got here and i understand and felt that you would get such an impression, i assure you it is not the case though. For example, there are a couple of rules that i don't believe to be a part of Islam, although most muslims believe in them, because it is presented to them and was presented to me as a given. I came to a conclusion about them independently, and refused them. And later on, was happy to find out, that there are certain Muslim scholars refuse such rules as well. I convinced every body i know that these rules are not part of Islam. My point is, i don't strive to fit my thinking with my beliefs. But i put in mind, that impressions and opinions are sometimes wrong, so i just take my time, and try my best to understand why is the case so.

I understand and that's commendable. But still - it doesn't solve my problem. This was something you really disagreed with, right? Not something you wanted to be true...well, how about the things you agree with and would like to be true, yet you have no evidence that they are true? Those are the things you should apply skepticism to - the things you disagree with are already on your blacklist (although, it's great to hear that you take action to deal with them).

The part about divine intervention, we are not even sure in what way exactly does God operate the universe, or at least i don't know, there are so many possibilities, and the possibility which i'm in favor that he operates it in a way beyond our comprehension.

How does that matter? You don't have any evidence for that position, while there is evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying that it's conclusive, but you can't tell me there is no evidence either way - every piece of data we collect about our world, every discovery we make, it all works without a deity.

For the prayer part, prayers have conditions. I mean, to start with, there are certain prayers that are a given not to work for example. Also, not all Gods are perceived like the Abrahamic religions.

There are no prayers that do work... Well, ok, then it's evidence against a specific god. So? Does that make it any less evidence against the god concept(s)?

It's not as hard. I know what you mean about the interpretation part though. I'll give you a very simple example about what would have been enough for me to be not a Muslim. If certain rules which are mentioned in Hadiths which are accustomed to the prophet (pbuh) was mentioned in the Quran, i wouldn't have been a Muslim today.

Unfortunatelly, I have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry...

But, I'm not really asking you what it would take for you to leave your faith. I'm asking - what would objectively show that it's false? But, nevermind...maybe you could just explain what you meant?

It's not about fear. It's about this, If there is a creator, if there is a god, that created me, i'm going to make sure i give him his dues. After checking all possibilities, i found that it is much more likely that there is a God. Islam met all the requirements i expect of the religion which would be from a god. And i already told you what kind of difference does that have on my life.

Do you think that a wise God really wants you to worship him? Just imagine it for a second - the smartest, wisest person you can think of, how would they feel about being worshipped? How would you feel about it?

And, you still haven't explained, unless I've missed it, what's at stake?

 

[Badran]

On the contrary, I'm saying - choose, if you really think you have to, but don't assert that you have any knowledge that you could not possibly have.

Yes of course, i'm not assuming that. My faith in these concepts is not something trivial. These are the explanations and rules i believe to be from God, i will base on them everything. I'm aware that i could be wrong, but that doesn't mean i should treat them as just possible explanations that i have. Yes, they are not assured or proved, you are right, and i don't expect others to look at them as facts, but i take them very seriously, because i believe in them.

Isn't God the ultimate authority? So, if you agree with me about the pork, then may I ask when it would be appropriate, in your opinion, to use any argument based purely on faith?

If you mean based on saying that for example that this is a sin without arguments, then never. Never should i do that except with people that share my faith. However, i could explain for others why i and my religion view a certain act to be wrong, and they can decide for themselves. Like saying that theft is wrong for these particular reasons, providing an explanation. But for things i can't provide an explanation, i shouldn't say to others so.

But interpretation shouldn't matter - either there are actual reasons to do something or there aren't. It's completely irrelevant what scripture says about it, because - as you've said - you don't follow scripture because it's the word of god, you think it's the word of god becuase you agree with everything it says, right?

Even if the Quran is the word of god, you still cannot rely on it on its own, since your interpretation might be wrong. So, at most, it gives you a list of things you should try and understand the best you can, but it can never be used as an argument on its own - in my opinion. And therefore, faith cannot be used as an argument...ever.

I believe the Quran is the word of God, i just don't have an evidence to make me 100% positive. As for the interpretations, it's not that complicated or hard, most verses are understandable. The difference of opinions doesn't occur in a big part of the Quran.

I understand and that's commendable. But still - it doesn't solve my problem. This was something you really disagreed with, right? Not something you wanted to be true...well, how about the things you agree with and would like to be true, yet you have no evidence that they are true? Those are the things you should apply skepticism to - the things you disagree with are already on your blacklist (although, it's great to hear that you take action to deal with them).

Absolutely, i agree. I find skepticism to be a necessity i should apply on all things i've learnt, and even things i concluded on my own. In other words, i also believe i should make sure to rethink about my conclusions from time to time.

How does that matter? You don't have any evidence for that position, while there is evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying that it's conclusive, but you can't tell me there is no evidence either way - every piece of data we collect about our world, every discovery we make, it all works without a deity.

Yes, but that's because we don't know how God makes it work, so if you understand the method, doesn't mean nobody made it.

There are no prayers that do work... Well, ok, then it's evidence against a specific god. So? Does that make it any less evidence against the god concept(s)?

Of course there are prayers that do work, who said no prayers work? I meant that the reason people conclude that prayers don't work is because it has certain conditions.

The part about the different approaches or views of god, what i meant by it, that even if there is evidence in your opinion that eliminates a certain version of god, doesn't mean there is no god(s).

Unfortunatelly, I have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry...

But, I'm not really asking you what it would take for you to leave your faith. I'm asking - what would objectively show that it's false? But, nevermind...maybe you could just explain what you meant?

I should've clarified more. What i meant was, which i think would qualify as an objective reason to falsify it, is that if certain rules, which are mentioned in Hadiths(sayings of the prophet), were in the Quran, would have made the Quran a contradicting book, which would have beaten the point of it. It makes it either man made, or man affected, which like i said beats the point.

Do you think that a wise God really wants you to worship him? Just imagine it for a second - the smartest, wisest person you can think of, how would they feel about being worshipped? How would you feel about it?

And, you still haven't explained, unless I've missed it, what's at stake?

To know wether or not he wants so, i mean yes he demands so, but why? Does he need it, no. Does he want it, may be, the point is i could speculate about his motives and stuff like that. But i don't know enough about him to make such judgment. Also, i don't know his motives.

As for what's at stake, it was the part where i said that if there is a god i'm going to make sure i give him his dues. In other words, it's out of the most importance to me, to decide wether or not i believe in a creator, because if he existed, and i didn't believe in him, the outcome of that is horrible in every way. Not particularly the punishment part, but the very idea that i didn't acknowledge my creator troubles me. Also, i would be missing out on the possibility of spending eternity in heaven for my believe in him, and my good deeds... In other words, it is a big decision. Why couldn't it be possible that we can't find out now, this the part i referred to in the other thread i told you about.

 

[Caladan]

Anymore Muslim takers on post #12?

 

[Badran]

Anymore Muslim takers on post #12?

I guess it is agreed upon. I personally agree with the 2 ideas there, the part about mixing up between westerners and christianity, and the part about the value of opinions on current affairs. But we do have to share these other stuff too, about our beliefs, i mean this is a religious forum, and people ask these questions sometimes.

 

[Abu Rashid]

Anymore Muslim takers on post #12?

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'

This is indeed very accurate, and something I've tried (unsuccessfully) several times to try and inform some Muslims about. But also you must recognise not all Muslims are Arabs or Pakistanis or whatever, with little exposure to the West. One of the fastest growing quarters of Islam is amongst us Westerners ourselves. and we quite obviously understand the way "the West" thinks.