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

[England my lionheart]

The biggest problem (other than the punishment of flogging) with these verses is that it doesn't take into account they are adulterer or adulteress. If he or she, or both, are already married, then how could they possibly marry each other, unless they (one or the other or both) divorce their current partners.

It is senseless set of instruction.

Thats Medaeval thinking,right there in that instruction,quite apparent to most of us

 

[gnostic]

Except zina can also be between two people who are unmarried. Which is the interpretation of this verse, between two unmarried people who commit to sexual relations.

Adultery is adultery. And premarital sex is premarital sex, or fornication, as some people called this act. They are not the same things.

I find it strange that Muslims and Christians, like to change the definition of an act to encompass other unrelated sexual acts, when it suit them.

But a Man with four Wives does?

The act of bigamy or polygamy by itself, is no different from monogamous marriage, except that one person may have more than one spouse.

The double standard and horrendous nature is that man can have more than one wife, but a woman can't have more than one husband. The man can avoid committing adultery because he is married to all the wives, but the woman don't have such protection, which speaks of patriarchal sexual discrimination.

If polygamy is allowed for one sex, then it should be allowed for the opposite sex as well. Otherwise, Islam should do away with polygamy for men alone.

 

[England my lionheart]

Adultery is adultery. And premarital sex is premarital sex, or fornication, as some people called this act. They are not the same things.

I find it strange that Muslims and Christians, like to change the definition of an act to encompass other unrelated sexual acts, when it suit them.



The act of bigamy or polygamy by itself, is no different from monogamous marriage, except that one person may have more than one spouse.

The double standard and horrendous nature is that man can have more than one wife, but a woman can't have more than one husband. The man can avoid committing adultery because he is married to all the wives, but the woman don't have such protection, which speaks of patriarchal sexual discrimination.

If polygamy is allowed for one sex, then it should be allowed for the opposite sex as well. Otherwise, Islam should do away with polygamy for men alone.

Which is my point,a straight case of double standards

 

[Badran]

Except zina can also be between two people who are unmarried. Which is the interpretation of this verse, between two unmarried people who commit to sexual relations.

But when interpreted like that, ignoring what it clearly says and relying on the Hadith, how do you deal with the completely unfair and unfitting punishment?

Many times we do rely on Hadiths to clarify what a verse means, or what its talking about. But when there are clear objections that simply have no answer, why accept it, while the verse is saying otherwise? Just because it is said to be authentic by scholars?

Doesn't it strike you as odd that Allah would mention the lesser punishment in the Quran and leave out the other supposed disastrous punishment? The surah talks about this, and clarifies what is to happen when this happens and when that happens, but for some reason no mentioning whatsoever that we're supposed to kill them if they are married. You don't see any problem with that? Don't you think that its a pretty important thing, that would've been mentioned since the issue is already being clarified? Why leave the most important part out?

 

[Badran]

Thats Medaeval thinking,right there in that instruction,quite apparent to most of us

Don't you think you might be viewing it this way simply because such punishment is attached with things that in your mind has to do with ancient history? And just because of that doesn't mean its a bad thing. Not everything done in the older times is bad is it?

 

[Meow Mix]

Correct it is called Zina. People can do anything they want...in their own privacy. People cannot have sex in public and premarital sex in public is punishable offense.

I still want to know about my sex in the woods example. I mean, if you're talking about such EXTREME punishments wouldn't it be best to understand all the nuances? Would a couple who had sex in the woods with a reasonable expectation of not being stumbled upon be punished severely or not?

First these leaders that run Muslim countries are despicable. Worse in almost all regards than the Western leaders who instituted such puppets.

Second I agree with you. There is no way that a Shariah country can come to fruition within the current political system. Only by shedding and revolting against the status quo will such a system be possible.

Third they don't come knocking at their door. Again, the crime is committed in public and witnessed by the public.

And fourth you seem to be focusing on the actual punishment when the point of these codes is first to try and establish repentance and sincerity in their horror at their crime. Punishment is only seen fit for abnormal people who pose a threat to society.

Wouldn't you focus on the punishment if your government started deciding to decapitate people for jaywalking and chopping off feet for speeding? Oh, but they're just trying to establish a good society and they're only punishing abnormal people.

 

[Badran]

If polygamy is allowed for one sex, then it should be allowed for the opposite sex as well. Otherwise, Islam should do away with polygamy for men alone.

There are many things to put in mind when thinking about this. For starters, i think its important to clarify my opinion that its not open for men to marry as they see fit. This rule is in my opinion for certain situations, not in general. For example, back then when there was wars loads of women would be widows (since only men went to wars), and they have no one to support financially nor provide security for them. So this rule would allow in that case, since there will be a whole lot of women, and much lesser number of men, women who need the things i mentioned, it will be possible then for the man to do so.

Also, back then, if a woman were to marry four men, wouldn't that raise problems in identifying who is who's kids? Sure its avoidable if i guess a certain schedule or so where done as to when to have sex etc... But how easy would it be for a mistake to happen and there being no way of finding out?

All of this is guess work though, as its not stated. But what i should also clarify, is that in Islam men are women are equal, neither is better than the other. However, that doesn't mean to act as if each of them is not unique in certain areas. They are not identical, and therefore there are different obligations and certain privileges given based on that. A man is obligated to raise money even if the women can support herself, while a women is not. Which is by the way a security given to women, not like many would consider to be saying that women should stay at home or whatever. Women get pregnant, men can not. So, not every difference means that men are considered better or are more privileged in Islam.

 

[England my lionheart]

Don't you think you might be viewing it this way simply because such punishment is attached with things that in your mind has to do with ancient history? And just because of that doesn't mean its a bad thing. Not everything done in the older times is bad is it?

Whether its death or 100 lashes both are extreme by todays standards IMO,it reminds me of the punishments in Medaeval Europe,it does seem pretty bad to me.

I agree though that if the ahadith contradicts the Qur'an the Qur'an always takes precedence in such cases,thats what i've been told so it should be 100 lashes and not death,still quite shocking though.

 

[Badran]

Whether its death or 100 lashes both are extreme by todays standards IMO,it reminds me of the punishments in Medaeval Europe,it does seem pretty bad to me.

Exactly, it must be shocking to you, because not only are such things simply nonexistent in your society today, but also it is attached with certain times that were quite bad. But that in itself doesn't mean its wrong or too much. Its not more cruel than punishments we apply today. The other reason might be because while you view adultery as a bad thing, but may be you don't view it that badly, or as bad as we do.

I'm talking about the lashing of course, since killing is out of the question for obvious reasons.

 

[England my lionheart]

Exactly, it must be shocking to you, because not only are such things simply nonexistent in your society today, but also it is attached with certain times that were quite bad. But that in itself doesn't mean its wrong or too much. Its not more cruel than punishments we apply today. The other reason might be because while you view adultery as a bad thing, but may be you don't view it that badly, or as bad as we do.

I'm talking about the lashing of course, since killing is out of the question for obvious reasons.

In the UK Divorce seems to be punishment enough,if there are Children involved the Wife dictates when the Husband can visit his own Children plus he must support her and the Children financially and the Wife normally gets the House.

There is also the alienation of Family and freinds plus the embarassment ,compare this to 100 lashes and what 100 lashes actually achieves which IMO is nothing then its easy to see why i reject a reason to carry out Medaeval punishments.

Although punishment for adultery seems horrific to me the one that really upsets me is for Apostacy,again back in our history people were burned at the stake,hung drawn and quatered,drowned tortured etc by the Church for not being the right denomination,that though was 400 years ago.

Punishment for Apostacy in Islam even at its mildest like your Country where non recognition is the penalty it still breaches a basic Human right,at its worse though its despicable IMO.

I suppose you could make a case for it in Muhammeds time because it could be seen as treason,but that was then and this is now,this is why i reject Sharia and its cruel Medaeval punishments and i can only feel for anyone who has to live under it,just my opinion though.

 

[gnostic]

There are many things to put in mind when thinking about this. For starters, i think its important to clarify my opinion that its not open for men to marry as they see fit. This rule is in my opinion for certain situations, not in general. For example, back then when there was wars loads of women would be widows (since only men went to wars), and they have no one to support financially nor provide security for them. So this rule would allow in that case, since there will be a whole lot of women, and much lesser number of men, women who need the things i mentioned, it will be possible then for the man to do so.

If it is good enough for Muslim men, then it is good enough for Muslim women.

Not that I think any Muslim woman want to marry more than one man. But even if a small percentage would want to, I don't see the harm in it.

Also, back then, if a woman were to marry four men, wouldn't that raise problems in identifying who is who's kids? Sure its avoidable if i guess a certain schedule or so where done as to when to have sex etc... But how easy would it be for a mistake to happen and there being no way of finding out?

You think I'd give a rat's a55 what men think about whose baby is whose?

As far as I am concern Muslim men have acted as tyrants far too long for me to give a damn what they want.

All of this is guess work though, as its not stated. But what i should also clarify, is that in Islam men are women are equal, neither is better than the other. However, that doesn't mean to act as if each of them is not unique in certain areas. They are not identical, and therefore there are different obligations and certain privileges given based on that. A man is obligated to raise money even if the women can support herself, while a women is not. Which is by the way a security given to women, not like many would consider to be saying that women should stay at home or whatever. Women get pregnant, men can not. So, not every difference means that men are considered better or are more privileged in Islam.

In Islam, perhaps in the ideal world, men and women are seen as the same, but the reality is that women are not treated the same.

I have seen documentaries on divorced Muslim women, and often they are treated as outcasts. A Muslim man can claim anything they want, such as not giving him a son or that they were even not married, so the community or even the law will treat her as outcast, she would get not one cent, property, and if they have children she won't get custody. She would be left homeless, jobless and isolated. Everyone in the community would know, so they won't treat her like human being. Protest as she might, her words mean nothing to the community or to the legal system. And this is not the past, this is the present, social system.

That's the way patriarchal system work and the social justice in Islamic social justice is horrendous.

Widow are treated better; divorced women are not. In a fantasy world, she may be treated better, but not in the real world, and certainly as equal to a man.

What good is Islam with regards to social justice, if the reality falls far short than the ideals found in the holy scriptures? You can't live out your life in the world full of ideals.

 

[Badran]

In the UK Divorce seems to be punishment enough,if there are Children involved the Wife dictates when the Husband can visit his own Children plus he must support her and the Children financially and the Wife normally gets the House.

There is also the alienation of Family and freinds plus the embarassment ,compare this to 100 lashes and what 100 lashes actually achieves which IMO is nothing then its easy to see why i reject a reason to carry out Medaeval punishments.

There is absolutely no problem in seeing another sort of punishment to be more suitable, or more fair from your perspective. I was just trying to explain that the shock might be coming from what this type of punishment is associated with in your society and culture.

Although punishment for adultery seems horrific to me the one that really upsets me is for Apostacy,again back in our history people were burned at the stake,hung drawn and quatered,drowned tortured etc by the Church for not being the right denomination,that though was 400 years ago.

Punishment for Apostacy in Islam even at its mildest like your Country where non recognition is the penalty it still breaches a basic Human right,at its worse though its despicable IMO.

I agree. Killing someone for changing their religion is indeed despicable. So is any other kind of repercussion for such an obvious personal matter. I also don't believe Muhammad (pbuh) ever did this supposed punishment.

this is why i reject Sharia and its cruel Medaeval punishments and i can only feel for anyone who has to live under it,just my opinion though.

The poor way its practiced today, i also have to agree that its a horrible system to live under.

 

[Badran]

If it is good enough for Muslim men, then it is good enough for Muslim women.

Not that I think any Muslim woman want to marry more than one man. But even if a small percentage would want to, I don't see the harm in it.

You think I'd give a rat's a55 what men think about whose baby is whose?

As far as I am concern Muslim men have acted as tyrants far too long for me to give a damn what they want.

This is not about men. You're viewing this simply way too emotionally disregarding what i'm trying to say. The problem about kids is not about men, its about the woman, the husbands, and the kids themselves. Are the fathers the only ones who care to know who are their kids? of course not. The mother and the kids themselves sure care to know who exactly is who's son and daughter.

In Islam, perhaps in the ideal world, men and women are seen as the same, but the reality is that women are not treated the same.

I have seen documentaries on divorced Muslim women, and often they are treated as outcasts. A Muslim man can claim anything they want, such as not giving him a son or that they were even not married, so the community or even the law will treat her as outcast, she would get not one cent, property, and if they have children she won't get custody. She would be left homeless, jobless and isolated. Everyone in the community would know, so they won't treat her like human being. Protest as she might, her words mean nothing to the community or to the legal system. And this is not the past, this is the present, social system.

That's the way patriarchal system work and the social justice in Islamic social justice is horrendous.

Widow are treated better; divorced women are not. In a fantasy world, she may be treated better, but not in the real world, and certainly as equal to a man.

What good is Islam with regards to social justice, if the reality falls far short than the ideals found in the holy scriptures? You can't live out your life in the world full of ideals.

Although i'm pretty sure you have an exaggerated view about what supposedly happen to Muslim women, there sure are many incidents of mistreatment of women in all forms, which is no surprise really. This has happened, and still happens in pretty much most if not all societies.

 

[England my lionheart]

There is absolutely no problem in seeing another sort of punishment to be more suitable, or more fair from your perspective. I was just trying to explain that the shock might be coming from what this type of punishment is associated with in your society and culture.

I agree. Killing someone for changing their religion is indeed despicable. So is any other kind of repercussion for such an obvious personal matter. I also don't believe Muhammad (pbuh) ever did this supposed punishment.

The poor way its practiced today, i also have to agree that its a horrible system to live under.

Again from an outside perspective,the problem i see are the ahadith,there are many of them with examples of punishments that contradict the Qur'an,whether they are sahih or not the Qur'an sould be the reference and not hadith.

 

[ppɐʇɹnɯ]

I'd say not telling the whole truth about Islam (particularly about terrorism, sexism, and religious chauvinism)

 

[Badran]

Again from an outside perspective,the problem i see are the ahadith,there are many of them with examples of punishments that contradict the Qur'an,whether they are sahih or not the Qur'an sould be the reference and not hadith.

I agree that all these unfair and cruel punishments are coming from supposed Hadiths, and that they shouldn't be followed in this case considering what the Quran says. Killing homosexuals, killing converts, stoning adulterers are all from supposed Hadtihs and not the Quran. When we see what the Quran says about these subjects it should be obvious enough. Not to mention that these punishments raise serious logical problems.

 

[Meow Mix]

I agree that all these unfair and cruel punishments are coming from supposed Hadiths, and that they shouldn't be followed in this case considering what the Quran says. Killing homosexuals, killing converts, stoning adulterers are all from supposed Hadtihs and not the Quran. When we see what the Quran says about these subjects it should be obvious enough. Not to mention that these punishments raise serious logical problems.

Sometimes I wonder how many people who support these punishments yet who know me and talk to me could look me in the eye and condemn me to death for being a lesbian?

 

[Badran]

I'd say not telling the whole truth about Islam (particularly about terrorism, sexism, and religious chauvinism)

Dishonesty in other words right? Thats the biggest problem with Muslims, that we're not honest about how our religion encourages us to be terrorists, sexists and take our religion way too far, right?

Well, if so you're wrong.

 

[YmirGF]

I think one of the great blunders many Muslims make, like other idealistic theists, is stating assumptions AS IF they were facts. They aren't. They are just assumptions. The troubling bit is that in many cases, their assumptions are not even very good assumptions to begin with.

 

[Revoltingest]

Since it appears that some hadiths are wrong because they conflict with the Koran, what is their authority & what certainty is there in them?