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

[Bismillah]

But a Man with four Wives does?

I'm not even going to indulge you in trying to find out what lead you to state that polygamy has any negative consequences and is as bad as adultery.

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

Right, I can only hope all humans aspire to that great paradigm represented by popular cultural references like No Strings Attached. Don't worry I'm quite as appalled at your society as you are of mine.

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.

So sorry but the original word is Zina. It's not my fault the English language doesn't have an appropriate translation, hence that's why there's always notes to English words with secondary definitions associated to them in that context.

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.

Are you ok? Since when did multiple marriages in Islam revolve around sexual gratification? Perhaps you would do well to study the basis and model on which they are allowed and the conditions that must be met.

In the UK Divorce seems to be punishment enough

Yeah we've seen how effective it is in keeping people together!

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.

There is no punishment for Apostasy. There is punishment for treason.

 

[Badran]

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?

I know what you mean. I personally believe that its easier to just agree with such assumed rules when they're not put to action, since it doesn't matter. Especially when all or most of the figures of your religion agrees with it. Thats why i think most people give way more respect to their scholars or clerics or Imams more than they should.

I honestly don't believe its possible (especially with some people) that they would actually do these punishments themselves, or be okay with it if its done.

 

[Bismillah]

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?

What do you mean a couple? Again, you are talking about two already married people cheating in public.

Second you are ignoring the obvious context. Most Muslims don't have the same romanticized view of sex that the West has adopted. They don't feel the urge to associate every beautiful scene with their sexual urges. They do so in their bedrooms and in their homes where they are guaranteed their privacy and also don't risk offending others who have the same claim to land as they do.

Simply I don't see that example ever happening .

ouldn'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.

No, you are again exaggerating the crime (jaywalking?) as well as the punishment.

As well as disregarding that a person has to be unrepentant and arrogant in the face of their crime to warrant punishment.

 

[Bismillah]

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.

The only troubling bit in here is that you don't even bother listing any supposed assumptions in order to get your shot off at Islam.

 

[Badran]

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

In general if a Hadith contradicts the Quran then it has no authority. Of course not all of us will agree on which Hadiths contradicts the Quran and which don't.

 

[Meow Mix]

What do you mean a couple? Again, you are talking about two already married people cheating in public.

Second you are ignoring the obvious context. Most Muslims don't have the same romanticized view of sex that the West has adopted. They don't feel the urge to associate every beautiful scene with their sexual urges. They do so in their bedrooms and in their homes where they are guaranteed their privacy and also don't risk offending others who have the same claim to land as they do.

Simply I don't see that example ever happening .

What's the punishment for just having sex before marriage or homosexual sex again? I'm getting things confused.

For adulterers is it the public part that gets them killed or the adultery part that gets them killed or does it have to be both?

No, you are again exaggerating the crime (jaywalking?) as well as the punishment.

As well as disregarding that a person has to be unrepentant and arrogant in the face of their crime to warrant punishment.

Where does it say in the verse or whatever that a person has to be unrepentant and arrogant to get killed? What if they just said "Oh I'm sorry," would they therefore avoid death? Wouldn't 100% of people so caught just pretend to be humble about it and thus live?

Yes, death for jaywalking is very exaggerated -- but so is death for adultery, or death for sex in a place where someone might stumble upon it.

 

[Bismillah]

What's the punishment for just having sex before marriage or homosexual sex again? I'm getting things confused.

100 lashings and it depends on whether they are married or not.

For adulterers is it the public part that gets them killed or the adultery part that gets them killed or does it have to be both?

It is not the adultery part. A shariah state is not intended to be a police state insofar as invading the privacy of its citizens. It's only punishable when seen in public because now your actions are directly harming the public

Where does it say in the verse or whatever that a person has to be unrepentant and arrogant to get killed?

The punishment of stoning for adultery stems from Hadith. Hadiths related to Shariah punishment take the fact that repentance is necessary and only those who are arrogant even after being caught should be punished.

What if they just said "Oh I'm sorry," would they therefore avoid death? Wouldn't 100% of people so caught just pretend to be humble about it and thus live?

I think there has to be a set of guidelines, I read an article long ago, but pretty much you could say that if the same person were caught again doing another crime their repentance was false.

Yes, death for jaywalking is very exaggerated -- but so is death for adultery, or death for sex in a place where someone might stumble upon it.

No it's not. This punishment itself is only used in isolated and rare occasions and serves primarily as a deterrence to prevent such things from happening in the first place!

 

[Meow Mix]

100 lashings and it depends on whether they are married or not.

That's pretty extreme, but I'm still confused. Is that for having sex at all or in public? In one breath you say homosexual sex or premarital sex get 100 lashings but in the next breath you say Shariah isn't a police state invading the privacy of its citizens. I don't see how you can reconcile these statements unless there are different punishments for different types of sex outdoors.

No it's not. This punishment itself is only used in isolated and rare occasions and serves primarily as a deterrence to prevent such things from happening in the first place!

Yeah, and the punishment of death for someone who steals a pack of gum will quickly only become an isolated and rare occasion that serves as a deterrent to prevent such things from happening in the first place, too.

So what? It's still evil, and the system you describe is unspeakably evil.

 

[Bismillah]

That's pretty extreme, but I'm still confused. Is that for having sex at all or in public? In one breath you say homosexual sex or premarital sex get 100 lashings but in the next breath you say Shariah isn't a police state invading the privacy of its citizens. I don't see how you can reconcile these statements unless there are different punishments for different types of sex outdoors.

This is all for in public.

When I say it isn't a police state, it is because if people want to do these things in privacy they can. No one is supposed to harm them, their privacy in their own home is complete.

There was an hadith where people were suspected of drinking alcohol in their home, but the Sahaba said not to intrude and investigate because they were doing so in their own home.

Yeah, and the punishment of death for someone who steals a pack of gum will quickly only become an isolated and rare occasion that serves as a deterrent to prevent such things from happening in the first place, too.

You forget that Shariah is applied to all citizens including rulers. And I don't think it would honestly confer itself to things like stealing gum. For example if a ruler decided to pocket public money, that would constitute as stealing.

However, if a person steals for their own livelihood because of poverty, then they should not be punished. For example, during the Year of Starvation Umar (R.A) did not punish those who stole bread and food because he realized that people were suffering and it would be unjust to ascribe this punishment to them.

So what? It's still evil, and the system you describe is unspeakably evil.

I don't think so. It takes into account if people are sorry for what they did, if they were motivated because of unfortunate circumstances, applies to all facets of rule so that rulers maintain the just connection between the ruler and the ruled, and would serve as a very effective barrier to more crime.

I believe that promoting a system that infinitely nurtures these acts is indescribably more evil and flawed.

 

[YmirGF]

The only troubling bit in here is that you don't even bother listing any supposed assumptions in order to get your shot off at Islam.

The reason why I put it the way I did is because there are so many ludicrous ideas that form the basis of Islam, one is hard pressed as to where to start. For your edification, however:

The assumption that:

1. God exists
2. God has dictated a book using proxies
3. That book is unerring and contains no contradictions.
4. God has messengers
5. Muhammad was the final messenger (in a rather long and dreary chain of so-called "messengers").
6. Islam is the religion of God, favored above all others.
7. Submission of personal will to that of a higher power if a noble ideal.
8. Predestination exists
9. Jinn and angels exist
10. Hellfire and Paradise are existent realities
11. Jesus was born via immaculate conception, but the product of that conception is not the "son" of the father. (Very peculiar reasoning on this topic, for sure.)

That's just off the top of my head. Would you like me to think on it a bit?

 

[Bismillah]

Of course since these points only relate to people who actually believe in them, your argument has no direction.

 

[YmirGF]

Of course since these points only relate to people who actually believe in them, your argument has no direction.

Ah, the no true Scotsman argument. Nice.

 

[Meow Mix]

You forget that Shariah is applied to all citizens including rulers. And I don't think it would honestly confer itself to things like stealing gum. For example if a ruler decided to pocket public money, that would constitute as stealing.

However, if a person steals for their own livelihood because of poverty, then they should not be punished. For example, during the Year of Starvation Umar (R.A) did not punish those who stole bread and food because he realized that people were suffering and it would be unjust to ascribe this punishment to them.

None of this justifies how anyone would deserve death for being caught having sex. That's my main objection and you keep referring to other things but ignoring the crux of the issue: that death is indescribably disproportionate for the crime. Hence my gum stealing example. Yes, adultery is far worse than stealing gum, but still doesn't deserve DEATH.

I don't think so. It takes into account if people are sorry for what they did, if they were motivated because of unfortunate circumstances, applies to all facets of rule so that rulers maintain the just connection between the ruler and the ruled, and would serve as a very effective barrier to more crime.

I believe that promoting a system that infinitely nurtures these acts is indescribably more evil and flawed.

I agree that these acts shouldn't be nurtured, but murdering perpetrators is fairly wicked. I'd put people who commit or recommend these murders just a hair's notch above Nazi death camp operators and right around the area of abortion clinic bombers on the scale of evil.

A few questions, while we're on the subject:

1) What if the husband/wife of the cheater loves them and wants to forgive them? Still death for them?

2) What if a homosexual lived under Shariah rule and had 4 guests over to stay the week at their house. Let's say that at the end of the night the homosexual and her lover said, "Goodnight everyone, and please knock on our door before entering" or something and the 4 guests reasonably infer that they're consummating their love for one another but as they're friends of the homosexuals and have no problems with homosexuality, that's fine with them.

Let's say it comes up in conversation the next day, like someone jokingly says, "Well, how was it last night? (wink)" or something, and the lovers confess that they had sex as part of a joke. Again, everyone is fine with this.

But can the Islamic state subpeona (spelling?) these four "witnesses" to put the couple to 100 lashes, even if the guests weren't offended?

Now, what about the same scenario but instead with a group who likes to engage in group sex or something crazy like that. Can the Islamic state subpeona (spelling?) any 4 who participated and force them under oath to implicate the other members of the activity and so put them all to death since there's 4 witnesses? (For instance, if one person talks about it at a local bar or something and it's overheard that it happened and who was involved -- does that one person opening their mouth implicate everyone else?)

 

[Bismillah]

Ah, the no true Scotsman argument. Nice.

No it is not. I'm saying these beliefs pertain to Muslims not anyone else, so what exactly are you trying to state?

 

[Bismillah]

None of this justifies how anyone would deserve death for being caught having sex. That's my main objection and you keep referring to other things but ignoring the crux of the issue: that death is indescribably disproportionate for the crime. Hence my gum stealing example. Yes, adultery is far worse than stealing gum, but still doesn't deserve DEATH.

No, I'm just stating examples of how the law is flexible around certain conditions such as poverty.

Ok I agree that people who are commit adultery and are sorry for their crimes deserve death.

I agree that these acts shouldn't be nurtured, but murdering perpetrators is fairly wicked.

Only killing people who insist on repeatedly harming society.

1) What if the husband/wife of the cheater loves them and wants to forgive them? Still death for them?

The repentance is focused solely on the man and women who break the crime, if they are sincere or not is all that matters.

2) What if a homosexual lived under Shariah rule and had 4 guests over to stay the week at their house. Let's say that at the end of the night the homosexual and her lover said, "Goodnight everyone, and please knock on our door before entering" or something and the 4 guests reasonably infer that they're consummating their love for one another but as they're friends of the homosexuals and have no problems with homosexuality, that's fine with them.

Are you asking if they would be punished? There isn't even evidence of them having intercourse.

Let's say it comes up in conversation the next day, like someone jokingly says, "Well, how was it last night? (wink)" or something, and the lovers confess that they had sex as part of a joke. Again, everyone is fine with this.

Again there are no witnesses to the most intimate details and I would just like to point out my incredulity at the possibility of these events ever happening

Now, what about the same scenario but instead with a group who likes to engage in group sex or something crazy like that. Can the Islamic state subpeona (spelling?) any 4 who participated and force them under oath to implicate the other members of the activity and so put them all to death since there's 4 witnesses? (For instance, if one person talks about it at a local bar or something and it's overheard that it happened and who was involved -- does that one person opening their mouth implicate everyone else?)

What does it mean by group sex? That a married couple have intercourse with friends. Also if they did implicate their friends they in turn would be implicated. And of course sense this is akin to self testimony they would be told four times each time a witness went forward that they were also judging them selves.

Would this ever be possible we must ask? Why take these hypotheticals that would never arise.

 

[YmirGF]

No it is not. I'm saying these beliefs pertain to Muslims not anyone else, so what exactly are you trying to state?

That is the point, Abibi. As I specifically said, like other theists, Muslims treat their assumptions about reality AS IF they were reality.

For example, in your discussion with Kitty Mix about polygamy, you do not and cannot site a single serious study on the issues to support your assertions. You are simply blustering your own personal bias based on your belief system. If you were to include some of the more unseemly aspects of polygamy you would actually make a better, more believable, argument.

 

[Bismillah]

That is the point, Abibi. As I specifically said, like other theists, Muslims treat their assumptions about reality AS IF they were reality.

Since when did my belief in God have any impact on anyone else.

For example, in your discussion with Kitty Mix about polygamy, you do not and cannot site a single serious study on the issues to support your assertions. You are simply blustering your own personal bias based on your belief system. If you were to include some of the more unseemly aspects of polygamy you would actually make a better, more believable, argument.

I perfectly understand the possible negative consequences of polygamy. Then again I understand the way the system that is set up in Islam to avoid those consequences.

 

[England my lionheart]

I'm not even going to indulge you in trying to find out what lead you to state that polygamy has any negative consequences and is as bad as adultery.

Fine don't,but IMO its the same except everybody knows about it

Right, I can only hope all humans aspire to that great paradigm represented by popular cultural references like No Strings Attached. Don't worry I'm quite as appalled at your society as you are of mine.

Our society has major problems,i'll agree with that,what it doesn't have is illogical oppressive religion anymore,we've progressed to allow people to be who they want to be and within reason do what they want to do.

Are you ok? Since when did multiple marriages in Islam revolve around sexual gratification? Perhaps you would do well to study the basis and model on which they are allowed and the conditions that must be met.

Yes,the Mans conditions

Yeah we've seen how effective it is in keeping people together!

What its effective at is letting people get away from someone they don't want to be with anymore instead of living a lie.


There is no punishment for Apostasy. There is punishment for treason.

Treason,ok that makes sense in the 7th century,now though its just a breach of a basic Human right.

 

[Bismillah]

Our society has major problems,i'll agree with that,what it doesn't have is illogical oppressive religion anymore,we've progressed to allow people to be who they want to be and within reason do what they want to do.

And? Furthermore, it would do you good to demonstrate where it is illogical or oppressive because if you believe in the right to adulterate in public I'll agree that my religion would oppress your warped way of thinking.

Yes,the Mans conditions

The man's conditions? What does that mean and I hope you realize you can't marry without the acquiescence of the women.

What its effective at is letting people get away from someone they don't want to be with anymore instead of living a lie.

Hah so many couples don't want to be together....
And Islam doesn't ban anything like divorce so I'm not sure when you're getting to start hitting relevant points.

Treason,ok that makes sense in the 7th century,now though its just a breach of a basic Human right.

Apostasy doesn't equate to treason. Actions against the state constitute as treason.

 

[YmirGF]

Since when did my belief in God have any impact on anyone else.

I'm tired of this charade. I think you have unwittingly managed to exemplify what many Muslims do wrong when "informing others about Islam" however. Well done.

I perfectly understand the possible negative consequences of polygamy. Then again I understand the way the system that is set up in Islam to avoid those consequences.

You are confusing an ideal for the on the ground reality. Heck, even Communism looks good on paper, it just doesn't work in the real world.