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

[Fatihah]

Now, where did you get that from?

Response: A post before it was edited.

 

[Badran]

you cannot be born a muslim, since babies are not born with knowledge of men's religions, they are born unexposed and pure, they are born agnostic...animals are agnostic too. and true submission to the Will of God requires that you recognize that God's Will is done by God alone. never will your will be God's will, for never will you be like God. Like you said previously, being a muslim requires that you believe in a sole-god, and that muhammud was his prophet, etc etc. babies are agnostic. and only God is all knowing, for all you think you know, u really know nothing but only believe it to be so. thus, we are all agnostic, truthfully. If babies were born muslim, why would they...how could they... ever denounce the truth?
Agnosticism says that we cannot know for certain, but it says nothing about believe...Agnostics are free to chose their believes as to what is more likely.
the fact remains that absolute certainty is absurd and impossible...correct? If you do not believe you are all-knowing and infallable: you are agnostic.

Islam is the submission to God in it's simplest explanations. We believe according to the Quran that we are born with something called (fitrah) which means something like our basic knowledge or instincts that we are born with. In this basic instincts, there are a couple of information or attributes that we believe we have when we are born. One of them, is knowing that there is a God and only one God, and that in our nature, we submit to him, unless of course we decide otherwise later on.

This is of course a belief, it can't be proven, or at least i can't prove it. So, i hope this clarifies why doesn't Fatihah agree that we are born agnostic.

 

[Sahar]

Response: "But they have no knowledge thereof. They follow nothing but conjecture, and conjecture avails naught against truth". Qur'an.

I really can't help it. May God lead us to the straight path.

 

[Commoner]

We participate in threads, we criticize each other and sometimes harshly, we do this all the time, I have no problem with this. If you are in the middle of an argument and your counterpart make meaningless posts, I have no problem with calling his posts and arguments meaningless, illogical, etc. But I don't like it when we are in another complete new thread, and out of the blue I say "oh member X posts are BS, we shouldn't allow him to post in any thread" or to start a thread specifically about certain member and say "how to ignore the silly posts of member Y"...
In my mind, there is a difference.

Still, all the members mentioned were subscribed to the thread and therefore aware of the post and able to respond, correct?

I agree, there is a difference, still...in principle, I do not disagree with Mastemia. After all, the purpose of this thread is to point out exactly the type of thing those members were accused of doing - it's not as if it was off-topic. I don't see a reason why you would not mention specific members' names to make your point - they are responsible for what they say and do and for the image they create, for their reputation and credibility, aren't they?

 

[LuisDantas]

Loyalty to brothers of faith is certainly a good thing. But it seems to me that it has been abused on occasion.

 

[Badran]

Loyalty to brothers of faith is certainly a good thing. But it seems to me that it has been abused on occasion.

I totally agree.

 

[YmirGF]

Frankly speaking, I think Muslim's bring the attacks on themselves due to their own words & actions. Without naming names, of course, it is the very way that some Muslims conduct their discussions that earn them a fair amount of derision and tarnish Islam's image in the process. It is fairly difficult to respect the opinions of one who is continually insulting the intelligence of others.

For example: A hot topic has been "Scientific Miracles found in the Qur'an". Myself and others have been over these ideas many times and yet a few persistent types continue with their somewhat shameless, illogical assertions. Even when clearly proven wrong, they do not back down and admit the concepts are ill-conceived, at best.

Another hottie is on evolution itself. Often Muslims will take their distorted understanding of the Theory of Evolution and run with the ball, making wild assumptions that are not valid. Some have patiently explained much in such discussions and yet the Muslim de jour keeps repeating the same flawed understanding AS IF their misunderstanding of the facts were valid points of discussion.

Likewise, we have been entertained about the nature of homosexuality by some who have little understanding of such matters. Again, they speak AS IF they had some brilliant understanding where they only speak out of ignorance. The puzzle is that, for the most part, they are not the slightest bit interested in learning - as they already think they know.

These points are not conducive to useful discussions.

 

[Abu Rashid]

Muslims? Are these poster's words Islamic? Is this representative of Muslims?

Why must you insist on this simplistic push to demand that either someone's words be taken as the absolute representation of an entire religion and all it's adherents, or that they be denounced as astray and misrepresenting??

 

[Abu Rashid]

you cannot be born a muslim, since babies are not born with knowledge of men's religions, they are born unexposed and pure, they are born agnostic...animals are agnostic too. and true submission to the Will of God requires that you recognize that God's Will is done by God alone.

What is meant is that all things are created/born submitting to the laws of God. For example, the moon is created submitting to the laws God has subjected it to. God commanded it to orbit the earth, and it obeys, without choice of course. A human is born obeying God's laws, but as they grow, they begin to have the ability to choose, and so they choose to either submit (be Muslim) or reject. When they are born, they are pure and submissive, they have no ability to reject God's laws, they are purely subject to them, as is the moon, and the sun and the trees etc.

 

[Kerr]

What is meant is that all things are created/born submitting to the laws of God. For example, the moon is created submitting to the laws God has subjected it to. God commanded it to orbit the earth, and it obeys, without choice of course. A human is born obeying God's laws, but as they grow, they begin to have the ability to choose, and so they choose to either submit (be Muslim) or reject. When they are born, they are pure and submissive, they have no ability to reject God's laws, they are purely subject to them, as is the moon, and the sun and the trees etc.

This is an argumentation that has the same issue as stating that everyone is born a hindu or buddhist or whatever. It is based on faith.

And to be picky, the moon is actually leaving orbit . Or at last it is travelling away from the Earth. That is what I have heard anyway, don´t remember exactly from where.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I went through a phase where I was interested in the differences between the religious Ideas of the Abrahamic beliefs.

This is no longer true.

I am far more interested in the " actions and social functions" than the religious beliefs that are held.
I understand that all action can have a basis in belief, But that belief may not be religious in nature... it might simply follow from an understanding of right and wrong and social justice. This may have a more direct relationship to humanism.

Personal belief may well be based on the teachings of a particular religion; and a person may well wish to share that belief with others. But there is no certainty that others will wish to take up that offer.

It is presumptuous in the extreme to expect some one else to accept "your" beliefs and concepts. The right for making that choice is always their own. And any such choice is as equally valid to your own.

The Muslim faith is just one of many that have been followed by the people of this world. Today we think that many ancient religions of past civilisations were "wrong"
However the followers of those "wrong" religions were prepared to die for, kill for and conquer for the "Gods" that they believed in.

The Teachings, beliefs ,concepts of a religion nor the fact that it is ancient or has writings that "prove" its truth,do not "Guarantee" in any way, that it holds any more truth than any other religion.

Any one, of any religious belief, is blessed by their own "certainty" However this belief can never be transferred. Belief is an "individual" thing that can only be held individually.

Conversion is individual.

Those seeing you as an individual, Judge you on what you say and do, not what you believe.

 

[Abu Rashid]

This is an argumentation that has the same issue as stating that everyone is born a hindu or buddhist or whatever. It is based on faith.

You state this because you don't understand the word involved. Islam/Muslim have a meaning that is completely pre-existing to the religion that you associate them with. They mean surrender/submission. Nobody is stating a child is born praying 5 times a day, fasting ramadan and wearing a jalabiyyah, you've completely missed the point of my entire post.

 

[Kerr]

You state this because you don't understand the word involved. Islam/Muslim have a meaning that is completely pre-existing to the religion that you associate them with. They mean surrender/submission. Nobody is stating a child is born praying 5 times a day, fasting ramadan and wearing a jalabiyyah, you've completely missed the point of my entire post.

No, I understand it. I just don´t agree with it because I look at it from another perspective.

EDIT:

Anyway, I think we are going off-topic here, so if you want to continue to discuss this matter I would suggest we start a new thread.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is meant is that all things are created/born submitting to the laws of God. For example, the moon is created submitting to the laws God has subjected it to. God commanded it to orbit the earth, and it obeys, without choice of course. A human is born obeying God's laws, but as they grow, they begin to have the ability to choose, and so they choose to either submit (be Muslim) or reject. When they are born, they are pure and submissive, they have no ability to reject God's laws, they are purely subject to them, as is the moon, and the sun and the trees etc.

May I ask you how exactly Muslims feel about us Atheists?

I ask because I often feel, if not disrespected, at least misunderstood by Muslims. It often seems that we are assumed to have "met" God and chosen to reject him, which I guess makes us some sort of subhuman creatures, for who could in good faith reject the grace of God?

In fact, the idea that Atheism is an evil by definition often seems to be taken as a given by some Muslims. I would even go so far as to say that a few seem to basically see the fight "against Atheism" as a major goal in and of itself.

If my suppositions are true, well, then I'm afraid that this is a major failure of Islam, until and unless wiser minds eventually prevail and begin to spread the obvious yet somehow unseen difference between lacking a belief in God and being instrumental in working against God's Will. Atheists by definition have the first. They hardly ever have anything to do with the second, regardless of traditional legends and all-too-confortable prejudices.

Come to think of it, I have a related question. I've seen "secularism" thrown around by quite a few Muslims almost as if it were a schatological word by definition. Why is that so? Are Muslims inherently repulsed by secularism and/or atheism, as opposed to simply not participant in either? If so, is there some clear, explicit doctrinary reason for that? And if so, is there anything that can reasonably be done or are we atheists essentially pressured by all Muslims into either converting (which, believe me, is a very rare occurrence and will always be) or accepting that Muslims must be marginalized so that we will not?

 

[Fatihah]

Frankly speaking, I think Muslim's bring the attacks on themselves due to their own words & actions. Without naming names, of course, it is the very way that some Muslims conduct their discussions that earn them a fair amount of derision and tarnish Islam's image in the process. It is fairly difficult to respect the opinions of one who is continually insulting the intelligence of others.

For example: A hot topic has been "Scientific Miracles found in the Qur'an". Myself and others have been over these ideas many times and yet a few persistent types continue with their somewhat shameless, illogical assertions. Even when clearly proven wrong, they do not back down and admit the concepts are ill-conceived, at best.

Another hottie is on evolution itself. Often Muslims will take their distorted understanding of the Theory of Evolution and run with the ball, making wild assumptions that are not valid. Some have patiently explained much in such discussions and yet the Muslim de jour keeps repeating the same flawed understanding AS IF their misunderstanding of the facts were valid points of discussion.

Likewise, we have been entertained about the nature of homosexuality by some who have little understanding of such matters. Again, they speak AS IF they had some brilliant understanding where they only speak out of ignorance. The puzzle is that, for the most part, they are not the slightest bit interested in learning - as they already think they know.

These points are not conducive to useful discussions.

Response: Then this would mean that it is the muslim's behavior which is injust, and the non-muslim's behavior of attacking a muslim because they see the muslim point of view as illogical is fair. Such a mentality is extremely unreasonable. To blame the person who holds an illogical stand in your view as the cause of them being attacked and not putting the actual blame on the attacker is a very harsh accusation. One should not be attacked because they see the otherside as illogical. To not put any blame on the attacker would mean that it's o.k. to attack someone if you see their stance as illogical. This is a completely cruel mindstate. Clearly the non-muslim is attacking the muslim because of their own ego. They dislike the idea of having a muslim not consider their stance as right. Thus the blame is not on the muslim, but due to the selfish ego of the non-muslim attacker. So to put the blame on the muslim as the cause of the attack and not the attitude of the attacker is a serious and cruel mindstate.

And while you or another non-muslim see such claims as illogical of muslims, the muslims see the claims of non-muslims as illogical as well. That it is the rebuttles of the non-muslims on the topic of scientic miracles and evoultion that are completely absurd. But this gives no reason for either side to attack each other. The considerate and grown up thing to do is to agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Commoner]

Response: Then this would mean that it is the muslim's behavior which is injust, and the non-muslim's behavior of attacking a muslim because they see the muslim point of view as illogical is fair. Such a mentality is extremely unreasonable. To blame the person who holds an illogical stand in your view as the cause of them being attacked and not putting the actual blame on the attacker is a very harsh accusation. One should not be attacked because they see the otherside as illogical. To not put any blame on the attacker would mean that it's o.k. to attack someone if you see their stance as illogical. This is a completely cruel mindstate. Clearly the non-muslim is attacking the muslim because of their own ego. They dislike the idea of having a muslim not consider their stance as right. Thus the blame is not on the muslim, but due to the selfish ego of the non-muslim attacker. So to put the blame on the muslim as the cause of the attack and not the attitude of the attacker is a serious and cruel mindstate.

And while you or another non-muslim see such claims as illogical of muslims, the muslims see the claims of non-muslims as illogical as well. That it is the rebuttles of the non-muslims on the topic of scientic miracles and evoultion that are completely absurd. But this gives no reason for either side to attack each other. The considerate and grown up thing to do is to agree to disagree and move on.

Thank you, Fatihah, I think you've now provided a small sample of exactly what YmirGF was refering to. Complete nonsense...

 

[LuisDantas]

Response: Then this would mean that it is the muslim's behavior which is injust, and the non-muslim's behavior of attacking a muslim because they see the muslim point of view as illogical is fair.

It depends on what you would call an "attack". There is such a thing as legitimate, disrespectful disagreement. Even when one of the parts involved is a Muslim and the other one is not.

Far as I can tell, Muslims are people. People who believe in God and the Quran, of course, but still people. Still fallible. Still capable of commiting unfair behavior, even. And therefore, still eligible to occasionally being called on such unfair behavior, exactly as is the case with non-Muslims.

Or are you talking about some sort of actual attack? Because I sure have a hard time recalling any Muslim being "attacked" here in this forum. There were some proud, bold statements, and there was some attempt at calling their bluffs and cutting them to proper measure.

To consider that "attacks" is, well, not terribly wise. And it certainly doesn't reflect well on Islam. We non-Muslims aren't claiming that Islam will meet ruin or anything, but we have actually seen threads created claiming literally that "Islam will dominate!" and the like, not to mention some very incendiary and unprovoked statements.

That some people, myself included, eventually decided to give our accusers a level of consideration more in line with that given us is only fair and to be expected. Being a Muslim is no grounds to being disrespectful with non-Muslims.

Such a mentality is extremely unreasonable. To blame the person who holds an illogical stands in your view as the cause of them being attacked and not putting the actual blame on the attacker is a very harsh accusation. One should not be attacked because they see the otherside as illogical. To not put any blame on the attacker would mean that it's o.k. to attack someone if you see their stance as illogical. This is a completely cruel mindstate.

That is true. And yet it is exactly what a few Muslims have been doing time and again, apparently expecting to be commended for their "efforts". That is silly and destructive and deserves prompt reproach, of course. It has nothing to do with being Muslim, and everything to do with failing to behave respectfully.

Unless, I suppose, you'll disagree on grounds that by definition a Muslim can't be wrong when he insults a non-Muslim. If so, well, you are simply wrong. Faith in the Quran does not make a person morally superior, although it certainly can help in making her a better person if she has the proper mindset and the proper moral courage.

And while you or another non-muslim see such claims as illogical of muslims, the muslims see the claims of non-muslims as illogical as well. That it is the rebuttles of the non-muslims on the topic of scientic miracles and evoultion that are completely absurd. But this gives no reason for either side to attack each other. The considerate and grown up thing to do is to agree to disagree and move on.

Except when it comes to actual comprovable fact. Not4me linked to a very good article on the matter not long ago, and I comment him for that.

 

[Kerr]

Response: Then this would mean that it is the muslim's behavior which is injust, and the non-muslim's behavior of attacking a muslim because they see the muslim point of view as illogical is fair. Such a mentality is extremely unreasonable. To blame the person who holds an illogical stand in your view as the cause of them being attacked and not putting the actual blame on the attacker is a very harsh accusation. One should not be attacked because they see the otherside as illogical. To not put any blame on the attacker would mean that it's o.k. to attack someone if you see their stance as illogical. This is a completely cruel mindstate. Clearly the non-muslim is attacking the muslim because of their own ego. They dislike the idea of having a muslim not consider their stance as right. Thus the blame is not on the muslim, but due to the selfish ego of the non-muslim attacker. So to put the blame on the muslim as the cause of the attack and not the attitude of the attacker is a serious and cruel mindstate.

And while you or another non-muslim see such claims as illogical of muslims, the muslims see the claims of non-muslims as illogical as well. That it is the rebuttles of the non-muslims on the topic of scientic miracles and evoultion that are completely absurd. But this gives no reason for either side to attack each other. The considerate and grown up thing to do is to agree to disagree and move on.

Why the divide?

 

[Wotan]

Why must you insist on this simplistic push to demand that either someone's words be taken as the absolute representation of an entire religion and all it's adherents, or that they be denounced as astray and misrepresenting??

Because you guys claim that what you believe is the TRUTH, the ONLY Truth the complete Truth w/o error or possibility of error. So there is accordingly to your mythology only ONE Islam only ONE belief and only ONE way to express it. (Course there are at least 2 sub-versions of this myth but that fact doesn't seem to matter)

You further claim that what you believe SHOULD be applied - by force if necessary - to every human being alive or yet to be born. AND you further claim that anyone who does not willing even eagerly "submit" to Islam's idea of "god" is either evil or misguided or both. And such people are best done away with les they serve as an evil example to others in like cases offending.

Now if all that is true then any ONE of you who claims to speak for this mythology ought to say the same thing and be expressing the SAME idea. (Course again that ain't true but somehow THAT fact doesn't seem to matter either.)

Yet somehow when we non-believers point this out WE are being unreasonable and bigoted.

 

[Abu Rashid]

Because you guys claim that what you believe is the TRUTH, the ONLY Truth the complete Truth w/o error or possibility of error. So there is accordingly to your mythology only ONE Islam only ONE belief and only ONE way to express it. (Course there are at least 2 sub-versions of this myth but that fact doesn't seem to matter)

Even with all your capitalisations and whatnot, I still don't see how it makes the case that all Muslims must either be clones of one another, or Islam is false.

More of the defective reasoning Autodidact was using i think.

You further claim that what you believe SHOULD be applied - by force if necessary - to every human being alive or yet to be born.

Just as I'm sure you believe the laws of your society/belief system/ideology/whatever should be implemented also. Does that mean all of you need to be clones of one another? Come on, you're not making a lot of sense.