Clearing Up Misconceptions about Islam

[StarDreamer]

Hello dear friend
Please be polite next time,I'm not a polite person at all but this is a public forum with a serious topic.
And I'll demand examples and proofs for every word,so choose your words carefully next time.
This would be enough for now,I'll post more soon.

Well hello!
I was as polite as I could be. Extraordinary claims need extraordinaly solid evidence, you provided none other than religious dogma. Until you provide said evidence I see no reason to consider it to be different than other ideological books.

[lolIsuck]

Misconception #4: The Qur'an is Just another History or Poetry Book
The Quran is the divine literal word of God Almighty, revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), through the angel Gabriel. It is a criterion for the truth, containing guidance for humanity to live by. The Quran cites lessons from preceding generations and the history of the Prophets in order that we may learn from their experiences. It further teaches us about ourselves and our Creator, as well as the purpose of our existence which is to acknowledge God, worshipping Him alone.
God did not create humans to simply wander aimlessly. The test of one’s faith is in using one’s intellect, free will and reasoning abilities to contemplate and recognize God’s signs – one of the greatest signs being The Quran.
The Quran contains within it many miracles, so that we can have no doubt about its authenticity. The best way to discover what the Quran is actually about, is to read it for yourself.(I'll send the miracles soon)

This is of course bollocks. There is no evidence that there is a god, if there were there is no evidence that Muhammad received messages from said god and it's quite convenient that he received said messages whilst praying on his own in a cave, which gives his claim exactly no credibility. I'm not saying that what's in the Quran is utter nonsense but the claim that it's god's own word is completely unfounded.
I also find it rather ironic that one is encouraged to use one's intellect, free will and reasoning abilities but also has to obey what's written in a book because that is supposedly god's own word. Religion (not just Islam) could really use some critical thinking. It's message of morality generally isn't bad but religions should emphasise more on creating a discussion on morality and other subjects with more room for critisism and different views than just wanting people to blindly follow either god's or the religious institutions' orders. The former would presumably lead to a more critical and acceptive society whereas the latter is divisive and a breeding ground for conflict.
The Quran, like the Bible and other religious books is part fantasy/mythology and part philosophy/ethics.

[Visna]

Let's assume for a moment that it's true. The Quran is truly the words of a god. Then why is it so full of inconsistencies and/or errors?
Is it a language issue, as in your god is a poetic fellow who prefers to speak in riddles or fill you wiith false or misleading information? And how do you view that sort of "poetic license" when it comes to something so important? Assuming you don't take it all literally (I can't see how anyone could, and still keep their intellectual honesty intact), how do you distinguish between what should considered symbolic and what should not?

[Mangalore]

Hello dear friend
Please be polite next time,I'm not a polite person at all but this is a public forum with a serious topic.
And I'll demand examples and proofs for every word,so choose your words carefully next time.
This would be enough for now,I'll post more soon.

Heidar's post is not how proof works. It's circular reasoning using the source that is questioned concerning its credibility as argument.

And now I'll put some miracles of Quran:
translation:We made the earth with the gravitation(mentioning to the gravity of earth 1100 years before the Newton)

People knew about gravity before Newton and before that sentence was written. The Quran does not contain Newton's or Einstein's precise predictive formulas how gravity works.

translation:And He is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.(mentioning to the orbits of planets and moving of the stars)

The ancient Ptolomeian geocentric world view already is in line with that sentence before that sentence was written. Most civilizations figured astronomy out including behaviors of stars and planets.

translation:He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and He scattered through it beasts of all kinds. We send down rain from the sky, and produce on the earth every kind of noble creature, in pairs.(mentioning to the both sex(male and female) of the plants 1200 years before Carl Nilsson)

What kind of argument is this stuff? Some vague metaphors do not equal some scientific theory being postulated. This is also blatantly false, there are plenty of organism on this Earth not coming in pairs nor having sexual dimorphism and one would guess our ancestors maintaining orchards and fields kind of caught on on the fact that certain plants are behaving like sexes.

translation:Those whom Allah (in His plan) willeth to guide,- He openeth their breast to Islam; those whom He willeth to leave straying,- He maketh their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies: thus doth Allah (heap) the penalty on those who refuse to believe.(mentioning to the lack of oxygen in the sky near space)

Like on a high mountain... there are plenty of places where people from the lowlands would notice that they have trouble with their constitution when climbing the mountain.

The rest is again circular reasoning.

All these things are quaint observations in line with ancient knowledge before Islam that do not contain any astonishing revelation brought by this book aka someone with knowledge beyond their time. Greels knew it, Romans knew it, Persians knew it, and probably a lot of bronze age civilizations from England to the Indus valley caught on to most of that stuff as well centuries before Islam. Even if we don't have a source for some small snippet that is just an appeal to ignorance as we don't have many sources surviving but pretty much all those observations are not portrayed in a way people wouldn't be able to notice without outside help.


The big question to all relevation religions is: Why is your God so lazy and only reveals himself once or a couple of times in human history (usually with disastrous consequences for all the other humans living before or after those events) and why does this God have to reveal himself anyway and lastly why a book?

If I imagine a Supreme being that creates the universe the hallmarks of it are: It doesn't need to reveal itself for everything in the universe to do its bidding because it created it, it probably doesn't expect humanity to be worth much in its grand schemes given the scale of the universe and if it has such expectations it wouldn't write a book, least of all in one place on Earth at one point in time where few people could read it. If it were wrathful however it would probably react preety peevish to any human being coming to it with a book claiming it from that God. Personally I think all theists obsessed with those books are far closer to accidental blasphemy and heresy than any atheist or deist can ever be.



The better approach to the entire topic is not so much what books or scripture contains (the bible is full of bollocks, too) but why there is a difference in how societies treat their relationship to their religion and scripture and the inevitable conflicts between reality and these unfounded truth claims which serve as foundation to justify the revelation religions of Christianity and Islam. In contrast to other religious, spiritual worldviews the stark difference here is that everything hinges on the truth of fundamental claims of events. In Christianity it's that Jesus was God/son of God/was hopefully some guy with a pretty good connection to God, in Islam it's whether that Quran is from any otherworldly source.

Christianity outside those fringe sects essentially abstracted all this into just a metaphorical framework embedded by more modern philosophies (though I often need a drink when a cardinal talks because they still slip unfounded Christian dogma into it). This allowed for individualism and a new concept of society to emerge when in the past Christianity certainly was enforced strictly, subdued any criticism or diverting ideas and all over stifled individualism.

Now the interesting part is how Islamic societies deal with their cognitive dissonance which is definitely there and what ways are they seeking to remedy its effects?

The Quran or Bible or any other scripture aren't very interesting, it's what societies or individual people do with it that is.

[mishkin]

If you had any question about Islam or its branches (Shia , Sunni or …) and Islamic politics, We'll answer gladly.

A few questions if I may. (This thread seems rather heated right now, no rush to answer).

- Islam has a position about abortion? (Voluntary termination of pregnancy in the first trimester).
- From an Islamic perspective, a homosexual is a person as healthy and normal as a heterosexual?
- Must be the formation of a family a primary goal of a muslim?
- Are equally respectable and moral a muslim, the member of any other religion, and an atheist?

[Infidel144]

Misconception #2: Jihad is an offensive Holy War
Jihad جهاد in Arabic does not mean “holy war" or even "war" .It means “to strive, to apply oneself, to struggle, to persevere.” Jihad can be personal or it can be a personal struggle of a Muslim to avoid sin or community of persons struggling against oppression. In essence, it means to become closer to God in lifestyle and community. This type of struggle (jihad) is to ensure that a peaceful and equitable community continues to exist. Defensive means are acceptable to safeguard the community however offensive aggression is strictly prohibited (see 2:190 and other verses of the Qur'an). The Arabic word for fighting is qital and harb means war. Jihad in any form is mentioned 28 times in the Qur’an and qital/harb (fighting/war) are mentioned 94 times in the Qur’an. Some sources claim jihad is mentioned as much as 164 times, but this is incorrect. Combining fighting, war, struggle and similar connotations may equate to 164 (in the Qur’an) but all of these are not representative of jihad. Extremist leaders and Islamophobes, each on opposite sides of the spectrum, have changed, edited or misinterpreted the Qur’an to suit their needs.

2:190 - Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress. Indeed Allah does not like transgressors.
Muhammad, by the end of his first year in Medina orders Hamza b. 'Abd al-Muttalib, 'Ubayda b. al-Harith b. 'Abd al-Muttalib and Sa'd b. Abu Waqqas to raid caravans. That would be caravans belonging to the Meccans, who, after Muhammad had left Mecca for Medina, don't seem to have given him any further thought.
Was Muhammad transgressing by ordering offensive attacks?

Misconception #3: Slavery is acceptable and slave females have no rights
Two Qualities Commandments in the Qur'an Silently abolish Slavery: 1) 47:4 of the Qur'an commands that Prisoners of War shall either be Ransomed or Released, this ensures there is no enslavement, 2)The Qur’an surah (90:13) states that those freeing a slave (whenever feasible) are blessed people in the eyes of God. Further, three Qur’an surahs (4:36), (9:60), (24:58) urge kindness to slaves. With regards to female slaves, it is quite clear: surah (4:24) states “and also prohibited to you are all married women except those your right hands possess. This is the decree of God upon you. And lawful to you are all others i.e. slave girls beyond these, provided that you seek them in marriage with gifts from your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy of marriage from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation.” Surah (24:33) states “make a contract with them if you know there is within them goodness and give them from the wealth of God which He has given you. And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution.” ISIS has changed and/or misinterpreted such verses to endorse rape.
As a religious Muslim, I’ve read the Qur’an numerous times. Yet I have been studying in more detail the various interpretations of the verses containing whom your right hand possesses (slave girls). What I find is that prostitution is forbidden and there is no direct reference to allowing frivolous sexual relations (certainly not rape) with slave girls.

First there seems a logical inconsistency in the claim that it is a misconception that slavery is acceptable and "Two Qualities Commandments in the Qur'an Silently abolish Slavery", while then going to say that "three Qur’an surahs (4:36), (9:60), (24:58) urge kindness to slaves". If slavery is not acceptable and the Quran abolishes slavery, then there is no need to urge muslims to treat slaves kindly.
47:4: When you meet the faithless in battle, strike their necks. When you have thoroughly decimated them, bind the captives firmly. Thereafter either oblige them [by setting them free] or take ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. That [is Allah’s ordinance]. Had Allah wished He could have taken vengeance on them, but that He may test some of you by means of others. As for those who were slain in the way of Allah, He will not let their works go fruitless.
Tafhim al-Quran:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A tradition has been related in Musnad Ahmad. Muslim and Tirmidhi on the authority of Hadrat `Imran bin Husain that a person from among the Bani 'Uqail was brought as a prisoner and he said: "I have accepted Islam. " Thereupon the Holy Prophet said: "If you had said this when you were free, you would certainly have attained to success. The same thing was said by Hadrat `Umar: "When a prisoner becomes a Muslim after falling into the hands of the Muslims as a captive, he will not be killed, but will remain a slave."

90:13: [It is] the freeing of a slave,
Sahih al-Bukhari 49:1:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Whoever frees a Muslim slave, Allah will save all the parts of his body from the (Hell) Fire as he has freed the body-parts of the slave." Sa`id bin Marjana said that he narrated that Hadith to `Ali bin Al-Husain and he freed his slave for whom `Abdullah bin Ja`far had offered him ten thousand Dirhams or one-thousand Dinars.

Freeing a Muslim slave.

Ibn Kathir:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(Whoever frees a believing slave, Allah will free for every limb (of the slave) one of his limbs from the Fire. This is to such an extent that He (Allah) will free a hand for a hand, a leg for a leg, and a private part for a private part.) `Ali bin Al-Husayn then said (to Sa`id), "Did you hear this from Abu Hurayrah'' Sa`id replied, "Yes.'' Then `Ali bin Al-Husayn said to a slave boy that he owned who was the swiftest of his servants, "Call Mutarrif!'' So when the slave was brought before him he said, "Go, for you are free for the Face of Allah.'' Al-Bukhari, Muslim, At-Tirmidhi, An-Nasa'i, all recorded this Hadith from Sa`id bin Marjanah.

Ali bin Al-Husayn sends one slave to fetch another, and then frees the second. He did not free both. And again a believing slave.

Sahih al-Bukhari 49:19:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah:
A man amongst us declared that his slave would be freed after his death. The Prophet called for that slave and sold him. The slave died the same year.

The slaves' owner was in need, thus Muhammad generously voided the man's promise by selling the slave for the owner. And the slave died a slave within the year.

Sahih al-Bukhari 51:26:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Narrated Kuraib, the freed slave of Ibn `Abbas, that Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted a slave-girl but did not the permission of the Prophet. On her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, "Do you know, O Allah's Messenger, that I have manumitted my slave-girl?" He said, "Have you already?" She replied in the affirmative. He said, "You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e. the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles."

It would have been better to give the slave to another, than to free the slave.


4:36: Worship Allah and do not ascribe any partners to Him, and be good to parents, the relatives, the orphans, the needy, the near neighbour and the distant neighbour, the companion at your side, the traveller, and your slaves. Indeed Allah does not like those who are arrogant and boastful.
Telling the believers to be good to their slaves seems to suggest that slavery is acceptable.


9:60: The charities are only for the poor and the needy, and those employed to collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and for [the freedom of] the slaves and the debtors, and in the way of Allah, and for the traveller. [This is] an ordinance from Allah, and Allah is all-knowing, all-wise.


24:58: O you who have faith! Your slaves and any of you who have not yet reached puberty should seek your permission three times: before the dawn prayer, and when you put off your garments at noon, and after the night prayer. These are three times of privacy for you. Apart from these, it is not sinful of you or them to frequent one another [freely]. Thus does Allah clarify the signs for you, and Allah is all-knowing, all-wise.
I am not quite sure what this verse has to do with being kind to slaves, in particular. It is laying down rules for when related children and slaves need permission before intruding on a man's privacy.
Though if slavery were unacceptable and silently abolished, there would seem to be no need for making such rules. Having such rules in the Quran makes slavery seem openly acceptable.

Muhammad did purchase a slave from his master after the slave sought out Muhammad to swear allegiance to him:
Sahih Muslim Chapter 23. The Permissibility Of Selling Animals For Animals Of The Same Kind And Of Different Quality:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[4113] 123 - (1602) It was narrated that Jâbir said: "A slave came and swore allegiance to the
Prophet pledging to emigrate, and he did not realize that he was a slave. Then his master came looking for him. The Prophet said: 'Sell him to me,' and he bought him for two black slaves. Then after that he did not accept the oath of allegiance of anyone until he had asked: 'Is he a slave?"

Muhammad buys a believing slave, by selling two black slaves to the believer's master in exchange for the believer.
Did not Muhammad know that it is Misconception that Slavery is acceptable and that the Quran (silently) abolishes slavery?


4:24 [Forbidden to you are] and married women, excepting your slave-women. This is Allah’s ordinance for you. As to others than these, it is lawful for you to seek [temporary union with them] with your wealth, in wedlock, not in license. For the enjoyment you have had from them thereby, give them their dowries, by way of settlement, and there is no sin upon you in what you may agree upon after the settlement. Indeed Allah is all-knowing, all-wise.
No sex with married women, unless they are your slave-women.
And why was this verse revealed:
Sahih Muslim Ch. 9 It Is Permissible To Have Intercourse With A Female Captive After It Is Established That She Is Not Pregnant, And If She Has A Husband Then Her Marriage Is Annulled When She Is Captured

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[3608] 33 - (1456) It was narrated from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri that on the Day of Hunain, the Messenger of Allah sent an army to Awtâs, where they met the enemy, fought them and prevailed over them. They captured some female prisoners, and it was as if the Companions of the Messenger of Allah felt reluctant to have intercourse with them because of their idolator husbands. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed: "Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (slaves) whom your right hands possess",' meaning, they are permissible for you once their 'Iddah has ended.

The verse is revealed to permit the Muslims to engage in sexual relations with married woman, as long as those married women are their captives.

Sahih al-Bukhari: 34 The Book of Sales:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(109) CHAPTER. The sale of slaves.
2229. Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah's Messenger (an Ansari man came) and said, "O Allah's Messenger! We get female
captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It
is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence."

Sahih Muslim: Chapter 22. The Ruling On Coitus Interruptus ('Azl):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[3544] 125 (1438) It was narrated from Ibn Muhairiz that he said: "Abü Sirmah and I
entered upon Abü Sa'eed Al-Khudri, and Abü Sirmah asked him: 'Did you hear the
Messenger of Allah speak about 'Azl?' He said: 'Yes. We went on a campaign with the
Messenger of Allah to Banü Al-Mutaliq, and we captured some noble Arab women. We
had been away from our wives for too long, but we also wanted the ransom, so we
wanted to have intercourse with them then withdraw (coitus interruptus). Then we said:
"How could we do this when the Messenger of Allah is among us, and we have not
asked him?" So we asked the Messenger of Allah and he said: It does not matter if you do
not do it, for Allah has not decreed that any soul will exist, until the Day of Resurrection,
but it will come into being."

Having sexual relations with the war booty captive females, attempting to avoid impregnating them to keep their prices higher for selling them, is permissable.

[Abdülmecid I]

The Middle East lagged behind Europe long before the European powers began to actively intervene in the internal affairs of the local states. In the 16th century, the contacts between them, despite the financial and military superiority of the former, occurred on an equal basis and, in fact, I would say that dynasties like the Safavids of Persia were responsible for blackmailing and exploiting the Dutch, Portuguese and English merchantmen. However, in my opinion, neither the malevolence of Europe nor Islam should be blamed for that unfortunate situation. Climatic changes and the discovery of the Americas, whose immense wealth could practically be exploited exclusively by Western Europe, played a significant role. The Mongol invasion and the huge Turkic migration that followed also led to that, not, of course, because they were naturally barbaric. The main problems were nomadism and the deliberate destruction of urban centers, as well as over-taxation, due to the inexperience of the Mongols in what concerns administering large empires inhibited by settled populations. The result was a decrease in agricultural production, trade circulation and urban settlements, which decisively crippled the economical structure of the region and resulted in a constant state of destructive warfare and the domination of tribal formations over centralized authorities.

[EU Empire is fubar]

How many times do you have to steal in order to get your hand chopped off ? Is it 3 strikes ?

[DaVinci]

I agree that Islamic world needs a lot of modernization but what kind of modernization? You mean only free sexual relationships and sodomy? I'm not sure these are signs of modernization.

How? Sexual relationships and what you call sodomy are things as old as humans are. No, the proper kind of modernisation is to find out by the local people.
Nonetheless, it can't hurt to look as far as possible neutral/objective into other societies ( which btw. are all far away from being perfect, but most likely better shaped than 100 or only 50..40..30 years ago; some will disagree ), without the Quoran-filter.
Because if you do the Quoran-filter, you show fundamentalism, which is the (arch-)conservative stance, and the more, goes into chauvinism and fascism. You mentioned red lines. Some of them might be just overhauled (source from the 7th century), and even Allah would like you to overwork them? ... a contextual approach could be senseful. Why this? The source (just the book) is written in contextual approach of the time as it was written. Some items of them might be worth to conservate into nowadays, some not. It is actually simple as that. I know it seems provocative to a believer, but making the stuff up aka a correction with current science-knowledge of all departments is the way to go (all = not just technology).

Are you Italian or french?You use some french words.

German. North-german, to be exact (culturally more scandinavian, in comparison to more southern germans, i would say).
I think i use what's called "Denglish", lol, grammar and sentence building-wise (D'English = Deutsch-English).
Despite this, learned French in school for six years, and private a bit of Italian, but both not intact anymore.

[Fardin]

How? Sexual relationships and what you call sodomy are things as old as humans are. No, the proper kind of modernisation is to find out by the local people.
Nonetheless, it can't hurt to look as far as possible neutral/objective into other societies ( which btw. are all far away from being perfect, but most likely better shaped than 100 or only 50..40..30 years ago; some will disagree ), without the Quoran-filter.
Because if you do the Quoran-filter, you show fundamentalism, which is the (arch-)conservative stance, and the more, goes into chauvinism and fascism. You mentioned red lines. Some of them might be just overhauled (source from the 7th century), and even Allah would like you to overwork them? ... a contextual approach could be senseful. Why this? The source (just the book) is written in contextual approach of the time as it was written. Some items of them might be worth to conservate into nowadays, some not. It is actually simple as that. I know it seems provocative to a believer, but making the stuff up aka a correction with current science-knowledge of all departments is the way to go (all = not just technology).

You really speak complicated(it's not your fault, my English is terrible).I assume you think Islam is like the medieval churches that Inhibited progress,not at all! Islam encourages us to learn and improve our knowledge from birth to death.It doesn't have any red line for development,I was talking just about liberalism and you said the local people should decide about that and I think we've decided.

[DaVinci]

You really speak complicated(it's not your fault, my English is terrible).I assume you think Islam is like the medieval churches that Inhibited progress,not at all! Islam encourages us to learn and improve our knowledge from birth to death.It doesn't have any red line for development,I was talking just about liberalism and you said the local people should decide about that and I think we've decided.

I write complicated, absolutely right, but often can't do better, because of complex themes and the more, because English is not my mother-language, and i write it down here as the thoughts come (we are not in school or making homework, so i see that quite relaxed, as longas people get the main-message or sense of my comments).


I guess, many Iranians are for liberalism, though ... or no?

Imo. a strong Quoran-filter works contrary to the said contextual approach in regard of societal development. You won't disagree, where i mentioned "a source from 7th century".
So, doesn't it need a critical overwork?

[Visna]

Let's continue our discussion in details, Can you share some of that errors or inconsistencies with us?
Arabic is a very complicated language so all of the translations are not true.
if you want to distinguishing between wrong and true translations, you should know Arabic with a high degree.

So many errors, so little time. I'll touch upon a few, plenty more where they came from.

For starters it's plagued by the same poppycock that infects other middle eastern creation myths, that everything was created in 6 days, humans originated in clay or mud, started out as two people named Adam and Eve, (how original, it's almost like that story had been told before...) and other such nonsense.

We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in Six Days, nor did any sense of weariness touch Us

Qur'an 2:29

We created man from sounding clay, from mud molded into shape

Qur'an 15:26

He it is Who created you from a single being, and of the same (kind) did He make his mate

Qur'an 7:189

This one is nice as well, appearantly the sun is a flat disk, that can be folded.

When the sun (with its spacious light) is folded up

Qur'an 81:1

And the earth was created before the stars.

He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens. And He is knower of all things.

Qur'an 2:29

Then there is the 7 heavens, at the time a rather widespread idea about the structure of the universe.

See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another

Qur'an 71:15

Or how about the idea that man is created from a clot of blood. So much else in the Qur'an it's bordering on plagiarism, this time Muhammed is "getting divine inspiration" from the ancient Greeks.

Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood

Qur'an 96:2



Muhammed was a con-man using gullible idiots to gain power, no more divinely inspired than Joseph Smith and even more cunning than L. Ron Hubbard. And in this respect he was very succesful, he managed to forge a specifically Arabian religious identity in a region where religious identity meant (and means) a lot. (Or he really believed he had visions, in which case he should probably have gotten some sort of professional help. )

[PointOfViewGun]

So many errors, so little time. I'll touch upon a few, plenty more where they came from.
For starters it's plagued by the same poppycock that infects other middle eastern creation myths, that everything was created in 6 days, humans originated in clay or mud, started out as two people named Adam and Eve, (how original, it's almost like that story had been told before...) and other such nonsense.
Qur'an 2:29
Qur'an 15:26
Qur'an 7:189
This one is nice as well, appearantly the sun is a flat disk, that can be folded.
Qur'an 81:1
And the earth was created before the stars.
Qur'an 2:29
Then there is the 7 heavens, at the time a rather widespread idea about the structure of the universe.
Qur'an 71:15
Or how about the idea that man is created from a clot of blood. So much else in the Qur'an it's bordering on plagiarism, this time Muhammed is "getting divine inspiration" from the ancient Greeks.
Qur'an 96:2
Muhammed was a con-man using gullible idiots to gain power, no more divinely inspired than Joseph Smith and even more cunning than L. Ron Hubbard. And in this respect he was very succesful, he managed to forge a specifically Arabian religious identity in a region where religious identity meant (and means) a lot. (Or he really believed he had visions, in which case he should probably have gotten some sort of professional help. )

These are rather trivial and anti-Islam website level points. Most of these are not really errors. It's really ironic, isn't it? You call a statement on the structure of heaven being an error. Whether you believe in heaven or not is one issue, but debating it's structure? That's just absurd. It's equally absurd to make objections to the parts about blood cloths or mud since they contain basic parts of a living being, cells and nutrients, however, it could say that god created mankind from a piece of plastic and it would be as fine. It talks about creation, not conception or evolution. 2:29 doesn't really say Earth was created before the stars as well. Sun is not said to be flat either. That's your invention. Folded up in that verse means to be extinguished. It's mentioned as a sign of end days. These are quite amateur points to raise.

[Linke]

Sexuality is really about culture not development.

Somebody already mentioned that islam has no real unifying organisations so to say, like the church. The goal of the medieval church was to make ruler and state the same thing, like in the muslim world. The church in christianity was like a paralel system to the "states" and a lot of bishops and the papal states were real rulers, but that very clear structure meant it was easy to dispower, it was clear when the church lost it's power. In the muslim world with religion and ruler the same it was different to change, as the muslim world or islam depended on caliphates or actual states/empires for changing the religion and developing it, and also developing society in general. Nothing like protestantism could have occured in islamic world. That is just an idea will anyone want to give me feedback?

[mishkin]

Rep message

Dear mishkin,Homosexuality is forbidden and we know it as a mental illness.I don't like polished answers so much, I prefer the reality-Fardin

[PointOfViewGun]

Quran is pretty explicit on things that it bans. Yet, there is no verse that simply bans homosexuality, nor a verse where homosexuality is seen as a mental-illness. At worst, it's position is that homosexuality is unnatural. What Quran condemns is homosexual aggression which is something everyone can agree on. Hanafi school of thought didn't prescribe a punishment for being gay either. It's no surprise the Ottoman empire was able to decriminalize homosexuality at the year of 1858.

In fact, those who claim it to be a mental illness and argue that Allah punishes homosexuals is making a grave mistake. It's blasphemy to suggest that. Islam requires a sound mind to hold someone accountable for his or her violations. That's inconsistent with their other claim that Allah punishes gays.

[VINC.XXIII]

Its really a problem if islam is so complicate, if you need a PhD in theology and a PhD in philology to understand coran, how can average muslims to live according its precepts?

I means, personnaly I don't need a book to know that raping a prisonner woman is highly immoral, and if I ask to my priest how to deal with migrants or muslims, he will speak about Emmaus, that I have to welcome the "Other" because he may be Jesus under the appeareance of a muslim and such other craps.

[PointOfViewGun]

I don't have a Ph.D in theology or a Ph.D in philology...

[Fardin]

Quran is pretty explicit on things that it bans. Yet, there is no verse that simply bans homosexuality, nor a verse where homosexuality is seen as a mental-illness. At worst, it's position is that homosexuality is unnatural. What Quran condemns is homosexual aggression which is something everyone can agree on. Hanafi school of thought didn't prescribe a punishment for being gay either. It's no surprise the Ottoman empire was able to decriminalize homosexuality at the year of 1858.

In fact, those who claim it to be a mental illness and argue that Allah punishes homosexuals is making a grave mistake. It's blasphemy to suggest that. Islam requires a sound mind to hold someone accountable for his or her violations. That's inconsistent with their other claim that Allah punishes gays.

Dear Setekh
Do you accept Sharia and Sunnah or not?
These things ban homosexuality

Its really a problem if islam is so complicate, if you need a PhD in theology and a PhD in philology to understand coran, how can average muslims to live according its precepts?

We have some people who have PhD in those things, we call them Marja' Taghlid, they've studied Feqh(Islamic jurisprudence) and they help us to understand Qur'an and Islamic obligations better.

I means, personnaly I don't need a book to know that raping a prisonner woman is highly immoral, and if I ask to my priest how to deal with migrants or muslims, he will speak about Emmaus, that I have to welcome the "Other" because he may be Jesus under the appeareance of a muslim and such other craps.

These are not exclusive and it's not related to this topic at all,we don't hesitate to do a good thing too,it's quite obvious and normal thing.

I write complicated, absolutely right, but often can't do better, because of complex themes and the more, because English is not my mother-language, and i write it down here as the thoughts come (we are not in school or making homework, so i see that quite relaxed, as longas people get the main-message or sense of my comments).

I understand, as I said it's not your fault,its' mine.

I guess, many Iranians are for liberalism, though ... or no?

Not in the examples I said.

Imo. a strong Quoran-filter works contrary to the said contextual approach in regard of societal development. You won't disagree, where i mentioned "a source from 7th century".
So, doesn't it need a critical overwork?

Sorry again,please repeat your question more clear this time.

Somebody already mentioned that islam has no real unifying organisations so to say, like the church. The goal of the medieval church was to make ruler and state the same thing, like in the muslim world. The church in christianity was like a paralel system to the "states" and a lot of bishops and the papal states were real rulers, but that very clear structure meant it was easy to dispower, it was clear when the church lost it's power. In the muslim world with religion and ruler the same it was different to change, as the muslim world or islam depended on caliphates or actual states/empires for changing the religion and developing it, and also developing society in general. Nothing like protestantism could have occured in islamic world. That is just an idea will anyone want to give me feedback?

I know exactly what happened in those years,Medieval churches intervened in everything(not just political issues) and they used to punish the most of the scientists and banning development and they slowed down flourishing talents.
Islam doesn't need anything like protestantism to let the society to develop and improve.

[DaVinci]

snip

Sorry again,please repeat your question more clear this time.

snip

The point of the question:

The Quran is a source of the 7th century. That means it is a source which is 1300-1400 years old. It was written in the context of the 7th century and local circumstances (it contains ideas and knowledges of the 7th century).
Do you agree up to this?

If you agree, wouldn't it be time, 1300-1400 years later, to undertake a critical review on this source? Aka: Providing this very old source onto an actualised version for the human society 1300-1400 years later, just the time today?


Related aspects, questions:

You agreed in relation of "modernisation", so what's with the basis, the Quran?
What is it, with the consideration of 1300-1400 years of development within human society?
In other words: How goes "modernisation" together with a basis, that is 1300-1400 years old, if 1:1 taken?

Or, do you actually believe, a source which is 1300-1400 years old (even if by believers seen as holy) is 1:1 of the same literal value 1300-1400 years later, just after it was written in the contextual relation of the 7th century?
If it is so, that you believe, the source is 1:1 of the same value still today, wouldn't that negate all human achievements (progress) between the 7th century and today, plus just negate or dis-consider the very changed circumstances today?


These are the aspects, where i can't follow with the Islamic world of kinda fundamental shape. I would appreciate answers.
And again, i don't try to insult the Islam or their believers. It is just my point, where i don't understand the religious fundamentalism et al (et al, means here regarding all religions).

Edit

I mean, i personally even criticise and refuse to live the general worldview until the 1960s years in europe or elsewhere.
How could i take a source of the 7th century as life guide or basis for my life?
The more valid is this aspect for a source which 2000 years old, the Bible.