Clearing Up Misconceptions about Islam

[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.

[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.

[EU Empire is fubar]

Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah. Is this true. ?
Are Muslims banned from anal sex even with their wives ? What does the Quran say about sodomy ?

[Infidel144]

Misconception #6: Punishment for Apostasy in Islam is death
When it comes to an apostate in Islam, the Qur’an Sura 2:256 is very clear which states that “there is to be no coercion in matters of religion .The Qur'an makes no mention of Forcefully Converting or Reconverting anyone, on the contrary it says:
"Say, "This is the truth from your Lord": Let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject it" (18:28)

Is this un-Islamic?:
"We are from Allah and to Allah we shall return. I am informing all brave Muslims of the world that the author of The Satanic Verses, a text written, edited, and published against Islam, the Prophet of Islam, and the Qur'an, along with all the editors and publishers aware of its contents, are condemned to death. I call on all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world to kill them without delay, so that no one will dare insult the sacred beliefs of Muslims henceforth. And whoever is killed in this cause will be a martyr, Allah Willing. Meanwhile if someone has access to the author of the book but is incapable of carrying out the execution, he should inform the people so that [Rushdie] is punished for his actions. Rouhollah al-Mousavi al-Khomeini."
Do you condemn this Fatwa?


Did Imam Mohammad Baqer define an apostate as someone who repudiates Islam and denies the revelation of the Prophet? Did he note that an apostate's repentance will not be accepted, and he must be put to death?
Did Imam Mousa Kazem state that a Muslim who converts to Christianity should be killed?
Did Imam Ja'far Sadeq note that there were at least three instances in which Imam Ali killed individuals who had committed apostasy?


Tahrir al-Vasilah Vol 4:
Conclusion Relating To Other Punishments
1-Chapter on Irtidad or Apostasy
"Problem #1. ...So Islam of a Murtad al-Fitri [an Apostate born of Muslim parents] shall apparently not be accepted [after he has once apostatized], and he shall be condemned to death if he is a male, but a woman shall not be condemned to death even if she is a Murtadda al-Fitriya [a woman born of Muslim parents], but shall be kept in life imprisonment, and she shall be given beatings at the times of prayer, and she shall be subjected to tightening or scarcity of food. Her repentance shall be accepted. So if she repents, she shall be set free. A Murtad al-Milli [an Apostate born of non-Muslim parents] shall be asked to repent. On his refusal, he shall be condemned to death. According to a more cautious opininion, he shall be asked to repent for three days, and on the fourth day he shall be condemned to death."


"Problem #4. A child born to a Murtad al-Milli before his apostasy shall be treated as a Muslim. If he becomes an infidel after attaining adulthood, he shall be asked to repent. If he repents, (well of good), otherwise he shall be condemned to death. Likewise, the son of a Murtad al-Fitri born before his apostasy shall be treated as a Muslim. If he becomes an infidel after attaining adulthood, and similarly the son of a Muslim who becomes an infidel after attaing adulthood before announcing their Islam, apparently both of them shall not be treated as Murtad al-Fitri, but shall be asked to repent, [if they repent, well and good, but if they refuse] they shall be condemned to death."

Are these conclusions wrong and un-Islamic?

[PointOfViewGun]

Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah. Is this true. ?
Are Muslims banned from anal sex even with their wives ? What does the Quran say about sodomy ?

There are no verses specifically dealing with anal sex, nor there are verses telling Muslims to terrorize non-Muslims in general.

[Fardin]

Apostates won't be sentenced to death unless they do big crimes against Islam and Islamic society like trying to spread Apostasy in Islamic society.
It doesn't need any further explanations.

[Infidel144]

Zero. This is an actual misconception. Quran tells you to cut off the means, not the hands. So, you'd be put in jail after the first one.

5:38:
As for the man or woman who is guilty of theft, recompense them by cutting off their hands for their crimes. That is the punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise.
Waalssariqu waalssariqatu faiqtaAAoo aydiyahuma jazaan bima kasaba nakalan mina Allahi waAllahu AAazeezun hakeemun
fa-iq'ta 'u - [then] cut off
aydiyahuma - their hands
Quranx

iqta'u = you (all) cut off, cut, sever, chop off (v. ii. m . pl. imperative from qata'a [qat'] to cut.
Word for Word Meaning of Quran

[VINC.XXIII]

@Infidel144, where they clarified your point about azl' and how are treated captive women? I'm not sure to understand correctly it, but in my native language(and well, I've not a PhD in theology), its indeed sound like captive women can be raped.

[bigdaddy1204]

Is this un-Islamic?:
"We are from Allah and to Allah we shall return. I am informing all brave Muslims of the world that the author of The Satanic Verses, a text written, edited, and published against Islam, the Prophet of Islam, and the Qur'an, along with all the editors and publishers aware of its contents, are condemned to death. I call on all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world to kill them without delay, so that no one will dare insult the sacred beliefs of Muslims henceforth. And whoever is killed in this cause will be a martyr, Allah Willing. Meanwhile if someone has access to the author of the book but is incapable of carrying out the execution, he should inform the people so that [Rushdie] is punished for his actions. Rouhollah al-Mousavi al-Khomeini."
Do you condemn this Fatwa?

I disagree with Khomeini. I think he's wrong, for several reasons:

1. The Quran says there is no compulsion in religion. (Quran 2.256). It further says: “You have no duty except delivering the message (Quran 42.48) and again at 13.40 where it says “Your only duty is delivering, we will call them to account.”

This and many other verses make it clear that it is not for us to judge others. Who are you to judge? It’s not your right to judge other people for their actions. That is between them and god, it is not your business. Who are you to say that all the editors and publishers are worthy of death? What gives you the right? Do you know these people? Can you prove that they are bad people? It is completely unacceptable to simply condemn people to death in absentia with no trial and no legal process, no examination of the evidence. Some of them may be good people; you’ve no right to just condemn them to death on a whim like that. That is murder.

2. The Quran says that life is sacred. "If anyone slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading corruption in the land - it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity." - Quran 5:32

This verse is clear. Human life must be respected. Even if we take the most extreme interpretation possible and claim that Rushdie was indeed “spreading corruption”, it’s questionable whether that interpretation can be proved. Unfortunately, there isn’t a clear definition provided. However, the dictionary defines it as: “dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.” The list of related words includes: “dishonesty, dishonest dealings, unscrupulousness, deceit, deception, duplicity, double-dealing, fraud, fraudulence, misconduct, lawbreaking, crime, criminality, delinquency, wrongdoing, villainy”.

So now we have to consider the book itself. What were Rushdie’s motives? Does it satisfy the definition above? I don’t think so. It’s a work of fiction. And besides, freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that must be respected.

[sumskilz]

5:38:
As for the man or woman who is guilty of theft, recompense them by cutting off their hands for their crimes. That is the punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise.
Waalssariqu waalssariqatu faiqtaAAoo aydiyahuma jazaan bima kasaba nakalan mina Allahi waAllahu AAazeezun hakeemun
fa-iq'ta 'u - [then] cut off
aydiyahuma - their hands

iqta'u = you (all) cut off, cut, sever, chop off (v. ii. m . pl. imperative from qata'a [qat'] to cut.

The literal meaning appears quite clear. The words are essentially the same in all the related languages I'm familiar with, but you will get this response. I would say that sounds like an awfully dangerous metaphor in a part of the world that had a long history of using amputation as a punishment.

EDIT: Also the grammatical claim in the link doesn't hold up, it's plural (3 or more) for the hands but with a dual possessive pronoun, meaning the male thief and the female thief I presume.

[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.

[PointOfViewGun]

5:38:
As for the man or woman who is guilty of theft, recompense them by cutting off their hands for their crimes. That is the punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise.
Waalssariqu waalssariqatu faiqtaAAoo aydiyahuma jazaan bima kasaba nakalan mina Allahi waAllahu AAazeezun hakeemun
fa-iq'ta 'u - [then] cut off
aydiyahuma - their hands

iqta'u = you (all) cut off, cut, sever, chop off (v. ii. m . pl. imperative from qata'a [qat'] to cut.

The literal meaning appears quite clear. The words are essentially the same in all the related languages I'm familiar with, but you will get this response. I would say that sounds like an awfully dangerous metaphor in a part of the world that had a long history of using amputation as a punishment.

EDIT: Also the grammatical claim in the link doesn't hold up, it's plural (3 or more) for the hands but with a dual possessive pronoun, meaning the male thief and the female thief I presume.

That would make sense if the verses was talking about a couple. It's not. It's talking an individual, not a group of thieves. So, since a thief doesn't have more than 2 hands it's quite straightforward to conclude that the verse is talking about cutting off the means of the person to steal, aka jail them. There is actually a story of a thief in Quran and that doesn't involve cutting the guy's hands. So, there is no real problems with the explanation that link provides.

[sumskilz]

That would make sense if the verses was talking about a couple. It's not. It's talking an individual, not a group of thieves. So, since a thief doesn't have more than 2 hands it's quite straightforward to conclude that the verse is talking about cutting off the means of the person to steal, aka jail them.

Why would an individual be referred to with a dual possessive pronominal suffix? It is literally two who possess the hands, and a male and a female were just mentioned. It is strange at the very least.

[EU Empire is fubar]

So it is Sharia law that is to blame for chopping hands off. And this is not in the holy books. Those Saudi Religious police are fooling us.

[PointOfViewGun]

Why would an individual be referred to with a dual possessive pronominal suffix? It is literally two who possess the hands, and a male and a female were just mentioned. It is strange at the very least.

Because you're not talking about literal hands of a person. That's like saying when someone says they want to pick your brains out they literally mean that they wanna pick your brain apart... It is not literally two who people. It's says a male or a female, not a male and a female. The verse talks about one person, not about Bonnie and Clyde.

So it is Sharia law that is to blame for chopping hands off. And this is not in the holy books. Those Saudi Religious police are fooling us.

You can worship Allah in the most holiest place, Kaaba, men and women side by side, but you can't order a Whoppers menu side by side with the opposite sex. Yes, Saudis try to fool people about a lot of things.

[sumskilz]

It is not literally two who people.

So you're claiming that -humā is not a dual pronominal suffix?