Top 10 Misconceptions About Islam

[Friend]

yes he is the same loser who suffers from some sort of mental disorder.

this non muslim want to say he knows Islam better than Islamic scholars.
offcourse he is also liking soldier boots for a living.

Such people never find the truth but always remains in doubt though the signs are very clear and simple. May Allah protect us from such mental disorder and severe confusion.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

My claim is still valid that Quran is 90% religion and the rest touches other aspects of life but very briefly and with a moral underpinning.

The injunctions on land obligations, Interest ,tithe, contracts are all just few senences and the purpose is ethical not economical. How can few verses make aan economic system. On one minor concept of economy one can do PhD. HOW FEW WORDS CAN GIVE YOU AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM?

Yes there are some details of warfare and peace making but these are contextual and you cant apply all of them in every circumstance. you cant cunt into pieces every infidel as enjoined in those verses of Toba and Infal.

How can just mention of few punishments which are also for deterrence and not applicable can be termed as penal codes? Has hands of any one have been amputed in the last so many centuries by any state? How come you call it codes. Have you seen Penal codes , civil codes, criminal procedure codes etc each one of which are bigger than Quran in volume. What about minor acts?

Quran is just a book of religion and is not giving any code of life or system. Amal or good acts are part of morality and on this I agree that beliefs must accompany good deeds but this is morality not culture or society or politics.

One may not assume about the personal life of some one . Where from I receive my cheque is not any body's concern. I have nothning to do personally wih USA government or NATO. I just like their ideals. Lets talk of ideas and not of persons.

Once again, you are distracting from the key central issue. I will note that this has nothing to do with my personal preferences for any governance system.

Your question is idiotic and you need to either refine it or enhance upon it. You state, for instance, that none have rendered the hand cutting verdict in centuries. What a foolish statement, there have been HEADS cut off by advanced western states by revolutionary penal codes such as when Robespierre ran the French revolution, much less hands.

The Ottoman Sultanate, Aurgenzaib, and even the Afghan Kings such as Zaman Shah instituted brutal criminal punishments and Zaman Shah was in the 1800s.

Your problem is that the discussion by CONTEMPORARY sources regarding those verses does not in any way support your conclusion.

A simple historically valid examples suffices to show that the contemporaries of the Prophet in no way viewed the verses as nonobjective and unapplicable except in the spiritual sense:. Omar executed hand cutting but also utilized prophetic example to suspend the punishment in times of draught/poverty.

The Caliphate, including that of Ali viewed the Quranic text as a central constitution. In his first executive address to the public Abu Bakr himself indicated as such. A constitution provides the BASIS for law and no penal code may infringe upon it. So for instance, a local state legistlature cannot put a ban on the practice of Islam in Idaho despite state rights because the constitutions initial bill of rights serves as the foundation for guiding a penal code of sorts. In this same fashion, Prophetic example and the works of jurists appears to guide the application of the Quranic law as ADJUNCTS similar to how lawyerly journals, prior court cases, and the writings of early founding fathers guides the interpretation of the constitution.

What you are attempting to validate is that the New Testament statement of Christ, which was spiritual: "If thy hand offends thee, caste it off" is exactly the same as the Quranic ayaah instructing on a specific punishment. That statement and view is idiotic to the extreme as no school of thought, no scholar of repute - past or present, no anthropoligical or archaelogical evidence supports that statement. Rather, the utilization of such punishments were in place from the Rashideen Caliphs through the Umayyads and Abbasids.

As noted, this is not a commentary on it being right, correct, divinely revealed, or proper for Afghanistan. Thats a different matter. Its simply to show that your argument is as valid as a drugged up junky walking in off the street saying that the Quran talks about sky fairies and encourages sphagetti eating. You may be able to say it, but Osho, that does not make it true.

The constitution of medina itself was written in the lifetime of the Prophet alongside various treaties and referred all matters of dispute, even amongst the non muslim denizens, "to God and his Prophet." You can find the transmitted treaties and texts of the constitution of medina in Ibn Ishaq.

So now, its up to you to show us how you justify the notion that Muhammad and his contemporaries understood any verse describing a specific punishment or act to be equivalent to Christ's statement above that was spiritual and never instituted as a law code. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

Where your pay check comes from sir, matters quiet a bit, as your loyalties and reasoning impact your interpretation.

Regarding economics, just as the communist manifesto by Marx does not provide directives but makes dramatic and sweeping commentaries on the economics between burgeoisie and proletariot, the Quran's stance on interest, and specifically beyond that excessively high interest rates provide the underpinnings of a major economic contradistinction. IMF interest based loans that bury third world countries in perpetual debt and how the Quran discusses faulty loans are no small matter.

In any future correspondence, you will not warrant a response if you provide no evidences for your view. If you try to use that same bull sh-it you used way back when about how one does need to justify or prove anything on a discussion, then our back and forth is over.

[Khostai]

He must stop kufriaat then people will not call him such. Another option for him is that he should tolerate the way he teach other tolerance.
If he loves his people he has to struggle and bear with all these difficulties. No excuses.

If you love your peopel than you should also know that there would always be the ones who are not religious and you should tolerate them if you want to learn something from them. You have no excuses also.

[randolph85]

badlun seems to of read the king james version of the quran where 95% of it is missing.

[ډګروال]

badlun seems to of read the king james version of the quran where 95% of it is missing.

lmao

[Badlun]

My evidence is here

http://www.quran-st.net/SUB-INDEX.htm

Click this link or take the Holy Quran and count the total number of verses you have on the non religious stuff. My rough estimate is only 10 %. If it is more than that then you may prove it.

My position which you may describe in one word is secularism. Secularism is beneficial for both the religion and the state. Both don't interfere in each other's domains. Just think over my position and a man of mental caliber like you will find some reason in my position that Islam is only a religion not a system and Quran is a religious book not a complete code of life. Secularism is guarantee for both state and religion.


If there have been HEADS cut off by advanced western states by revolutionary penal codes such as when Robespierre ran the French revolution, much less hands has nothing to do with our discussion on Quran and Islam.

Yes the Ottoman Sultanate, Aurgenzaib, and even the Afghan Kings such as Zaman Shah instituted brutal criminal punishments but you call it BRUTAL. It means these punishments are brutal then how can you advocate them?

The use of these punishments by few caliphs in 1400 years speaks itself of its non applicability and its mention for spiritual or deterrence purpose. A penal code should have millions of examples not few in 14 centuries. I hate Omayyads and Abbasids and other dictators who killed each other for power in the name of Islam and even brutally murdered the grandson of the Prophet. Except the few caliphs all other were a stigma on the name of Islam. They cant be cited as models and promulgators of Islam.

Quran the book of religion cant be termed as constitution. compare it with any constitution of the world and you will find it lacking in many aspects. How a book 90% for beliefs, worship and morality can serve as constitution for a state.

The constitution of Medina can be termed as a political document but that is not Quran. Muhammad was a prophet for religion but also an Arab ruler. That was his act being a ruler not as a prophet.

[Friend]

My evidence is here

http://www.quran-st.net/SUB-INDEX.htm

Click this link or take the Holy Quran and count the total number of verses you have on the non religious stuff. My rough estimate is only 10 %. If it is more than that then you may prove it.

My position which you may describe in one word is secularism. Secularism is beneficial for both the religion and the state. Both don't interfere in each other's domains. Just think over my position and a man of mental caliber like you will find some reason in my position that Islam is only a religion not a system and Quran is a religious book not a complete code of life. Secularism is guarantee for both state and religion.


If there have been HEADS cut off by advanced western states by revolutionary penal codes such as when Robespierre ran the French revolution, much less hands has nothing to do with our discussion on Quran and Islam.

Yes the Ottoman Sultanate, Aurgenzaib, and even the Afghan Kings such as Zaman Shah instituted brutal criminal punishments but you call it BRUTAL. It means these punishments are brutal then how can you advocate them?

The use of these punishments by few caliphs in 1400 years speaks itself of its non applicability and its mention for spiritual or deterrence purpose. A penal code should have millions of examples not few in 14 centuries. I hate Omayyads and Abbasids and other dictators who killed each other for power in the name of Islam and even brutally murdered the grandson of the Prophet. Except the few caliphs all other were a stigma on the name of Islam. They cant be cited as models and promulgators of Islam.

Quran the book of religion cant be termed as constitution. compare it with any constitution of the world and you will find it lacking in many aspects. How a book 90% for beliefs, worship and morality can serve as constitution for a state.

The constitution of Medina can be termed as a political document but that is not Quran. Muhammad was a prophet for religion but also an Arab ruler. That was his act being a ruler not as a prophet.

Quran is not a book of economics or business. It is a book of guidance for the human beings to get salvation in the hereafter. For that purpose some basic principles have been set, boundaries have been identified.
If it was a book of science or economics then Einstien would be the messenger of God and all other scientists and economists would also be prophets of God but that is not the case.

[Badlun]

This is exactly what I mean that Quran is not a book of economics or business. It is a book of moral guidance for the human beings to get salvation in the hereafter. Salvation in the hereafter is a religious subject, a belief and yes Quran deals with it in almost all chapters with fullest details . Quran gives details of all beliefs, modes of worship and morality which is religion but does not go beyond that in detail.

Yes it is not a book of book of science or economics and yes again that then Einstein would be the messenger of God and all other scientists and economists would also be prophets of God but that is not the case.

Prophet was for religion and not for all modes of life as you have beautifully elaborated.

[randolph85]

the fact that the quran says that interest is haram turns the entire modern economic structure of the world upside down. this, despite being a minute detail in the whole of the quran. this is the power of the small details.

the quran does not need to go into detail about most things. for example, killing an innocent person...its pretty clear cut and does not need to go into pages of detail.

this is not a science book or one of economics but it has laid down facts of the past and prohibitions of the present to believers.

the quran talks about those who have looked to twist words in order to justify their non belief, you are no different from the countless others including the christians and the jews. if you want to preach what you believe, so be it, but don't pollute the message of islam while you're at it.

[Friend]

This is exactly what I mean that Quran is not a book of economics or business. It is a book of moral guidance for the human beings to get salvation in the hereafter. Salvation in the hereafter is a religious subject, a belief and yes Quran deals with it in almost all chapters with fullest details . Quran gives details of all beliefs, modes of worship and morality which is religion but does not go beyond that in detail.

Yes it is not a book of book of science or economics and yes again that then Einstein would be the messenger of God and all other scientists and economists would also be prophets of God but that is not the case.

Prophet was for religion and not for all modes of life as you have beautifully elaborated.

You are wrong. my reply was in response to your post where you are crying and trying to prove that Islam has nothing to do with politics, economics or sciences but its a religion of beliefs only. But you are totally wrong, an Islamic state without Quran is incomplete. quran does not go into the details of science but tell us briefly about embriology, astronomy, geology, physics, bio, chemistry and many other sciences and the same way it tells us about how to run the govt, how to serve the people, what punishments to be given for the specific crime in a specific situation.
again if it was a book of science or economics, its revelation would still be in process would never be ended. quran sets basic principles and for the rest Allah says ponder in whatever have created.
at the other hand secularism totally dismantles the spirit of quran. it is a system where human being take decisions according to their own wishes which contradicts the message of the holy quran which is totall submission to almighty Allah.

[Badlun]

This is good discussion which need a separate topic for further details. I am happy that members are realizing the facts that Quran is giving details of religious topics like beliefs and few introductory remarks about non religious aspects of life.

Secularism is a very good concept. It is not against Quran or religion. It wont touch for examples that there should be no prayers as it is a religious subject but will stop state to interfere in religion and vice versa. Let us understand secularism in its positive way and I am sure all educated members will appreciate it.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

This is good discussion which need a separate topic for further details. I am happy that members are realizing the facts that Quran is giving details of religious topics like beliefs and few introductory remarks about non religious aspects of life.

Secularism is a very good concept. It is not against Quran or religion. It wont touch for examples that there should be no prayers as it is a religious subject but will stop state to interfere in religion and vice versa. Let us understand secularism in its positive way and I am sure all educated members will appreciate it.

You are so wrong, even empirically, that you are relying on repitition of an error to validate it.

Even by your own offered experiment you fail. Take Surah Baqarah for instance. Its length is greater, if I recall than 2/30th of the Quran itself. A rather massive portion (certainly >10%) of that surah alone is direct orders on business transactions, etiquettes of war, dispensation of charity, divorce law, prescription of prayers, fasting, orders of the hajj.

Once again, you are assuming that I am advocating for the utilization of religion in governance. I am not doing that. I am merely pointing out that you are grossly wrong when it comes to the Islamic paradigm of governance as envisioned by the Quran itself.

One of the examples of where real life and Islamic law collided was the communist attempt at land redistribution in Afghanistan proper. While in theory, I may agree that this approach may actually have been righting a wrong, it directly conflicted with how land is distributed and inherited. Pakistan's provinces are more deserving of a land redistribution schema than any part of Afghanistan due to the actual direct collusion of the landed Khans with the British and the fact that Khans that were antagonistic to the Brits were killed/deprived of land and the land was given to another landlord who would comply with British occupation.

You are not refining the argument, but where one might agree with you is the notion that a misapplication of divine law can lead to devastating consequences. Just as if say 100 uneducated Americans went to some random island and attempted to replicate the intricate governance that the constitution endows and the penal code gives life to, the likelihood for misapplication is very high. There was a recent article in the NY Times about how in many situations of FBI entrapment, the accused are able to get off free, but in the case of Muslims its been a 100% conviction rate. This is obviously because trial by jury/peers has become problematic in an environment where not everyone is as informed about the conflict as a michael scheuer or a bernard lewis.

Even then though, there are details of the the divine law, if the constitution of Islam is the Quran, and the jurists writings and the Prophet's example are used as refinements/applicability of the law that permits for more leverage. Take for instance the land redistribution scheme. There were instances where the first two caliphs did have land dealings that broke the typical inheritance patterns. There were, as I mentioned previously instances where the penal code was modified in particular settings based on prophetic example. Finally, Muhammad (S) himself appears to have done quiet a bit of separating the individual from the state. There were two prominent examples: A man came to him to try and admit adultery and the prophet repeatedly turned away from and only instigated questioning when the man insisted he be punished by the state. In yet other instances he indicated that believers ought not air their dirty laundry/sins out in the public and approach God for forgiveness. In yet a final instance/example he indicated that he strongly preferred the believers come to congregation prayers and was extremely angry about their nonattendance but indicated that he would not execute a punishment on them.

With respect to Zaman Shah and brutality etc. Brutality was done due to injustice being rendered. Killing Painda Khan in such a brutal way was unbefitting and tyrannical. But that has nothing to do with Islamic law.

Even in the West there is a very vibrant debate as the USA, the state you worship, is viewed by Europeans to be a barbaric state that punishes crimes with capital punishment. The Europeans also criticize the Americans for not being secular enough.

But once again, the foolish crux of your argument has nothing at all to do with what the Quran is. Its your clear cut goal of subverting it so that Osho can do whatever osho wants. If Osho wants to drink alcohol or do heroine, Osho doesnt want the Quran in the way (even though interestingly enough the Americans themselves played with the concept of prohibition and there is a severe punishment for accessing illegial opioids.)

As I noted, the burden of proof, i.e. proving that the Quranic prescriptions are exactly the same as the spiritual motifs of the new testament has not been at all proven by you.

Your ridiculous repitition of the same 10% argument ought to be reprimanded by the moderators as you simply are repeating an invalid point. E.g. if only 10% of a physics book is Ohms law does that make it less important or valid????

Please come back when you find a way to not parrot ridiculous commentary to validate your own insecurities.

With respect to the caliphs and the Ummayads and Abbasids, your view of them has nothing to do with whether say, Umar bin Abdul Aziz executed the punishments with justice or not. You asked for examples post the Caliphate Rashidun of executioners of the laws of the Quran and we provided it.

[Badlun]

The discussion will continue here

http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthread.php?t=33392

[Manzareh]

My evidence is here

http://www.quran-st.net/SUB-INDEX.htm
Click this link or take the Holy Quran and count the total number of verses you have on the non religious stuff. My rough estimate is only 10 %. If it is more than that then you may prove it.

My position which you may describe in one word is secularism. Secularism is beneficial for both the religion and the state. Both don't interfere in each other's domains. Just think over my position and a man of mental caliber like you will find some reason in my position that Islam is only a religion not a system and Quran is a religious book not a complete code of life. Secularism is guarantee for both state and religion.


If there have been HEADS cut off by advanced western states by revolutionary penal codes such as when Robespierre ran the French revolution, much less hands has nothing to do with our discussion on Quran and Islam.

Yes the Ottoman Sultanate, Aurgenzaib, and even the Afghan Kings such as Zaman Shah instituted brutal criminal punishments but you call it BRUTAL. It means these punishments are brutal then how can you advocate them?

The use of these punishments by few caliphs in 1400 years speaks itself of its non applicability and its mention for spiritual or deterrence purpose. A penal code should have millions of examples not few in 14 centuries. I hate Omayyads and Abbasids and other dictators who killed each other for power in the name of Islam and even brutally murdered the grandson of the Prophet. Except the few caliphs all other were a stigma on the name of Islam. They cant be cited as models and promulgators of Islam.

Quran the book of religion cant be termed as constitution. compare it with any constitution of the world and you will find it lacking in many aspects. How a book 90% for beliefs, worship and morality can serve as constitution for a state.

The constitution of Medina can be termed as a political document but that is not Quran. Muhammad was a prophet for religion but also an Arab ruler. That was his act being a ruler not as a prophet.

Your argument holds no ground, the concept of Islam being a way of life is not solely stemed from the Quran (which is the bases of your claim for Islam not being a way of life). Muhammad pbuh lived and we as muslims aim to follow the way he lived, in short Islam is a way of life because its a conjuntion of Quran and Hadith.

[Friend]

Actually Badlum and many other secularists sees Islam as they look at Christianity though the message of Islam is totally different from the message of Christianity not only in beliefs but in dealings and actions as well.
They think that they will destroy Islam the way they have done with Christianity but it is not possible because Islam is a living religion and its source is free from errors, its message is close to the nature, its message is based on truth and this is what makes Islam a living religion, it is closer to the realities of life and it provides more attraction for the truth seeker than any other religion or ism does. Other religions or secularism or any isms which stems from atheism or materialism take you away from nature, take you away from God, take you away from the true essence of life, take you away from the real purpose of life but push you into the darkness of materialism and to the world of "nafs" where you become a slave of your "nafs". You do whatever your "nafs" tells you to do and it makes you finally a Shaytaan.