The most stupid misconceptions about Islam

[no one]

Isn't the belief in a magic sky pixie a major misconception? Don't fret though, Islam isn't the car on this nonsense train.

[The Grand Nudger]

The main issue, at least from my perspective - with it being a religion of war, or any religion of war in general...are situations that don't fall within your justifying boundaries of horrible reality and evil people.

A religion of war is still a religion of war when it's targets are good people, when it is the horrible thing in reality.

Anywho, your three items weren't all that instructive towards my perception of islam.  Aside from that kafir bit, which is related to the above.  As a religion of war it propagandizes dissent.  It wouldn't take more than a few moments to get you to accuse others of covering up the truth, and that's the underlying premise of this thread.  That stupid atheists and fake muslims are covering up the truth.

Even further down the rabbit hole..what is the problem here, what is the objection that you think you can clear up by removing this misconception™ supposed to be? That this religion of war isn't singling out a big group, just a little one. Not us...you know, someone else. No harm no foul. Do you agree with the sentiments misinterpreted by english transitions to a broader group when they're contained to proper context?

[WinterHold]

Non-believer/Disbeliever is equivalent to kafir':

This one deservedly tops the list, as I've seen the mistake repeatedly made by lots of Muslims themselves. The most popular english translations of the Qur'an are the real source of misinformation here, breaking down the meaning of the two words will probably make it easier to understand:

Disbelief or nonbelief is simply not believing in something. Another word for agnosticism.

Kufr', an Arabic word originally meaning [b]to cover something, means, on the other hand, to insist on suspending belief while acknoweldging its truth and/or failing to refute evidence presented to support it. Basically, a kafir' is someone who covers the truth.[/b]

As you can see, these two words really don't have the same meaning. Despite this, English translations simply translate kufr' into disbelief!

All extremist interpretations of Islam commit this same exact mistake, merely not believing in something becomes strictly equivalent to denying truth knowingly.

There are two meanings for the word "Kufr" in Arabic depending on its context. In the Quran; the context is always referring to the second meaning -which is denying and disbelief-.

كَفَرَ ( فعل ): - غَطّى
- conceal; cover; hide

كَفَرَ ( فعل ): - جَحَد
- Renege one's faith - abjure; deny; disavow; disbelieve; disclaim; disown; forswear; recant; refuse...

Christians and Jews are going to hell according to Islam, by default:

Christians are different sects; they are not the same sect, the ones going to hell are the ones who believe in the trinity and that Jesus is God, the Quran says so here:

Sura 5,The Quran:
https://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#...rans=en_sh

( 17 )   They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, "Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?" And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is over all things competent.

and

Sura 5, The Quran:
https://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#...rans=en_sh

( 73 )   They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the third of three." And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.

The Satanic Verses' incident:

This false incident is refuted by the Quran explicitly, stop fooling people and tell them that your scholars claim the credit of showing the truth:

Sura 26, The Quran:
https://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#...rans=en_sh

( 210 )   And the devils have not brought the revelation down.
( 211 )   It is not allowable for them, nor would they be able.
( 212 )   Indeed they, from [its] hearing, are removed.

Moreover, Islam is not a religion of war or peace. It's a religion of "life". It teaches people how to live, and to live you must fight at times and drop the arms at other times:

Sura 8. The Quran:
https://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#...rans=en_sh

( 24 )   O you who have believed, respond to Allah and to the Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life. And know that Allah intervenes between a man and his heart and that to Him you will be gathered.

[R00tKiT]

The main issue, at least from my perspective - with it being a religion of war, or any religion of war in general...are situations that don't fall within your justifying boundaries of horrible reality and evil people.

A religion of war is still a religion of war when it's targets are good people, when it is the horrible thing in reality.

Anywho, your three items weren't all that instructive towards my perception of islam.  Aside from that kafir bit, which is related to the above.  As a religion of war it propagandizes dissent.  It wouldn't take more than a few moments to get you to accuse others of covering up the truth, and that's the underlying premise of this thread.  That stupid atheists and fake muslims are covering up the truth.

Even further down the rabbit hole..what is the problem here, what is the objection that you think you can clear up by removing this misconception™ supposed to be?  That this religion of war isn't singling out a big group, just a little one.  Not us...you know, someone else.  No harm no foul.  Do you agree with the sentiments misinterpreted by english transitions to a broader group when they're contained to proper context?

Okay. First of all, it's not clear which criteria is involved when you use the word good. One can of course be a genuinely good person by not harming anybody his entire life, maybe devote himself to charity work, and at the same time refuse to worship God while acknowledging that some evidence presented to him is compelling, that is, matching the kafir' description. According to Islamic belief - or any abrahamic belief -, this person does go to hell. Do we disagree ? is this repugnant or unfair ? The simple thing is : it's not up to us..

If one knowingly denies evidence for a creator, that is, the same power or deity that gave him the very brain and other senses he's denying it with, then it doesn't matter, according to Islamic belief, how good and cute he is. It doesn't matter if I took care of my neighbor's garden after I denied his existence and pretended I have absolute freedom and authority.

Secondly, I never said atheists or some Muslims cover up the truth. In general, it's very difficult to actually be a kafir and just continue to deny very compelling evidence one did encounter. Lots of objections can be cleared up if this is understood properly, such as whether Islam is an extremist belief or a threat to society etc. or any similar accusation.

---

I read the Danish translation of the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie.

To this day, I don't understand what all the fuss was about.

The Satanic Verses are fabricated verses that Muhammad supposedly uttered by mistake -therefore disproving his prophethood entirely- , they basically praise the deities worshipped by Arab pagans in Muhammad's time to make Islam look more appealing to them, even though Muhammad's main message is strict monotheism.

The hadith recounting this is not authentic at all according to hadith authentication specialists.

---

Any protest of "that isn't REAL _______ "  (fill in blank with any religion) overlooks the simple fact that it is all just made-up nonsense - about as real as a mermaid giving a unicorn a hum job.......

Are you sure Islam is made up ? I think I already challenged the members here to give an acceptable alternative explanation of Muhmmad's claims, that is, to defend one of the two assertions :

1- That Muhmmad lied knowingly about his prophethood throughout 23 years of his life.

2- That he was deluded into believing that angels talked to him. Christian missionaries generally mention temporal lobe epilepsy as the most tenable diagnosis. Modern historians of Islam don't take this one very seriously.

Good luck defending one of these two coherently.

[onlinebiker]

The main issue, at least from my perspective - with it being a religion of war, or any religion of war in general...are situations that don't fall within your justifying boundaries of horrible reality and evil people.

A religion of war is still a religion of war when it's targets are good people, when it is the horrible thing in reality.

Anywho, your three items weren't all that instructive towards my perception of islam.  Aside from that kafir bit, which is related to the above.  As a religion of war it propagandizes dissent.  It wouldn't take more than a few moments to get you to accuse others of covering up the truth, and that's the underlying premise of this thread.  That stupid atheists and fake muslims are covering up the truth.

Even further down the rabbit hole..what is the problem here, what is the objection that you think you can clear up by removing this misconception™ supposed to be?  That this religion of war isn't singling out a big group, just a little one.  Not us...you know, someone else.  No harm no foul.  Do you agree with the sentiments misinterpreted by english transitions to a broader group when they're contained to proper context?

Okay. First of all, it's not clear which criteria is involved when you use the word good. One can of course be a genuinely good person by not harming anybody his entire life, maybe devote himself to charity work, and at the same time refuse to worship God while acknowledging that some evidence presented to him is compelling, that is, matching the kafir' description. According to Islamic belief - or any abrahamic belief -, this person does go to hell. Do we disagree ? is this repugnant or unfair ? The simple thing is : it's not up to us..

If one knowingly denies evidence for a creator, that is, the same power or deity that gave him the very brain and other senses he's denying it with, then it doesn't matter, according to Islamic belief, how good and cute he is. It doesn't matter if I took care of my neighbor's garden after I denied his existence and pretended I have absolute freedom and authority.

Secondly, I never said atheists or some Muslims cover up the truth. In general, it's very difficult to actually be a kafir and just continue to deny very compelling evidence one did encounter. Lots of objections can be cleared up if this is understood properly, such as whether Islam is an extremist belief or a threat to society etc. or any similar accusation.

---

I read the Danish translation of the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie.

To this day, I don't understand what all the fuss was about.

The Satanic Verses are fabricated verses that Muhammad supposedly uttered by mistake -therefore disproving his prophethood entirely- , they basically praise the deities worshipped by Arab pagans in Muhammad's time to make Islam look more appealing to them, even though Muhammad's main message is strict monotheism.

The hadith recounting this is not authentic at all according to hadith authentication specialists.

---

Any protest of "that isn't REAL _______ "  (fill in blank with any religion) overlooks the simple fact that it is all just made-up nonsense - about as real as a mermaid giving a unicorn a hum job.......

Are you sure Islam is made up ? I think I already challenged the members here to give an acceptable alternative explanation of Muhmmad's claims, that is, to defend one of the two assertions :

1- That Muhmmad lied knowingly about his prophethood throughout 23 years of his life.

2- That he was deluded into believing that angels talked to him. Christian missionaries generally mention temporal lobe epilepsy as the most tenable diagnosis. Modern historians of Islam don't take this one very seriously.

Good luck defending one of these two coherently.

I am having lunch with Bill Gates later this week.

(Prove I am not).

Unlike your prophet - Bill Gates is easily verified as being an actual human being who really did something - again - easily and scientifically verifiable.


All you have is smoke and mirrors.


 But I'll mention it to Bill.


He gets a chuckle out of that sort of thing...

[downbeatplumb]

The Satanic Verses' incident:

Never took place! For God's sake, anyone who isn't well versed in Islamic hadith really should avoid bringing this one up. The authenticity of the narrative recounting this event was refuted by professional Islamic scholars, including al-Albani, a leading figure in Islamic studies during the twentieth century.

Please listen to Islamic scholars and be skeptical when reading some ex-Muslim kid. It's really that simple.



More misconceptions to come very soon.

Do you mean the incident where Salmond Rushdie had to spend years in hiding from Muslims trying to kill him and the stabbing of a publisher by a muslim because of his relationship to Salmond Rushdie?

Or are you talking of the actual satanic verses which seems to be contested as to whether it happened or not.

About the actual satanic verses I think it would be hard for me to care less than I do.

[R00tKiT]

I am having lunch with Bill Gates later this week.

(Prove I am not).

Unlike your prophet - Bill Gates is easily verified as being an actual human being who really did something - again - easily and scientifically verifiable.


All you have is smoke and mirrors.


 But I'll mention it to Bill.


He gets a chuckle out of that sort of thing...

I am not sure where you're driving at, exactly. What do you think is unverifiable with regards to the prophet..? His existence or his prophethood ?

If you're talking about the former, you need some sort of mental rehabilitation, seriously. Muhammad conducted dozens of military campaigns, doubting the man's existence is just not sensible. If you mean the latter, I am presenting to you a logical proof, which you failed to follow. Someone claiming God or angels speak to him is either one of three:

1- Sincere and reporting the truth. (A prophet)

2- Sincere but sadly deluded/wrong, stays deluded/wrong for 23 years.

3- Lies knowingly for 23 years.

If we exclude 2 and 3, you are forced to acknowledge the truth of his claim.

---

Do you mean the incident where Salmond Rushdie had to spend years in hiding from Muslims trying to kill him and the stabbing of a publisher by a muslim because of his relationship to Salmond Rushdie?

Or are you talking of the actual satanic verses which seems to be contested as to whether it happened or not.

About the actual satanic verses I think it would be hard for me to care less than I do.

I am talking about the actual satanic verses. Who cares about Rushdie ?

[onlinebiker]

Why would a guy lie for 23 years?


Because apparently there is no shortage of schmucks who will believe any fool story they are fed....

[brewer]

Are you sure Islam is made up ? I think I already challenged the members here to give an acceptable alternative explanation of Muhmmad's claims, that is, to defend one of the two assertions :

1- That Muhmmad lied knowingly about his prophethood throughout 23 years of his life.

2- That he was deluded into believing that angels talked to him. Christian missionaries generally mention temporal lobe epilepsy as the most tenable diagnosis. Modern historians of Islam don't take this one very seriously.

Good luck defending one of these two coherently.

It's not about the so called prophet and what he is claimed to have done or not done.

It's about the assertion that a god exists as more than a concept of the human mind.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I am having lunch with Bill Gates later this week.

(Prove I am not).

Unlike your prophet - Bill Gates is easily verified as being an actual human being who really did something - again - easily and scientifically verifiable.


All you have is smoke and mirrors.


 But I'll mention it to Bill.


He gets a chuckle out of that sort of thing...

I am not sure where you're driving at, exactly. What do you think is unverifiable with regards to the prophet..? His existence or his prophethood ?

If you're talking about the former, you need some sort of mental rehabilitation, seriously. Muhammad conducted dozens of military campaigns, doubting the man's existence is just not sensible. If you mean the latter, I am presenting to you a logical proof, which you failed to follow. Someone claiming God or angels speak to him is either one of three:

1- Sincere and reporting the truth. (A prophet)

2- Sincere but sadly deluded/wrong, stays deluded/wrong for 23 years.

3- Lies knowingly for 23 years.

If we exclude 2 and 3, you are forced to acknowledge the truth of his claim.

---

I’m not convinced that we can so easily discount options 2 and 3 (and shame on you for co-opting it from C.S. Lewis).

Why couldn’t Muhammad have been a liar or a lunatic? Joseph Smith was a liar, William Miller was a lunatic - there is plenty of precedent for religious figures being either confidence tricksters or madmen.

Boru