Islamic captain obvious



Muhammad the messenger of the creator god, using his divine knowledge, stating the obvious.

Al-Tirmidhi, Narrated AbuHurayrah: While Allah's Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions were sitting clouds came over them and Allah's Prophet (peace be upon him) asked, "Do you know what these are?" On their replying that Allah and His Messenger knew best, he said, "These are the clouds (anan), these are the water-carriers of the Earth, which Allah drives to people who do not thank Him or call upon him."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 746: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "None of you should walk, wearing one shoe only; he should either put on both shoes or put on no shoes whatsoever."

Abu Dawud, Book 41, Number 4802: Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri: I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_ upon_him) as saying: The best places to sit are those which provide most room.
Read more »
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Trackbacks

How did life originate?

The origin of life is called Abiogenesis [1]. Although creationists continuously deny a naturalistic explanation of origin of life in spite of several models and experiments which demonstrate [2] [10] how life could have originated without any supposed divine intervention, they nonetheless waste a great deal of time trying to discredit or undermine those scientific hypothesis.

Life and Death are subjective terms which we use to describe a more fundamental phenomena - Biology. Biological form in various states exist. We simply describe some of them as living (life).

Biochemically, living systems are separated from other chemical systems by three things [3].

1. The capacity for replication from one generation to another.

Most organisms today use DNA as the hereditary material. RNA may have been the first nucleic acid system to have formed. Nobel laureate Walter Gilbert refers to this as the RNA world [4]. Recent experiments only but lends further support to this hypothesis [5] [11].

Recently scientists inserted over 1 million base pairs of synthetic DNA into Mycoplasma capricolum cells and enabled them to reproduce [6]. The experiment of Dr. Craig Venter suggests, creation of synthetic man-made artificial DNA (Genetic information) that was organized in a lab by humans, are able to provide necessary informations for the cell to replicate. This experiment also shows us life is not something mysterious but rather just complex chemical reactions [7].

2. The presence of enzymes and other complex molecules essential to the processes needed by living systems.

Miller's experiment showed how these could possibly form [8].

3. A membrane that separates the internal chemicals from the external chemical environment.

This also delimits the cell from not-cell areas. The work of Sidney W. Fox has produced proteinoid spheres, which...while not cells, suggest a possible route from chemical to cellular life [9] [10].


References:
[1] Abiogenesis - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[2] Abiogenesis FAQs: The Origins of Life - Talkorigins.org http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

[3] Cells Origins http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/biobookcell1.html#origin

[4] RNA world hypothesis - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

[5] RNA world easier to make - Nature.com http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.471.html

[6] Scientists Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life - Wired.com http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/

[7] Craig Venter's research is scary, but not in the way you think - Telegraph.co.uk http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7753609/Craig-Venters-research-is-scary-but-not-in-the-way-you-think.html

[8] Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

[9] Microsphere - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsphere#Biological_protocells

[10] Chapter 9: Origin of Life http://www.uh.edu/~geos6g/1376/orginlife9.html

[11] First life: The search for the first replicator - New Scientist.com http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128251.300-first-life-the-search-for-the-first-replicator.html
Read more »
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Trackbacks

Quran - The hate filled holy book

Muslims are deaf, dumb and blind, they are like strayed animals...


They are like donkeys, dogs, despised apes...


No, they are the vilest of animals...


Muslims are the worst of beasts.

Do you think these descriptions are shocking? Unacceptable? Respectless? Discriminating?

Do you think this is despicable Ku Klux Klan talk? Hatemongering?

Do you think this is sickening Nazi babble?

Do you think these texts are supremacist, maybe even fascistoid, but in any case deeply offensive?

I truely hope your answer on all of these questions is a sincere 'Yes!'

I truely hope that any compasionate, rational thinking person finds these descriptions totally disgusting, because a whole segment of the human population is being portrayed here as some sort of 'untermensch'.

However, there is one problem...The texts above are almost directly quoted from a so called divine book...'almost' I say, because in this so called divine book these descriptions aren't referring to muslims...in the so called divine book these offensive, respectless words are being used to describe NON-muslims...

You probably would have guessed by now...it's the Quran I'm talking about...the book that is highest praised by our islamic brethren, the book that they consider the Absolute Truth - raised above any human law or opinion.

Our muslim brothers and sisters, who demand that we, non-muslims, respect their religion and their 'Holy' Quran, who get angry when we, non-muslims, criticize their divine teachings of islamic 'love' and 'tolerance'. Our muslim brothers and sisters who talk big about 'insults', 'discrimination' and 'islamophobia'...

Our islamic co-humans who just don't want to understand that it's the Quran, and thus their Islam as religion, that is insulting, discriminating and that shows a staggering phobia...a deeply rooted offensive and supremacist hatred for non-muslims...and it's been going on for the last 1400 years.

The likeness of those who disbelieve is as the likeness of one who shouts to that which hears nothing, save a call and a cry; deaf, dumb, blind -- they do not understand. 2:171

Or thinkest thou that most of them listen or understand? They are only like cattle; nay, they are worse astray in Path. 25:44


The similitude of those who were charged with the (obligations of the) Mosaic Law, but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is that of a donkey which carries huge tomes (but understands them not). Evil is the similitude of people who falsify the Signs of God: and God guides not people who do wrong. 62:5


If it had been Our will, We should have elevated him with Our signs; but he inclined to the earth, and followed his own vain desires. His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject Our signs; So relate the story; perchance they may reflect. 7:176


And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." 2:65


When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." 7:166


For the vilest beasts in God's sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who understand not. 8:22


For the worst of beasts in the sight of God are those who reject Him They will not believe. 8:55


Verily those who believe not, among those who have received the scriptures, and among the idolaters, [shall be cast] into the fire of hell, to remain therein [for ever]. These are the worst of creatures. 98:6

Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs for retribution with Allah? (Worse is the case of him) whom Allah hath cursed, him on whom His wrath hath fallen and of whose sort Allah hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth idols. 5:60

....and the list goes on...

(Non) Muslims are unclean. 9:28


(Non) Muslims are perverse. 9:30


(Non) Muslims are miscreants 24:55


(Non) Muslims are in false pride and schism. 38:2


(Non) Muslims are perverted. 63:4


(Non) Muslims are the greediest of all humankind. 2:96


(Non) Muslims are losers. 2:121

While we contemplate on this issue, please do not forget that millions of copies of this book continue to be published, millions of muslims continue to memorize and preach this book worldwide. If I were to write a book in which it includes all the same passages only slightly changed to address how vile and worst animals these muslims are, how muslims are deaf, dumb and blind, how muslims should be fought, subdued and killed until they cease to be muslim, then surely it would've caused an uproar, an outrage. My book would have been promptly banned in many muslim nations and countless fatwas would have been issued to kill me for insulting muslims and islam!

Yet, with the same hatred present in their "holy" book, with the same disrespect for non-muslim Kafirs... muslims demand I respect their book and allow them to teach this book and inject pure and unadulterated hatred toward non-muslim in the mind of underage children who would grow up thinking that every such diplorable words of this book is true.
Read more »
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Trackbacks

Allah holds up the sky

The sky would fall upon earth and kill us all if it wasn't for Allah

It says in the Quran chapter 22, verse 65 that,
Do you not see that Allah has subjected to you whatever is on the earth and the ships which run through the sea by His command? And He restrains the sky from falling upon the earth, unless by His permission. Indeed Allah, to the people, is Kind and Merciful.

In Yusuf Ali's translation, the word sky is accompanied by the word "rain" in parenthesis. The problem is that his interpretation of it, it's not what the verse is saying literally. Muhammad had no idea about anything scientific. He lived 1400 years ago and didn't know that the moon was a big chunk of rock floating in space. All this is important context, because with it this verse makes sense.
He restrains the sky from falling upon the earth

if indeed precipitation like rain is being mentioned, why would he restrain it from falling upon the earth?
Indeed Allah, to the people, is Kind and Merciful

Of course he is, he's holding up the sky just like the mythical greek character atlas is holding up the heavens. He doesn't have to, but he does. That's why allah is kind and merciful, otherwise the sky would fall upon earth and kill everyone. That's not good for holy business.

And finally this is what Tafsir Ibn Kathir had to say about the verse:
If He willed, He could give the sky permission to fall on the earth, and whoever is in it would be killed, but by His kindness, mercy and power, He withholds the heaven from falling on the earth, except by His leave.

Obviously Ibn Kathir only confirms the point.
Read more »
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Trackbacks
  1. The First Cause is that which caused Time.
  2. Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision which is the action of changing ones thought from undecided to decided.
  3. Time is the measure of change.
  4. Something which is caused can't be required by that which causes it.
  5. A Decision is a Change (from 2)
  6. Time is required for Change (from 3)
  7. Decisions require Time. (from 5 & 6)
  8. Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time. (from 2 & 7)
  9. Consciousness requires Time (from 8)
  10. Therefore first cause is not a Conscious cause. (from 1, 4 & 9)
Read more »
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Trackbacks
Lets get cooking by Allah

How to make a Human Being

• One cup of earth

• 2 tbsp dry clay

• 3cups nothing

• 1.5 cups of not from nothing

• 1tsp wet earth

• 3tbsp mire

• 100ml water

• 1tbsp dust

• 0.5 dead human

• And magic words "Kun Fayakun"

Source: we are created from earth (Quran 11:61), sometimes from dry clay (Quran 15:26,28,33, 17:61 & 32:7), sometimes from nothing (Quran 19:67), sometimes not from nothing (Quran 52:35), sometimes from wet earth (Quran 23:12), or from mire (Quran 38:71), sometimes from water (Quran 25:54, 21:30 & 24:45), sometimes from dust (Quran 3:59, 30:20 & 35:11) or even sometimes from the dead (Quran 30:19 & 39:6)
Read more »
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Trackbacks
Don't be surprised when muslims take great offence for depicting Muhammad in the cartoons or other medium and demand retaliation in the form of violent physical attack or even assassination. Muhammad himself had approved killing of anyone who mocked or criticised him. The following Hadith is crystal clear on this issue.

A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (pbuh) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there.

When the morning came, the Prophet (pbuh) was informed about it. He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

He sat before the Prophet (pbuh) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.

Thereupon the Prophet (pbuh) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.


The Hadith was narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas and can be found in Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Hadith Number 4348)

This Hadith has been authenticated by the scholars.

For the legal rulings (fatwa), see also:
  • Ruling on one who insults the Prophet Muhammad.
  • Ruling on one who tells lies about the Prophet Muhammad.


It is beyond my understanding how a dead person could feel insult or even be slandered today. It is more likely that the followers of "religion of peace" feel that none has the right to mock or criticise their 7th century arab prophet and are keen to establish this kind of totalitarian, barbaric ideology that violates human rights and restricts free speech.
Read more »
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Trackbacks
Can any sane person believe the amount of bullshit one can find in the supposed "sahih" Bukhari? This one is probably the funniest and dumbest one that I have ever heard. Taken from Sahih Bukhari, book 5, Hadith 277.
Narrated Abu Huraira, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said,

People of Banu Isra'il used to take a bath naked, and they looked at the private parts of one another.

Prophet Moses (peace be upon him), however, took a bath alone (in privacy) and they said (tauntingly)
By Allah, nothing prohibits Moses to take a bath along with us, but sacrotal hernia.


He (Moses) once went for a bath and placed his clothes on a stone and the stone run away with his clothes. Moses ran after it saying:
O stone, my clothes!
O stone, my clothes!


People of Banu Isra'il had the chance to see the private parts of Moses, and they said:
By Allah! Moses does not suffer from any ailment.


The stone then stopped, till Moses had been seen by them, and he then took hold of his clothes and started to beat the stone.

Abu Huraira said:
By Allah, there are the marks of six or seven strokes made by Moses on the stone!

The stone not only could steal cloths and run like hell but also sounds like it was a homosexual stone which had special feelings for Moses. Oh well, they should have stoned the stone to death, just sayin.
Read more »
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Trackbacks
Allah says in chapter 8 verse 55 of the Quran that,
Pickthall: Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe.
Yusuf Ali: For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.
Shakir: Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe.

Allah - the god of islam expresses profound hatred toward disbelievers in Quran and this hatred is based on people's freedom of choice i.e. not believing in allah and his signs. Every now and then Allah threatens kafirs with hellfire and shows how much he hates Kafirs (disbelievers).

Let's explain the context of the verse 55 which actually starts from PREVIOUS verse that one has to read to understand the whole context. Read verse 54 to 58here with all the different translations. We can see, verse 54 describes how the Pharaohs disbelieved in the signs of allah and allah punished them.

How did Allah punish the Pharaoh and their people? By destroying them and drowning them into the sea. Why?...because they disbelieved in allah. So allah had to punish them simply because they disbelieved in allah's signs? Well, YES!! Because Allah says in the next verse: INDEED Kafirs (disbelievers) are the worst creatures in the sight of allah as they disbelieved and will never believe in allah.

Read the word by word translation of verse 54, 55 and 56.

Now this next verse 56 where allah says, those with whom you made covenant and they break covenant, they do not fear allah. This "those people" in historical context, is indicating the jewish tribe of Banu Quraiza. According to islamic tradition, Muhammad made a treaty with the tribe but they broke it (really?). So Allah commanded Muhammad to punish them severely. Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir described it as "Striking hard against those who disbelieve and break the covenants".

Some muslims try to argue that this later verse 56 restrict the worst creature label given in verse 55 in an attempt to make Quran look good and reasonable. However this appears to be a manipulation. There is nothing in verse 56 to restrict the previous label. The label is for all disbelievers. Now this verse is talking about those people with whom You (Muhammad) had treaties but break treaties, they do not fear allah. According to muslim apologists' logic, those kafirs who do not break treaties...they fear allah then?
Alladhina(Those who) is a masculine plural relative pronoun which relates to the people with whom Muhammad had treaties, not those who are worst creatures.

This "those who" could also mean that, kafirs always break treaties because they don't fear allah. Overall, only Disbelievers or both the Disbelievers and Treaty breakers are the worst creatures.

There are other verses where Allah again calls disbelievers the worst creatures and vile beasts. In verse 22 of the same chapter allah declares the disbelievers as deaf, dumb people who do not understand and calls them worst of beasts. Ibn Kathir was kind enough to explain the meaning for us. Another verse 6 in chapter 98, once again allah calls the disbelievers worst creatures. Note emphasis on those who disbelieved
Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.

Allah's prophet Muhammad was equally interested to use the label "worst creature" for various other people.
  1. Christians who decorate their church with nice pictures, Muhammad accused them of worshipping grave and called them worst creatures. Sahih Bukhari, book 23, Hadith number 425.
  2. Those people who don't understand Quran or take the Quran seriously, they are worst of creatures. Sahih Muslim, Book 5, Hadith 2335.

Read this article written by Abul Kasem on the topic.
Read more »
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Trackbacks

A Message To Peaceful Muslims

This is a message to Muslims who want to convince non-Muslims that Islam is a religion of peace.

My main message is: Please stop. We are trying to defeat the Jihadis here, and when you tell non-Muslims that message, you aren't helping the cause. You're actually hindering it. I'll explain how in a minute.

If you peaceful Muslims are trying to defend your religious beliefs, I think most people would understand and sympathize with your motives. But by doing it here, what have you accomplished? Have you helped our cause (thwarting Islam's relentless encroachment)? No. All you've done is try to convince us Islam is great.

You need to understand the effect of your defense on the non-Muslim mind. If you want to end Islamic terrorism, and if you understood what effect you had, you would stop defending your faith to infidels.

Because even if we all believed you, so what? Even if you successfully convinced us Islam is really a religion of peace, what difference would it make? Does it help us defeat Jihadis? No, not at all. We have terrorists quoting the Koran (urging Muslims to kill infidels) and we have other Muslims saying the Koran is only about peace. Where does that leave us? You've replaced clarity with confusion. You've replaced resolve with hesitation. And to that degree, you've given Jihadis the upper hand.

This is a deadly serious business, and this seemingly insignificant issue is the crucial pivoting point. Knowing how and why your enemy wants to destroy you is an enormous advantage in a global war in which many hundreds of thousands have already lost their lives.

Peaceful Muslims, I ask you to hear this: You make non-Muslims less able to defend themselves by going on these websites and justifying your religion to them.

Part of what makes the issue confusing for non-muslims is that we don't know if you're sincere or if you're trying to deceive us. Many terrorists exclaim vehemently that Islam is a religion of peace. But when they say it, they are trying to trick non-Muslims and confuse us while they continue their jihad against us (or what they mean is: as soon as Islam conquers all countries, the world will be at peace, so therefore, Islam is a religion of peace).

But my feeling is that most of the Muslims who have written to me are actually sincere, peace-loving, non-terrorist Muslims who have no interest in blowing up infidels. My friend is one of those. He is perfectly sincere.

If you are one of those sincerely peaceful Muslims, I know you have explained away the violent parts of the Koran terrorists often quote. And good for you. I'm glad you have. You had a teacher who convinced you jihad is really an inner struggle. And that's great. The teacher provided you with the complex mental maneuvers you need to see the Koran as a peaceful document. Thank you for ignoring the violent parts of Islamic teachings, and I hope you always will.

But you are doing harm and causing confusion by telling infidels you know the "true teachings" of Islam. The Jihadis aren't listening to unorthodox teachers. Jihadis are fundamentalists. They are strongly against any moderation or editing or modernizing of Islamic texts.

It doesn't really matter that you have somehow explained away Allah's commands to kill all the infidels — the Jihadis have not explained it away! They make the more direct assumption that if Allah said it, He must have meant it.

You think the Jihadis who quote the Koran are wrong. And you believe the fundamentalists running Iran, Syria, Pakistan, the Sudan, and Saudi Arabia don't really know what Islam is all about. Okay, fine. Does that help us defeat terrorism now that we know that? Not one little bit.

But when infidels get a good idea of what is actually in the Koran, and when they learn about the Islamic principles of deceit and pretext, and when we find out the goal and purpose of the Islamic faith, and when we learn about the methods Jihadis use to infiltrate and destroy, then we infidels are better able to protect ourselves. It's like finding out the plans of an enemy during war. It helps tremendously to anticipate what they're going to do and to understand their motives. This knowledge improves our ability to defend ourselves against it.

But when a seemingly sincere Muslim comes along and says no, that's not the "true" Islam and you've got it all wrong, many infidels will be confused and not know what to believe, so they will take no action. A confused mind is hesitant to act. They will not know the best way to proceed, and they'll be like a deer in headlights, frozen and paralyzed with uncertainty.

The reason non-Muslims are so easily confused is that most of us don't realize the difference between the Koran and every other religious book we are familiar with. But as you are fully aware, the Koran is one book, written by one man in his own lifetime. It can be (and often is) taken quite literally, and is obviously meant to be taken literally (At least the muslim terrorists do) . It isn't full of symbolism or vague analogies. It is mostly direct commands.

The Koran contains contradictory statements like other religious books, but the Koran itself provides the reader with a way to know what to do with contradictions. In the Koran, it says if you have two passages that contradict each other, the one written later supersedes the one written earlier. A passage written later abrogates (makes null and void) passages written earlier that contradict it. It says so right there in the Koran.

Most non-muslims don't know this. And they are unaware that the peaceful, tolerant passages were written early in Mohammad's prophetic career. According to the Koran, those passages have been overwritten by later, more violent, less tolerant passages.

So when most non-muslims hear Jihadis quoting violent passages from the Koran, and then peaceful Muslims quoting peaceful passages, they interpret that in the usual way. They think to themselves, "Oh, there must be many different and contradictory passages, like there are in other religious books, so Muslims can pick and choose what they like, and justify whatever actions they want to take."

Of course, you Muslims know the Koran is nothing like that. There is no picking and choosing. The Koran itself says very explicitly and in no uncertain terms that a Muslim must not alter or ignore any part of its very clear and direct message or they will burn in a fiery torment forever.

If you don't like me saying all this, I am truly sorry, but we non-Muslims need to know what's really happening. This is too serious to be overly concerned with tiptoeing around anyone's feelings.

I'm trying to tell my fellow non-muslims what Islamic terrorists are up to. They are following the Koran to the letter, as it says in the Koran a faithful Muslim must do. And their overarching goal is to make an Islamic state out of every country in the world. And the Koran tells them in no uncertain terms that they are justified in using violence, deceit, and pretext to accomplish their holy duty. My fellow non-muslims need to know this or they are fish in a barrel — vulnerable and defenseless.

In the Koran, Allah makes it clear that man-made governments (such as a democracy) and free speech (such as criticizing the Koran) are abominations and must be eliminated.

Right now, Muslims are immigrating into secular democracies holding and cherishing these values and goals, and most of  the non-muslims are completely naive about it. One of the reasons they are so naive is that peaceful Muslims keep trying to defend their interpretation of the Koran as the "real" interpretation.

Think about this. Who is better able to defend themselves from a determined and deadly enemy?
1. A person who believes the enemy is peaceful? or...
2. A person who knows the plans, intentions, and motivations of the enemy, and knows his tactics?

Obviously, number two will be more capable of protecting themselves. And all the plans, motivations, intentions (and many of the tactics) of today's Jihadis can be found in the Koran.

Our situation puts both infidels and peaceful Muslims in a difficult position. It's not your fault, and it's not our fault. We've been put in this position by those who wage violent jihad against the non-muslims.

Partly because of your messages, and partly because my fellow non-muslims aren't taking the time to read the Koran for themselves, they are confused by all these seemingly contradictory messages. Is Islam a religion of peace or isn't it? What's the real story? Is this all propaganda? Is it prejudice and hatred? Is this bigotry? Islamophobia? And non-muslims will default to assuming Islam must be a religion of peace, because they believe all religions are really peaceful.

What should you peaceful Muslims do when you want to argue against a non-Muslim? What can you do when you want to defend your peaceful version of Islam?

The first thing you can do is make it clear to us infidels that you are a believer in a new, modified form of Islam. You can tell us yes, there are many passages in the Koran that encourage violence against infidels but you think these passages should be ignored by modern Muslims. That would really help clarify things for non-Muslims. Be out front about it.

You can also openly criticize Jihadis for not moderating or modernizing the teachings of Mohammad. This would help all the non-Muslims understand what is happening and who we should consider enemies and friends. It would help non-Muslims understand the "civil war" going on within Islam itself.

You should quote the violent passages and say you think all Muslims should ignore those passages.

I know it takes courage to openly criticize either the Jihadis or the Koran. You're putting your own life at risk, no matter where you live (because the penalty for criticizing the religion of peace is death). It is much easier to defend your beliefs by justifying your religion to infidels. But that doesn't solve the problem. It makes things worse.

If you are committed to defeating Islamic terrorism while at the same time justifying your version of Islam, you can expend your energy convincing young Muslim men to follow your way rather than the Jihadis' way. Right now, Jihadis are successfully persuading young men to follow the strict Islamic (violent) path. What can you do to recruit young men to your path? That has a chance of actually solving the problem.

I said earlier it doesn't really matter that you have explained away the violent passages of the Koran (because terrorists haven't) but that's not entirely true. In a way, it does matter, and it is wonderful that you have modified the Koran's teachings to be more peaceful.

But to end the cycle, you'll have to go one step further and declare outright that the Koran is not the word of Allah. If you've modified or ignored any part of the Koran, you're acting as if it is not the perfect word of Allah. So admit it openly.

If you secretly admit the Koran is not perfect, but keep saying it is perfect, you open the way for the next generation of Muslims to rebel against your "modified" teachings by becoming fundamentalists. They will see you as a hypocrite who says "the Koran is perfect," but who ignores half of the teachings.

Please think about this. You must try to understand that as a non-muslim, when we look at the problem of Islamic terrorism, it looks like a large number of militant factions, all with different names and goals and grievances, and there is no clear idea of what is going on or what to do about it, or even how to approach the problem.

But each of the different Islamic factions are all using the same book. They are basing their goals on what is in that book. They are using the methods described in the book. What they are willing to do and how they will do it is all based on what is in that book.

Infidels can look in the book and discover what they're up to, what their motives are, and what specific tactics they'll use. Those of us trying to defeat or at least reduce terrorist incidents are trying to alert our fellow non-Muslims about the situation. And if everyone knew about it — if all the non-Muslims simply read the Koran cover-to-cover — they would suddenly understand the situation in a whole new way, and Islamic terrorism would be in serious danger of extinction from that point on.

But your message to non-Muslims basically tells us: The answer is not in the Koran. Look anywhere else for answers. Just don't look in the Koran.

And what has happened? Non-Muslims don't know what to do or where to look for answers. And to that degree, you, the peaceful Muslims, have helped the Jihadis do their job, even if you didn't mean to. You've helped perpetuate violence in the world. Jihadis will keep immigrating into secular democracies with their murderous plans while the non-Muslims are unaware of what's happening — blinded and confused by their own multiculturalism combined with your constant assurances that Islam really is a religion of peace.

The Jihadis will keep expressing their different grievances (as pretexts for war) and the hand-wringing, kind-hearted non-muslims will keep trying to make concessions, never suspecting they are being duped with a vengeance. And the violence and political invasion will go on and on.

We've got to stop it, and you peaceful Muslims are one of the keys to our success. That's the end of my message to peaceful Muslims.

I have a message for you non-Muslims, as well. You should do your best to read the Koran yourself. This would really help you clarify the situation.

And finally, I have a message to those deceitful Jihadis who try to convince us Islam is a religion of peace. When enough people know about your plans and methods, your deceit will no longer work. Scams and cons lose their effectiveness once they are well-known. Your days are numbered. We will reveal your plans. We will choke off your sources of money. We will help give Koran-modifying Muslims a voice. And you will have to stop blowing things up and get a real job.

Abridged from Citizen Warrior.
Read more »
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Trackbacks
Atheism IS where morality originates

by Craig A. James

One of the claims of theists that really bugs me is that morality comes from God. No, actually its worse than that. Theists claim that morality can only come from God, and they go on to suggest that without religion, the world will devolve into an amoral chaos of murder, thievery and rape.

And to add insult to the equation, theists claim that whatever morality atheists have is borrowed  from religion! They assert that we atheists grew up immersed in a Christian, Jewish and Islamic culture and so we absorbed their morality. Atheists, they claim, are sort of unwitting Christians, Jews and Muslims when it comes to morals.

Its time to turn the theistic argument on its head and show why exactly the opposite is true. The fact is that theists have stolen their morals from human nature. They claim morals come from God, but in fact humans merely put the words in his mouth. The real origin of morality is in our evolutionary heritage.

The truth is, both God and morality are made-up human concepts. We made God in our own image and then we imbued him with our own natural understanding of right and wrong.

When it comes to morality, theists are nothing more than plagiarizers, stealing and giving no credit to the original.

You can easily see this by just educating yourself. Take any freshman college course in cultural anthropology and you'll learn two things:

  • Until the period of European colonialism, most people in the world had never heard of Yahweh, the Abrahamic god.
  • Most human societies followed the same morals as Yahweh's followers.

In other words, in spite of having no knowledge of Yahweh, virtually every culture on Earth had a strong moral system. Marriage and marital fidelity is found almost everywhere (as is adultery), murder is bad, rape gets you in big trouble, thievery is never OK, and hurting a child is a very bad thing.

These are human values, not Christian, Jewish or Muslim values. As we evolved, we developed emotions like love, fear, jealousy, anger and lust in order to ensure the procreation of our children and to protect them as they grew up. As our brains evolved to include language, we put words to these instinctive behaviors, and as we organized ourselves into families, clans, villages, towns and countries, we codified our instinctive knowledge into morality and laws.

One of the most important insights that a study of cultural evolution or "memetics" (how ideas propagate across society, and change and mutate down through history) provides is what you might call the "cultural-genetic ecology." A fish can't live in the desert, and a joke told in Russian can't survive in Polynesia. Ideas are born, live, reproduce and die in this context. It's their ecology. If the cultural ecology is hostile to the idea, the idea won't take hold and thrive, but if the idea resonates with the rest of the culture, it can take off, "go viral" and spread throughout the society. Likewise, if an idea goes against our instincts, we find it repulsive and it dies without reproducing.

We're pre-programmed by our genes to accept certain ideas and reject others. Take this idea for example: "You should kill your third and subsequent children, because Earth can't support overpopulation." Logically, this makes sense because overpopulation is a real threat to our ecology. But it violates one of our deepest instincts: to protect children at all costs. So this meme dies in our brains before it can reproduce and spread.

But look at the opposite: ideas (memes) that resonate with our genes.
  • Adultery is immoral
  • Rape is immoral
  • Theft is immoral

... and many more. And perhaps more telling:
  • Divorce is found almost everywhere
  • Polygamy is common
  • Male adultery is discouraged but tolerated, yet female adultery is widely condemned

These last three are particularly interesting because they also reflect genetic realities: anthropologists tell us that polygamy, divorce and male infidelity are genetically desirable.

Human morality has been around far, far longer than Yahweh's purported morals. The real truth is that the Jews, Christians and Muslims hijacked morality and claimed it as their own. Then they went on to rewrite both our history books and our philosophy books, and have now convinced an awful lot of people that their revisionist claims are the truth.

But the real truth is that the Secular Humanists have it right. There is a natural morality, and now that we have evolved complex brains capable of logical thought, and complex language capable of expressing those thoughts, we can improve on our natural morality for the betterment of all humans.

Two years ago I wrote a blog entitled Atheist Ethics, part 3, about how secular morals are inherently superior to religious morals, and the core point is relevant today:
...secular morality has accountability. You can't just make stuff up; new claims about secular morality must rest on the foundation of improving the human condition and must have a logical connection to that foundation. Furthermore ... secular claims about morality are open to scrutiny. If you make a claim about morality, you have to explain it clearly, show how it is derived from the foundation, and be willing to defend your position.
What is the foundation of God's morality? How does God know what is good and what is bad? If you argue that God just knows, then you've admitted that there are things (like human happiness) that are axiomatic, and you're back to the secular position – you don't need God in the equation.
In other words, morality can't possible originate with God. It's logically impossible.

But more importantly, history shows that it didn't originate with God. It was the other way around.

And don't ever let a Christian, Jew or Muslim claim otherwise.
Read more »
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Trackbacks
Some evidence for Metaphysical Naturalism

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Here I want to give two lines of empirical evidence which I think support metaphysical naturalism. Although I believe there are additional facts which support naturalism, space limitations require that I limit myself to just two lines of evidence. I shall attempt to argue that these two facts are much more likely on naturalism than theism.

A. Naturalism makes sense of the physical nature of minds.

As Paul Draper, an agnostic philosopher at Florida International University, puts it,

"Consciousness and personality are highly dependent on the brain. Nothing mental happens without something physical happening."

Now Michael Tooley, a philosopher at the University of Colorado, has stated five lines of evidence in support of this claim. Let me summarize just briefly that evidence.

1st, when an individuals brain is directly stimulated and put into a certain physical state, this causes the person to have a corresponding experience.

2nd, certain injuries to the brain make it impossible for a person to have any mental states at all.

3rd, other injuries to the brain destroy various mental capacities. Which capacity is destroyed is tied directly to the particular region of the brain that was damaged.

4th, when we examine the mental capacities of animals, they become more complex as their brains become more complex.

5th, within any given species, the development of mental capacities is correlated with the development of neurons in the brain.

Thus, the conclusion that, "Nothing mental happens without something physical happening," seems inescapable.

But if nothing mental happens without something physical happening, that strongly implies that the mind cannot exist independently of physical arrangements of matter. In other words, we do not have a soul. And this is exactly what we would expect if naturalism is true. But if theism is true, then our minds should not depend on our brains for their existence; we should have souls. Also, if theism is true, then God is a disembodied mind; Gods mind is not in any sense dependent on physical arrangements of matter. But if nothing mental happens without something physical happening, that is evidence against both the existence of souls and the existence of any being who is supposed to have a disembodied mind, including God. Therefore,the physical nature of minds is unlikely if theism is true, but what we would expect if naturalism is true.

B. Naturalism makes sense of the pointless evil and suffering in the world .

Have you ever wondered why there is so much evil and suffering in the world? In addition to evils committed by human beings, there is much agony and pain caused by solely natural processes, including earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, and viruses.

Now, this tends to be pretty embarrassing for the theist. If theism is true, we have to believe that God allows people to suffer horrible pain that any decent person would themselves prevent. But that's hard to believe. If there is a God, He is more than just a decent person; He is the very standard of decency itself. So why doesn't he just eliminate evils like the one I just described? Even after thousands of years of theological reflection, theistic philosophers still have no idea. They just assume that there must be a reason for God allowing evil.

For example, Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame University, one of the most influential theistic philosophers of our time, admitted, "Many of the attempts to explain why God permits evil seem to me shallow, tepid, and ultimately frivolous."

Naturalists, on the other hand, have a plausible explanation for pointless suffering: there is no all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing being to intervene and prevent pointless suffering. Therefore, pointless suffering is much more likely on naturalism than on theism.
Read more »
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Trackbacks



Where are the Buddhist suicide bombers?
Anyone who imagines that terrestrial concerns account for Muslim terrorism must answer questions of the following sort: Where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal, and far more cynical, than any that Britain, the United States, or Israel have ever imposed upon the Muslim world. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against Chinese noncombatants? They do not exist.




What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam. This is not to say that Buddhism could not help inspire suicidal violence. It can, and it has (Japan, World War II). But this concedes absolutely nothing to the apologists for Islam. As a Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify such barbarism. One need not work nearly so hard as a Muslim.




The truth that we must finally confront is that Islam contains specific notions of martyrdom and jihad that fully explain the character of Muslim violence. Unless the world’s Muslims can find some way of expunging the metaphysics that is fast turning their religion into a cult of death, we will ultimately face the same perversely destructive behavior throughout much of the world.




While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization. The world, from the point of view of Islam, is divided into the “House of Islam” and the “House of War,” and this latter designation should indicate how Muslims believe their differences with those who do not share their faith will be ultimately resolved. While there are undoubtedly some moderate Muslims who have decided to overlook the irrescindable militancy of their religion, Islam is undeniably a religion of conquest.




The only future devout Muslims can envisage—as Muslims—is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed. The tenets of Islam simply do not admit of anything but a temporary sharing of power with the “enemies of God.” Devout Muslims can have no doubt about the reality of Paradise or about the efficacy of martyrdom as a means of getting there. Nor can they question the wisdom and reasonableness of killing people for what amount to theological grievances. In Islam, it is the moderate who is left to split hairs, because the basic thrust of the doctrine is undeniable: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates; and conquer the world.
~ Sam Harris


Read more »
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Trackbacks

An explanation of chapter 31, verse 34

This is an investigative look at the verse 34 of chapter 31 of Quran. Read different translations and word by word translation of this verse.
Pickthall translation: Lo! Allah! With Him is knowledge of the Hour. He sendeth down the rain, and knoweth that which is in the wombs.

Notice that Yusuf Ali, Mohsin Khan and Sahih International all added the word "alone" in their translation.

Tafsir al Jalalayn
Lo! God, with Him lies knowledge of the Hour, when it will come to pass; and He sends down (read yunzilu, or yunazzilu) the rain, at times which [only] He knows; and He knows what is in the wombs, whether it is a male or a female; and not one of the three things is known by anyone other than God, exalted be He.

Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi:
This verse was revealed about al-Harith ibn ‘Amr ibn Harithah ibn Muharib ibn Hafsah, from the desert, who asked the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, about the Hour and its exact timing. He also asked: ‘Our land has dried up, when is it going to rain? And I left my wife pregnant, when is she going to give birth? And I know in which land I was born, but in which land am I going to die?’ And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse...

...The man asked: ‘What is in the womb of this mare of mine?’ The prophet said: ‘This is of the unseen, and none knows the unseen except Allah’...

...Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, said: “The keys of the unseen are five and none knows them except Allah, exalted is He: none knows the timing of the Hour except Allah; none knows what is hidden in wombs except Allah...

Tafsir Ibn Abbas
He knows when the rain comes down but this is hidden from people, (and knoweth that which is in the wombs) whether it is a male or female, felicitous or damned while this is hidden from the servants.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir:
Qatadah said, "There are some things which Allah has kept to Himself, and they are not known to any angel who is close to Him or any Prophet who was sent by Him. No one among mankind knows when the Hour will come, in which year or month, or whether it will come at night or during the day. And no one knows when rain will come, night or day. No one knows what is in the wombs, male or female, red or black or what it is. Whether it will be good or bad. You do not know, O son of Adam, when you will die. You might die tomorrow, you might be stricken by calamity tomorrow...
Read more »
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Trackbacks