Sexualization of Children

Recently, some muslims showed me this picture and this news to emphasize on child sexualization. What I think is that, both Islamic/conservative and western/liberal countries sexualize children in their own sort of way and it should be made illegal.

Hijab is sexualization

To wrap a child with full body clothing is certainly very uncomfortable for their little bodies. One only need to ask, what is the motivation behind making children wear hijab? The purpose of hijab is to cover up the sexual parts of the body in an effort to make them less attractive. If you admit that a child's body is a sexually attractive thing then and only then you would think of covering it up. And that is what sexualization of children means. What about pedophiles? One might ask. Hijabi children wouldn't become victim of their lustful eyes while naked or semi-naked children would.

Firstly, hijab does not protect adult women from sexual harassment. So there is no reason to believe hijab could protect little children from sexual molestation. A pedophile would go after a child if he gets a chance regardless of a child's dress style.

Secondly, as I said, if you admit or acknowledge or think that a child's body is sexually attractive (thus sexualizing the child) or expect hijab to protect children from sexual molestation , only then you'd think of covering them up. Some people (pedophiles) think children are attractive and would want to molest children, but that doesn't mean it is a normal, healthy behaviour. Instead of wraping children up with burqas, you should call the authority and prevent a child molester from committing such acts.

...and so is the beautification of their bodies

Sexualization of children could also occur when they are being artificially decorated in a sexually attractive way. Using padded bra and bikini, thong, puffed up hair, make up etc to make the child look sexy. Some children even participate in beauty contests! Problem is not with skimpy clothing of a child, the problem is when someone dresses up a female child like an adult woman by decorating and exaggerating certain and specific parts of her body.

Sexualization of Nudity

Many african tribes have less sexual harassment and rape incidents although women in those tribes remain topless or nude most of the time. In our societies, nudity is often viewed as a type of pornography i.e. being nude is viewed as an overt sexual act. This is what I call sexualization of nudity. Sexualization of nudity relates with conservatism and social taboo mindset such as considering it shameful, perverse etc. If a society sexualizes nudity particularly among children, then no matter what they wear, it'd still be deemed as sexual. If someone sexualizes a 9 year old child, then what prevents him/her to sexualize a 1 year old child? ...which makes it quite absurd. This notion of sexualization of nudity, semi-nudity among pre-pubertal children is quite absurd.

The Islamic democracy

It is not our goal to exercise such a democracy which would fail to ensure human rights of the minority, but rather...we should seek a system that would give equal, best and most of the rights possible to the nation's citizenry.

What we see in Egypt today is not beyond understanding. As the islamists gain majority votes to elect a sharia compliant govt, rights of the non-muslim minority keep getting squeezed. Religious doctrines should play no part in political discourse nor should it be a part of the government.

Here is my favourite bit. James Madison, alluding to slavery, wrote,

It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.

A half century after the United States was established, Alexis de Tocqueville saw the majority's tyranny over political and social minorities as "a constant threat" to American democracy in his pre–Civil War travels. While visiting the state of Pennsylvania, when he asked why no free blacks had come to vote in a local election he was observing, he was told that "while free blacks had the legal right to vote, they feared the consequences of exercising it." Thus, he wrote,

the majority not only makes the laws, but can break them as well.

...as democracy is conceived today, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society; otherwise, the majority's rights lose their meaning. And this is exactly where a muslim majority country fails.

I wish to adhere to the secular values and this is my response to those moderate muslims who claim that an islamic country governed by islamic law can be both democratic and equal. Frankly, it is not. In the words of Stuart K. Hayashi,

In order to prevent democracy from becoming a tyranny over minorities, individual rights must supersede all democratic voting and all regulations. Rights must come first. Laws should come second, and only to protect those rights; nothing more.

Quran could only be understood correctly in arabic

Of all the efforts to artificially insulate Islam from intellectual critique, this is probably the most transparent. Often the critique of islam get accused of misinterpreting certain verse of Quran. They say Quran can only be understood in arabic. There is no accurate translation of Quran hence one can't criticise islam without knowing classical arabic. Unfortunately, for those Muslims craving reassurance from the more embarrassing passages of the Quran and Sunnah, this cheap tactic of arbitrarily dismissing anything they disagree with still comes at a heavy price, since Islam cannot be protected in this way without sacrificing its claim to being a universal religion.

In the first place, it is fundamentally impossible for anyone to learn a language that cannot be translated into the only one they do know, which means the apologists who insist that “one must learn Arabic” in order to understand the Quran are committing a logical fallacy. Either the Arabic of the Qur’an is translatable (in which case there is no need to learn Arabic) or it is not (in which case it can never be learned by the non-native speaker).

Enter the skeptic. While every language has its nuances, how is that Arabic is the only one with words and phrases that are literally untranslatable? More importantly, why in the world would Allah choose to communicate his one true religion for all men in the only language that cannot be understood by all men – including all Muslims, since most do not speak Arabic?

Even more suspicious is that, this "amazing linguistic discovery" was only recently made – and that it corresponds quite remarkably with the contemporary rejection of Islamic practices that were considered acceptable up until the religion’s recent collision with Western liberalism. In fact, there is an astonishing correlation between the argument that hidden and alternate meanings exist to unflattering Quranic passages (justifying slavery, the inferior status of women, sexual gluttony, holy warfare, wife-beating, and religious discrimination) and the level of embarrassment that modern scholars have about the presence of such verses in the Quran!

No follower of other religions makes this claim about his holy book. It is rare to find a Qur’an that does not include voluminous and highly subjective footnoted commentary deemed necessary to explain away the straightforward interpretation of politically-incorrect passages.

An additional problem for the apologists is that they want to have it both ways. On the one hand they declare that (for some strange reason) the “perfect book” can’t be accurately translated and that Allah’s perfect religion thus cannot be understood by most of humanity without a battery of intercessors and interpreters. Then they turn around and blame the reality of Islamic terrorism on this same “necessary” chain of intermediaries by claiming that the Osama bin Ladens of the world have simply gotten bad clerical advice, causing them to “misunderstand” the true meaning of the Religion of Peace (in the most catastrophic and tragic way imaginable).

Of course, another irony here is that, as a Saudi, the Quran-toting Osama bin Laden is a native Arabic speaker – as are most of the leaders and foot soldiers in his al-Qaeda brotherhood of devout Muslims. In fact, many critics of Islam are Arabic speakers as well.
At this point there is only one avenue of escape open to the beleaguered apologist, which is the weak claim that the Qur’an can only be understood in Classical Arabic, an obscure Quraish dialect which has not been commonly used in over a thousand years and is only known by a few hundred people alive today (generally Wahabbi scholars, who are – ironically enough – accused of taking the Qur’an ‘too literally’).

Although it is hardly plausible that the differences between classical and modern Arabic are such that peace and tolerance can be confused with terrorism, even if this were true, it merely begs the question all the more. Why would such a “perfect book” be virtually impossible for the rest of us to learn – and susceptible to such horrible “misinterpretation” on an on-going basis?

Really, it isn’t hard to see through this childish game, particularly since the rules are applied only to detractors and not to advocates. Apologists never claim that Arabic is a barrier to understanding Islam when it comes to lauding the religion, no matter how less knowledgeable those offering praise are than the critics. Obviously, the real reason for this illogical myth is that, for the first time, the information age is making the full history and texts of the Islamic religion available to a broader audience, and it is highly embarrassing to both Muslim scholars and their faithful flock. Pretending that different meanings exist in Arabic is a desperate way of finding solace and saving face.

slightly modified, taken from here

Free will & evidence of god

A particularly interesting muslim apologist argument I noticed earlier.

if god had given us 100% certain evidence (e.g. strong decudctive argumnt [sic]) then we will have no choice BUT to beleive [sic] in it. and so our freewill (to beleive [sic]) will be impaired. but freewill is one of the greatest goods ever AND god WANTS people to beleive [sic] on basis of freewill therefore god will never give us 100% evidence. and all evidence will always be less than perfect.

The first part of the argument implies proof or certainty hampers free choice. It is totally a false assumption. For example: we have evidence to prove with 100% certainty that smoking causes harm to the body. Yet we see people by their free choice continue smoking and suffer as a consequence.

Another extreme example would be the choice of jumping off a high cliff. You know for certain that you are going to die but you are free to choose between jumping and not jumping. Another very common example is belief in evolution. We have enough evidence to prove evolution yet creationists have choosen not to believe or take it as truth. These examples are enough to show certainty doesn't necessarily prevent exercising our freewill. It may influence our decision but that's about it.

Next point from the apologist is that, free will is one of the greatest good ever and god wants people to believe on the basis of free will. Now there are several arguments I could suggest. For example:

* If god really wants all people to believe in his existence then why he doesn't provide enough evidence? Since we have already showed that cessation of free will is not an inevitable consequence of being certain about something, it necessarily follows that god wanted some people to disbelieve in his existence. That's why god didn't provide enough evidence.

* It is not clear why free will would be a good thing given that god wants us to obey his commands and would punish us for exercising our free will. If free will hampers god's cause then why would it be a good thing? A theist could answer that it helps god to weed out involuntary worshippers because god doesn't want robots to praise him! But then what's the point of threatening with hellfire if god doesn't want robots? Many people worship god out of fear of punishment which is essenstially an involuntary reaction. The problem of heaven suggests that god can create a world where all inhabitants necessarily believe in god yet have free will.

Then the muslim apologist says, therefore god will never give us 100% evidence and all evidence will always be less than perfect. Actually your god allah gave as much evidence as all the other 3000+ gods. If the "evidence" rests on faith then it is not really evidence, is it? A superman comic book could be the "evidence" of superman's existence if you "believe" superman comic book is the evidence of superman's existence. All evidence will always be less than perfect is also totally false given that god is supposed to be all knowing, all powerful and the perfect entity.

1. God is omniscient.

2.God is omnipotent.

3. God wants everyone to believe in him.

4. Since God is omniscient, he knows exactly what demonstration would convince any given person that he exists.

5. Since God is omnipotent, he is capable of performing this demonstration.

6. Since God wants everyone to believe in him, he wants to perform this demonstration.

(the conclusion is, if god wants then god can produce the proof of his existence which god knows will convince every unbeliever of the world)

7. However, atheists manifestly exist.

8. Therefore, the god described by the first three conditions does not exist.

(This is to further show that a god with all three characteristics (omnipotent, omniscient and want to prove his existence) does not exist. A god who is uninterested to prove himself to human and therefore uninterested in getting worshipped can still exist. But we aren't talking about such god.)

In the above post, I did not discuss whether it is possible to have free will according to islamic theologic doctrine as there are several theologic view in regard to Qadar. I also did not discuss if we really have free will or not.

"Lifeless" prion proteins are capable of evolution

Scientists have shown for the first time that "lifeless" prion proteins, devoid of all genetic material, can evolve just like higher forms of life.

This means that this pattern of Darwinian evolution appears to be universally active.

In viruses, mutation is linked to changes in nucleic acid sequence that leads to resistance.

Now, this adaptability has moved one level down- to prions and protein folding - and it's clear that you do not need nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) for the process of evolution.

said by Charles Weissmann, head of Scripps Florida's department of infectology who led the study.

Religion is natural

This week's Point of Inquiry podcast presented an interview with Robert McCauley discussing his recent book entitled Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not. In this bloggers opinion, it was an excellent presentation of the cognitive differences between religion and science. Following is a summary:

For the first several years of life, we only think intuitively, quickly and reflexively. During the first several month of life, we begin developing a Theory of Mind, which gives us the ability to attribute mental states to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different than one's own. This causes belief in additional agents when you don't know the cause of something. A dog barking at a moving curtain in the wind because of its irregular motion shows this phenomenon is not limited to humans. It also leads to anthropomorphic thinking (ever talk to car when it doesn't start?). Religion fits nicely into this level of thinking, which is sometimes called System One Thinking.

Science is not intuitive. It is more elaborate, slower, more reflective and cognitively unnatural (sometimes called System Two Thinking). To show how unnatural it is, we still tend to think and say the sun rises and when looking at the night sky we tend to perceive the objects in the sky centered around us.

In fact, we can get dizzy is we focus on the truth!!! Science is in fact counterintuitive many times. [my note: see explanation of quantum mechanics] We use our Pre-Frontal Cortex for this type of thinking, which involves conscious reasoning and learning; System Two Thinking is flawed in humans because it requires mastery of skills and System One Thinking intrudes. Science is a comparatively rare activity in society. It is only carried out by a small minority of the population, even today.

Science will always be in a precarious state and may be lost to humanity. There is no guarantee that it will continue!! In fact, science was lost in the Western Christian worldduring the Dark Ages and was revived by connection with ancientGreek texts from the Arab world. Science requires complex social arrangement to survive. Religion will always be apart of humanity as a whole because it is natural.

Other interesting statements:

* Some evidence suggests that genes play a role in acceptance of conservative religion. [my note: see cognitive style influences belief in god (.pdf) and humans predisposed to believe god]

* If you don't have a Theory of Mind, you may be more prone to autism and non-religion.

* Females are more empathetic as a whole, and are more religious. [my note: see psychologytoday.com]

* Autism has been called hypermaleness.

From: Ratio Primoris.

This is quite fascinating to me. I wish to keep a keen eye on this topic for further information.

Human devolution

This is how religion dumbs people down all the way back to the level of the early apes.

Devolution of Human through religious indoctrination

Sunset, sunrise & the muddy pool

When Dhul-Qarnayn (alternate spelling: Zulkarnain) traveled as described in the Quran, he found sun setting in a muddy pool and rising on a people. Read different translations of chapter 18 verse 86 to 90. Also read word by word translation of these four verses.

Yusuf Ali's translation: Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People. (18:86)

Until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun (18:90)

There is a Hadith also in Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 025, Hadith Number 3991:

Narated By Abu Dharr: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where it sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water (hamiyah).

Also read sahih (authentic) Muslim, Hadith number 297-99 where muhammad says sun has a rising place, a setting place and a resting place.

Muslims, in order to show there is nothing wrong in the verse 86 or 90, will use the tafsir (exegesis) of scholars like Ar-Razi, al-Baidawi, al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, al-Jalalyn etc. But it is a fact that they lived 5/6/7 century after Muhammad. Thus they lived at a time when muslims actually knew something about the comparative sizes of the sun and the earth. The Qur'an states (quite clearly) that Dhul-Qarnain reached the place where the sun sets, and that when he got there, he found the sun setting in a murky pool. The Quran claims to be perfectly clear, so any reinterpretation is cut off from the start. As if this weren't enough, we have a Sahih narration in Sunan Abu Dawud, according to which Muhammad told one of his companions that the sun does indeed set in a pool of water.

Several centuries go by, and as muslims conquer lands and ponder on basic astronomy, they start learning about the universe from the works of actual scientists. By the time of ar-Razi, al- Baidawi, al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, ibn Jalalayn...muslims (like everyone else on the planet) are well aware of the fact that the sun is quite massive compared to the earth. Thus, Muslim scholars were forced to reinterpret the Quran in light of actual scientific knowledge.

Since these scholars interpret the Quran in a manner far more consistent with a scientific understanding of the world, muslims ignore what the Quran actually says (along with its claims of perfect clarity), and they ignore Muhammad's silly views of where the sun sets. That is, muslims throw out both the Quran and the Hadith. Instead, muslims cling to the reinterpretations of late Muslim commentators who based their understanding of the universe on actual science rather than on the Quran and declare that, there's no scientific error in Surah 18:86.

Muslims from half a millennium after Muhammad reinterpret the passage because they know that, taken at face value, Surah 18:86 is obviously false. Science forced them to abandon the perfect clarity of the Quran. Science forced them to throw out a Sahih narration from the Hadith. Science forced them to commit innovation. (Science also forcing them to abandon these classical commentaries too!!)  Therefore, there's no error in the Quran. This is how "Quranic error management procedure" is performed by muslims to avoid the obvious problems in their book.

When we turn to a much earlier commentary, for example, the commentary of Muhammad's companion Ibn Abbas:

(Till, when he reached the setting place of the sun) where the sun sets, (he found it setting in a muddy spring) a blackened, muddy and stinking spring; it is also said that this means: a hot spring, (and found a people thereabout) these people were disbelievers...

Ever notice that, the closer we get to Muhammad, the less reinterpretation we find? Is this a coincidence? Not at all. Muhammad and his companions believed that the sun sets in a pool. Much later, Muslims realized that this is false, so they were forced to reinterpret the Quran's clear narrative and Voila! the Quran is so amazingly always accurate!

For an in-dept analysis, read:

1. Dhul Qarnayn and the sun controversy in the Quran 
2. Muhammad and the Sun’s Setting Place

.

Zakir Naik's islamic bomb!

The islamic bomb? More likely a Joker Nalaik bomb with warhead of blatant lies. This is another of Zakir Naik's blunders. He quotes in one of his answers,

Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says that People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realize that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMED (pbuh) was born

Actually the full quote is:

People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall into the hands of radical Muslims fail to realize that the worst Islamic bomb has been dropped already. It fell the day Mohammed was born. For those who might think that this work is all doom and gloom, I will close with this sweet chorus of victory: Jesus Christ continues to be victorious and His followers continue to triumph in Him! Why not read His book (i.e., the Holy Bible) for yourself to find out how it all ends?

This quote is from the book "The Koran: Testimony of Antichrist" by Joseph Adam Pearson. The dedication of the book reads:

This work is dedicated to an untold number of persons who have already been — as well as those who are yet to be — terrorized and murdered by the workers of iniquity, chaos and destruction in the name of the false god Allah and his prophet Mohammed (cursed is his name forever).

Here is the book link in .pdf version.

On the implication of afterlife punishment

"Morality comes from god" or "Without god you can't be moral" - common claims from people who believe in god but doesn't want to understand how morality in a society develops overtime. Simple questions like, "What would you make of a situation where god believers commit crimes?" or "What about the pedophilia, slavery and genocide sanctioned by abrahamic god?" or "What prevents someone to start a mass killing spree in the name of his god?" are enough to repudiate such flimsy assertions. Not to mention a number of problems you face pondering on 2nd horn of Euthyphro Dilemma when you discuss Divine Command Theory.

But yet this is a point I wish to discuss in this post, to give an answer to a question repeatedly asked by theists in order to garner support for the necessary existence of god. A typical version of this question would be,

"If there was no god to punish the criminal in afterlife then people like Hitler would emerge and the victims wouldn't get justice. To ensure justice and balance in crime and punishment, even if earthly life appears insufficient to punish criminals, they will surely get punished in afterlife."

Notice that in this single argument, a theist is justifying the existence of god, afterlife, punishment of hell & reward in heaven. Also notice that this is a statement to argue both - people like Hitler would emerge in human society frequently if there was no god (because it implies that people would be immoral without god hence commit crimes), and it is a statement to establish the concept of divine justice - ergo God necessarily exist.

First & foremost, the concept of "justice in afterlife" generates enough mental comfort (wishful thinking) for the believer to believe it. Thus this concept is a belief and the believer believes it is necessary to believe in this belief, for this has an emotional factor, a strong motivation derived from experiencing apparent lack of injustice in human life. A belief in belief (necessary beliefs) of this kind among the members is roughly inversely proportional to the overall law and order situation of a society.

The equivalency between crime and punishment is arbitrary. Which means we tend to constantly reevaluate our judgement on which can be considered as crime and how adequate the punishment is for a crime. It seems that the justice system in human society has been changing its form from retaliation to rehabilitation which denotes the evolutionary progression of morality and human rights in our society. But that's beside the point. Society developes as more and more of its members become law abiding citizen where neither the laws nor the out-laws violate human rights. This is fundamental factor for a society which struggles to progress.

A society would plunge into medieval darkness if it allows for some of its members to establish totalitarian authority. Throughout history we could see clashings of oppressed with the oppressor and emergence of societies with greater freedom and rights. A society upgrades when its members make sure there remain less criminals and abusers which ultimately ensures a collective boost in overall happiness. Thieves, mass murderers, rapists, robbers - all these anti-social elements are a risk to the overall happiness of the citizenry. We see a continuous improvement of laws, police force, justice and punishment system in response. We also see dictators fall, authoritarian regimes collapse, people revolt. Thus the members of a society make sure to get rid of factors that harm their progress. And if they fail, we see degradation of society and standards of life.

Fear of god didn't prevent any dictator from mass murdering people. On the contrary, most of them justified their crimes as necessary evil and frequently declared that god is on their side who approved of their actions. See Gott Mit Uns of Hitler, Bush and Muhammad.

Thus the guaranty of punishment of a criminal is a necessary factor which members must ensure for the sake of a peaceful society. I'd argue that wishful thinking of an afterlife punishment not only generates a false satisfaction but also it effectively demotivates the believers to think of a better way in order to improve the "earthly" justice system which eventually harms the society. The concept fails in its totality. It depends on the subjective type and level of faith and degree of supernatural fear one has in his mind.

What is being Intelligent?

A quote from Daniel Dennett comes to my mind.

I listen to all these complaints about rudeness and intemperateness, and the opinion that I come to is that there is no polite way of asking somebody: have you considered the possibility that your entire life has been devoted to a delusion? But that's a good question to ask. Of course we should ask that question and of course it's going to offend people.

The first thing about intelligence is skepticism. Being intelligent is not to know everything but to question everything. I wasn't an atheist before, but I always was & still is, a skeptic.

I've noticed people with rigid views tend to get offended more when questioned. Particularly when they have little evidence to support their claim. Blasphemy law is a good example of expected reaction to established rigid religious views where the "rudeness" of merely questioning the doctrine is a punishable crime.

Inequality & Unhappiness

Human beings generally tend to accept the rich if they earned it in a just way. Problem starts when injustice sets in. If rich people earn a lot of money relatively conveniently and/or unjustly, then poors want to end that system of injustice.

Recent studies show this behaviour in other primates too. Does Inequality Make Us Unhappy? - is a thought provoking read.

On a side note, I remember one type of theistic argument on morality is that, the system of justice is independent of human society which has a divine origin. I think this article with the help of scientific studies on monkey behaviour, proves that our sense of justice has evolved from lower animals. In other words, lower animals also have this sense of moral justice and equality.

I always wonder, why can't the theists realise that the holy books written by these ancient goat herders always reflect the morality of their own societies?

Green Mujahideen Birds!

Sahih (authentic) Muslim, book 20, Number 4651:

It has been narrated on the authority of Masruq Who said:

We asked 'Abdullah about the Qur'anic verse: "Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they are alive, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord." (iii. 169).

He said: We asked the meaning of the verse (from the Holy Prophet) who said:

The souls, of the martyrs live in the bodies of green birds who have their nests in chandeliers hung from the throne of the Almighty. They eat the fruits of Paradise from wherever they like and then nestle in these chandeliers.

Once their Lord cast a glance at them and said: Do ye want anything? They said: What more shall we desire? We eat the fruit of Paradise from wherever we like. Their Lord asked them the same question thrice. When they saw that they will continue to be asked and not left (without answering the question). they said: O Lord, we wish that Thou mayest return our souls to our bodies so that we may be slain in Thy way once again.

When He (Allah) saw that they had no need, they were left (to their joy in heaven).

Oh wow! You get to be a mujahideen bird! (a green one that is)...it's the dream of everyone...what more can you ask for?

...I have a feeling that something important is missing...Huh! No 72 virgins for them? Looks like their bird brain won't be able to figure it out anytime soon.

Does hijab protect a woman?

The extent of Hijab is entirely based on subjective interpretation of islamic religious text. From veiling of entire body to just wearing the headscarf - it generally depends on conservative mindset of the muslim society.

Islamic apologists argue for hijab to be implemented either by force or by choice of the individual...which also depends on the liberal or strict interpretation of religious rules. They frequently justify covering of women by saying it prevents sexual harassments or rape.

But is it really the case? Does hijab protect women from sexual harassment or rape?

I think a woman who wears hijab can be more provocative to them, The more covered up you are, the more interesting you are to them.

I feel like with the hijab, it makes them wonder, What are you hiding underneath?

These are the words of two egyptian women among many, Sayed and Mohammed both are victims of sexual harassment despite wearing full body hijab and burqas. Another incident, also occured in Egypt in which a veiled woman got kidnapped & gang-raped. Another muslim woman's perspective and real life experiences which show clearly that this is an entirely false idea that hijab or burqa, in any way, prevents sexual harassment or rape of women.

Wearing sexy/tight/skimpy clothing facilitates rape? Only attractive/young women get raped? Only violent/stranger/thugs are rapist?

Short answer is: NO

Rape Myths & Facts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

I think brainwashing and forcing little girls to wear any kind of hijab such as headscarf is a type of religious child abuse. I also think it is a political weapon for islamists.

*In the photo: fully veiled afghan women showing their identity cards.

50 reasons to reject Evolution

On the left...Chimpanzee, on the right...Human.

One of them was made in an extra-dimension seperately by a supernatural eternal being that demands worship.

The other one — is just an animal.

"50 Reasons I Reject Evolution" written by Bobbie-the-Jean is a funny read which goes on to show how stupid the evolution deniars are.

It seems like those who reject evolution...need it the most.

The philosophy of Matrix

I have been reading this amazing philosophy paper which describes the The Matrix as Metaphysics. You can click on the author's name and read his other articles too.

The Milky Way galaxy

Wow! What an astounding picture! Our earth feels like ridiculously insignificant in front of this rich vastness. I'm sure many of you space enthusiasts would like to use it as a wallpaper or print out to stick it on the wall of your room.

File: National-Geographic-Milky-Way-reference-map1.jpg
Resolution: 6000×3887
Size: 12.0 MB

Moududi confirms islam's approval of sex with children

Syed Abu Ala Moududi, the 20th century Islamic scholar and the founder of Jamaat-e-islami, explicity confirmed and endorsed pedophilia in Islam. He did not waste time beating around the bush in this subject matter like many modern muslims try to do.

...Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her.

Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Quran has held as permissible.

Source: Towards Understanding the Quran - Quran Translation Commentary - Tafheem ul Quran, commentary of verse 65:4.

The holy Moby Dick!

Scientific miracles mentioned in Moby dick that cannot be told by a human decades ago.

Those scientific miracles are being confirmed today by the scientists.

Osteoporosis: "It was in Queen Anne's time that the bone was in its glory" [..] (Chapter lxxv - THE RIGHT WHALE'S HEAD - CONTRASTED VIEW)

Evolution: "That all creatures of the land are of their kind in the sea"[...] (Chapter lviii - BRIT)

Red Nebula: "Stubb longed for vermillion star" [...]

Big Bang: "and the ball, and the explosion; so the graceful repose of the line" [..] (Chapter lx - THE LINE)
 

MATHEMATICAL MIRACLES IN MOBY DICK:

The word IRON appears 85 times. The word METAL appears 10 times.

85+10=95

Atomic Number of Iron = 26, Atomic Weight = 55, Total Isotopes = 14,

55+26+14=95
 
Word construct appears 1 time,
Word Create appears 1 time,
Word Water appears 5 times,
Word Air Appears 2 times
1+1+5+2=9

Hydrogen Atomic Nubmer = 1, Oxygen Atomic Nubmer = 8
 
8+1=9.

Today, scientists tell us, both hydrogen and oxygen combines to gives us water. MIRACLE!
 
And many assasination were predicted in the holy Moby Dick: http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html

How could have Herman Melville (PBUH) known this scientific facts? Unbelievers will tell you that it's all by chance - they're too blind to see the miracles !!

Do not forget to check out the scientific miracles in De Rerum Natura and in Vigril's Georgics.

Cousin marriage in Islam

Islam permits cousin marriage. Cousin marriage was prevalent in ancient arabia and later it has become widespread among muslims because of tacit support in Islamic doctrine.

Islam's prophet Muhammad himself hoped to marry his first-cousin Fakhitah (later better known as Umm Hani), who was the daughter of his uncle (father’s brother) Abu Talib and the elder sister of Ali. To his disappointment Abu Talib refused permission, and Umm Hani was married off to a maternal cousin instead. After the death his first wife Khadijah, Muhammad married other women, including two of his own cousins, both daughters of his father’s sisters – Umm Salamah (the daughter of his aunt Atikah), and Zaynab bint Jahsh (the daughter of his aunt Umaymah). Umm Salamah was his 6th choice of wife, and Zaynab his 7th.

Muhammad's own daughters all married cousins for their first husbands. Zaynab married a maternal cousin, his daughters Ruqaiyyah and Umm Kulthum married the sons of his paternal uncle Abu Lahab, and his daughter Fatimah married her second-cousin Ali, the son of his paternal uncle Abu Talib.

Marrying close relatives such as cousins is considered act of incest in many cultures throughout the world. In addition to that, offsprings produced in this kind of marriage have high chance of death and genetic disorders.

The problem persists predominantly in muslim communities where cousin marriage is frequent and prefered.

According to a global report on birth defects which was conducted in 2006, the following mainly Muslim countries are the ones most affect by birth defects per 1000 live births:

1. Sudan 82.0/1000
2. Saudi Arabia 81.3/1000
3. Benin 77.9/1009
4. Burkina Faso 77.0/1000
5. Palestinian territories 76.6/1000
6. United Arab Emirates 75.9/1000
7. Tajikistan 75.2/1000
8. Iraq 74.9/1000
9. Kuwait 74.9/1000
10. Afghanistan 74.8/1000
11. Oman 74.8/1000
12. Syria 74.3/1000
13. Pakistan 73.5/1000
14. Nigeria 73.5/1000
15. Kyrgyzstan 73.4/1000
16. Qatar 73.4/1000
17. Bahrain 73.3/1000
18. Jordan 73.1/1000
19. Libya 73.0/1000
20. Tunisia 72.7/1000
21. Morocco 72.3/1000
22. Yemen 72.1/1000

Some articles that address this issue:

1. Muslim Inbreeding: Impacts on intelligence, sanity, health and society.

2. Genetic disorders in the Arab world.

3. Inbreeding: A huge Muslim problem.

4. The Richest, Fattest Nation on Earth: obesity, diabetes & genetic disorders among Qataris.

5. Muslim inbreeding causing surge in birth defects.

6. Cousin marriage becoming more estranged among British-born Pakistanis.

Muhammad had physical relation with immature Aisha

Aisha was immature girl when Muhammad had consummated the marriage (i.e. had sex) with her.

I'm going to prove this by refering to a Hadith from Sahih (authentic) Bukhari.

Sahih Bukari, book 48, hadith number 829 is a long hadith. This hadith describes the missing necklace incident which happened approximately 5 A.H. Same incident also described in hadith number 805 of the same book. I'm going to quote just the relevant part of it:

...'Ali bin Abu Talib said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Allah has no imposed restrictions on you, and there are many women other than she, yet you may ask the woman- servant who will tell you the truth.' On that Allah's Apostle called Buraira and said, 'O Burair. Did you ever see anything which roused your suspicions about her?' Buraira said, 'No, by Allah Who has sent you with the Truth, I have never seen in her anything faulty except that she is a girl of immature age, who sometimes sleeps and leaves the dough for the goats to eat.'

Burayra explicitly states that Aisha was a girl of immature age, and further notes that Aisha was neglectful, forgetful and naïve when it came to her chores, falling asleep and letting animals run amuck. She was still described well after her marriage as a young, neglectful, forgetful, naïve girl of immature age who was "too simple-minded to deceive her husband". Far from a psychosocially mature adult, Aisha is described post-consummation as a psychologically immature girl.

[note: Muhammad's migration to the city of Yathrib (from Mecca to Medina) is an event known as the Hijrah. After that, muhammad had a mosque built, after which he consummated his marriage with Aisha. According to biography Muhammad (.pdf) written by Martin Lings, the consummation occurred two months subsequent to the completion of the mosque, which means that any mention of the mosque in Islamic holy literature is de facto set (chronologically speaking) either immediately (up to two months) before the consummation occurred, or some time after it. Various islamic sources set the date of consummation withing two years after Hijrah.]

In this Hadith the original arabic words that are used for girl of immature age, as: ﺍﻟﺠَْﺎﺭﻳَِﺔِ ﺍﻟْﺤﺪَِﻳﺜﺔﺍﻟﺴﻦَِ ِِّّ
(jariyathil hadeethaathil sanna). In Arabic, the phrase “jariyathil hadeethaathil sanna” literally means “pre-pubertal girl of new/recent/young age”.

The word ﺟﺎﺭﻳﺔ (jariya) has several meanings. It means a pre- pubertal girl, a young woman, a singer, slave girl/woman, concubine, or maid and even an old woman. During that time Aisha was a wife of Muhammad so, only one can fit Aisha which is pre-pubertal immature girl.
‎
Explanation of ﺟﺎﺭﻳﺔ ‎: If the text is indeed historic the term would generally mean just "girl", she may or may not be a servant or a slave but that is not what the term indicates. In historic texts, such as in Hadeeths, it means a girl before the age of maturity. Slave was referred to as (Amma) ﺃﻣﺔ, and servant as ﻣﻮﻻﻩ (mawllah). If your text is religious and ancient, you'll have not to confuse between these terms, because some hadeeths are interpreted incorrectly because of that confusion such as the hadeeth of the insane girl that took the prophet (pbuh) by hand, she is referred to as "ﺟﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺧﺮﻗﺎﺀ" which actually means a little girl and not a mature bondswoman, that's why the prophet (Pbuh) allowed her to hold his hand. (source).

The word Jariya always comes with the notion of some kind of restriction. In case of a female if she is immature (mentally and physically). In case of an adult female if she is a slave (therefore has limited rights) and in case of old female who can not do things or move around because of her old age. See also lane's lexicon.

Therefore, the word Jariya in Aisha's case means a girl who is immature i.e. a child.

Famous personalities on Islam & Muhammad

Muslims frequently like to quote positive comments about Islam and Muhammad said by famous people. Now let us read some quotes which muslims avoid.

Voltaire - one of the greatest philosophers of all time says this in his play Le fanatisme, ou Mahomet le Prophete [The complete works of Voltaire, Volume 20, Part 2 (rough translation)]

But that a camel trader causes a tumult in his little hole; that he associates with some of his unfortunate neighbors and wants to make them believe that he was talking to the archangel Gabriel; that he brags to have been carried away to heaven where he received a part of that indigestible book which makes the common sense shudder at every page; that, in order to make that book respected, he carries iron and fire all over his country; that he strangled the fathers, abducts the daughters and leaves to the vanquished only the choice between death and his faith, this is certainly something, that no human can excuse, unless he has been born as a Turk and superstition has smothered every natural light inside of him.

Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville - the french political thinker and historian said in his book The Tocqueville reader: a life in letters and politics (Page 229)

I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.

David Hume, the eminent Scottish historian and philosopher, in his book, Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects: Essays, moral, political [Page 226] said:

The admirers and followers of the Alcoran insist on the excellent moral precepts interspersed through that wild and absurd performance. But it is to be supposed, that the Arabic words, which correspond to the English, equity, justice, temperance, meekness, charity were such as, from the constant use of that tongue, must always be taken in a good sense; and it would have argued the greatest ignorance, not of morals, but of language, to have mentioned them with any epithets, besides those of applause and approbation. But would we know, whether the pretended prophet had really attained a just sentiment of morals?

Let us attend to his narration; and we shall soon find, that he bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society. No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to; and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers.

Scottish essayist and historian Thomas Carlyle (Taken from Page 45 "Islam the basics" by Colin turner) said,

A wearisome confused jumble...endless iterations, long-windedness, entanglement; most crude, incondite-insupportable stupidity, in short.

The entire point of this post is to present the appeal to authority fallacy. The very purpose of the presentation of these quotations is to show that many people with anti-islamic opinions can also be quoted thus such (pro-islamic) quotes have no value in determining the authenticity of Islam. Instead, we must refer to evidence and arguments rather than people's opinion and authority.

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.

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

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.

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.

A logical argument against a conscious first cause

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)

How to make a human being

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)

It is ok to kill anyone who criticises Muhammad

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.

Moses and the gay stone

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.

An explanation of chapter 8 verse 55

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.

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.

Atheism IS where morality originates

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.