An explanation of Chapter 2 verse 193 in Quran

Read the verse here. You can read different translations and translations in different languages.

Read the word by word translation here.

So basically the verse says

Fight the disbelievers untill there is no more Fitna and Islam established as only religion. But if the disbelievers cease fighting, let there be no hostility towards them, except against the Zalimun.

The verse after reading the translation looks bad enough. But this verse gets even worse when we translate the word "Fitna" and the word "Zalimun"

What does Fitna mean? It can have different meanings.

Read the Wikipedia article about Fitna

Read the definition from authentic islamic website Islamqa.com

Fitna basically means chaos due to disagreement in opinion. The verse could mean that fight them until there is no disagreement against islam.

In this specific verse, fitna is used to mean disbelief in allah, rejecting allah or accepting other gods besides allah. That's what Ibn Kathir said in his Tafsir.

So this verse means allah says, fight the disbelievers until there is no more disbelief in allah.

What does Zalimun mean? Zalimun is plural. Single is Zalim. Who are the zalimun or who is a Zalim?

1. Every idolater is a Zalim (2:92, 7:148, 10:106)
2. Every disbeliever is a Zalim (2:254)
3. Whoever calls himself a god is a Zalim (21:29)
4. Whoever denies any of the verses of Quran is a Zalim (29:49)
5. Whoever invents a lie against allah is a Zalim (3:94, 6:21)
6. Whoever makes false claims is a Zalim (11:31)
7. Is your friend hostile to islam? Then you are also a Zalim (9:23, 60:9)
8. Whoever follows desires rather than Quran and Sunnah is also a Zalim (2:145)
9. Whoever punishes an innocent is a Zalim (12:79)
10. Whoever violates the laws of allah is a Zalim (2:229)
11. And lastly, whoever does not judge by the Quran and sunnah is a Zalim (5:45)

So the last part of the verse: no hostility except against the Zalimun means, except against them who are idol worshippers, pagans, atheists, non-muslims. I mean everyone other than muslims can be a Zalim. Even some muslims can be Zalimun according to Quran.

Interesting to see that in this verse, today's muslims translate Fitna as persecution and Zalimina as oppressors. In this way they make it look like muslims are the victims. But there attempt shows intellectual dishonesty. To know the accurate meaning we must follow what the early scholars honestly said about these verses.

The Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God and my criticism of it — a Sequence.

→ Introduction

→ Part 1

→ Part 2

→ Part 3

→ Part 4

→ ....

→ Bibliography

Cosmological Criticism: Part 1

This is part of the sequence on Cosmological Argument.

The first premise of William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument is

Whatever begins to exist has a cause

There are other versions of this premise. It can also be said like this: "Every thing that begins to exist has a cause".

1. Fallacy of Equivocation: Craig says this premise is justified through "common sense", "everyday experience" and which is "intuitively obvious". But we don't see anything begin to exist "ex nihilo". We see things begin to exist "ex materia". In other words, things change one form to another. Comparing the begining of Universe's existence ex nihilo (presumably) with begining of things' existence ex materia is a fallacy of equivocation.

2. Begging the question: The premise implies two sets of things. Things that begin to exist (BE) and things that don't begin to exist i.e. eternal (NBE). If god is the only object allowed in NBE then the premise becomes "Every thing except god has a begining & cause of its existence". If the conclusion of the argument is "Universe has an eternal, uncaused cause" then presupposing god as the only necessary candidate makes the argument question begging. In order to avoid begging the question, theist must produce one or more real or hypothetical candidates other than god for NBE. For example: pre-big bang universe, quantum mechanical field, branes, aliens etc and then logically exclude them.

3. Causal Determinism is correct: The premise assumes causal determinism is absolutely correct in all aspects of (classical, relativistic, quantum) physics. If theists assume, the exact (non-probabilistic) cause for when and why a single unstable nucleus becomes stable (radioactive decay) will be eventually verified through empirical scientific observation, then what prevents atheists to assume science will eventually find the exact naturalistic cause of the origin of Universe?

The premise could also be worded like this "Every finite and contingent or dependent thing have a cause". This is a modal version of the premise which says, All contingent thing have a cause or explanation of their existence.

4. Causality and Time: If time is finite and contingent then it has a cause of its existence. But causality doesn't apply in any way when there is no time.

5. Quantum Mechanics: Vacuum fluctuation i.e. formation of particle anti-particle pair in a quantum mechanical field is a quantum phenomenon which is finite and (if) contingent, has no cause. The phenomenon has been observed in Casimir effect. Although Bell's inequalities show local hidden variables don't exist, under Bohmian mechanics (causal deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics) non-local hidden variable (which requires faster than light interaction) still is an unproved hypothesis at best.

6. Problem of Induction: Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not apply to the Universe at large. The premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning which is dependent on experience. Hume argued causal relations are not a true deductive a priori.

See Bibliography

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.