Morality vs. Ethics

By Ali Sina (An Ex Muslimah)


Religious people believe that morality comes from religion and when religion loses its grip, people will become immoral. Is morality a product of religion? Are irreligious people immoral?

I had a conversation with a young Muslim who insisted if it were not for religion people would commit Inbreeding and nothing would stop them to sleep even with their own mothers. I asked him whether he personally lusted after his mother and whether Islam was the only deterrent that stopped him from fornicating with her? He seemed insulted, but before he responded, I added if you are nauseated even by me mentioning such a thing, then realize that many others are just like you and feel and think the same way.

A big portion of our morality is part of our instinct. Inbreeding for example is not condoned in any society whether religious or not. There are of course individuals with abnormal mental development who are exceptions to the norm. In fact, except for Bonobo chimps of Zair that rub their focal places together for social binding, no ape commits or procreates by Inbreeding. Usually the male individual visits other clans to find his mate. The young lions are forced to leave the pride to find mates in other prides while the lionesses stay.

Interestingly, marriages between children that grew-up together in one foster home are rare or non-existent, even though these kids are not related to each other by blood.
But some moral issues are not as clear as the above example. What is moral and immoral depends on time and culture. It may even vary from person to person. What was moral; say, a thousand years ago may be immoral today and vice versa. Also what is moral in one part of the world may not be so in others.

Take the example of promiscuity. Many cultures consider promiscuity to be immoral. Yet there are some cultures that accept it as the norm. To us, “western minded people”, having multiple sex partners simultaneously is considered promiscuity and immoral. Yet for a Muslim who practices polygyny, it is a “mercy of Allah”. In some parts of the world, women practice polyandry. Among the Inuit, a man would offer his wife to his guest to spend the night with, hoping that he may impregnate her. Which practice is immoral? And who is to determine it?

Is showing parts of your body immoral? In the heart of Amazon Jungle some tribes are completely unclothed. Is that immoral? That is to them the way of life. In some Islamic countries women are required to cover every part of their body (like children playing ghost). Is that good morality? If that is the definition of morality are all those Muslim women who cover everything except their faces immoral? What about those who dress adequately yet do not use Hijab? Are they immoral? Now what about bikini wearing beach going women? Are they immoral? And finally, what about those who like to show it all in a nudist camp? Are THEY immoral? Your answer to this question depends on who you are and what is your own personal standard of morality.

Let us take another example: Slavery. Is slavery immoral? Slavery was practiced for centuries even by very pious people. Muhammad not only had slaves but he benefited from reducing free people into slaves and selling them. Was he immoral? If yes; why should we follow an immoral person and if no; why should we condemn its practice?
What about pedophilia? Obviously we all cringe at the thought of it and think that it is a shameful act of immorality. But during the time of the Prophet having sexual intercourse with a 9-year-old child was not immoral. In fact Aisha’s father after a little bit of trepidation consented to give her in marriage to Muhammad when Muhammad suggested it. At that time no one raised an eyebrow. The question is, if sleeping with a nine-year-old child was not deemed bad and therefore was not considered immoral, was it okay? Not everything that a society accepts as moral is right. Having sex with a minor may not have been immoral for Arabs 1400 years ago, but it is as it was then, unethical. Moralities are defined by circumstances, but ethics transcend time and space. They are rooted in logic. Morality can vary from culture to culture, from time to time and from person to person. Who is to determine what is moral and what is not?
A Man in Pakistan may think that if his wife meets her male-cousin with whom she has grown up without the presence of a third person she has committed an immoral act, has sullied his honor and the only way to restore his honor is to kill her. For him the meeting of two cousins is immoral but killing a human being is not.

We have to distinguish between those moralities that harm the society and those that do not. What harms others must be called unethical and discouraged. Slavery, for example, infringes upon the freedom of another human being. Therefore regardless of whether a society or a culture sanctions it, it is an unethical practice. 1400 years ago it was not immoral to have slaves. But slavery is ethically wrong and that transcends time Even the Prophet knew that slavery is wrong. That is why he advised his followers to manumit their slaves as an act of charity. Nonetheless he himself kept adding to his slaves by raiding city after city and capturing free people who were then reduced to slaves.

Because of what the prophet said, Muslims manumitted their slaves when they were old, could not work and needed care. Manumitting the slaves when they were young was an act of charity and moral but manumitting them at old age without provision was unethical. The Holy Prophet failed to mention that and the old slaves ended up as beggars in the streets while their masters gained the pleasure of Allah on one hand for manumitting them and exonerated themselves from having to take care of them in their old age on the other; thus killing two birds with one stone.
What would have been the right thing to do was not to take slaves in the first place. But the wealth of Muhammad and later on the Islamic rulers came from slave making and trading.

Hijab, no-hijab and even nudism does not have a material effect on anyone except on the person who practices them. This is not something the society should intervene. It must be left to the individual to dress the way he or she deems appropriate. Imposing a dress code is infringing upon the human rights of the individual and restricting his or her freedom. Such an imposition would be unethical. Although licensing nudism in the streets violates the rights of others who do not want to be shocked by exhibitionists, I have no objection for nudists to have a designated place to go and show off and get over it. As long as they do not rub it in my face, I have no right to impose my morality on them. I have no idea what makes nudists to take off their clothes, but if what they do does not materially affect me, it is none of my business.
Theoretically, the same thing can be said about hijab. How people dress must be left to the individual. If a person likes to wear a religious robe no one should stop him or her. But no state should enforce it on its citizens by law because that would be violating their freedom. Hijab however, falls into a different category. Hijab is a statement of defiance of freedom and democracy. It is very much like the swastika worn by Nazis. Hijab is not just a fashion statement but a political statement. The statement behind hijab is that I am against freedom and democracy and my goal is to overthrow the democracies and establish Islamic dictatorship, take away the rights of others and subdue anyone who does not agree with my fascistic views. As such hihab must be banned. Just as it it offensive to wear swastika in public, it is also offensive to wear hijab because of the political message behind it.

Despite the Muslim's claim that laxity in dress code breeds violence quite the opposite is true. Honor killings amongst Muslims is proof that a lot of violence is caused by being restrictive about sexuality.
Now, what about wife swapping? Well, that is adultery. Even though it is mutual and consensual. To the question, what an irreligious society should do in this regard, my answer is the same that Pierre Trudeau gave in the Canadian Parliament. He said; “The State has no place in the bedroom's of the people”. He delivered that speech more than 30 years ago and the Canadian government took that recommendation to heart. However I do not see my fellow countrymen offering their wives to each other.

Frankly, it is none of my business what my neighbors do. As Muslims say, I am not going to be buried with them in the same grave. Why you and I should even be talking about it?

Now look at Islamic countries where state regulates the private lives of its subjects. Women victims of violation are stoned to death in the most horrendous way because they could not produce four witnesses to the violation happening but their sexual intercourse out of wedlock is evident because of the child that they carry. Is that moral? People are flogged for eating in public during the month of Ramadan. Women are beaten and bloodied because their scarves slipped and some of their hair became visible they flashed some skin when they stretched their arm out of their burqua. Is this a good morality? Which morality is more evil?

We must distinguish between what is immoral and what is unethical. Moral issues should be left to the individuals; ethical issues must be taught in schools and be enforced by law or code of ethics. Is promiscuity immoral or is it unethical? The answer to the first part of this question depends on who you are. If you belong to the “ultra” liberal faction of the western society or if you are a practicing Muslim, it may not be immoral for you to have multiple sex partners. But if you are an average westerner, you would consider it immoral. This is a matter of taste, culture and upbringing. We should not be concerned about the morality of this question. What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is none of our business. The question is whether it is ethical?

If promiscuity is institutionalized such as in polygamy, is it still immoral? Those who practice it may not think that way but it certainly is unethical. Marriage is a social institution that affects more than those who make the vow. Not only children are affected but the whole society that would eventually have to take the tab to support such families that turn up to be dysfunctional will also be affected. The society has to pay for the education of the kids, their food and clothing as well as suffer the consequences of dealing with misfit individuals that would most likely result from such dysfunctional and highly patriarchal families. Polygyny must be outlawed not for its immorality, that as we said is a personal matter, but because it is unethical. It harms the children and it harms the society.

What is moral is fuzzy. Religious morality does not seem ethical any more. And what we consider to be moral is not so for religions. Polygyny, slavery, animal sacrifice, marriage with the minors, etc are not immoral in Islam. But it is immoral for women to travel alone, not wear hijab or enter in an elevator alone with a stranger.
Therefore morality should definitely be left to the individual’s discretion as it is subject to change. But what is ethical is well defined. Ethical values are driven from logic and the Golden Rule. They are universal and not subject to change. In a nutshell, what hurts other people and violates their rights is unethical. In fact, even animals have rights that an ethical society must protect and respect.

The religious morality is the morality of the ancient man. Patriarchal societies imposed codes of moralities on women that would give men more control on their wives. Religious morality is not divinely ordained. It reflects the fears and the possessiveness of the men who made them. Islam imposes Hijab. Has this anything to do with Muhammad's worries as an aging man who wanted to control his beautiful wives and protect them from they prying eyes of the young men whom he feared as rivals? He constantly kept emphasizing the importance of obeying one's husband. Did this have anything to do with the fact that most of his wives were teenagers and as such rebellious
Morality is something personal and something that parents should teach to their children. But the true morality is not derived from antiquated doctrines and old beliefs. It is sad that some have made morality a hostage to religion. It is absurd to impose the morality of bygone cultures and vanquished worlds on our modern society. Morality is derived from human consciousness and our spiritual awareness. The more we mature the more sanctified becomes our acts. We won’t have to live a moral life for the greed of a reward or the fear of punishment in the afterlife. We will be moral because it enhances our lives. Morality should be part of who we are, just as our knowledge is part of who we are. True morality is never in contrast with ethics.

Ethics has little to do with religion. As Gandhi said, ethics is the matter of economics. The question is where to invest our vital energy for a higher yield. If you invest your energy into sensual pleasures you will get a temporary gratification. If you invest it in more meaningful things you will get greater satisfaction.

Leading a moral life is not about renouncing pleasure. A life that is not gratifying is not worth living. It is about choices. What we choose for pleasure? That is the question. One who invests his energy in the service of humanity gets more satisfaction than one who indulges in the pursuit of worldly pleasures.

However, this is a personal choice derived from maturity and spiritual awareness. Morality should not be imposed by a higher authority such as state or religion. An imposed morality is not morality. One who leads a moral life for the fear of hell is not a moral person because he has not made his choices freely. Fear and greed, the traditional contrivances of religions, used as incentives to force people into accepting their morality do not make the society moral. No one and no religion should impose its morality on people. The imposition of morality is unethical. Religions that threaten their followers with the hellfire or lure them with the promises of paradise do not make them moral. Stick and carrot have better results in training animals than educating people. Only the person who chooses the higher road freely can be called a moral person.
A moral person chooses to live morally because it gives him immense pleasure. One, who is honest, takes pleasure in being honest. He would prefer to be tortured than to lie or to deceive. Our morality is directly linked to our spiritual maturity. When we evolve spiritually; knowledge, service to humanity and working for peace gratify us more than indulging in sensual pleasures. Nothing is wrong with sensual pleasures. But we get more pleasure in doing something in the service of humanity than gratifying our senses temporarily.

Would a person who loves knowledge require further incentive to learn than learning itself? Would Einstein, e.g. have delighted more in his scientific discoveries if someone promised him a new car if he could write the theory of relativity? You may offer a child an ice cream if he did his homework but that would not be necessary for an adult who seeks knowledge and finds his satisfaction in learning.

Primitive religions treat you like children (if not animals). They want to impose their outdated morality on you by threatening you with hell and bribing you with heaven to accept their antiquated and often unethical morality. Whether you are moral because of your fear and greed or because you find satisfaction in leading a moral life, depends on your maturity and spiritual awareness

The religious morality is not divinely ordained. It is the morality of the ancient people, their sages and (in the case of Islam) their psychopath charlatan. We do not need the morality of the ancient man just as we do not need his technology, science or medicine. The morality of the ancient man must be buried with his bones. Modern humans must chart their own morality. Morality must evolve just as human knowledge and his awareness evolves.
New morality does not mean immorality. It means coming out of the dark ages of ignorance and raising new generations that are responsible and ethical. Humans can no longer be chained to foolish fears and threats of the afterlife. Science has shed light on the absurdity of religious concepts and shaken the foundation of the beliefs that our forefathers hold so sacrosanct. The manacles of obscurantism are broken forever. Today, we have to raise our kids with awareness. They must learn that mankind is One. Just as our parents taught us the religious lies and we believed, we can teach our children the truth and they will believe. The following is one such truth.

All human beings are limbs of the same body. God created them from the same essence. If one part of the body suffers pain, then the whole body is affected. If you are indifferent to this pain, you cannot be called a human being. -Sa'di
We do not need to lie and frighten our children with hellfire to raise them moral, loving and good people. That strategy has never worked. The history of inhumanity of mankind and especially that of the standard bearers of religions, stand as witnesses that religions don't make people moral and ethical. In fact in some cases they render them savages and ruthless barbarians. Good people often commit atrocious crimes in the name of religion, cheerfully and with clear conscience.

If we love our children, they learn to be loving. If we are honest, moral and ethical they learn that too. We can build a better humanity by acting humanely.
Compare the words of Sa'di to those of Muhammad who said only Muslims are brothers to each other and as for the disbelievers:
Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the bosoms of Believers, 9:14,
As you see, the very belief in Islam is unethical and immoral. We cannot heal mankind until we do not remove its cancer. This cancer has reached a point that is going to kill us all. We must choose between Humanity and Islam. Mankind will not have a future as long as this disease is left untreated. Islam must be eradicated now. Tomorrow maybe too late.

If only those in it could see . . . . .and humbly accept that they have been wrong all along!

^^^^^^
madam Ignorance, you fail to see that he is talking generally of religion as a means to setting morality in the society, but you were to happy that your worst fear Islam is being mangled that you failed to see beyond your infantile hatred that he was talking of Christianity and all other religions. You are indeed Laughable

divinereal:

Morality vs. Ethics

By Ali Sina (An Ex Muslimah)


Religious people believe that morality comes from religion [/b]and when [b]religion loses its grip, people will become immoral. Is morality a product of religion? Are irreligious people immoral?

divinereal:

Morality vs. Ethics

By Ali Sina (An Ex Muslimah)



I had a conversation with a young Muslim who insisted if it were not for religion people would commit Inbreeding and nothing would stop them to sleep even with their own mothers. I asked him whether he personally lusted after his mother and whether Islam was the only deterrent that stopped him from fornicating with her? He seemed insulted, but before he responded, I added if you are nauseated even by me mentioning such a thing, then realize that many others are just like you and feel and think the same way.

Poor thinking indeed, it seems common sense does not guide people these days, he said "I added if you are nauseated even by me mentioning such a thing, then realize that many others are just like you and feel and think the same way." to prove that it is a natural inclination which again is shear unintelligence, as everybody that reacts this same way have been raised in societies that frown seriously at such stupidities like one sleeping with his mum, so it is not a natural inclination but a thing that is learnt and definately it is religion that sets such a standards in any society not people nauseating feelings

divinereal:


A big portion of our morality is part of our instinct. Inbreeding for example is not condoned in any society whether religious or not. There are of course individuals with abnormal mental development who are exceptions to the norm. In fact, except for Bonobo chimps of Zair that rub their focal places together for social binding, no ape commits or procreates by Inbreeding. Usually the male individual visits other clans to find his mate. The young lions are forced to leave the pride to find mates in other prides while the lionesses stay.

It seems bonobos Chimp are closely related to divinereal this is the second time I will find him speaking highly? of them.
Guess he does notknow what he is talking about, Goats practice inbreeding lots of animals practice inbreeding, to point just a few animals and claimed that they too find inbreeding nauseating that is why they do not inbreed is utterly insane.

divinereal:

Interestingly, marriages between children that grew-up together in one foster home are rare or non-existent, even though these kids are not related to each other by blood.

and to him he has proved some thing, Lol

divinereal:

But some moral issues are not as clear as the above example. What is moral and immoral depends on time and culture. It may even vary from person to person. What was moral; say, a thousand years ago may be immoral today and vice versa. Also what is moral in one part of the world may not be so in others.

So?

divinereal:

Take the example of promiscuity. Many cultures consider promiscuity to be immoral. Yet there are some cultures that accept it as the norm. To us, “western minded people”, having multiple sex partners simultaneously is considered promiscuity and immoral. Yet for a Muslim who practices[b] polygyny, it is a “mercy of Allah”[/b]. In some parts of the world, women practice polyandry. Among the Inuit, a man would offer his wife to his guest to spend the night with, hoping that he may impregnate her. Which practice is immoral? And who is to determine it?

The two bolded statements refers to how unstable this individual thinking is, comparing two things that are not in the same catgory, for instance if a Muslim man decides to marry a second wife,he is not keeping his second wife as a girl friend to catch his fun, no, he takes his second marriage with the same seriouness and the same obligation as the first marriage, but this man then goes to compare the seriouness of marriage to a westerners multiple girl friends, and now wants to place them on the same guage of morality, how Intelligent, why don't we compare having children in wedlock and outside wedlock? it is funny that he claims Western minded people find having multiplesex partners as immoral, as the last timen i check it was all Koshar. Again if the author of this thread and this write up had any common sense he would have compared a Polygamy with a man cheating on his wife then we would know he is talking sense, not some one having multiple girl friends, as for an innuit man giving his wife to his guest to spend the night, by Islamic standards that is Immoral and I think using ones common sense such practice is idiotic. But what the author does not tell the reader is that Islamic Practice are meant for Islamic countries not in places were people do not know their left from their right. and he says who determine Morality, ALLAH is the Law giver and guides mankind to practices that would benefit them, it is to be noted that apart from religious reasons they are also scientific reasons why Polyandry is not suitable to women. Women are very supceptible to dieseases when they have multiple sex partners, again it will be hard determining which of the husband actually is the father of the child the woman in a polyandrous marrigae is, they are lots of issues invovled that polygamy supercedes Polyandry and again in Islam Polygamy remains a choice no be by force.

divinereal:

Is showing parts of your body immoral? In the heart of Amazon Jungle some tribes are completely unclothed. Is that immoral? That is to them the way of life. In some Islamic countries women are required to cover every part of their body (like children playing ghost). Is that good morality?

Odeniye elayi! The Hijab is beyound a piece of cloth, it also involves the character of the wearer, that is, Our women are encouraged to wear clothes that do not reveal their beauty, this is to promote higher public morality, well I hope the OP is not a sex craze individual but, we live in an era where people are doing all sorts of evil such as rape etc, the Hijab even gives its wearer more respect in our mordern society where women that dress waywardly are usually tauted, and even Before ALLAH prescribe Hijab for women, he prescribe Hijab for men by saying men should lower their gaze. Now he talks of tribes that do not wear cloth, I think it is only idiotic comparing things that do not face the same conditions, it is like compating a well organised society to just a hand full of nomads, it belittles reason do't you think?

divinereal:

If that is the definition of morality are all those Muslim women who cover everything except their faces immoral? What about those who dress adequately yet do not use Hijab? Are they immoral? Now what about bikini wearing beach going women? Are they immoral? And finally, what about those who like to show it all in a nudist camp? Are THEY immoral? Your answer to this question depends on who you are and what is your own personal standard of morality.

it is not only Laughable, how does this man reasons, with his feet or with his head? Cause I guess we muslims are not in any ethics vs Morality dilema, AL Islam is enough for our guide and I think I am wasting my precious time replying this thread.

divinereal:

Let us take another example: Slavery. Is slavery immoral? Slavery was practiced for centuries even by very pious people. Muhammad not only had slaves but he benefited from reducing free people into slaves and selling them. Was he immoral? If yes; why should we follow an immoral person and if no; why should we condemn its practice?

First and foremost, Muhammad PBUH, did not participate in capturing people in order to enslave them, but it seems this mentally rretartded author prefers making claims with out backing them, From all the information I have Prophet Muhammad PBUH, encourage proper treatment of Slaves, the entire System of Islam was designed to freeing slaves, that is, if one commits certain acts to atone for the sin he would have to free his slave, another way that Islam brought to freeing Slaves was the Ransome method that is the slaves writes to be free from his master and is made to pay the price, in some cases the money from the public treasury was used to purchase the freedom of slaves, i guess it is only a person with mentall issues will go as far as claiming that Muhammad pbuh was a slave merchant and the claims that Muhammad had slaves is very laughable. But One thing I know of this Divinereal guy is that he is too lazy to check his sources for their competence.

divinereal:

What about pedophilia? Obviously we all cringe at the thought of it and think that it is a shameful act of immorality. But during the time of the Prophet having sexual intercourse with a 9-year-old child was not immoral. In fact Aisha’s father after a little bit of trepidation consented to give her in marriage to Muhammad when Muhammad suggested it. At that time no one raised an eyebrow. The question is, if sleeping with a nine-year-old child was not deemed bad and therefore was not considered immoral, was it okay? Not everything that a society accepts as moral is right. Having sex with a minor may not have been immoral for Arabs 1400 years ago, but it is as it was then, unethical. Moralities are defined by circumstances, but ethics transcend time and space. They are rooted in logic. Morality can vary from culture to culture, from time to time and from person to person. Who is to determine what is moral and what is not?
A Man in Pakistan may think that if his wife meets her male-cousin with whom she has grown up without the presence of a third person she has committed an immoral act, has sullied his honor and the only way to restore his honor is to kill her. For him the meeting of two cousins is immoral but killing a human being is not.

Raising the same matter that have been answered time after time, Ayesha was older than 9 before she got married, as they are ample evidence to show that, according to Bukhari she was reported to have said I was a young girl when Surah Al Qamer(54th chapter in the Quran), Surah Qamer was revealed nine years before Hijrah and this is an indication that she was definately above 9 years when she got married to the HOLY prophet Pbuh, according to narratives Asma the elder sister of Ayesha was 10 years older than Aishas, Asma was reported to have died at the age of 100 years at 73 hijira, this places her at at 27 or 28 years before the Hijra, hence Ayesha was atleast 17 or 18 years before Hijrah, and the Holy prophet married her after the Hijrah(Migration to madinah) Hence Ayesha was between 18 or 20 years when she married the prophet pbuh at 1 Hijirah

divinereal:

We have to distinguish between those moralities that harm the society and those that do not. What harms others must be called unethical and discouraged. Slavery, for example, infringes upon the freedom of another human being. Therefore regardless of whether a society or a culture sanctions it, it is an unethical practice. 1400 years ago it was not immoral to have slaves. But slavery is ethically wrong and that transcends time Even the Prophet knew that slavery is wrong. That is why he advised his followers to manumit their slaves as an act of charity. Nonetheless he himself kept adding to his slaves by raiding city after city and capturing free people who were then reduced to slaves.

Lies upon lies.

divinereal:

Because of what the prophet said, Muslims manumitted their slaves when they were old, could not work and needed care. Manumitting the slaves when they were young was an act of charity and moral but manumitting them at old age without provision was unethical. The Holy Prophet failed to mention that and the old slaves ended up as beggars in the streets while their masters gained the pleasure of Allah on one hand for manumitting them and exonerated themselves from having to take care of them in their old age on the other; thus killing two birds with one stone.

I only hope the Curse of ALLAH would not be visited upon this man, as even the first man to utter the call to prayer -Azan- Bilal who was an ethiopian, was a young man and he got his freedom because he testified to Islam and more importantly his Pagan masters where about killing him, again it was during the prophet Era, that slaves had rights, and chief among that right was that their masters could not hit them. but the Ali sinah is under a strong delusion that is why he is insisting on propagating lies like his humanist mongrel -Divinereal, as again the story of Bilal puts to lie this charge, there are even ex slaves who rose to the rank of commanding soldiers. one of the reason why the Prophet had problems with the Pagan meccans was that he was bring rapid social changes that they thought was insulting to them, for instance slaves were seen as brothers which only made the the Meccans mad with rage, but for Ali sinah to have gone as low as saying that the prophet encourage freeing slaves when their old is the hieght of trachery any Humanist liar can utter, and I have aske Divinecurse "Is telling the truth part of Humanist ethics?" because i just don't understand what the stand to gain by minting new lies. Again without proof Ali sinah and his child-Divinereal wants us to take them seriously.But well they got the serious attension of Seyibrown, atleast lets give them the credit.

divinereal:

What would have been the right thing to do was not to take slaves in the first place. But the wealth of Muhammad and later on the Islamic rulers came from slave making and trading.

Prophet Muhammad PBUH was hardly wealthy as this misguided individual will want us to think, they are tons of hadith that showed the kind of life he live, the Prophet attended to his own chores by himself, he milked the goats, mend his shoes by himself. But to Humanist(sound like cow dung ) lying is not bad. To show you why the Author of this write up is not intellectually capable of delivering serious talk, he hardly explained how the Prophet PBUH made slaves, he hardly brought out materials that we could read to believe he is know what he is talking about, but well atleast Divinereal and Seyibrown bought all his good hook, line and sinker.

divinereal:

Hijab, no-hijab and even nudism does not have a material effect on anyone except on the person who practices them. This is not something the society should intervene. It must be left to the individual to dress the way he or she deems appropriate. Imposing a dress code is infringing upon the human rights of the individual and restricting his or her freedom. Such an imposition would be unethical. Although licensing nudism in the streets violates the rights of others who do not want to be shocked by exhibitionists, I have no objection for nudists to have a designated place to go and show off and get over it. As long as they do not rub it in my face, I have no right to impose my morality on them. I have no idea what makes nudists to take off their clothes, but if what they do does not materially affect me, it is none of my business.

We know you are morallly weak and find being responsible to much a task to uphold, but definately any sane individual knows that u cannot have people walking naked down the street, that behavior is for chimpanzee and not for humans with higher brain power to use. Again whether something will have general effect or not is very debatable.

divinereal:

Theoretically, the same thing can be said about hijab. How people dress must be left to the individual. If a person likes to wear a religious robe no one should stop him or her. But no state should enforce it on its citizens by law because that would be violating their freedom. Hijab however, falls into a different category. Hijab is a statement of defiance of freedom and democracy. It is very much like the swastika worn by Nazis. Hijab is not just a fashion statement but a political statement. The statement behind hijab is that I am against freedom and democracy and my goal is to overthrow the democracies and establish Islamic dictatorship, take away the rights of others and subdue anyone who does not agree with my fascistic views. As such hihab must be banned. Just as it it offensive to wear swastika in public, it is also offensive to wear hijab because of the political message behind it.

See how mentally unstable this man is, walking nude is not offensive but wearing a Hijab is offensive? This thread is sicknening, but funny thing though madam re-interpreter-seyi- found nothing wrong with it, Only fool will claim that Hijab means I am against freedom and democracy, OP next time bring some one with something upstairs, as how does a piece of cloth speak? this is the hieght of idocity, so in essence when a Jew wears his traditional cap it means he is out to show the political views of (Some people ) in his religion. great thinking, clap for yourself, this man is so tempted to see muslim girls beauty he uis now advocating forceful removal of Hijab, this man is a hypocrite in all respect and his son-divinereal should be ashmed of him, for the sake of arguement shouldn't people be left to carry their political thinking about according to Humanist ideology?

divinereal:

Despite the Muslim's claim that laxity in dress code breeds violence quite the opposite is true. Honor killings amongst Muslims is proof that a lot of violence is caused by being restrictive about sexuality.

Muslim claim Laxity in dress code leads to immorality, honor killings are very unislamic, and how does one come to a conclusion that it is due to restrictive sexaulity, with all the open sexuality the west practice has it stopped violence? this man is sick indeed.

divinereal:

Now, what about wife swapping? Well, that is adultery. Even though it is mutual and consensual. To the question, what an irreligious society should do in this regard, my answer is the same that Pierre Trudeau gave in the Canadian Parliament. He said; “The State has no place in the bedroom's of the people”. He delivered that speech more than 30 years ago and the Canadian government took that recommendation to heart. However I do not see my fellow countrymen offering their wives to each other.

Really? from the way you 'sound' we thought you and your country men are perverse boffoons.

divinereal:

Frankly, it is none of my business what my neighbors do. As Muslims say, I am not going to be buried with them in the same grave. Why you and I should even be talking about it?

divinereal:

Now look at Islamic countries where state regulates the private lives of its subjects. Women victims of violation are stoned to death in the most horrendous way because they could not produce four witnesses to the violation happening but their sexual intercourse out of wedlock is evident because of the child that they carry. Is that moral? People are flogged for eating in public during the month of Ramadan. Women are beaten and bloodied because their scarves slipped and some of their hair became visible they flashed some skin when they stretched their arm out of their burqua. Is this a good morality? Which morality is more evil?

Haba, this na lies after lies.

divinereal:

We must distinguish between what is immoral and what is unethical. Moral issues should be left to the individuals; ethical issues must be taught in schools and be enforced by law or code of ethics. Is promiscuity immoral or is it unethical? The answer to the first part of this question depends on who you are. If you belong to the “ultra” liberal faction of the western society or if you are a practicing Muslim, it may not be immoral for you to have multiple sex partners. But if you are an average westerner, you would consider it immoral. This is a matter of taste, culture and upbringing. We should not be concerned about the morality of this question. What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is none of our business. The question is whether it is ethical?

Now I know the author is not well at all. He wants us to practice immorality because we are his slaves like Divinereal? No wonder Seyi was so happy, that the man allowed multiple sex partners I am begining to sense a dangerous decline of Seyibrown. But i will say we muslims have no business following the massive stupidities this man is encouraging. in the one he says it is a matter of taste in another you must follow his taste that is how Humanist think, they are know all- but know nothing.

divinereal:

If promiscuity is institutionalized such as in polygamy, is it still immoral? Those who practice it may not think that way but it certainly is unethical. Marriage is a social institution that affects more than those who make the vow. Not only children are affected but the whole society that would eventually have to take the tab to support such families that turn up to be dysfunctional will also be affected. The society has to pay for the education of the kids, their food and clothing as well as suffer the consequences of dealing with misfit individuals that would most likely result from such dysfunctional and highly patriarchal families. Polygyny must be outlawed not for its immorality, that as [size=28pt]we[/size] said is a personal matter, but because it is unethical. It harms the children and it harms the society.

who are the we?

But it is ethical to share ones wife? Sick man indeed, in polygamy is usually practice by those with enough wealth to cater for it, he speaks as if every polygamous marriage ends up in poverty when there are uncountable cases of people with enough wealth practicing it.

divinereal:

What is moral is fuzzy. Religious morality does not seem ethical any more. And what we consider to be moral is not so for religions. Polygyny, slavery, animal sacrifice, marriage with the minors, etc are not immoral in Islam. But it is immoral for women to travel alone, not wear hijab or enter in an elevator alone with a stranger.
Therefore morality should definitely be left to the individual’s discretion as it is subject to change. But what is ethical is well defined. Ethical values are driven from logic and the Golden Rule. They are universal and not subject to change. In a nutshell, what hurts other people and violates their rights is unethical. In fact, even animals have rights that an ethical society must protect and respect.

But people wearing hijab have no rights right? It was a shear waste of my time replying this nonsense

divinereal:

The religious morality is the morality of the ancient man. Patriarchal societies imposed codes of moralities on women that would give men more control on their wives. Religious morality is not divinely ordained. It reflects the fears and the possessiveness of the men who made them. Islam imposes Hijab. Has this anything to do with Muhammad's worries as an aging man who wanted to control his beautiful wives and protect them from they prying eyes of the young men whom he feared as rivals? He constantly kept emphasizing the importance of obeying one's husband. Did this have anything to do with the fact that most of his wives were teenagers and as such rebellious

Most of Muhammad Pbuh wives were above 30, so where did he get this teenagers theory from? Only his mental brain knows. Muhammad PBUH married widows, divorcees. To say the sensible advice that Women should be obediant to their husbands is possesiveness is only an indication on how deeply entrencehed this man hatred for Islam is. Again only people like divinereal and seyibrown could possibly jubilate over this misguided write up, it seems Seyibrown is preparing to become disobediant to her husband that is why she finds the material used here very useful.

divinereal:

Morality is something personal and something that parents should teach to their children. But the true morality is not derived from antiquated doctrines and old beliefs. It is sad that some have made morality a hostage to religion. It is absurd to impose the morality of bygone cultures and vanquished worlds on our modern society. Morality is derived from human consciousness and our spiritual awareness. The more we mature the more sanctified becomes our acts. We won’t have to live a moral life for the greed of a reward or the fear of punishment in the afterlife. We will be moral because it enhances our lives. Morality should be part of who we are, just as our knowledge is part of who we are. True morality is never in contrast with ethics.

Ethics has little to do with religion. As Gandhi said, ethics is the matter of economics. The question is where to invest our vital energy for a higher yield. If you invest your energy into sensual pleasures you will get a temporary gratification. If you invest it in more meaningful things you will get greater satisfaction.

Leading a moral life is not about renouncing pleasure. A life that is not gratifying is not worth living. It is about choices. What we choose for pleasure? That is the question. One who invests his energy in the service of humanity gets more satisfaction than one who indulges in the pursuit of worldly pleasures.

However, this is a personal choice derived from maturity and spiritual awareness. Morality should not be imposed by a higher authority such as state or religion. An imposed morality is not morality. One who leads a moral life for the fear of hell is not a moral person because he has not made his choices freely. Fear and greed, the traditional contrivances of religions, used as incentives to force people into accepting their morality do not make the society moral. No one and no religion should impose its morality on people. The imposition of morality is unethical. Religions that threaten their followers with the hellfire or lure them with the promises of paradise do not make them moral. Stick and carrot have better results in training animals than educating people. Only the person who chooses the higher road freely can be called a moral person.
A moral person chooses to live morally because it gives him immense pleasure. One, who is honest, takes pleasure in being honest. He would prefer to be tortured than to lie or to deceive. Our morality is directly linked to our spiritual maturity. When we evolve spiritually; knowledge, service to humanity and working for peace gratify us more than indulging in sensual pleasures. Nothing is wrong with sensual pleasures. But we get more pleasure in doing something in the service of humanity than gratifying our senses temporarily.

Would a person who loves knowledge require further incentive to learn than learning itself? Would Einstein, e.g. have delighted more in his scientific discoveries if someone promised him a new car if he could write the theory of relativity? You may offer a child an ice cream if he did his homework but that would not be necessary for an adult who seeks knowledge and finds his satisfaction in learning.

Primitive religions treat you like children (if not animals). They want to impose their outdated morality on you by threatening you with hell and bribing you with heaven to accept their antiquated and often unethical morality. Whether you are moral because of your fear and greed or because you find satisfaction in leading a moral life, depends on your maturity and spiritual awareness

The religious morality is not divinely ordained. It is the morality of the ancient people, their sages and (in the case of Islam) their psychopath charlatan. We do not need the morality of the ancient man just as we do not need his technology, science or medicine. The morality of the ancient man must be buried with his bones. Modern humans must chart their own morality. Morality must evolve just as human knowledge and his awareness evolves.
New morality does not mean immorality. It means coming out of the dark ages of ignorance and raising new generations that are responsible and ethical. Humans can no longer be chained to foolish fears and threats of the afterlife. Science has shed light on the absurdity of religious concepts and shaken the foundation of the beliefs that our forefathers hold so sacrosanct. The manacles of obscurantism are broken forever. Today, we have to raise our kids with awareness. They must learn that mankind is One. Just as our parents taught us the religious lies and we believed, we can teach our children the truth and they will believe. The following is one such truth.

All human beings are limbs of the same body. God created them from the same essence. If one part of the body suffers pain, then the whole body is affected. If you are indifferent to this pain, you cannot be called a human being. -Sa'di
We do not need to lie and frighten our children with hellfire to raise them moral, loving and good people. That strategy has never worked. The history of inhumanity of mankind and especially that of the standard bearers of religions, stand as witnesses that religions don't make people moral and ethical. In fact in some cases they render them savages and ruthless barbarians. Good people often commit atrocious crimes in the name of religion, cheerfully and with clear conscience.

If we love our children, they learn to be loving. If we are honest, moral and ethical they learn that too. We can build a better humanity by acting humanely.
Compare the words of Sa'di to those of Muhammad who said only Muslims are brothers to each other and as for the disbelievers:
Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the bosoms of Believers, 9:14,
As you see, the very belief in Islam is unethical and immoral. We cannot heal mankind until we do not remove its cancer. This cancer has reached a point that is going to kill us all. We must choose between Humanity and Islam. Mankind will not have a future as long as this disease is left untreated. Islam must be eradicated now. Tomorrow maybe too late.

That will never happen ISLAM IS ALLAH's RELIGION FOR MANKIND. and the numerous evils that ended because of the arrival of Islam is a testimon agaisnt this lies next time I definately won't waste my precious time replying this cretins.

^^^


Islam is not God's religion for mankind.

It is a counterfeit satanic inspired religion.

Quote from: divinereal on Yesterday at 06:31:32 PM

A big portion of our morality is part of our instinct. Inbreeding for example is not condoned in any society whether religious or not. There are of course individuals with abnormal mental development who are exceptions to the norm. In fact, except for Bonobo chimps of Zair that rub their focal places together for social binding, no ape commits or procreates by Inbreeding. Usually the male individual visits other clans to find his mate. The young lions are forced to leave the pride to find mates in other prides while the lionesses stay.


It seems bonobos Chimp are closely related to divinereal this is the second time I will find him speaking highly? of them.
Guess he does notknow what he is talking about, Goats practice inbreeding lots of animals practice inbreeding, to point just a few animals and claimed that they too find inbreeding nauseating that is why they do not inbreed is utterly insane


Vedaxcool yes chimps and bonobos are closely related to not only me but you as well my homo sapien brother  But the author of the article said no ape (our close relatives) commits inbreeding. With statements such as "That will never happen ISLAM IS ALLAH's RELIGION FOR MANKIND. and the numerous evils that ended because of the arrival of Islam is a testimon agaisnt this lies next time I definately won't waste my precious time replying this cretins." it is obvious that your mind is closed to new information. I wonder how Islam improved the life of Billions of people? Majority of the advancements for humanity came from reason and science not Islam or any other religion at that. But you are indeed reading these posts so whether you like it or not this information is affecting you thought process and belief system. Slowly but surely the eternal fire of reason will crack and destroy your dogmatic views of the world.
Anyway make una enjoy your Thursday.

divinereal:

Quote from: divinereal on Yesterday at 06:31:32 PM

A big portion of our morality is part of our instinct. Inbreeding for example is not condoned in any society whether religious or not. There are of course individuals with abnormal mental development who are exceptions to the norm. In fact, except for Bonobo chimps of Zair that rub their focal places together for social binding, no ape commits or procreates by Inbreeding. Usually the male individual visits other clans to find his mate. The young lions are forced to leave the pride to find mates in other prides while the lionesses stay.


It seems bonobos Chimp are closely related to divinereal this is the second time I will find him speaking highly? of them.
Guess he does notknow what he is talking about, Goats practice inbreeding lots of animals practice inbreeding, to point just a few animals and claimed that they too find inbreeding nauseating that is why they do not inbreed is utterly insane


Vedaxcool yes chimps and bonobos are closely related to not only me but you as well my homo sapien brother  But the author of the article said no ape (our close relatives) commits inbreeding. With statements such as "That will never happen ISLAM IS ALLAH's RELIGION FOR MANKIND. and the numerous evils that ended because of the arrival of Islam is a testimon agaisnt this lies next time I definately won't waste my precious time replying this cretins." it is obvious that your mind is closed to new information. I wonder how Islam improved the life of Billions of people? Majority of the advancements for humanity came from reason and science not Islam or any other religion at that. But you are indeed reading these posts so whether you like it or not this information is affecting you thought process and belief system. Slowly but surely the eternal fire of reason will crack and destroy your dogmatic views of the world.
Anyway make una enjoy your Thursday.

Very funny, you could not even defend your master's article instead you show face claiming other people are dogmatic when in fact I ask for facts not conjecture, it is you and your humanist lies that are dogmatic isisting people should accept what you say without a question and I have asked where is evidence for all what he is saying even mad Humanist should be courteous enough to present proofs to their claim . iF you think I have time to read you cut and paste article, i refuse i too know a way of replying nonsense of yours

Introduction

Starting around 750 AD, science flourished under the Abbasid caliphs of Baghdad, gradually spreading its influence as far west as Spain and eastwards into Central Asia, over a period of more than 600 years.

By drawing on a variety of texts - Greek, Indian and Persian - and translating them into Arabic, the early scholars accumulated the greatest body of scientific knowledge in the world … and built on it through their own discoveries.

Often, there was a practical Islamic relevance. Astronomy could be used to work out the direction of prayer. Mathematics was needed for dividing property according to the Islamic law of inheritance.

Although science flourished under Arab-Islamic patronage, by no means all the important figures in science were Muslims, or even Arabs.

The common factor, however, was the Arabic language, which for a time became the international language of science. It was only later, in the 12th and 13th centuries, when the Arabic works began to be translated into Latin, that such knowledge passed to the west.

Centuries in the House of Wisdom
Iraq's golden age of science brought us algebra, optics, windmills and much more. (The Guardian, 23 September 2004)

Muslim scientists and Islamic civilisation
Scientific Contributions Before European Renaissance, 700 - 1500 CE.

History of Arab-Islamic science
by Professor Hamed Ead, Cairo University:

Eighth century - Jabir Ibn Haiyan
Ninth century (part 1) - Al-Khwarizmi
Ninth century (part 2) - Al-Razi
Tenth century (part 1) - Al-Mas'udi
Tenth century (part 2) - Abu al-Wafa
Eleventh century (part 1) - Al-Biruni
Eleventh century (part 2) - Omar Khayyam

Medicine

Probably the best introduction to the history of medicine in the Arab world is Islamic Culture and the Medical Arts, which is based around an exhibition held in 1994 to mark the 900thMANUSCRIPT.GIF (11251 bytes) anniversary of the oldest Arabic medical manuscript (pictured on the right) at the National Library of Medicine in the United States. The site, which includes illustrations from old manuscripts, also has suggestions for further reading.

An on-line book, Islamic Medicine, provides a more detailed and wide-ranging study with essays by a variety of physicians and scholars. A chapter on Islamic medical ethics deals with some contemporary issues, such as euthanasia, surrogate motherhood and AIDS.

The comparatively advance stage that Arab medicine had reached by the 12th and 13th centuries can be seen from Professor Maher Ali's article about medical schools.

Numerous articles on the web argue that Arab and Islamic achievements in medicine have long been overlooked by the west - and seek to redress the balance. These include:

The Arab (Muslim) Roots of European Medicine

The discovery of the pulmonary circulation
This paper, by two doctors in the United States, engages in historical controversy, arguing that pulmonary circulation was discovered by Ibn Nafis, an eminent physician of the 13th century and not - as is usually believed - by Europeans in the 16th century.

Arabic (or Islamic) influence on the historical development of medicine
A series of articles edited by Professor Hamed Ead:

Introduction

Independent contributions of Arabian medicine to medical science

The greatest educators and physicians of the Middle Ages

Mathematics

Al-Khwarizmi and algebra

The concept of Zero
(and other Arab contributions to mathematics)

Arabic mathematics

The development of Algebra
Arab and Hindu influences

Alchemy and chemistry

Alchemy is often associated with the magical transformation of base metals into gold. In reality, it was the forerunner of modern chemistry.

The Book of Knowledge Acquired Concerning the Cultivation of Gold
Transcript from a 14th century Arabic manuscript by the Abu al-Qasim Muhammad Ibn Ahmed al-'Iraqi.

Alchemy in Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah

Alchemy in the context of Islamic science
edited by Professor Hamed A Ead

Chemistry in the Middle Ages
J. Plambeck, University of Alberta

Alchemy in Islamic times

Pioneers of science

Abd al-Malik Ibn Quraib al-Asmai (740-828)
Zoology, botany, animal husbandry

Muhammad Bin Musa al-Khwarizmi (Algorizm)
(770-840)
Mathematics, astronomy, geography, (algorithm, algebra, calculus)

Abu 'Uthman 'Amr ibn Bakr al-Basri al-Jahiz
(776-868)
Zoology, Arabic grammar, rhetoric, lexicography

Yaqub Ibn Ishaq al-Kindi (Alkindus) (800-873)
Philosophy, physics, optics, medicine, mathematics, metallurgy

Jabir Ibn Haiyan (Geber)
(Died 803)

Thabit Ibn Qurrah (Thebit)
(836-901)
Astronomy, mechanics, geometry, anatomy

Ali Ibn Rabban al-Tabari
(838-870)
Medicine, mathematics, calligraphy, literature

Abu Abdullah al-Battani (Albategnius) (858-929)
Astronomy, mathematics, trigonometry

Abul-Abbas Ahmad al-Farghani (al-Fraganus)
(C. 860)
Astronomy, civil engineering

Muhammad Ibn Zakariya al-Razi (Rhazes)
(864-930)
Medicine, ophthalmology, smallpox, chemistry, astronomy

Abu al-Nasr al-Farabi (al-Pharabius)
(870-950)
Sociology, logic, philosophy, political science, music

'Abbas Ibn Firnas
(Died 888)
Mechanics of flight, planetarium, artificial crystals, Also, reputedly, the first man to fly.

Abd-al Rahman al-Sufi (Azophi) (903-986)
Astronomy

Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi (Albucasis)
(936-1013)
Surgery, medicine (father of modern surgery)

Abul Wafa Muhammad al-Buzjani
(940-997)
Mathematics, astronomy, geometry, trigonometry

Abul Hasan Ali al-Masu'di
(Died 957)
Geography, history

Abu Ali Hasan Ibn al-Haitham (Alhazen)
(965-1040)
Physics, optics, mathematics

Abu al-Hasan al-Mawardi (Alboacen) (972-1058)
Political science, sociology, jurisprudence, ethics

Abu Raihan al-Biruni
(973-1048)
Astronomy, mathematics. Determined the earth's circumference

Abu Ali al-Hussain Ibn Abdallah Ibn Sina (Avicenna)
(981-1037)
Medicine, philosophy, mathematics, astronomy

Abu Ishaq Ibrahim Ibn Yahya al-Zarqali (Arzachel)
(1028-1087)
Astronomy (invented astrolabe)

Omar al-Khayyam
(1044-1123)
Mathematics, poetry

Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (Algazel)
(1058-1111)
Sociology, theology, philosophy

Abu Marwan Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar, Abumeron)
(1091-1161)
Surgery, medicine

Abu Abdallah Muhammad al-Idrisi (1099-1166)
Geography (world map, first globe)

Abul Waleed Muhammad Ibn Rushd (Averroes)
(1128-1198)
Philosophy, law, medicine, astronomy, theology

Nasir al-Din al-Tusi
(1201-1274)
Astronomy, non-Euclidean geometry

Nur al-Din Ibn Ishaq al-Bitruji (Alpetragius)
(Died 1204)
Astronomy

Jalal al-Din Rumi
(1207)
Sociology

Ibn al-Nafis Damishqi
(1213-1288)
Anatomy

Abu Muhammad Abdallah Ibn al-Baitar
(Died 1248)
Pharmacy, botany

Mohammed Targai Ulugh Beg
(1393-1449)
Astronomy

Abd al-Rahman Ibn Muhammad Ibn Khaldun
(1332-1395)
Sociology, philosophy of history, political science

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/science.htm

Well human development from the 17th century till today has far surpassed contributions of muslims/arabs in the pre middle ages by a million times.

There were probably not even 200 million people when Islam had its golden age. The world population remained at low levels till Science and Reason came along buddy and with that came a burst in human population, longer life expectancies, vaccinations, better standard of living, significant improvement in travel etc, etc. So don't come here listing 1300 year old accomplishments that Arabs stole in their conquests of surrounding people in the region. See the typical Islamic mind worships the arabs, its disgusting!!
Note to Vedaxcool: Arabs are like any other people of the world no worse or better. Neither is Arabic the language of "god" or Islam the answer or religion for mankind, or Mecca/Medina/Jerusalem holier than my village or my toilet for that matter, utter garbage! You are an Islamist and I hope the authorities are watching your movements closely. Sorry to inform you buddy, ISLAM IS A BEDOUIN MYTH!! Sorry buddy bowing down 5 times a day to your Meccan Masters is a bunch of crock and bullshit story no better than the trinity, or our forefathers traditional religions. And if I had to pick one I'll go with my forefathers religion not some primitive bedouin garbage.

On my spiritual journey I read the Quran and its nothing impressive, wasnt moved and actually was disgusted at the violence and aggressiveness in the book. It is a savage book with twisted morals and ass backward ethics that totally fit in an era when ignorance was pervasive.

I would rather live in a secular society than any backward muslim/religious society any day. Your Allah of 1.2Billion followers can't destroy the Jewish State of Israel of 7MM. Neither Have your hateful prayers that emanate from mosques around the world daily destroyed the West. South Sudan got freedom from your Muslim enslavers and Nigerias president is a reasonable christian that abides by secular law something few Muslims know how to do as there religion always demand power in the political space. The Ummah Al Kuffar is way stronger than your Ummah, Getthefuckouttahere with this corny islamic worldview of yours. The rest of the world is moving forward and building modern societies based on the rule of law and secular democracies meanwhile radicals like you keep dragging religious-political worldview into the picture trying to force it down other peoples thoats and abide by your bronze age value system. Islam has failed its adherants as a religion and political system, the sooner you realize this the better. Put it in its proper place like all other religions a personal perspective where it doesn't cloud your judgment and reasoning faculties and let's charter a better future for humanity.

Per some of your claims of Islamic contributions, several of these technological gains from the Islamic Golden Age are actually borrowed from conquered civilizations. For example (pls wiki):

The concept of zero as a number and not merely a symbol for separation is attributed to India where by the 9th century AD practical calculations were carried out using zero, which was treated like any other number, even in case of division.[10][11] The Indian scholar Pingala (circa 5th-2nd century BC) used binary numbers in the form of short and long syllables (the latter equal in length to two short syllables), making it similar to Morse code.[12][13] He and his contemporary Indian scholars used the Sanskrit word śūnya to refer to zero or void.

While the word algebra comes from the Arabic language (al-jabr, الجبر literally, restoration) and much of its methods from Arabic/Islamic mathematics, its roots can be traced to earlier traditions, most notably ancient Indian mathematics, which had a direct influence on Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (c. 780–850). He learned Indian mathematics and introduced it to the Muslim world through his famous arithmetic text, Book on Addition and Subtraction after the Method of the Indians.[3][4] He later wrote The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing, which established algebra as a mathematical discipline that is independent of geometry and arithmetic.[5

No wonder these fools want to go back to the era of Mohammed or the Islamic Golden dynasty they are completely brainwashed, drinking their own koolaid. Look, yes muslims made contributions to science and technology in like the Middle Ages. But in modern times reason and science have made the greatest and innumerable contributions while your religion is dead and waiting for Mohammed return to take you to Jena.

divinereal:

Well human development from the 17th century till today has far surpassed contributions of muslims/arabs in the pre middle ages by a million times.

There were probably not even 200 million people when Islam had its golden age. The world population remained at low levels till Science and Reason came along buddy and with that came a burst in human population, longer life expectancies, vaccinations, better standard of living, significant improvement in travel etc, etc. So don't come here listing 1300 year old accomplishments that Arabs stole in their conquests of surrounding people in the region. See the typical Islamic mind worships the arabs, its disgusting!!
Note to Vedaxcool: Arabs are like any other people of the world no worse or better. Neither is Arabic the language of "god" or Islam the answer or religion for mankind, or Mecca/Medina/Jerusalem holier than my village or my toilet for that matter, utter garbage! You are an Islamist and I hope the authorities are watching your movements closely. Sorry to inform you buddy, ISLAM IS A BEDOUIN MYTH!! [b]Sorry buddy bowing down 5 times a day to your Meccan Masters is a bunch of crock and bullshit story no better than the trinity, or our forefathers traditional religions. And if I had to pick one I'll go with my forefathers religion not some primitive bedouin garbage.[/b]On my spiritual journey I read the Quran and its nothing impressive, wasnt moved and actually was disgusted at the violence and aggressiveness in the book. It is a savage book with twisted morals and backside backward ethics that totally fit in an era when ignorance was pervasive.

I would rather live in a secular society than any backward muslim/religious society any day. Your Allah of 1.2Billion followers can't destroy the Jewish State of Israel of 7MM. Neither Have your hateful prayers that emanate from mosques around the world daily destroyed the West. South Sudan got freedom from your Muslim enslavers and Nigerias president is a reasonable christian that abides by secular law something few Muslims know how to do as there religion always demand power in the political space. The Ummah Al Kuffar is way stronger than your Ummah, Getthefuckouttahere with this corny islamic worldview of yours. The rest of the world is moving forward and building modern societies based on the rule of law and secular democracies meanwhile radicals like you keep dragging religious-political worldview into the picture trying to force it down other peoples thoats and abide by your bronze age value system. Islam has failed its adherants as a religion and political system, the sooner you realize this the better. Put it in its proper place like all other religions a personal perspective where it doesn't cloud your judgment and reasoning faculties and let's charter a better future for humanity.

Per some of your claims of Islamic contributions, several of these technological gains from the Islamic Golden Age are actually borrowed from conquered civilizations. For example (pls wiki):

The concept of zero as a number and not merely a symbol for separation is attributed to India where by the 9th century AD practical calculations were carried out using zero, which was treated like any other number, even in case of division.[10][11] The Indian scholar Pingala (circa 5th-2nd century BC) used binary numbers in the form of short and long syllables (the latter equal in length to two short syllables), making it similar to Morse code.[12][13] He and his contemporary Indian scholars used the Sanskrit word śūnya to refer to zero or void.

While the word algebra comes from the Arabic language (al-jabr, الجبر literally, restoration) and much of its methods from Arabic/Islamic mathematics, its roots can be traced to earlier traditions, most notably ancient Indian mathematics, which had a direct influence on Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (c. 780–850). He learned Indian mathematics and introduced it to the Muslim world through his famous arithmetic text, Book on Addition and Subtraction after the Method of the Indians.[3][4] He later wrote The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing, which established algebra as a mathematical discipline that is independent of geometry and arithmetic.[5

No wonder these fools want to go back to the era of Mohammed or the Islamic Golden dynasty they are completely brainwashed, drinking their own koolaid. Look, yes muslims made contributions to science and technology in like the Middle Ages. But in modern times reason and science have made the greatest and innumerable contributions while your religion is dead and waiting for Mohammed return to take you to Jena.

lol, that was fantastic!!!!
F_cking Epic man *in an Irish accent*

Science in the Islamic world
Main articles: Islamic science and Timeline of Muslim scientists and engineers
See also: Alchemy and chemistry in Islam, Islamic astronomy, Islamic mathematics, Islamic medicine, Islamic physics, Islamic psychological thought, and Early Muslim sociology
15th-century manuscript of Avicenna's The Canon of Medicine.

Muslim scientists placed far greater emphasis on experiment than had the Greeks.[54] This led to an early scientific method being developed in the Muslim world, where significant progress in methodology was made, beginning with the experiments of Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) on optics from circa 1000, in his Book of Optics. The most important development of the scientific method was the use of experiments to distinguish between competing scientific theories set within a generally empirical orientation, which began among Muslim scientists. Ibn al-Haytham is also regarded as the father of optics, especially for his empirical proof of the intromission theory of light. Some have also described Ibn al-Haytham as the "first scientist" for his development of the modern scientific method.[55]

Rosanna Gorini writes:
“ "According to the majority of the historians al-Haytham was the pioneer of the modern scientific method. With his book he changed the meaning of the term optics and established experiments as the norm of proof in the field. His investigations are based not on abstract theories, but on experimental evidences and his experiments were systematic and repeatable."[56] ”

In mathematics, the Persian mathematician Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi gave his name to the concept of the algorithm, while the term algebra is derived from al-jabr, the beginning of the title of one of his publications. What is now known as Arabic numerals originally came from India, but Muslim mathematicians did make several refinements to the number system, such as the introduction of decimal point notation. Sabian mathematician Al-Battani (850-929) contributed to astronomy and mathematics, while Persian scholar Al-Razi contributed to chemistry and medicine.

In astronomy, Al-Battani improved the measurements of Hipparchus, preserved in the translation of Ptolemy's Hè Megalè Syntaxis (The great treatise) translated as Almagest. Al-Battani also improved the precision of the measurement of the precession of the Earth's axis. The corrections made to the geocentric model by al-Battani, Ibn al-Haytham,[57] Averroes and the Maragha astronomers such as Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Mo'ayyeduddin Urdi and Ibn al-Shatir are similar to Copernican heliocentric model.[58][59] Heliocentric theories may have also been discussed by several other Muslim astronomers such as Ja'far ibn Muhammad Abu Ma'shar al-Balkhi,[60] Abu-Rayhan Biruni, Abu Said al-Sijzi,[61] Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi, and Najm al-Dīn al-Qazwīnī al-Kātibī.[62]

Muslim chemists and alchemists played an important role in the foundation of modern chemistry. Scholars such as Will Durant[63] and Fielding H. Garrison[64] considered Muslim chemists to be the founders of chemistry. In particular, Jābir ibn Hayyān is "considered by many to be the father of chemistry".[65][66] The works of Arabic scientists influenced Roger Bacon (who introduced the empirical method to Europe, strongly influenced by his reading of Arabic writers),[67] and later Isaac Newton.[68]

Ibn Sina (Avicenna) is regarded as the most influential scientist and philosopher in Islam.[69] He pioneered the science of experimental medicine[70] and was the first physician to conduct clinical trials.[71] His two most notable works in medicine are the Kitāb al-shifāʾ (“Book of Healing”) and The Canon of Medicine, both of which were used as standard medicinal texts in both the Muslim world and in Europe well into the 17th century. Amongst his many contributions are the discovery of the contagious nature of infectious diseases,[70] and the introduction of clinical pharmacology.[72]

Some of the other famous scientists from the Islamic world include al-Farabi (polymath), Abu al-Qasim (pioneer of surgery),[73] Abū RayhānMaghreb al-Bīrūnī (pioneer of Indology,[74] geodesy and anthropology),[75] Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī (polymath), and Ibn Khaldun (forerunner of social sciences[76] such as demography,[77] cultural history,[78] historiography,[79] philosophy of history and sociology),[80] among many others.

Islamic science began its decline in the 12th or 13th century, in conjunction with the Renaissance in Europe, and due in part to the 11th- 13th century Mongol Conquests, during which libraries, observatories, hospitals and universities were destroyed.[81] The end of the Islamic Golden Age is marked by the destruction of the intellectual center of Baghdad, the capital of the Abbasid caliphate in 1258.[81]


Science in Medieval Europe
Main articles: Science in Medieval Western Europe and Byzantine science
Further information: Renaissance of the 12th century, Scholasticism, Medieval technology, and Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe
Map of medieval universities

An intellectual revitalization of Europe started with the birth of medieval universities in the 12th century. The contact with the Islamic world in Spain and Sicily, and during the Reconquista and the Crusades, allowed Europeans access to scientific Greek and Arabic texts, including the works of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Jābir ibn Hayyān, al-Khwarizmi, Alhazen, Avicenna, and Averroes. European scholars had access to the translation programs of Raymond of Toledo, who sponsored the 12th century Toledo School of Translators from Arabic to Latin. Later translators like Michael Scotus would learn Arabic in order to study these texts directly. The European universities aided materially in the translation and propagation of these texts and started a new infrastructure which was needed for scientific communities. In fact, European university put many works about the natural world and the study of nature at the center of its curriculum,[82] with the result that the "medieval university laid far greater emphasis on science than does its modern counterpart and descendent."[83]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science


but in addition reading the Kleptocratic response of Divinereal reveals how deeply entrenched ignorance is in his heart, as who ever claimed the Language of God is arabic. ALLAH created every single language, he revealed the bible( which the Jews altered) in Jewish language, so if there is ever a person who speaks out of turn, who lacks common sense to research his points before propounding, who lacks intellectual ability to engage in a sensible discussion, that person is divinereal, after taking valuable time to reply the garbage he brought no rebuttal to defend his claim, rather he spoke of his uncles -the Bonobos.

divinereal:

! You are an Islamist and I hope the authorities are watching your movements closely.

Imagine somebody is loosing a debate and is calling for my arrest, simply because he cannot defend the lies he is emitting all the hatred stuck in his bowels. I really dey Laugh at you! no be my fault if you no get intellect argue, first he claimed Islam has brought no benefit to mankind after I showed him it rekindled science he started calling the authorities to watch my movement, it makes me laugh how humane you humanist can be. And FYI I am a Muslim nott an Islamist. I am begining to see the futility argueing with a mediocre like divinereal, I am operating on a higher level of information, you are simply an empty barrel making so much noise with no component of sense in it. Yes the authorities should watch me closely because divinereal is a lover of TOTALITARIANISM and prays for the riech to re - establish, but DIDN'T ALLAH SAY ' In their heart is a diesease . . . ' and again ' TRUTH HAS COME FALSHOOD HAS FLED' and ' JUST LIKE ILLUSION FASLEHOOD IS BOUND TO FADE. I AM GLAD I AM A MUSLIM, NOT TAKEN BY POMPOSITY OR ARROGANCE

While the rest of humanity moves forward, sending people to outer space, building sustainable societies and economies, renewable energy, curing age old diseases, lifting Billions out of poverty, improving communication, increasing life expectancy this vedaxcool and his ilk are trying to level set their barbaric ideology with modern thought?
The modern world that we know is based on empirical observation and reason NOT on religion, race, tribe or even ideology. The pioneers of the enlightenment broke away from religious dogma of their time to plant the seeds that blossomed into this modern world. Though not devoid of problems, this era is probably the best time to be a human being in the entire history of our existence on the planet.


I[i]magine somebody is loosing a debate and is calling for my arrest, simply because he cannot defend the lies he is emitting all the hatred stuck in his bowels. I really dey Laugh at you! no be my fault if you no get intellect argue, first he claimed Islam has brought no benefit to mankind after I showed him it rekindled science he started calling the authorities to watch my movement, it makes me laugh how humane you humanist can be. And FYI I am a Muslim nott an Islamist. I am begining to see the futility argueing with a mediocre like divinereal, I am operating on a higher level of information, you are simply an empty barrel making so much noise with no component of sense in it. Yes the authorities should watch me closely because divinereal is a lover of TOTALITARIANISM and prays for the riech to re - establish, but DIDN'T ALLAH SAY ' In their heart is a diesease . . . ' and again ' TRUTH HAS COME FALSHOOD HAS FLED' and ' JUST LIKE ILLUSION FASLEHOOD IS BOUND TO FADE. I AM GLAD I AM A MUSLIM, NOT TAKEN BY POMPOSITY OR ARROGANCE[/i]


Vedaxcool you are an Islamist and yes the authorities (INTERPOL, FBI, CIA, MI5, Nigerian Police, Secret Service) should keep you and your ilk under surveillance and if your views ever turn to advocating overthrowing a secular govt, imposing sharia, violent jihad you should indeed be extradited from whatever cave/sleeper cell you are in, given a speedy trial and locked up under the jail in Guantanamo Bay! You are entitled to your own individual belief, you can believe in stones for all I care, but once it crosses the line and you advocate imposing via making it a state religion, sharia or through violence or overthrowing a secular democratic government then you have another thing coming buddy. You cannot take away an individual's inalienable rights of freedom and impose your brand of religiosity. Along with other problematic issues like corruption, look at the problems Islam and religiosity has caused in our home country Nigeria? Instituting Sharia in the North in a Secular country! Bombings, Jos, Boko Haram, religious riots, politicization of religion etc etc. I will challenge anyone whoever makes such outrageous statements that an ideology as primitive and brutal as Islam is the religion for mankind. As you alluded to before Islam is not only a religion but a way of life. With this religion comes its baggage.

Per your 1000 year old accomplishments, do I dare juxtapose “Islamic” accomplishments to African, Egyptian (Pre Arabicized), Hellenic, Chinese, Aztec, Japanese, European, Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Jewish accomplishments and contributions to humanity? Do you really want to go there?
All your Abu Hamza’s and Ibn whatever do not even compare to the contributions of Newton, Galileo (who was Catholic) talk less of the great Agnostic Jew Einstein. Since you claim that Islam is the religion for mankind! Stop resting on your 1,000 year old laurels. Islam is a failed religion, ideology and political system. I will go further to say ANY religion that mixes with politics and law is a theocracy and will fail!! Like Christendom failed, Islam has failed put down the Quran and open a science book. How’s that Islamic Republic in Pakistan or Iran working out for you guys?

It is evident the more a society moves away from a religious/traditional system and modernizes the better the quality of life of the citizens. No society in the world is perfect but some societies are better than others. Some have fewer problems than others, some give more opportunity to more of its citizens than others.

You are stuck in the premodern era:

wiki
Pre-Modern
In the Pre-Modern era, many people's sense of self and purpose was often expressed via a faith in some form of deity, be that in a single god or in many gods.[7] Pre-modern cultures have not been thought of creating a sense of distinct individuality,[8][9][10] though. Religious officials, who often held positions of power, were the spiritual intermediaries to the common person. It was only through these intermediaries that the general masses had access to the divine. Tradition was sacred to ancient cultures and was unchanging and the social order of ceremony and morals in a culture could be strictly enforced.[11][12][13][14]
Modern
In contrast to the pre-modern era, Western civilization made a gradual transition from premodernity to modernity when scientific methods were developed which led many to believe that the use of science would lead to all knowledge, thus throwing back the shroud of myth under which pre-modern peoples lived. New information about the world was discovered via empirical observation,[15] versus the historic use of reason and innate knowledge.

Anyway let me leave this slowpoke alone, make sure you attend Jumat service and bow down to Mecca 5 times today and we wonder why your dumb ass can’t think straight or logically, you’ve been brainwashed from childhood, indoctrinated in madrassa’s before you could even read or write. I bet you could recite the Quran and think that its a pious thing! This retard is talking about hate, I’m not the one with the ideology of hate for those that don’t think like me or accept my way of thinking or life, it’s your religion/ideology that advocates oppression of others, suffocates freedom, encourages murder, marriage to little girls, slavery and pillage! I didnt make this stuff up its in your holy books. In my type of society, I can openly discuss my views, I bet if I was in Northern Nigeria, Saudi or any predominantly Muslim society I would be murdered for my views and what I have typed on Nairaland.

Totalitarianism? Its your religion and your allah that cares about who sleeps with who, my internal thoughts, what women wear, how they look at other human beings, how to bank, what to eat, how to kill an animal for meat, when to pray, what direction to face when taking a dump, how to take a dump, what to do with my pubic hair, how to sleep, who to interact with, murdering apostates, what friends to keep, who to marry, who is the last prophet, obsessed with the Jews, Christians and non muslims etc etc with no basis on empiricism or reason just perverted Bedouin desert knowledge from a millennia ago. I feel sorry for you.

From wiki:

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the power of a single political person, faction, or class, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.[2] Totalitarianism is usually characterized by the coincidence of authoritarianism (where ordinary citizens have less significant share in state decision-making) and ideology (a pervasive scheme of values promulgated by institutional means to direct most if not all aspects of public and private life).[3], smells like Islam to me!!!

divinereal:

While the rest of humanity moves forward, sending people to outer space, building sustainable societies and economies, renewable energy, curing age old diseases, lifting Billions out of poverty, improving communication, increasing life expectancy this vedaxcool and his ilk are trying to level set their barbaric ideology with modern thought?
The modern world that we know is based on empirical observation and reason NOT on religion, race, tribe or even ideology. The pioneers of the enlightenment broke away from religious dogma of their time to plant the seeds that blossomed into this modern world. Though not devoid of problems, this era is probably the best time to be a human being in the entire history of our existence on the planet.

Illiterate a lot of the enlightenment era scientists were true christians not Humanist misfit who argue base on lies like your self.A mediocre at his best, divinereal you are too uneduacted for me to engage in sensible discourse, having lose the debate 10 times over, you are fuming and venting you ignorance at me, pls Iqra, Iqra!! Read! Read!! you social misfit that is cursed and has exhausted the remaining portion of his common sense

divinereal:


Vedaxcool you are an Islamist and yes the authorities (INTERPOL, FBI, CIA, MI5, Nigerian Police, Secret Service) should keep you and your ilk under surveillance

The price I have to pay argueing with a semi- literate Mediocre who sees Hitler as a role model. divinecurse being a Hypocrite who believes in Humanism but does not know what that entails, a misfit with lax morals who believes it is a must that every human being to be immoral and his idiotic philosophy which was formulated by eberiated men with satanic ties must be followed, I tell you these athesim, humanism have not even produced a milionth of the goodies Islam and other religion have preoduced. these science you curse mediocre keeps yapping about was the hand work of men and women who believe in God. The Law we all enjoy were product of religion over a period of time, not humanism which nothing more than Cow droppings meant only for uneduated and immmoral bugs like yourself. Even an idol worshipper towers higher above you in reasonability and morals. dirt Bag

divinereal:

and if your views ever turn to advocating overthrowing a secular govt, imposing sharia, violent jihad you should indeed be extradited from whatever cave/sleeper cell you are in,

Sick man indeed, the Illitracy is sickening and scanners must be placed on the internet to prevent mental challenged individuals like yourself from harrasing sane and civilised people like me on the net. Your schizophrenic brain is making you a say things that were never discussed. When did I talked of overthrowing any government? or Of Imposing sharia or Violence? you are a half baked midget with little respect for common sense and human intelliegence. Which authority will arrest me, all my views are legally backed it is your on the other hand that is facing prison, cause last time i checked Homosexuality is illegal in Niaja, and you being an adovcate of dorty you face the prospect of being locked up, one good thing though you might be lucky to have your homos friends in the same cell with you.

divinereal:

given a speedy trial and locked up under the jail in Guantanamo Bay!

That ain't gonna happen, but Kirikiri is waiting for you, gay activist

divinereal:

You are entitled to your own individual belief, you can believe in stones for all I care,

Horses would make a lot more sensible arguement than your foolish panting here.

divinereal:

but once it crosses the line and you advocate imposing via making it a state religion, sharia or through violence or overthrowing a secular democratic government then you have another thing coming buddy.

Look at how often he is repeating previous statement, indeed you are not sound in any sense. Oh I am scared.

divinereal:

You cannot take away an individual's inalienable rights of freedom and impose your brand of religiosity.

Social misfit you are a hater of religion and religiosity, these makes you plain evil. to crown it all your grouse against me is that I refuted your lies and gave a contra - opinion to a foolish article that a 6 year old muslim would flip within minutes. How idiotic do people get, we are on the internet for crying out loud this dictator wants people to accept foolish articles without questions, such animalism is confided only in the Jungle of Humanism, immoral cretin where did I talk of imposing anything on anybody? you must be mentally disturbed or sufferring some sort of emotional truama to be making wild allegations. You are trying to take my right of reply away which I have bluntly refused even the devil your master can not take that right from me. Enemy of God. I think you are too immoral to have any sense.

divinereal:

Along with other problematic issues like corruption, look at the problems Islam and religiosity has caused in our home country Nigeria?

#

Idiot, Humans are ultimately to blame for their failures, If Islam says be Honest and you do the contra, the n you get what you deserve,, In Islam and even Common sense will tell any sensible person to Judge people based on certain criteria. in Islam we use Islamic principles to judge Muslims not Muslims to Judge Islam, But this retin of Whimsical Value thinks Religiosity is the problem yet your cursed Humanism which is anti religious has no benefit even to the fools that adhere to it. Nigerias problems are multi - facet not what your WEAK brain tell you to think.

divinereal:

Instituting Sharia in the North in a Secular country!

Mugu, Have you heard of Federalism? Federalism seeks to make a diverse components of a country to be able to live with each other by adhering to certain cultural pecularities, but you are too stupid to understand what Democracy and its concepts really means. Again the eminent Lawyer Timi the Law said on the Issue of Shariah, it is legal but must not be applied to non muslims, again these secularity you talk about do you know waht the white man takes it to be? to them it translate to 'the church has no power to dictate to government' all secular gorvernment in the world runs on religious law, America's constitution is based on the 10 commandment, so FYI Sharia is simply a system of rules and Punishment, hence if you Gay activist happen to go foul of the law, well you will know what is up. On a serious note Secular country who? I ask Who made Nigeria Secular? The military with out thepeoples concent but this idiotic Humanist is so enttralled by Secularity that even if the Taliban imposes it on Afghanistan it is all Koshar, In a democracy it is the people that determine whetehr they want a secular country or a Multi- religious country, or a religious country not your foolish wish, not the Idiocities of Humanism, it is the people that are the Ultimate, they can bend or twist any principle of Democracy. But It is indeed a great regret argueing with a Mediocre.

divinereal:

Bombings, Jos, Boko Haram, religious riots, politicization of religion etc etc.

You are so cusred that you forgot to add the Terrorism in the Niger delta, I say you are satans agent in human form, GOD is more than Your master, no amount of hatred towards God or Islam or religion will make any diffrence Islam light will continuie to shine.

divinereal:

I will challenge anyone whoever makes such outrageous statements that an ideology as primitive and brutal as Islam is the religion for mankind.

Challenge to a boxing match? this guy is a waste of biological resources, I destroyed your(somebody's elses) weak arguement, you could hardly defend the nonsense you brought, yet you are still challenging have you any drop of shame you cretin. Humanism I repeat is not more than Cow droppings.

divinereal:

As you alluded to before Islam is not only a religion but a way of life. With this religion comes its baggage.

Dung bettle. Humanism I empahacise is one of the Evil the Enemy of the Light can muster but only children of darknesss follow.

divinereal:

Per your 1000 year old accomplishments, do I dare juxtapose “Islamic” accomplishments to African, Egyptian (Pre Arabicized), Hellenic, Chinese, Aztec, Japanese, European, Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Jewish accomplishments and contributions to humanity? Do you really want to go there?

Lets go there can there be a mordern science with out the accomplishment of Islamic Science? I wrote this earlier [size=18pt]'The contact with the Islamic world in Spain and Sicily, and during the Reconquista and the Crusades, allowed Europeans access to scientific Greek and Arabic texts, including the works of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Jābir ibn Hayyān, al-Khwarizmi, Alhazen, Avicenna, and Averroes.[/size]' in essence it was Islamic science that spored Europe into a new form of Enlightenment, again you are a Mugu in all respect. Atheism and Agnosticsm has not addeed a drop of positivity on humanity, Thank God the foolery in you did not talk of Humanism adding anything in science.

divinereal:

All your Abu Hamza’s and Ibn whatever do not even compare to the contributions of Newton, Galileo (who was Catholic) talk less of the great Agnostic Jew Einstein.

Einsten said Science without religion is Lame . . . ' oh great morron have you any iota of sense left in you? All the Muslim sciencetist works were what turned Europe into a new age of enlightenment, Newton was a Christian Galileo was a Christian, all these scienetist were after the great Muslim sciencetist had open the eyes of the world to experimentation but again i repeat you are just an Ignoramous fronting for fooolish people.

his led to an early scientific method being developed in the Muslim world, where significant progress in methodology was made, beginning with the experiments of Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) on optics from circa 1000, in his Book of Optics. [size=18pt]The most important development of the scientific method was the use of experiments to distinguish between competing scientific theories set within a generally empirical orientation,[/size] which began among Muslim scientists. Ibn al-Haytham is also regarded as the father of optics, especially for his empirical proof of the intromission theory of light. [size=18pt]Some have also described Ibn al-Haytham as the "first scientist" for his development of the modern scientific method.[/size]

divinereal:

Since you claim that Islam is the religion for mankind! Stop resting on your 1,000 year old laurels.

Pathetic sigh, this is a classical example of Blind arguement.

divinereal:

Islam is a failed religion, ideology and political system. I will go further to say ANY religion that mixes with politics and law is a theocracy and will fail!! Like Christendom failed,

Buff0on indeed is what I can say of this guy, Islam remains the fastest growing religion, even misguided athesit are finding solace in it, unlike your daft philosophy -Humanism, only individual with perverted minds follow such idiocity. Islam was a succes right from the time of the Holy Prophet Muhammad Pbuh, till now it is still succeding, there are stories of Caliph eradicating poverty during their reign such as Caliph abdul Azziz. but without researching you make dogmatic boast which children can easily refute.

divinereal:

Islam has failed put down the Quran and open a science book.

Islam is the master of science that is why science grew as Islam spread, it was this same science that Islam used to rehabilitate Europe before idiots like yourself started ranting. Islam took experimentation to a higher level, islam is not in any war with science that is why there was no prosecuetion of Scientist during the Islamic golden Era, Islam is at war with the devil and his agents,, whoever they might be, and the victory is for ALLAH though the disbelievers detest it.

divinereal:

How’s that Islamic Republic in Pakistan or Iran working out for you guys?

Iran or Pakistan are to be judge based on how they follow Islamic Principle, FYI Iran has made more Scientic achievements than all your Humanist broads can ever make despite they being under Sanction and threats, they are among the 8 countries in the world that produce diesel engines a feet that is not common, they have send satelite to space, made advancement in Genetics , so Mediocre get your info right.

divinereal:

It is evident the more a society moves away from a religious/traditional system and modernizes the better the quality of life of the citizens.

Your are just a fo=oool, Mordern society have created more problems than any other generation have experienced look at global warming, New killer dieseases, moere social problems that the west suffers from, do you know that saudi has one of the lowest rate of Murders in the world and America has among the highest, man you are too stup-id for me to talk to, go and call a wiser humanist that knows his onions, you are just a du-llard. MuMU , Olodo rapata. Every society faces different kinds of Problems so to to talk of religion/traditional society as being more problematic is to say that the earth is a circle, you need facts not just foolish statements.

divinereal:

No society in the world is perfect but some societies are better than others. Some have fewer problems than others, some give more opportunity to more of its citizens than others.

Pathetic hiss.

divinereal:

You are stuck in the premodern era:

Yet I am using the internet? You are jsut a fool let me spell it for you F - O - O - L, that is a fool in capital letters. You are stuck in self delusions perpetuated by some Humanist Liars whom you now worshipn instead of GOD, how pathetic do they come.

Gay Saudi Arabia
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/05/the-kingdom-in-the-closet/5774/1/#

Islam and Slavery
"Slavery is a part of Islam, (those who argue that slavery is abolished are) ignorant, not scholars. They are merely writers. Whoever says such things is an infidel." - Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan, member of the Senior Council of Clerics, 2003


Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan, member of the Senior Council of Clerics, 2003

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOPD7_SCFNA&feature=player_embedded#at=97

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rjDTyeqXt8

Slave Transactions Initiated by Muhammad
Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani: A bedouin came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." His opponent got up and said, "He is right. Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." The bedouin said, "My son was a laborer working for this man, and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that my son should be stoned to death; so, in lieu of that, I paid a ransom of one hundred sheep and a slave girl to save my son. Then I asked the learned scholars who said, "Your son has to be lashed one-hundred lashes and has to be exiled for one year." The Prophet said, "No doubt I will judge between you according to Allah's Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to go back to you, and your son will get a hundred lashes and one year exile." He then addressed somebody, "O Unais! go to the wife of this (man) and stone her to death" So, Unais went and stoned her to death.

Sahih Bukhari 3:49:860

Narrated Abu Huraira: Two women from the tribe of Hudhail (fought with each other) and one of them threw (a stone at) the other, causing her to have a miscarriage and Allah's Apostle gave his verdict that the killer (of the fetus) should give a male or female slave (as a Diya).

Sahih Bukhari 9:83:41

Then the apostle sent for Sa'd bin Zayd al-Ansari brother of bin Abdul-Ashhal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.

Ibn Ishaq: 693

Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani: A bedouin came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." His opponent got up and said, "He is right. Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." The bedouin said, "My son was a laborer working for this man, and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that my son should be stoned to death; so, in lieu of that, I paid a ransom of one hundred sheep and a slave girl to save my son. Then I asked the learned scholars who said, "Your son has to be lashed one-hundred lashes and has to be exiled for one year." The Prophet said, "No doubt I will judge between you according to Allah's Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to go back to you, and your son will get a hundred lashes and one year exile." He then addressed somebody, "O Unais! go to the wife of this (man) and stone her to death" So, Unais went and stoned her to death.

Sahih Bukhari 3:49:860





Human Travesty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ana9w3uSNA&NR=1

One of the most widely used tools to propagate Islam in the West is the alleged harmony between its scriptures and modern science. This page contains easy-to-read summaries of articles discussing Islam, in relation to science.

This is a core topic which contains summaries
of WikiIslam articles related to it

Contents [hide]
1 Introduction
1.1 The Four Part Test
2 Medicine, Healthcare and Biology in Islam
2.1 Medicine and Healthcare
2.2 The Medicinal Value of Camel Urine
2.3 Adverse Effects of Islamic Fasting
2.4 Moderate Alcohol Consumption and its Health Benefits
2.5 Milk is Agreeable/Good for Humans to Drink?
2.6 Embryology in Islamic Scripture
3 The Universe According to Islam
3.1 A Qur’anic Understanding of the Universe
3.2 The Flat Earth
3.3 The Motionless Centre - Planet Earth
3.4 Sun Sets in a Muddy Spring
3.5 Ramadan and the North and South Poles
3.6 Islamic Writing and the Universe
4 Islamic Science and the Golden Age
4.1 The Miracle of Islamic Science
4.2 Muslims 'Saved' the Work of Greek Philosophers from Destruction
4.3 Islamic Inventions that Changed the World
4.4 Islamic Science in Wikipedia Articles
5 Science in the Qur'an
5.1 Scientific errors in the Qur'an and Hadith
5.2 Westerners finding Science in the Qur'an
5.3 Scientific Miracles in, the Georgics
5.4 Qur'an and the Big Bang
5.5 Qur'an Predicted Black Holes And Pulsars
5.6 Speed of Light in the Qur'an
5.7 Earth Made of Seven Layers
5.8 Qur'an and the Descent of Iron Miracle
5.9 The Qur'an and Mountains
5.10 Qur'an Predicted Land Decreasing
5.11 Creation of Humans from Clay
5.12 Qur'an and Semen Production
5.13 Qur'an Describes Gender Determination By Sperm
5.14 Qur'an and Embryology
5.15 Qur'anic Claim of Everything Created in Pairs
5.16 Qur'an and the Lying Prefrontal Cerebrum
6 See also
6.1 Videos
6.2 Articles
6.3 Other Core Articles
7 External links
8 References


Introduction
When evaluating claims of miraculous scientific information in “revealed” scriptures such as the Qur’an, it is critical to remember the dictum, “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.” For certainly, miracles are not to be taken lightly. If miracles really are the results of direct intervention by God, and if they truly are meant as signs to prove both his existence and his power, then we should expect them to serve those purposes in a clear and unambiguous manner. If God is going through all that trouble to provide us with signs, it would defeat his purpose to make the signs difficult to recognize.

If we assume that Allah exists, it is safe to say that he is not a Las Vegas magician, and his miracles should reasonably be several cuts above the prestidigitation of Penn and Teller. An all-powerful universal God would doubtlessly be capable of providing miracles that were unchallengeable, unambiguous and dramatic. And it is fully conceivable that God would embed such clear signs of his power and omniscience within his revelation.

The claim of “scientific miracles” in the Qur’an rests upon the contention that the book contains specific and detailed scientific knowledge that can only have been revealed to Muhammad miraculously, i.e. that there was no possible non-miraculous way for such information to have been known to a 7th Century Arab.

So it stands to reason that if there actually were non-miraculous ways for such information to be available, no miracle can be demonstrated. And it is important to test such claims, for we are not involved in a casual conversation about fashion or dietary preferences. We are talking about alleged proofs for the divine origin of the Qur’an.

The Four Part Test
For a “scientific statement” in the Qur’an to be considered miraculous, it must be capable of passing a four-part test that removes the possibility of a non-miraculous origin of the information:

1. It must be an unambiguous statement of scientific fact requiring no elaborate interpretation to discern its factual meaning.

This point cannot be stressed too intensely. For the scientific information in question must actually be in the Qur’an itself, and not something added later as part of a commentary. If the critical information that distinguishes a “scientific miracle” from a casual statement of obvious fact is not explicitly in the clear words and meaning of the Qur’an, we cannot trust it as even being there.

If the verse has to be “interpreted” to extract hidden meaning that is not obviously there, the claim of a miracle has been “corrupted” by the commentary, and cannot be considered valid.

2. The fact must have been previously unknown to every other non-Islamic civilization that had contact with the Arabian Peninsula.

Key to the claim of “scientific miracles” in the Qur’an is the contention that the information included was unknown until recently, or at least until many years after the death of Muhammad. So, of course, if it can be shown that the information was already available to other peoples or cultures with whom the Arabs were in contact, this claim is shown to be simply false.

It does not matter the source of that other culture’s information. It may have been a lucky guess, it may have been the result of precocious scientific achievement… in fact it may even potentially have been a miracle the other culture had experienced years before.

But if that information was available before the Qur’an was written down, there can be no credit to the claim of a “Qur’anic miracle.”

3. It must not be obvious to any casual observer.

This may sound like an obvious point, but given the nature of many of the stock “miracles” claimed by Muslim apologists, it still must be discussed explicitly. For often, what is claimed to be a miracle of the Qur’an is something of which any individual with his or her eyes open would have been aware.

If the information in question is available to anyone who simply looks at the phenomenon, requiring no sophisticated instruments, tools or interpretation, then it cannot be considered miraculous.

4. It must be true.

As with the previous point, this one sounds intuitively obvious. But it too requires explicit mention as occasionally the claims of Qur’anic “miracles” depend on misunderstandings or misstatements about reality and science. If the information in question is not actually true, then certainly it cannot be a miraculous revelation from God, as God should be expected to know what is or is not true.

Medicine, Healthcare and Biology in Islam
Medicine and Healthcare
Main Articles: Medicine and healthcare in Islam and Medicine and biology
Islamic medicine, healthcare and Biology relies on superstitions, general beliefs among the people during the prophet's time and borrowings from the practices and beliefs of other civilizations. For example; today you will find Muslims who champion the self-alleged health benefits of drinking camel urine (as instructed by Muhammad in Sahih Bukhari 7:71:590), but those who are actually willing to practice such idiocy are far less forthcoming. The allowance and even encouragement of marriages between relatives such as cousins (Qur'an 4:23), is another issue that deserves to be sent back to the 7th century. Medically, this common Muslim practice is harmful because it raises the probability for genetic disorders to occur in offspring. And the much lauded embryology found within the Qur'an is in reality plagiarized from Greek medicine. Therefore embryology, as described in the Qur'an, is neither original nor correct. These are but a few of the example which are covered in our articles.

The Medicinal Value of Camel Urine
Main Article: Camel Urine and Islam
This article is about the use of camel urine as medicine in the Hadiths and how such usage is viewed in the Muslim world. Muhammad prescribed camel urine as medicine to the followers from uraynah. Because Muhammed is a prophet, Muslims believe he received a divine revelation from God. As a result they continue to study and prescribe camel urine as medicine despite the lack of evidence proving there is any medicinal value in camel urine and that there is some evidence that drinking urine is actually harmful.

Adverse Effects of Islamic Fasting
Main Article: Adverse Effects of Islamic Fasting
Medical fasting is different from Islamic fasting (Sawm), and contrary to popular Muslim beliefs, Islamic fasting, unlike Medical fasting, has numerous adverse effects that have been observed using scientific studies and news sources. Intermittent and prolonged fasting is generally not conducive to a healthy lifestyle. Depriving the body of water and essential nutrients by dividing and postponing meals to irregular intervals does nothing to limit consumption. Infact it causes a host of health, performance and mood disorders. Fasting is not normally prescribed for the well being of human beings. Instead, it is commonly understood that eating healthy, smaller-portioned meals, interspersed throughout the day is far better in maintaining a well-balanced diet and far more forgiving on a person's metabolism. Any claims that prolonged and intermittent fasting contributes to the well-being of an individual's health are misleading, based on the scientific studies that prove otherwise. If the Islamic argument in favor of fasting is that “we fast because God commanded us to do so," then it is obvious that God is not a nutritionist or a dietitian because the negatives definitely outweigh the positives. So the question to the Muslim world is: what benefit does the Muslim world get for 1 billion people staying hungry throughout the day for one full month every year? Did Allah actually want Muslims to suffer physically, economically and socially for one month every year? Also, if fasting is beneficial as Muslims claim, why do Muslims not fast the entire year instead of just one month?

Moderate Alcohol Consumption and its Health Benefits
Main Article: Moderate Alcohol Consumption and its Health Benefits
Alcohol and other intoxicants are strictly prohibited (haram) in Islam. At first this aspect of Islam may seem inspired and full of wisdom, considering the abuse of alcohol can lead to a lot of misery and suffering. To be sure, we are in no way endorsing the consumption or abuse of alcohol. However, we are asking the question 'should you throw the baby out with the bath water?' When used in moderation, research suggests that there are numerous benefits in the consumption of alcohol, and an all-knowing deity would have been aware of this. The Jews and Christians are allowed to consume alcohol. The pagan Arabs before and shortly after their conversion to Islam also consumed alcohol. So why did Allah prohibit something that may be beneficial and which was an accepted norm among the religions before Islam? Of course the Muslims will cite Qur'an 2:219 and state "In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit." However, if this was the true reason behind its prohibition then it only exposes Allah's flawed logic. Surely the "all-wise" would have only prohibited its abuse and not given us an outright ban. Furthermore, if the potential health risk of alcohol was the cause of the prohibition, why not also warn Muslims against the dangers of drinking milk?

Milk is Agreeable/Good for Humans to Drink?
Main Article: Quran and Milk
The Qur'an clearly encourages people to drink milk and calls it "pure and agreeable to those who drink it." It's even being served in the Muslim Paradise. In reality, one glass of milk is potentially more harmful than a glass of alcoholic beverage. The Northern Europeans are among the rather small group of the totallity of humankind to whom consumption of milk after the weaning stage is most 'agreeable' due to evolutionary changes. For much of the rest of humanity lactose-intolerance after the weaning stage is default.

So it seems that the Qur'anic statement "And verily in cattle (too) will ye find an instructive sign, We produce, for your drink, milk, pure and agreeable to those who drink it" is more appropriate to the genetic cluster of (kafir) Northern Europeans and their US descendants than to the other genetic clusters among humanity.

Embryology in Islamic Scripture
Main Article: Embryology in Islamic Scripture, See also: History of Embryology
“Islamic embryology” is derived from both the Qur’an and the hadith, and is quite consistent across all the contributing sources. The core of the story can be found in the Qur’an, 22:5. There are a handful of additional ayaat that deal with this subject, and none of them disagree with the basic scenario. There is also more to learn from the hadith, particularly that of Bukhari and Muslim. Again, the accounts are quite consistent, and the additional information they provide is important.

The details of embryology as reflected in the Qur’an and the hadith can be summarised as follows; the embryo spends 40 days as a drop of sperm or seed, the embryo then spends another 40 days as a “clot” or a “leech-like clot” of blood, the embryo then spends another 40 days as a “lump of flesh” during which the gender of the child is assigned by an angel at Allah’s direction.

These then are the details that must be correlated with actual embryonic development to evaluate the accuracy or inaccuracy of the Islamic account. The question is actually a simple one: Does this account describe the first 120 days of embryonic development or doesn’t it?

The Universe According to Islam
A Qur’anic Understanding of the Universe
Main Article: A Qur’anic Understanding of the Universe
This article is designed to uncover and explain the actual state of scientific knowledge that is presented to us in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Specifically, we will explore Islamic Cosmology, in particular the Qur'ans understanding of the nature and structure of the physical universe. To no surprise, the Qur'ans understanding of the universe matches that of the mythical cosmos believed by 7th century Arabians rather than an accurate description of the real universe.

In the Qur'an, the entire universe is very small and contains simply the earth and its surrounding heavens. There are no galaxies, other solar systems, or such a thing as “outer space.” The earth is the top-most of seven, flat discs, surrounded by the seven solid concentric domes of the heavens. The celestial objects that do exist (sun, moon, stars and planets) are quite small, very close, and they follow semi-circular paths within the innermost of the seven heavenly domes. When they are not in the sky above the earth, they are resting somewhere underneath it, except while petitioning Allah’s permission to return the following day (or night). Paradise exists between the seven heavens, and hell exists between the seven earths. All of this is submerged in a cosmic sea, above which is the throne of Allah.

The Flat Earth
Main Article: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
As should be apparent by now, the Islamic faith stifles scientific progress and nothing demonstrates this as well as the modern-day belief that the Earth is flat. As recently as 1993 the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia Sheik Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baaz declared "The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment."[1] and in a televised debate aired on Iraqi Al-Fayhaa TV (October 31, 2007), Muslim Researcher on Astronomy Fadhel Al-Sa'd also declared that the Earth is flat as evidenced by Qur'anic verses and that the sun is much smaller than the Earth and revolves around it. [2] As devout Muslims, they have good reason to conclude the Earth is flat; the Qur'anic verses 15:19, 20:53, 43:10, 50:7, 51:48, 71:19, 78:6, 79:30, 88:20 and 91:6 all clearly state this. While many apologists have attempted to explain away this 'oddity' to fellow Muslims and Westerners, they prey on their listeners ignorance of the Arabic language. As such, their apologetic claims have been easily refuted by native Arabic speakers. There is no escaping the fact that, according to the Qur'an, the earth is flat as a pancake.

The Motionless Centre - Planet Earth
Main Article: The Geocentric Qur'an
This article examines the evidence for Qur'anic geocentric cosmology. Some may confuse geocentricism with the the idea that the Earth is flat. This is not the case. These are two different ideas. Geocentrism simply is the notion that the earth is the (immovable) centre of our universe, thus all celestial bodies mover around it. According to the Qur'an, the Sun (and the moon and the five known planets) follow a curved (rounded) course (a Falak). This falak starts in the east (where the sun goes up), goes high above the earth and ends after sunset with the Sun resting at night at a hidden place. All this took place around an earth that was spread out and had a firmament built on invisible pillars above it. This was a common belief at the time. Sahih (authentic) hadiths affirm this geocentric cosmology (so Muhammad or at least the people around him agree with it), and great ancient, and even modern-day, Muslim astronomists agree that the Qur'an is geocentric. In ancient times, many people - but certainly not all - did not know any better than what they seemed to observe everyday: the sun appeared to be going around the earth through our skies. We cannot blame a 7th century Bedouin for not knowing this, but should not the omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe know better?

Sun Sets in a Muddy Spring
Main Article: Dhul-Qarnayn and the Sun Controversy in the Qur'an
The precise meaning of the opening phrases in verses 86 and 90 in the 18th chapter of the Qur’an, Sura al-Kahf, or “The Cave”, is a matter of considerable controversy. These verses occur within an account concerning a powerful figure called Dhu’l Qarnayn, “the two-horned one”, who Allah guides on a series of three fantastic journeys in Qur’an 18:83-101. They are controversial due to Muslim sensitivity to claims that they have Allah saying that the sun sets and rises in physical locations on or at the edges of Earth.

Our analysis shows that the various interpretations that have been proposed for verses 18:86 and 18:90 in the Qur’an to reconcile them with scientific facts do not stand up to detailed scrutiny. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the clear and obvious interpretation that this is intended to be understood as a historical account in which Dhu’l Qarnayn travelled until he reached the place where the sun sets and actually found that it went down into a muddy spring near to where a people were, and that he then travelled until he reached the place where the sun rises and actually found that it rose up above a people who lived close to the place where the sun rises.

Ramadan and the North and South Poles
Main Article: The Ramadan Pole Paradox
This article consists of a set of questions and answers exploring Ramadan's relation to the North and South Poles. According to Islamic rules, the length of a fast is governed by the rising and the setting of the sun. This can cause a huge problem for those who live close to these poles. The closer we get to the poles, the longer our days or nights become. They can eventually extend for up to several months each, making the fourth Pillar of Islam impossible to practice without starving yourself to death. Obviously Muhammad was unaware of the poles.

Islamic Writing and the Universe
Main Article: Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Cosmology
Islamic scriptures and scholars have much to say in regards to the cosmology of the universe.

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Dharr that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) one day said: Do you know where the sun goes? They replied: Allah and His Apostle know best. He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Verily it (the sun) glides till it reaches its resting place under the Throne. Then it falls prostrate and remains there until it is asked: Rise up and go to the place whence you came, and it goes back and continues emerging out from its rising place and then glides till it reaches its place of rest under the Throne and falls prostrate and remains in that state until it is asked: Rise up and return to the place whence you came, and it returns and emerges out from it rising place and the it glides (in such a normal way) that the people do not discern anything ( unusual in it) till it reaches its resting place under the Throne. Then it would be said to it: Rise up and emerge out from the place of your setting, and it will rise from the place of its setting. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said. Do you know when it would happen? It would happen at the time when faith will not benefit one who has not previously believed or has derived no good from the faith.

Sahih Muslim 1:297
Islamic Science and the Golden Age
The Miracle of Islamic Science
Main Article: Setting the Record Straight: The Non-Miracle of Islamic Science
This is a refutation of Dr K. Ajram's Setting the Record Straight: The Miracle of Islamic Science. The purpose of this analysis is to put the achievements of Golden Age Muslim scientists in the proper perspective; neither denigrating their achievements nor inflating them. All scientific and technological progress is accomplished in progression; Muslim achievements are but links in the chain. Few of the great Muslim scientific achievements stood alone, but were derived by Muslim scientists standing on the shoulders of those who came before them. This analysis also highlights the fatal flaw of the Islamic Golden Age. There were few ‘follow-up’ breakthroughs on the backs of the works of the great Muslim scientists. In effect, the Ummah allowed or encouraged these works to wither on the vine or die stillborn, even before the rise of mysticism at the expense of rational thinking, an event often attributed to al-Ghazzali around the turn of the 12th century. Indeed, it would seem orthodox Islam utterly stifles intellectual reasoning. Therefore, Islam is not the cause of scientific progress during the Golden Age. Many people would say that the Golden Age scientific progress was made in spite of Islam, not because of it. A prime example is the great philosopher-physician Ibn Sina (Avicenna) whose work is constantly referenced by Dr K. Ajram. It is true that Avicenna was one of the most influential medieval philosophers, but he was also one of the most frequently attacked by Muslims. Today, the majority of Muslims would consider Ibn Sina, and many of the other great 'Islamic' scientists, as heretical apostates for their beliefs, and therefore non-Muslim disbelievers.

Muslims 'Saved' the Work of Greek Philosophers from Destruction
Main Article: Arab Transmission of the Classics
The Arab transmission of the classics is a common and persistent myth that Arabic commentators such as Avicenna and Averroes 'saved' the work of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers from destruction. According to the myth, these works would otherwise have perished in the long European dark age between fifth and the tenth centuries. Thus the versions of Aristotle used in the West were translations from the Arabic, which came from the South West of Europe in the reconquest of Spain from the Muslims during the twelve and thirteenth centuries[3]. This is incorrect. It was actually the Byzantines in the East who saved the ancient learning of the Greeks in the original language, and the first Latin texts to be used were translation from the Greek, in the 12th century, rather than, in most cases, the Arabic, which were only used in default of these.

It is nevertheless true, and no myth, that the work of the Arabic commentators, particularly Averroes, had a profound influence on the scholastic philosophers of the Latin West in the thirteenth century. Aristotle's Greek is terse and very difficult to understand. The work of the Arabic commentators helped in explaining and clarifying Aristotle's dense and apparently obscure thought. Thus Western intellectual tradition owes a great debt to the Arabic scholars in terms of understanding Aristotle's thought. In terms of the texts, however, these would have survived had the Arabic commentators never existed.

Islamic Inventions that Changed the World
Main Article: Islamic Inventions? How Islamic Inventors Did Not Change The World
These past few years have seen many inventions falsely claimed and attributed to Islamic inventors, which in fact either existed in pre-Islamic eras, were invented by other cultures, or both. However, this detail has not halted Muslim, and non-Muslim apologists alike, from perpetuating these false claims. Unbelievably, such claims, which are basically altering the worlds history in order to show Islam in a better light, have even been forced upon the unsuspecting public in a nationwide tour which opened with an exhibition at the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester and the University of Manchester, England. To celebrate this 'momentous' series of events, an article titled “How Islamic inventors changed the world” was written by Paul Vallely and published in The Independent. This shameless piece of propaganda has received much praise from Muslims and has been (and still is) widely circulated on Islamic websites, forums, and blogs. This article lists and examines all twenty of these “Islamic inventors/inventions that changed the world” and in doing so, it exposes the lengths some will sink to in order to appease the Islamists. The Independent article is fundamentally misleading. It omits, distorts, and makes blunders over the most basic of historical facts to give the reader a false impression, and robs other civilizations such as ancient China, ancient Rome and pre-Islamic Egypt of the credit they rightfully deserve. It leaves you wondering what could have possibly motivated Paul Vallely into writing such a deceptive piece of journalism? This exhibition claimed to have shown 1001 Islamic inventions. If the best 20 are debunked, what of the other 981?

Islamic Science in Wikipedia Articles
Main Article: Islam, Science and the Problems at Wikipedia
At Wikipedia, Islam-related articles are severely compromised by Muslim editors. An example of this is a 2010 incident where an editor with over 67,000 edits was caught intentionaly inserting false information into articles.

Jagged 85 is the main contributor to the many inaccurate Islam/Science/Golden Age articles which are still being copied and pasted all over the internet by Muslims, and more than 20% of Wikipedia's "Timeline of historic inventions" was provided by him.

With contributions to over 8,100 separate articles, it is unlikely that all of Jagged 85's edits will ever be fixed. And even if they were, these Wikipedia articles have already been reproduced all over the net by other sites which use Wikipedia as a source.

Science in the Qur'an
Scientific errors in the Qur'an and Hadith
Main Articles: Scientific errors in the Qur'an, See also: Scientific Errors in the Hadith
This page lists various types of scientific errors found in the Qur'an. The subjects of these errors include; Evolution, Astronomy, Biology, Geology, Zoology and many others which are often confirmed by the hadith.

Westerners finding Science in the Qur'an
Main Articles: Westerners find $cience in the Qur'an and Bucailleism
The new Mullahs and other Islamists feel very happy whenever they find an occidental (western white person) who talks in favor of their faith (Islam). This is especially true when these western people try to associate the Qur'an and Hadith with anything resembling an inkling of scientific truth. For the last 25 years or so, Muslims have found several non-Muslim supporters (pseudo) of their faith. One of the results of such liaisons is Bucailleism, the belief that "the Qur'an prophesied the Big Bang theory, space travel and other contemporary scientific breakthroughs," and that "there are more than 1200 verses (Ayat) which can be interpreted in the light of modern science."[4] It has been called "a fast-growing branch of Islamic fundamentalism." Named after none-other than the French (Catholic) surgeon Maurice Bucaille, its proponents believe that "one of the main convincing evidences" that lead many to convert to Islam "is the large number of scientific facts in the Quran."[5] These articles take a critical look at this fairly recent phenomena.

Scientific Miracles in, the Georgics
Main Article: Georgics
To demonstrate how ludicrously easy it is to prove that any ancient poetry can be reinterpreted to reveal scientific miracles, we present to you a satiric article that 'proves' that the Georgica, written by Virgil in Golden Latin in the year 28 BC, contains scientific miracles. In the very first eight words alone of the Georgics we find no less than five (there's probably many more) scientifically accurate statements of which Virgil himself (born in the first century BC) could not have had any knowledge of, due to science only confirming them many centuries later. If we read verses 234 to 237 we find another five miracles. It would seem the Georgics are full of these divine pearls of wisdom, wherever we look we find them. Is there any other text in the world more densely packed with such scientifically accurate knowledge? What divine source could have whispered all this into Virgil's ear? Virgil was a polytheist, who worshipped many different gods. Is this truly a miracle sent down from the ancient Roman gods? Let the honest reader draw his or her own conclusions. All we request is that you look upon this with an open mind.

Qur'an and the Big Bang
Main Article: Quran and the Big Bang
Islamic apologists attempt to claim that the “Big Bang” is actually described by the Qur’an in one of many miraculous displays of scientific precocity in text. However on closer examination, Muslim claims of miraculous scientific information in the Qur’an are shown to be, yet again, in error. In reality, the Qur’an is completely silent on the “big bang” because it clearly has no awareness whatsoever of a universe that preexisted the creation of the planet Earth, or extended outwards into infinite space. It has no understanding of galaxies, or clusters of galaxies, or quasars or pulsars or any of the other things that could have easily been mentioned by an omniscient Allah, and left us no room for quibbling.

Qur'an Predicted Black Holes And Pulsars
Main Article: Quran Predicted Black Holes And Pulsars
Harun Yahya, makes many claims of Qur'anic Science. This article seeks to debunk two such claims, namely that the Qur'an predicted black holes and pulsars. We will show the absurdity of the black hole claim, while showing the pulsar claim to be conjectural and devoid of factual basis. In doing so, we will also show Harun Yahya’s self-contradiction as he used the same Qur'anic verse to ‘prove’ both the black hole and the pulsar. Now, even to the uninitiated, it would seem impossible for something to be both a black hole and a pulsar. However, Islamists do not appear to be inhibited by such constraints of logic.

Speed of Light in the Qur'an
Main Article: Speed of Light in the Qur'an
In an article published in Islami City, Dr. Mansour Hassab-Elnaby claims the verse 32:5 reveals that light in one day travels a distance equal to 12,000 lunar orbits, and upon calculating that distance we find the exact speed of light. This verse clearly has nothing to do with the speed of light. There is no mention of the moon, light or even distance in this verse. If these methods were to be applied to other texts, such as Shakespeare's writings or Virgil's Georgics, they too can be "proven" divine. No matter how we look at Dr. Hassab-Elnaby's calculations, they are mathematically incorrect. Even the notion of measuring the speed of light with the orbit of the Moon or the length of the day is a fallacy. Dr. Hassab-Elnaby also makes many deliberate errors to doctor his scientific miracle, and in his zeal to ascribe miracles to the Qur'an, he throws out of the window the concept of Allah's omnipresence. The maker of the Universe, according to him, depends on the speed of light to manage his affairs. The fact that Islami City, arguably the most prestigious Islamic site has published this erroneous piece by him proves the intellectual bankruptcy of the ummah, and assuming there really is a miracle in this plagiarized allegory, shouldn't the credit go to the Bible from which it originates?

Earth Made of Seven Layers
Main Article: Earth Made of Seven Layers
Islamists have come up with some extraordinary claims, including the claim that modern Science proves the Qur'an correct in asserting the earth is made of 7 "layers". This article seeks to show the error of the Islamist claim that verse 65:12 shows the earth is composed of 7 layers. In truth, the earth is not composed of 7 layers, but 5. Even if the earth was composed of 7 layers, it doesn't alter the fact that if these Islamists cared to delve a little deeper into their own sources they would discover that the 7 earths being referred to in verse 65:12 are in fact flat islands, one under the other.

Qur'an and the Descent of Iron Miracle
Main Article: Quran and the Descent of Iron Miracle
Many Islamists propagate the hilarious ‘iron sent down from heaven miracle’ pseudoscience. This is totally devoid of logic and scientific fact. Such Islamist claims may impress the gullible but elicit nothing but laughter among those with even minimal scientific education. A chief proponent of this Islamist pseudoscience is Harun Yahya. There is nothing miraculous about surah 57:26 describing iron being ‘sent down’ by some deity. The ancient Egyptians already derived that concept three thousand years before Islam. They called iron “ba-en-pet” or ‘metal from heaven’. This concept was also shared by the ancient Mesopotamians. We have also shown many of the other 'miraculous' claims in connection with iron to be patent scientific nonsense.

The Qur'an and Mountains
Main Article: The Quran and Mountains
This article refutes the Islamist claim that the Qur'an had foreshadowed the scientific knowledge about Mountains as Pegs stabilizing the crust or even the earth. There are two elements to this ‘Qur'anic Science’ claim: A. Mountains are Pegs. This is untrue as not all mountains have peg-like roots. B. Mountains stabilize the crust or the earth. This is unproven. There is no scientific evidence for this assertion, therefore the Qur'an cannot be validated by scientific evidence that does not exist. The mere fact of isostacy is not proof that mountains stabilize the crust or the earth. The mere fact that collision-type mountains are formed at the edges of tectonic plates is not proof that mountains stabilize the plates. The mere fact that mountains have deep roots is not proof that mountains stabilize anything.

Qur'an Predicted Land Decreasing
Main Article: Quran Predicted Land Decreasing
Dr Al Zeiny, PhD, claims a so-called ‘proof’ of Qur'anic Science by positing the proposition that the Qur'an correctly predicted the geological fact that land is decreasing due to the movements of tectonic plates. He cites verses 13:41 and 21:44 as evidence. Alas for Dr Zeiny, the geological facts do not support his case that land is decreasing as the Qur'an supposedly suggests.

In fact, we'd like to thank Dr Zeiny for helping to prove the Qur'an incorrect in asserting that land is decreasing, and thereby also prove that the Qur'an is false and therefore man-made. By extension, Dr Zeiny has also proven that Allah is also false and therefore man-made.

Creation of Humans from Clay
Main Article: Creation of Humans from Clay
Many Muslims use the recent scientific hypothesis of clay particles as catalysts for abiogensis as evidence of the veracity of their scripture. However, the scientific hypothesis postulates that the clay merely 'match-makes' RNA and membrane vesicles - and therefore does not form a building block. This is contrary to the Islamic Faith which postulates that human beings were created from clay, implying clay was a building block. Notwithstanding this key distinction, is Islam the only religion which postulated the creation of human beings from clay? The answer is no. Many religions pre-dating Islam also carry this 'creation of human beings from clay' story. The earliest are the pre-cursors of the Abrahamic Faiths - namely the early Mesopotamian religions. Other faiths that postulate the 'creation of human beings from clay' stories include the ancient Egyptians, some African tribes and the Incas. In fact, the ‘creation of humans from clay’ stories are common throughout the world, including far-flung places like Australia and the Pacific Islands which were not in contact with Islam or any of the other Abrahamic Faiths until recent times.

Qur'an and Semen Production
Main Articles: Quran and Semen Production
This article lists and refutes all the various Islamic attempts to show that the Qur'an correctly describes semen production from between the sulb and the tara’ib in verse 86:7. There are at least seven distinct classes of Islamic explanations, and these propositions are frequently conflicting. For example, Ibn Kathir refers to tara’ib as a female organ, while other tafsirs claim it belongs to the man.[6] Another conflict is the definition of sulb to mean either the backbone or the ‘hardening’ of the loins.

Qur'an Describes Gender Determination By Sperm
Main Article: Quran Describes Gender Determination By Sperm
Various Islamists make the usual Islamic polemic about how the Qur'an can be proved by modern scientific knowledge, using the old canard about how the Qur'an is the only ancient book that states that gender is determined by the sperm. In this, they may point out the ignorance of the Greeks who thought gender was determined by the relative strengths of sperm from the male and female parents as Hippocrates imagined. This article does not seek to prove that the ancient Egyptians shared some aspects of our modern understanding of gender determination and reproduction. It merely aims to show that the Qur'an was not the first religious text to suggest that gender is determined by the semen of the male parent.

Qur'an and Embryology
Main Article: Embryology in the Qur'an
There are propagations of the Qur'anic ‘so-called’ Embryology by such luminaries as Dr. Keith Moore and Dr. Maurice Bucaille. These works are aped by such Islamic scholars as Dr. Al Zeiny, Dr. Zakir Naik, Dr. Ibrahim Syed, Dr. Sharif Kaf Al-Ghazal, and the ubiquitous Harun Yahya aka Adnan Oktar. A good additional material is provided by Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman in which he goes into even greater detail in his attempt to validate the Qur'anic ‘human reproduction’ verses with modern scientific facts. On the net, you will find many excellent debunkings of the Qur'anic Embryology Pseudoscience (“QEP”). Here we attempt to add to this debate, concentrating solely on the Qur'anic verses.

Qur'anic Claim of Everything Created in Pairs
Main Article: Quranic Claim of Everything Created in Pairs
This article refutes the claim that Man did not know anything about the "creation in pairs" at the time of the 'descent' of the Qur'an. Here is one of the Qur'anic verses which speak of this. The case against the Qur'an is really very simple. All one has to do is to show that not all creatures are ‘created’ in pairs. Our opinion is that Muhammad, being who he was, didn’t have access to a microscope or a good Level 1 biology textbook. Therefore, he couldn’t have known about asexual organisms, parthenogenetic organisms, or hermaphrodites.

Qur'an and the Lying Prefrontal Cerebrum
Main Article: Quran and the Lying Prefrontal Cerebrum
Several Islamists promulgate Professor Keith L. Moore's Qur'anic Pseudoscience of the lying sinful prefrontal area of the cerebrum (here referred to as the prefrontal cerebrum). There are many web sites that are copy-pasting this proposition, and a search of the internet reveals that all the Islamist claims that the cerebrum is responsible for lying and sin comes from the same source, i.e. from Keith Moore. However, Modern medical research utilizing fMRI conduct brain scans has revealed that the prefrontal cerebrum is not responsible for lying. Other brain regions are responsible, particularly the anterior cingulate gyrus which lies in the medial part of the brain in the frontal-parietal area and not in the prefrontal cerebrum. Thus, the scientific evidence does not support the Islamist's pseudoscientific claim that the Qur'an correctly asserts that the prefrontal region is responsible for lying as it is not the region responsible for the decision-making process of lying.

frosbel:


Islam is not God's religion for mankind.

It is a counterfeit satanic inspired religion.

I'm not reading all that rubbish up there.  I'm surprised the OP didn't run afoul of Spambot with his/her posts.

But you, Frosbel, and your comment?  You're so sure Islam is a bad religion.  And whatever religion or spirituality you practice is obviously not giving you much solace considering I only know your username from seeing you miserable and downright suicidal most of the time.  Whining about the end of the world, everytime there's bad news or a natural or man-made disaster you question everything about life.  Did a Muslim come crying to you for comfort? I doubt it.

I don't do e-battles and I don't go after other posters, but you're one NLer I could care less of turning into an enemy.  Really, take a look at yourself before making blanket statements like the one you just did.  How old are you?  You have any evidence Satan inspired Islam?  Really, let's see it.  Spend more time on your own self so you won't lose your head everytime a congresswoman gets shot or an earthquake happens on the other side of the world that doesn't affect you. Heal your damn self before attempting to cure others who doubtless are coping better than you appear to be.

COMMUNISM AND HUMANISM--BEDFELLOWS!

General James Green

IF one studies the Communist Manifesto alongside the Humanist Manifesto 2, one will discover a great deal of overlapping of goals, attitudes and programs, like ideological twins. The first and foremost thing that both manifestos do is abolish eternal (Godly) truths, all religion, and all morality, except that which promotes their propaganda.

Karl Marx, the founder of Communism, taught that middle-class "respectability" had a selfish agenda, and it often concealed its agenda by using a pretense of brotherhood, sisterhood, or Christianity to cover an underlying profit motive. Robert R. Wicks talks about Marx's doctrine in his exposition of the Epistle to the Philippians: "Suspicion of middle-class virtues like disinterested friendship and brotherly love has always been part of their [Marxists] revolutionary propaganda. But they have believed that these unselfish virtues would blossom like the rose when the proletariat come to power, and a classless society had been made secure by the abolition of private property. Under the utopian rule of the workers, with no class exploiting another, there would be no betraying of one another," they assume. [Read Phil. 2:4 in KJV and RSV]

Humanists teach an identical theory to Marxism: if we knock down "religious barriers" and "do away" with God, we would all get along, and our society would be much better.

There is no doubt that Communism and Humanism are both hypocritical to the core! One thing you can count on: "Birds of a (leftist) feather flock together." Both are bent on a One World Order (Odor!). Their commonalities are greater than whatever separates them. Marx declared: "Humanism is nothing else but Marxism."

Enmity toward religion, especially Christianity, makes both systems militarily atheistic. Millions of religious peoples have died at the hands of these two beasts. Humanists may use various names and strategies . . . but they kill nonetheless. Dead is DEAD--by pen or poison. In the early stages of the Bolshevik Revolution, Cheka executioners applied hammer blows to the back of people's heads to dispose of their hated victims; other victims' throats were cut with sickles. That was Communism in action.

Well, now, history has witnessed the effects of these great (supposedly) classless states. The sheer hardness and cruelty of police regimes, which are first executed as part of the revolutionary stage, become even more ruthless as an official policy, while love and sympathy and forgiveness and truthfulness are looked upon as "bourgeoisie" weaknesses. Where is the concern for all members of their "great" societies? Where is the equality? We gain understanding when we realize that the Voltairians; anti-cultural, mystical movements; Renaissance pagans; the Jacobin type of Free Masons; and secret societies, particularly the Illuminati, were all forerunners of Communism and Humanism.

[size=18pt]Being "filthy dreamers," Communists and Humanists want to supplant Godly traditions with unGodly totalitarianism and atheism.[/size] Being zealous and enthusiastic planners, a New World Order is their highest dream. But, my dear readers, they still have to deal with the selfishness of man. Men love their freedom; therefore a dictatorship for the human "sheep" is needed.

Both Communism and Humanism refuse to admit that autocratic planning [i.e., planning for absolute rulership] degrades both rulers and the enslaved human sheep and is socially inefficient and wasteful. That doesn't matter to them, for men are as animals (anthropologically); indistinguishable from other species. Darwin and Marx were buddies, too; both the Communist Manifesto and the Humanist Manifesto 2 hold to evolution dogmas. During Mao's reign of terror in RED China, party education spoke of evolution, even saying that Darwin himself was not a being created by God, but had evolved from animals by "nature." Grant you, Darwin was an "animal," by nature, and that "animal" no doubt is in Hellfire right now!

Just forget about God as Creator when you speak of Communism or Humanism. Those are systems of "scientific godlessness"! The late Dr. Ratibor-Ray Jurjevich, Ph.D., Diplomate in Clinical Psychology, stated, "Darwin has been installed in the Humanist-Communist pantheon as its most deserving member."

Both Communism and Humanism claim man's reason as the only guide to reality. Both scorn the traditional human and Christian morality. Especially Humanists do this with seeming sincerity and from the nihilistic* assumption that a moral code deforms human beings. This is why we see sexuality so perverted today: anything and all things are permissible when it comes to sex. [*Nihilism is basically the rejection of knowledge, truth, traditional values, institutions, etc.]

Yet a Shameless individual is here defending Satan's Kingdom, evil cretin.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/the_islam_i_left_behind.html


The Islam I Left Behind
By Amil Imani


Looking back, I see no particular time or event that, in one stroke, severed my link with Islam. There was nothing nearly as dramatic as what reportedly happened to Paul on the road to Damascus transforming him from a rabid Christian persecutor to a devoted follower of Jesus.


My alienation from Islam started as far back as I could discern things. More to the point, I never embraced Islam in the first place, although I was born and raised in a Muslim family.


I believe in a modified version of Occam's Razor, popularly known as the law of parsimony. To me, an explanation with the fewest assumptions is either the correct one or the preferable one. The best answers, more often than not, are the simple answers.


My search for answers has taken me on a journey of discovery in the competing, crowded, and confusing marketplace of ideas. I noticed a universal human need to believe in some power or forces beyond ourselves and beyond the finite and the corporeal. If there were no God, we humans would make one up, it is said. In order to satisfy this seemingly innate need, three major contentions have emerged: rejection-ism, characterized by dismissing any and all gods; deism, positing a god who created the universe, set it in motion, and let it play out without interfering in it; and God-ism, with many gods, that demanded a super-god to sort them out.


Of the three camps, God-ism seemed to me the most attractive and troubling at the same time. And Islam's God-ism -- Allah-ism steeped in superstition, replete with nonsensical explanations and discriminatory Sharia law -- repulsed me. All I needed to guide my life was contained in the ancient Zoroastrian triad of good thoughts, good speech, and good deeds. The Ten Commandments are a sensible extension of the above triad, and the Universal Charter of Human Rights is its further elaboration.


Things Islamic not only did not resonate with me, but they also often clashed head-on with what I valued and loved. What appealed to me and even enchanted me were more often than not taboo in Islam or anathema to the creed. I loved life, beauty in all its forms, poetry, the ancient Iranian culture and traditions. I loved laughter, celebrations of joy such as birthdays, our yearly festivities of Nowruz, my favorite that lasts for thirteen days. Nowruz, this ancient festival, has been celebrated for thousands of years by my people; it ushers in the spring, welcomes renewal of life, and expresses optimism for the year ahead to bless us with good health, abundant food, family, and friends in the land of a civilized, free people.


I owe my parents a great debt of gratitude for not pounding into me a blind belief. They allowed and even encouraged me to think for myself, to chart my path in life. Father was my model. He treated Mother and the girls as unquestioned equals. Mother, by her deeds, taught me that my friends, who happened to be Muslims, Jews, Christians, Baha'is and Zoroastrians, were every bit as worthy and Iranian as we were. She welcomed them all to our home and often at our table.


From very early on, I was troubled by Islam. It labeled people who were all alike differently and built walls separating them instead of bringing them together. Islam, the dominant religion of my native country, stigmatized non-Muslims and even persecuted them. I began questioning the value of religion. I couldn't see much in Islam that attracted me, and I knew just about nothing regarding the religion of my friends and neighbors. I sought answers, but not from the mullah at the mosque because I had a feeling I wouldn't like his answer anyway. I had heard their line more than I cared to. I began reading as widely as I could, and it helped.


I discovered, that historically, as far as it can be determined, all human groups lived by codes of beliefs. The codes were far from universally uniform, either in context or formality. Yet they all served the critical function of prescribing behaviors that enhance the welfare of the group while proscribing those that undermine it. In tandem with the emergence of the code of conduct was the practice of rituals. While the code of conduct secured order within the group, rituals gave it a sense of identity, essential for solidarity of the "in-group" against the ever-present threats of the "out-group."


Over time, the code of conduct and rituals merged, to various degrees, to serve the group. Some examples are religious ceremonies, secular observances, and the mixtures of the two.


Codes of conduct require enforcement. The physically strong, and perhaps the more cunning, emerged as group leaders and enforcers -- chiefs, sheiks, earls, lords, and kings are continuations of this line of authority. Yet all along, there was a realization that an authority or authorities with much greater powers transcended that of the human. The ancient Greeks' various gods, and the pre-Islamic idolaters of the Arabian Peninsula represent this line of thinking.


Among some human groupings, the utilitarian value of prescriptions and proscriptions for the group evolved into the belief in opposing superhuman powers. Good things, such as bountiful rain, great harvest, and plentiful game, for instance, were seen as the offerings of the benevolent superhuman, while famine, earthquakes, plagues, and so forth were attributed to the actions of the malevolent superhuman. The Zoroastrian concept of Ahuramazda -- the god of good -- and Ahriman -- the lord of evil represents this line of belief.


At some point, monotheism appeared on the scene. The Abrahamic religions represent this line of development. One Supreme Being was posited as the all-powerful, all-everything author of the universe. It simplified things greatly. No need to supplicate many gods, or please one and antagonize another. This Supreme Being communicated with humans through intermediaries of his choosing, some so claimed. And through these intermediaries, He prescribed laws and ordinances. Obedience to His laws attracted His blessings, and disobedience incurred His wrath, often administered by human agencies in this world with more to come in the purported next world.


The God of the monotheist is a hands-on God. And Islam's Allah is extremely hands-on. He leaves virtually no room for anything or anyone to do anything without his full knowledge and authorization. In the Quran, it is explicitly stated that not even a leaf falls from a tree without the decree and knowledge of Allah -- just one of innumerable assertions that define the all-everything Islamic superhuman.


In more recent times, another form of evolution appeared on the scene. The work of Sigmund Freud represents this line of development. God was marginalized. God was reduced to a hypothetical father figure who would reward or punish the children, depending on their actions. Yet, a form of duality was posited within the individual: the Id representing the impulsive, the ungoverned by the code of conduct; the amoral, devoted exclusively to self-gratification; and the Superego, standing for the law-abiding, the moral, and the caring for others.


My love of reading the inexhaustible treasure of exquisite Iranian poetry helped nurture me. Along the way, I learned about and revered Cyrus the Great and a host of other Iranians who personified all that is good and in line with the great benevolent God, Ahuramazda. The more I learned and witnessed about Islam, the more it repelled me, for it is much more in accord with that of the agent of evil, Ahriman.


Islam glorifies death by calling many of its martyrs the solders of Allah. Islam preaches superiority of the "we" and inferiority of the "other." It is a creed steeped in superstition, demands blind obedience to authority, and sanctions just about every form of freedom -- the very precious gift of the Creator Ahuramazda that makes us humans. Everything in Islam is in black and white. One is either Muslim -- good -- or non-Muslim -- bad. Men are superior; women are subservient. This life is worthless and should be offered for the pleasure of Allah as defined by the clergy.

Islam is a creed of a primitive age. It is fixated in time and place; it harbors the ambition of taking the 21st-century world back fourteen centuries and ruling it by its dogma of intolerance, injustice, and death. Yet Islam is not only an obsolete vestige of a defunct era, but itself is an infinitely fractured belief that can hardly put its own home in order. The numerous Islamic sects are at each other's throats; sub-sects and schools despise one another as much as they hate the non-Muslims. Hatred, not love, drives Islam.

I came to the realization that the root cause of my people's degradation and suffering is Islam. It is a creed that was imposed on an enlightened, tolerant, and free people at the point of the sword by savages hailing from the Arabian Peninsula during the seventh century with promises of booty and women in this world and glorious eternal sensual rewards in the promised paradise of Allah in the next. With each passing day, I rejoice more and more in my good fortune, in my ability to avoid the yoke of Islamic slavery and its blinders that imprison a billion and half people by walls of superstition, hatred of others, and celebration of death.


It is distressing to witness Islam making headway in the traditionally non-Islamic lands. Masses of brainwashed faithful, semi-literate Muslims, badly underserved in their own native lands, are moving to countries where the "infidels" welcome them with material wealth denied to them in their own homeland, as well as the liberty to subvert the very societies that give them refuge.


Even more distressing are those goodhearted simpleton non-Muslims up in arms defending the rights of Muslims to practice their religion in free societies such as the United States of America. These well-meaning, badly misguided folks don't realize that practicing Islam requires subverting and destroying any and all non-Islamic beliefs and practices. All one needs to see this deadly aspect of Islam is to examine how Islam is practiced in places such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, and even the so-called more moderate Islamic states such as Egypt.


The overflowing treasuries of the oil-enriched Islamic rulers finance legions of pampered clergy with a highly vested interest in maintaining and promoting the creed. Islamist apologists and mercenaries are collaborating shamelessly with the clergy in portraying a greatly deceptive picture of what Islam is in order to win a highly coveted prize -- the West.


Truth can be distorted and even hidden for a time. Yet it invariably emerges. Thus is the case with Islam. Although it is, by its deceptive means, attracting some adherents in foreign lands, it is losing them by the tens of thousands in its own region as more and more people see for themselves the evil belief and deeds of this creed. It is from the ranks of the newly emancipated that voices of alarm are raised to warn mankind about the true nature of Islam. Even a cursory examination of the teachings of Islam, the life of Muhammad himself, and the conduct of Muslims in the world provide irrefutable evidence for the fact that this creed, called religion, is anathema to all that is cherished by civilized and fair-minded human beings.


I am not against Muslims. I condemn Islam and those who support and promote it. In the same sense, I am not against slaves, but I am against slavery and those who advocate and advance it. The very practice of Islam is tantamount to perpetuating and practicing slavery. Slavery enslaves the body, while Islam entraps the mind. Both ideals and practices are abhorrent and detrimental to the realization of our highest hopes as human beings.


I left Islam behind because that's where it belongs -- behind in history. I summon Muslims to cast off this belief. I urge all people to resist Islam's encroachment, not to be deceived by its sanitized version presented in the non-Islamic lands, and to encourage Muslims to free themselves from its shackles.

We have seen that certain terms in the Kabbalah contain a false doctrine that dates back to Ancient Egypt, and that was later included into the true religion God revealed to the Israelites. We have also seen that its foundation rests upon a perverse way of understanding that regards human beings as uncreated though divine creatures that have existed for eternity.

Humanism entered Europe from this source. Christian belief was based on the existence of God, and the belief that human beings were His dependent servants created by Him. But, with the spread of the Templar tradition throughout Europe, the Kabbalah began to attract a number of philosophers. So, in the fifteenth century, a current of humanism began that left an indelible mark on the European world of ideas.

This connection between humanism and the Kabbalah has been emphasized in several sources. One of these sources is the book of the famous author Malachi Martin entitled The Keys of This Blood. Martin is professor of history at the Vatican's Pontifical Bible Institute. He says that the influence of the Kabbalah can be clearly observed among the humanists:


As Vatican University historian Malachi Martin has shown, there is a close relationship between the rise of humanism in Europe and the Kabbalah.

In this unaccustomed climate of uncertainty and challenge that came to mark early-Renaissance Italy, there arose a network of Humanist associations with aspirations to escape the overall control of that established order. Given aspirations like that, these associations had to exist in the protection of secrecy, at least at their beginnings. But aside from secrecy, these humanist groups were marked by two other main characteristics.

The first was that they were in revolt against the traditional interpretation of the Bible as maintained by the ecclesiastical and civil authorities, and against the philosophical and theological underpinnings provided by the Church for civil and political life.

Not surprisingly given such an animus, these associations had their own conception of the original message of the Bible and of God's revelation. They latched onto what they considered to be an ultrasecret body of knowledge, a gnosis, which they based in part on cultic and occultist strains deriving from North Africa-notably, Egypt-and, in part, on the classical Jewish Kabbala,

Italian humanists bowdlerized the idea of Kabbala almost beyond recognition. They reconstructed the concept of gnosis, and transferred it to a thoroughly this-wordly plane. The special gnosis they sought was a secret knowledge of how to master the blind forces of nature for a sociopolitical purpose.39

In short, the humanist societies formed in that period wanted to replace the Catholic culture of Europe with a new culture that had its roots in the Kabbalah. They aimed to create a sociopolitical change to bring this about. It is interesting that, besides the Kabbalah, at the source of this new culture were the doctrines of Ancient Egypt. Prof. Martin writes:

Initiates of those early humanist associations were devotees of the Great Force-the Great Architect of the Cosmos-which they represented under the form of the Sacred Tetragrammaton, YHWH , [humanists] borrowed other symbols-the Pyramid and the All Seeing Eye-mainly from Egyptian sources.40

It is quite interesting that humanists make use of the concept of "the Great Architect of the Universe," a term still used by Masons today. This indicates that there must be a relationship between humanists and Masons. Prof. Martin writes:

In other northern climes, meanwhile, a far more important union took place, with the humanists. A union that no one could have expected.

In the 1300s, during the time that the cabalist-humanist associations were beginning to find their bearings, there already existed-particularly in England, Scotland and France-medieval guilds of men .

No one alive in the 1300s could have predicted a merger of minds between freemason guilds and the Italian humanists..

The new Masonry shifted away from all allegiance to Roman ecclesiastical Christianity. And again, as for the Italian occultist humanists, the secrecy guaranteed by the tradition of the Lodge was essential in the circumstances.

The two groups had more in common than secrecy, however. From the writings and records of speculative Masonry, [b]it is clear that the central religious tenet became a belief in the Great Architect of the Universe-a figure familiar by now from the influence of Italian humanists.[/b]The Great Architect was immanent to and essentially a part of the material cosmos, a product of the "enlightened" mind.

There was no conceptual basis by which such a belief could be reconciled with Christianity. For precluded were all such ideas as sin, Hell for punishment and Heaven for reward, and eternally perpetual Sacrifice of the Mass, saints and angels, priest and pope.41

In short, in Europe, in the fourteenth century, a humanist and Masonic organization was born that had its roots in the Kabbalah. And, this organization did not regard God as the Jews, Christians and Muslims did: the Creator and Ruler of the whole universe and the only Lord and God of humanity. Instead, they used a different concept, such as the "Great Architect of the Universe," which they perceived as being "part of the material universe."

In other words, this secret organization, that appeared in Europe in the fourteenth century, rejected God, but, under the concept of "the Great Architect of the Universe," accepted the material universe as a supposed divinity (Surely God is beyond that).

For a clearer definition of this corrupt belief, we can jump forward to the twentieth century and look at Masonic literature. For example, one of Turkey's most senior Masons, Selami Isindag, has a book entitled Masonluktan Esinlenmeler (Inspirations from Freemasonry). The purpose of this book is to train young Masons. Concerning the Masons' belief in the "Great Architect of the Universe," he has this to say:

Masonry is not godless. But the concept of God they have adopted is different from that of religion. The god of Masonry is an exalted principle. It is at the apex of the evolution. By criticizing our inner being, knowing ourselves and deliberately walking in the path of science, intelligence and virtue, we can lessen the angle between him and us. Then, this god does not possess the good and bad characteristics of human beings. It is not personified. It is not thought of as the guide of nature or humanity. It is the architect of the great working of the universe, of its unity and harmony. It is the totality of all the creatures in the universe, a total power encompassing everything, an energy. Despite all this, it cannot be accepted that it is a beginning. this is a great mystery.42

In the same book, it is clear that when Freemasons speak of the "Great Architect of the Universe," they mean nature, or, that they worship nature:

Apart from nature there can be no power responsible for our thought or our activities.The principles and doctrines of Masonry are scientific facts based on science and intelligence. God is the evolution. An element of it is the power of nature. So the absolute reality is the evolution itself and the energy that encompasses it.43

The magazine Mimar Sinan, a publishing organization especially for Turkish Freemasons also gives expression to the same Masonic philosophy:

The Great Architect of the Universe is a leaning toward eternity. It is an entering into eternity. For us, it is an approach. It entails the on-going search for absolute perfection in eternity. It forms a distance between the current moment and the Thinking Freemason, or, consciousness.44

This is the belief the Masons mean when they say, "we believe in God, we absolutely do not accept atheists among us." According to Masonry’s perverted beliefs, it is not God, but naturalist and humanist concepts such as nature, evolution and humanity regarded as supposedly divine.

When we look briefly at Masonic literature, we may begin to see that this organization is nothing more than organized humanism, as well as recognize that its aim is to create throughout the whole world a secular, humanist order. These ideas were born among the humanists of fourteenth century Europe; present-day Masons still propose and defend them.

A striking example of this was the great French Revolution of 1789. The Masons, who fomented the revolution, came forth with slogans shouting the moral ideals of "liberty, equality and fraternity." Yet, tens of thousands of innocent people were sent to the guillotine, and the country soaked in blood. Even the leaders of the revolution themselves could not escape this savagery, but were sent to the guillotine, one after the other.

Another violent scene of the French Revolution.

In the nineteenth century, communism was born from the error of the possibility of morality without religion, and with even more disastrous results. Communism supposedly demanded a just, equal society in which there was no exploitation and, to this end, proposed the abolition of religion. However, in the twentieth century, in places such as the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, China, Indo-China, several countries in Africa and Central America, it subjected people to dreadful misery. Communist(Humanism twin brother) regimes murdered an incredible number of people; the total number nears about 120 million.52 Moreover, contrary to what has been claimed, justice and equality have never been established in any communist regime; the communist leaders in charge of the state comprised a class of elites. (In his classic book entitled The New Class, the Yugoslavian thinker Milovan Djilas, explains that the communist leaders, known as "nomenklatura," formed a "privileged class" contrary to the claims of communism.)

Also today, when we look within Masonry itself, which is constantly pronouncing its ideas of "service to society" and "sacrifice for humanity," we do not find a very clean record. In many countries, Masonry has been the focus of relationships for ill-gotten material gain. In the P2 Masonic Lodge scandal of Italy in the 1980's, it came to light that the Masons maintained a close relationship with the mafia, and that the directors of the lodge were engaged in activities such as arms-smuggling, the drug trade or money laundering. It was also revealed that they arranged assaults on their rivals and on those who had betrayed them. In the "Great Eastern Lodge Scandal" of France in 1992, and in the "Clean Hands" operation in England, reported in the English press in 1995, the activities of Masonic lodges in the interests of illegal profit became clear. The Masons' idea of "humanist morality" is only a sham.

That such a thing should happen is inevitable, because, as we said at the beginning, morality is only established in society by the moral discipline of religion. At the basis of morality lies the absence of arrogance and selfishness, and the only ones who can achieve this state are those who realize their responsibility to God. In the Qur'an, after God tells of believers' self-sacrifice, He commands ".It is the people who are safe-guarded from the avarice of their own selves who are successful." (Qur'an, 59: 9). This is the true basis of morality.

The guillotine, the French Revolution's implement of brutality.

In the Sura Furqan of the Qur'an, the nature of the morality of true believers is described in this way:

The servants of the All-Merciful are those who walk lightly on the earth and, who, when the ignorant speak to them, say, "Peace";

those who pass the night prostrating and standing before their Lord,

those who, when they spend, are neither extravagant nor mean, but take a stance mid way between the two;

those who do not call on any other god together with God and do not kill anyone God has made inviolate, except with the right to do so, and do not fornicate,

those who do not bear false witness and who, when they pass by worthless talk, pass by with dignity;

those who, when they are reminded of the Signs of their Lord, do not turn their backs, deaf and blind to them. (Qur'an, 25: 63-73)

Islam(ists) and religious world domination
By James Arlandson

Islamic terrorism may eventually be defeated in its large manifestations, like the one we saw on 9/11, but built into earliest Islam is an ultimate goal of religious world domoination, whether carried out by violent or peaceful means, as seen in the Quran, the Hadith (the record of the deeds and sayings of Muhammad), and the sunna (the example or path of Muhammad).

Osama bin Laden and Abu—Musab al—Zarqawi, the Jordanian who beheads innocent workers in Iraq, are open about this goal, as we see in these fatwas, statements, and interviews before and after 9/11.

In Osama's August 1996 fatwa declaring war against the US, he claims that Islamic revival is occurring around world, and especially around the Muslim world:

Under the present circumstances [of Zionist—Crusader aggressions], and under the banner of the blessed awakening which is sweeping the world in general and the Islamic world in particular, I meet with you today.

In March 1997 Peter Arnett interviews Osama, who says the goal of jihad is to exalt God's word [the Quran] to the heights, in other words, until the message of his Holy Book goes around the world.

For [subordination to the Jews and occupation of Arabia] and other acts of aggression and injustice, we have declared jihad against the US, because in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God's word is the one exalted to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim countries.

His absurd goal of driving out Americans from all Islamic lands has been answered here.

In May 1998 Jonathan Miller, then a reporter with ABC News, now a consultant on terrorism for Los Angeles, interviews Osama, who believes that he is a servant of Allah and that his primary mission is to spread by fighting the religion of light.

I am one of the servants of Allah. We do our duty of fighting for the sake of the religion of Allah. It is also our duty to send a call to all the people of the world to enjoy this great light and to embrace Islam and experience the happiness in Islam. Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion. ,

In November 2001, after 9/11, Osama allows an interview with Hamid Mir, the editor of an Arabic—language journal. The terrorist pulls back a little from his wish to slaughter innocent people, though he has said in numerous other statements and interviews that he is justified in doing so. His mission is to spread the Quran:

Hamid Mir: Can it be said that you are against the American government, not the American people?

Osama: Yes! We are carrying on the mission of our Prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him). The mission is to spread the word of God, not to indulge [in] massacring people.

In December 2001 Osama records a video in which he and a sheikh extol the 9/11 attacks. He states his goal clearly:

I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad.

In that same video Osama reports that after the attacks many converted to Islam, and many others were at least curious about true Islam, in the sense of possibly converting to it.

Some of them said that in Holland, at one of the centers, the number of people who accepted Islam during the days that followed the operations were more than the people who accepted Islam in the last eleven years. I heard someone on Islamic radio who owns a school in America say: 'We don't have time to keep up with the demands of those who are asking
about Islamic books to learn about Islam.' This event made people think (about true Islam) which benefited Islam greatly.

On September 11, 2004, the three—year anniversary of 9/11, al—Zarqawi assumes that spreading Islam around the world is difficult, but that the holy warriors should not give up:

As for you, fighters who came from afar, by Allah, missions of da'wa [the propagation of Islam] have never been a road lined with roses and sweet basil; the price of da'wa missions is heavy, and the price of bringing principles to the land of reality is a lot of torn limbs and blood. The light of dawn shall not be lit in this darkness save by Jihad fighters and shahids.

Thus, in the words of these two visible terrorists—and even non—violent radicals and zealots agree, as we will see, below—the ultimate goal of Islam is to spread the message and ways of Allah around the world because Islam is the gift of God, the greatest seal and capstone of inferior Judaism and Christianity. How is this goal best manifested and carried out? In following the Quran and sharia (Islamic law), which expresses God's will and ways in a pristine form. Ultimately, violent and non—violent radicals want religious world domination.

Where do Osama and al—Zarqawi get this goal of spreading Islam around the world? Out of thin air? Why do not Evangelical Christians use violence and other extreme means to spread their message? After all, Christ said to go into all the world and preach the gospel. What is the difference between the two religions in their outlook and methods of promulgation?

[b]As for Islam, the Quran states unequivocally the superiority and triumph of Islam over all religions in three different verses: 61:9, 48:28, and 9:33. We analyze these three verses methodically. First, it is better to use the translations of Muslim scholars, not those of Western scholars, in order to forestall the criticism of Western bias. Next, it is also crucial that we analyze the historical context and the literary context of each verse. [/b]The historical context reveals the occasion in which Muhammad received his revelations—traditionally thought to be transmitted to him from God through Gabriel. Sometimes this is difficult to discover, but not with these three verses, fortunately. The literary or textual context is important because other verses surrounding these three illuminate their meaning more clearly than the three verses standing in isolation. Then, we interpret the import of the verses, and finally we draw some inferences.

Quran 61:9 is analyzed first:

Maulana Muhammad Ali is an apologist (defender) for Islam, more than an objective scholar, and he translates as follows:

61:9 He it is Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth that He may make it prevail over all religions, though the polytheists are averse. (Maulana)

The following translation is approved and funded by the Saudi Royal family; the parenthetical explanations are original:

61:9 He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islamic monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religions even though the Mushrik�n (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah and His Messenger Muhammad) hate (it). (Hilali and Khan)

The word 'religion' is really singular. And this translation by Majid Fakhry, emeritus (retired) professor at the American University in Lebanon, living now in the US, is approved by al—Azhar University, Egypt, the most prestigious university in the Islamic world, and catches the meaning of the singular:

61:9 It is He Who has sent His Messenger forth with the guidance and the religion of truth, to make it triumph over every religion, even though the idolaters may be averse. (Fakhry)

In many cases, it is a guessing game as to when in history a given sura (chapter) or a passage within a sura was received from Gabriel, but 61:9 was probably received one to three years after the Hijrah (Emigration from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD).

The title of the sura is 'the Ranks,' which comes from 61:4:

61:4 Surely Allah loves those who fight in His ways in ranks, as if they were a solid wall. (Maulana)

The historical context of 61:9, then, is battle and warfare. The verse may refer to the Battle of Badr in 624 AD, in which the Muslims won a stunning victory over a much—larger Meccan army, or it may refer to the Battle of Uhud (625), in which the Muslims did not fare so well, but the loss did not hurt them substantially, for they carried on and grew in power. It is likely that 61:9 was received after the Battle of Badr, for the verse sounds a note of triumph, not defeat. Muhammad was flushed with victory, and in his exuberance he foresees Islam overtaking Christianity, the largest competitor religion in the Greater Middle East.

In fact, the verses just before 61:9—the literary context—show Jesus prophesying the coming of a certain Ahmad, who is Muhammad (v. 6). Disbelievers then accuse Muhammad of sorcery, impute falsehood to Allah, and try to extinguish Allah's Lights (vv. 7—. Maulana Muhammad Ali in his commentary sees these enemies as either polytheists or Christians whose Trinitarianism is a version of polytheism. Thus, Muhammad the prophet is breaking free from the inferior religion, Christianity (as well as Judaism). And Jesus himself directly approves of Muhammad and the Quran as if to say that Muhammad supercedes him. However, Muhammad provides no evidence that Jesus says this; rather, Muhammad is just making it up, though claiming it comes down from Gabriel.

The two conservative scholars working in Arabia, Drs. Muhammad Taqi—ud—Din Al—Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan, interpret 61:9 in a traditional way, citing Imam Bukhari (810—870 AD), a scholar who collected the sayings and deeds of Muhammad in the Hadith. His collection is considered completely reliable and comes second in sacredness behind the Quran. Hilali and Khan connect this hadith to 61:9:

Allah's Messenger said: 'By Him (Allah) in Whose Hand my soul is, surely the son of Mary [Isa (Jesus)] will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims), and will judge mankind justly by the Law of the Quran (as a just ruler) and will break the Cross and kill pigs and abolish the Jizyah [a tax] . . . .'

Thus, Muslims believe that Christ will return as a Muslim, break the cross in a symbolic display to show Christians how wrong they are, and kill pigs, which are unclean animals to Muslims, but which Christians may eat. Indeed, Muslims believe that Christ did not actually die on the cross, but another man took his place. The odd belief of the non—crucifixion has been refuted here.

Undeterred by the questionable, unresearched historicizing that denies the crucifixion, Hilali and Khan themselves offer this warning to Christians, based on Bukhari's hadith:

[I]t is a severe warning to the Christians who claim to be the followers of Isa (Jesus) and he will break the Cross and kill the pigs, and he will abolish the Jizya (tax); and all mankind will be required to embrace Islam with no alternative.

We can draw these inferences from the verse, its historical and literary contexts, and its interpretation: (1) The triumph of Islam in 61:9 comes in the context of warfare. Allah loves soldiers who win in ranks, and Islam will triumph over all religions, but especially over heretical Christianity. (2) Jesus himself prophesies and approves of Muhammad. The later Prophet supercedes Jesus of Nazareth, whom Muslims regard as merely a prophet. (3) Jesus is coming again, as Christians believe, but Jesus will be a leader of the Muslims and will break the cross, which is based on the false doctrine of the atoning work of Christ. (4) Terrorists use the idea of triumph over other religions for their own diabolical purposes. This is especially dangerous since this triumph is found in the context of warfare and violence, according to Muhammad's sunna or example in history.

The second passage is 48:28, and reads nearly identically to 61:9:

The two conservative scholars receiving Saudi support translate as follows:

48:28 He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), that He may make it (Islam) superior to all religions. And All—Sufficient is Allah as a Witness. (Hilali and Khan, parenthetical notes are theirs)

Majid Fakhry, instead of 'superior,' uses 'exalt it above':

48:28 It is He Who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may exalt it above every other religion. Allah suffices as Witness. (Fakhry)

Abdullah Yusuf Ali, a moderate scholar, has:

48:28 It is He Who has sent his Apostle with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over All Religion; and enough is God for a Witness. (Yusuf Ali)

The historical context of Sura 48 takes place during the Treaty of Hudaybiyah in 628. Muhammad had a dream, literally (see 48:27), to take a pilgrimage to Mecca, but the Meccans blocked his way. After a standoff, both sides agreed to a treaty by which Muhammad negotiated, among other terms, the right to a pilgrimage to Mecca a year later in 629, which took place. This truce won many new converts to Islam through peaceful means, not warfare, and 48:28 indicates that Muhammad was so confident, he predicted that his religion would spread out beyond Arabia and be exalted above other religions.

However, warfare is near at hand in Sura 48, as usual in Muhammad's career and in Quranic verses, and this may have contributed to his confidence. In 628, after the Treaty, Muhammad advanced northwards and attacked the city of Kaybar, where a rich tribe of Jews were settled. He was anxious to defeat them because they were inciting enemies against him. But the Jews were inciting enemies against him because he had exiled the Jewish tribe of an—Nadir in 625. This is one more piece of evidence demonstrating how the cycle of violence and revenge could go on and on in Arab culture; Muhammad the God—inspired prophet did not rise above this violent cycle, but skillfully used it to his advantage.

Be that as it may, Muhammad conquered the city and allowed the Jews to cultivate their land, but they had to turn over half the produce to the 1600 Muslims who fought and took part in the attempted pilgrimage in 628 that resulted in the Treaty. Indeed, the last line of 48:27 reads: 'and He also granted you a speedy triumph' (Haleem's translation), and scholars agree that this triumph or victory likely refers to Kaybar.

The literary context is revealing, as well. Allah promises Muhammad and his fledgling religion more victories in Sura 48. For example, verse 22 says that if anyone fights with Muhammad, the enemy will turn his back and run, finding no protector or helper. Most importantly verses 24—26 predict that the sacred Mosque (the Kabah shrine housing the sacred black stone in Mecca) has been granted to Muhammad even before he actually takes possession of it. Later, this will give Muhammad and his followers permission to claim ownership over Jerusalem before they take possession of it, which will generate many problems, even today.

The interpretation of 48:28 should be anchored in the key words 'superior,' 'above,' and 'over,' depending on the translation. Allah's true religion and his guidance (the Quran) will be exalted over all other religions, which echoes Osama's belief that he must fight until God's word is exalted to the heights (see his interview in March 1997, above).

Moreover, Yusuf Ali's translation says that Islam should spread through 'proclamation,' a word choice that does not appear in other translations. This is a peaceful (if inaccurate) rendering of the verse that Muslims should consider as they spread their religion around the world, by proclamation only. Yet, despite this soft translation, the historical context and the overriding content of 48:28 spark a note of triumph in the moderate scholar's commentary on the verse. Says Yusuf Ali:

The divine disposition of events in the coming of Islam and its promulgation by the holy Prophet are themselves evidence of the truth of Islam and its all—reaching character; for there is nothing that it has not influenced.

This reasonable scholar, then, believes that the spread of Islam proves its truth. Though this is a dubious inference, if a moderate holds to this, then so will the terrorists. When they see Islam in recession compared with the West and Christianity, they take action to stop the American 'Crusaders.' This belief drawn from early Islam has triggered the terrorist attacks for the last twenty years, culminating in 9/11.

These inferences can be drawn:

(1) 48:28 itself says that Islam would triumph over all other religions. Osama understands the import of this verse, and desperately wants this to occur, so he takes matters into his own hands and confronts the West, especially the US, which, in his mental world, is a new Crusader.

(2) Muhammad's religion grew through peaceful means, the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, but he could not leave well enough alone, and attacked a Jewish settlement in Kaybar.

(3) Therefore, warfare is close at hand in Muhammad's prediction that Islam would be exalted above and over all other religions. Facts like these inspire terrorists and radicals to ensure the spread of Islam by whatever means possible.

Quran 9:33 is the last verse:

Since this verse repeats the other two, we need use only one translation:

9:33 It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it superior over all religions, though the Mushrik�n (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it). (Hilali and Khan, parenthetical notes are theirs)

The historical context of Sura 9 occurs late in Muhammad's career, and most scholars believe that this section where verse 33 is found reflects Muhammad's northward expansion without material and real provocation, as reputable scholars agree, so Islam was acting aggressively. Specifically, in October to December 630, after the conquest of Mecca in January 630, Muhammad launched a Crusade to Tabuk, a city some 350 miles north of Medina and 250 miles south of Jerusalem. 'Crusade' is the right word, for early Muslim sources say the army had 30,000 men and 10,000 horses, though modern estimates agree that the numbers are exaggerated. Still, whatever the specific number, the army was large.

On his way north, Muhammad extracted (or extorted, really) agreements—without provocation—from smaller Christian Arab tribes to pay the jizyah tax, instead of being attacked and killed. They also had the option to convert, but most did not and agreed, rather, to pay the tax (see Quran 9:29, below). Once the Muslims reached Tabuk, the results were indecisive. The Byzantine army failed to materialize, Muhammad and his large army returned to their homes after ten days.

The verses around 9:33—the literary context—reveal an absolutist outlook, which terrorists and non—violent extremists are quick to pick up on. Because of Muhammad's northward gaze, the polemics against Christianity becomes harsher, as seen here:

9:29 Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Hilali and Khan, parenthetical notes are theirs)

This verse, now famous or infamous, outlines four conditions for fighting, notably the fourth one. Muslims are commanded to fight against the Jews and Christians who do not acknowledge the religion of truth, Islam. The Christians and Jews must submit after battle or avoid battle by paying a special 'protection' tax for the privilege of living under Islam, which was moving northward without provocation. Incidentally, Muslim scholars, and some Western ones, assert that, technically, this policy does not force conversion. To a certain extent that is true, even though the technicality has been called into question here.

Next, the following verse curses Christians who say the Messiah (no better than a prophet in Islam) is the Son of God:

9:30 . . . [A]nd the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. . . . Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth! (Hilali and Khan)

Moreover, verses 31—32 and 34 claim that Jews and Christians take false leaders to be their lords; that the Christians associate another god, Jesus, with Allah; and that Jews and Christians want to extinguish the light of Allah. Thus, Muhammad's tone and language against Christianity (and Judaism) become shrill.

The interpretation of 9:33 can be short, since it is nearly identical to 61:9 and 48:28. We need only add that Muhammad's vision for a triumphant Islam is repeated three times in the three verses, and his conquests in real life and his vision work hand in glove. As his confidence grows, so does his far—reaching vision of the superiority of his religion.

We can conclude from 9:33 and its historical and literary contexts, as follows:

(1) The largest, most powerful competitor religion was Christianity, and as Muhammad confronts it, his rhetoric against it heats up. Islam is superior to Christianity and will prevail over it. He is leading his Muslim soldiers northward to expand the reach of Islam. Plainly said, this is a Muslim Crusade long before the European Crusades.

(2) Warfare and violence form the context of 9:33, especially 9:29, which contains the word 'fight,' which is directed against those who do not believe in Allah, the End of Day, and Muhammad's declarations on clean and unclean things. But especially Muslims must fight against Jews and Christians who do not submit or pay a tax. Why would not terrorists be inspired by this command to fight and the ensuing violence?

(3) In this northward march, Muhammad is outlining policies that his armies of warriors must adopt and implement after he is gone (he dies in 632). From Quran 9:29, later conquering Muslims adopt this policy: People of the Book can fight and die or pay a 'protection' tax or convert. In fact, the Muslims are so successful militarily that they conquer Jerusalem in 638, dragging this policy behind them.

Contrasting Quran 61:9, 48:28, and 9:33 with Matthew 28:18—20:

We are now in a position to contrast Islam with another expansionist or missionary religion, Christianity. Jesus in the last verses of the Gospel of Matthew speaks what is known as the Great Commission, in which he commissions his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel and make disciples. Evangelicals take these verses seriously.

28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.'

This passage can be contrasted with Quran 61:9, 48:28, and 9:33 in three ways.

First, Jesus does not announce the superiority of his new religion as exalted over and above all other religions, even though he knows that the greater Mediterranean world is filled with various religions—Greek and Roman culture penetrated into Israel. It is true that he wants his message to go out into all the world, and in this, Christianity is in conflict with Islam. However, the tone and attitude in the Great Commission differs from Muhammad's tone and attitude in the three Quranic verses. No talk of winning or superiority or prevailing can be found in Matthew 28:18—20.

Second, the historical and literary contexts in Matthew differ from that of the Quranic passages. Jesus' commissioning takes place after his resurrection. In no way does warfare or conquest guide the Great Commission. Jesus never raised an army to conquer Jerusalem or anything else. He did not institute a policy that requires battle or 'protection' tax or conversion. And for the first three centuries his disciples followed this guidance (Constantine comes in the fourth century). Christianity spread only by peaceful proclamation. In contrast, Muhammad guides his followers in warfare and conquest, and they follow him faithfully in this, for centuries.

Third and finally, Jesus' commissioning contains the bare minimum of instructions. His missionaries are to preach, baptize, and make disciples so that new converts obey all that he commands. But what are the greatest commandments that take care of all the rest?

After Jesus makes his Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem (Matt 21:1—11) in order to die there, not to conquer it, the Pharisees and Sadducees, two major religious and political groups in first—century Israel, put him to the test (21:23—27). He is questioned about political and religious matters, and he answers them successfully (22:15—33). Then, one of them, an expert in the law, tests him further.

22:35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?' Jesus replied: ''Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.'

Thus, Jesus does not reinstitute a new sacred law—sharia—that forbids or allows this or that food or prayer method or forced fasts or animal sacrifice or pilgrimage to a city or shrine. Those two commandments summarize all of the Law and Prophets, and indeed are found in Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 6:5, and are repeated by the Apostle Paul in Romans 13:8—10. '. . . Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law' (v. 10).

Muhammad, on the other hand, in 61:9, 48:28, and 9:33, proclaims that he has received from on High 'true guidance' which is another way of saying the Quran, and it is filled with a new law of eating, forced praying, visiting shrines, forced alms and fasts, conquering, and so on. For example, as we have already seen in 9:29, Allah tells his prophet that he should fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day or in what has been forbidden, like eating pork, to cite one example. Also, Jews or Christians who refuse to acknowledge the religion of truth, Islam, should be battled and fought until they pay the 'protection' tax with willing submission (the word 'islam' means 'submission') and feel themselves utterly subdued (beyond submission), eventually having sharia imposed on them.

Christians, however, have been set free from onerous rules and regulations in their eternal trip to heaven, thanks to Christ's sacrifice on the cross. (Yes, he physically, actually and historically died on the cross.) Why, then, would Christians wish to submit—again, the key word in Islam—to a new law that Muhammad adapted from the Old Law, 600 hundred years after Christ lived and spoke those words of love and instituted a New Covenant of the Spirit? Christians are commanded to go out into the world and preach the love of God to all nations, not to fight and conquer unbelievers in all nations, imposing a sharia or new law on them.

We began this article with the very words of Osama bin Laden and Abu—Musab al—Zarqawi who represent many other lesser—known terrorists. However, we should not deceive ourselves that only terrorists believe their religion is superior and will prevail over all other religions. Non—violent fanatics have chimed in with shrill claims and predictions.

Sayyid Qutb, Egyptian novelist, poet and 'activist,' executed in 1966 for advocating the overthrow of the Egyptian government, claims that Islam now must be chosen over Christianity:

America and Russia are the same; they both base themselves on materialistic thinking. The real struggle is between Islam on the one hand and Russia and America on the other. Christianity is incapable of meeting the challenge. That is why Islam must be chosen now.

In other words, the US and Russia are sinking into materialism, and Islam, not Christianity, must fight the two countries because Christianity is too weak spiritually. Thus, the 'clash of civilizations,' though decried by Westernized Muslim moderates seeking to put the best face on Islam, is still a valid concept for more radical Muslims. Islam must dominate the world, even if by 'clashing.'

Next, a preacher at the Kaba Mosque in Medina, Sheikh Abd al—Aziz Qari, delivers a sermon predicting the annihilation of Christianity and Judaism, the religions of unbelief—or of not believing in Allah:

Two groups — the Jews and the Christians — are the main elements constituting the Camp of Kufr [unbelief] and will continue to be its two foundations until Allah allows their downfall and annihilation at the end of days,

Continuing his sermon, al—Aziz Qari repeats the hadith that says Jesus will return and break the cross:

When the Prophet Muhammad was sent out, the Camp of Kufr declared war on his message. At the center of this war were these groups, particularly the Jews. These two groups will continue to serve as the grindstones of the conflict and the war between belief and Kufr until eternity comes, The conflict will end when Jesus the son of Mary, peace be upon him, arrives to break the cross, and wipes it off the face of the earth, and kills the blind [false] Messiah, the leader of the Jews and the tyrant whom they await. Until that day, the conflict between us, the Muslims, and the Jews and Christians will continue, and it will ebb and flow, one day ours, another day theirs,

Contrary to the sheikh's revisionist assertion that the Camp of Kufr (disbelief = Jews and Christians) declared war on Islam, it is more accurate historically to say that when 'Muhammad was sent out' (by Allah) on his conquests in and around Medina and Mecca and even northward, he declared war on surrounding tribes of polytheists and all the way to the Byzantine Empire, which for the Prophet represented Christianity. Marching northward with armies (not a band of preachers only), Muhammad launched his own Crusades hundreds of years before Europeans launched theirs.

Further, al—Aziz Qari distorts Christian eschatology (study of the end times). Jesus will return, but in favor of the Muslims, arriving to symbolically break the cross, in order to show how wrong Christians are. As we noted earlier, though, Muhammad merely changes, without evidence, Christian teaching to suit his own religion. But it is the Christians who get to read the source documents—the New Testament—and interpret them; Muhammad did not know them, but picked up what little he knew from fragments of tales and apocrypha that circulated around the trade routes of Arabia. Therefore, later Muslims do not have carte blanche to distort Christian teaching, either.

Be that as it may, al—Aziz Qari says that Islam will dominate the world, if only when Jesus returns. Until then, conflict and war between the Camp of Belief (Islam) and the Camp of Unbelief (Christianity and Judaism) will never cease. Clearly, this sheikh's rant and distortions are inspired by early Islam.

Finally, in a sermon at the Old Mosque in al—Jumaa, Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abd al—Majid ibn al—Aziz al—Deheishi predicts victory for Islam as surely as the sun rises:

He who doubts the victory of the [Islamic] religion is like he who despairs that the sun will not rise after darkness falls,

Taking his inspiration from early Islam, al—Aziz al—Deheishi cites as proof for his prediction a hadith that says the rocks and trees will cry out that there are Jews hiding behind them, and then will all the Jews be killed, and finally Islam will be victorious (in bold print, below):

For the contemptible Jews , is foreseen an encounter with the nation of Muhammad, as it is said: 'The Day of Judgment will come, when the Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them until the Jew hides behind the stone and the tree. The stone and the tree will say: O Muslim, O worshipper of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him' — except for the gharqad (thorny bush) tree, which is the tree of the Jews. These texts are certain proof of the victory of the religion of Islam.

From all of these quotations and from the commentary on the three Quranic verses, it is evident that terrorists, extremists and even moderates believe that Islam should be spreading not only in the Greater Middle East, but all over the world. This has been seen in the comment of moderate Yusuf Ali that the expansion of Islam amounts to God's endorsement (see 48:28, above), and in the claim of intellectual 'activist' Qutb that the world must abandon western Christianity (embodied in the US) and eastern Christianity (embodied in the Russia). Islam must tackle materialistic America and Russia because Christianity is too weak to do so.

Therefore, all these quotations and summaries of terrorists and non—violent fanatics and even some moderates can be boiled down to this logic, which has been explained in another analysis from another angle.

(1) If A, then B. If Islam is the superior religion (61:9, 48:28, 9:33), then it must prevail and triumph over all other religions.
(2) Not—B. But Islam is not prevailing or triumphing over all other religions.
(3) Therefore, not—A. Islam is not the superior religion.

This logic is the terrible grievance that chafes at the heart of terrorists and non—violent fanatics.

All cultures and societies have some religion—ranging from simple animism and ancestor veneration to Mahayana Buddhism and Hinduism—but it is only Western civilization and Christianity, though not identical, that create the negation in premise (2), the not—B, with some negation from Hindus in northern India, bordering on Pakistan, and from animists and Christians in Africa, who are being attacked and killed. Also, early Islam speaks almost exclusively of Christianity as the major roadblock to world submission and domination, and it is this major religion that Muhammad confronts in his later unprovoked military campaigns.

Therefore, the West and Christianity, though not identical, must be brought down together, and earliest Islam inspires terrorists and extremists to absorb this idea of triumph over the 'Great Satan' and the 'Camp of Unbelievers' in their false religion, and to bring about the ultimate victory for Islam the true religion by a variety of means, including holy war in the example of their prophet.

Beyond the West, though, since all corners of the globe have some religion, Islam must now religiously dominate the world, which entails complete control over all aspects of society through sharia, with no distinction between mosque and state, between religion and civil liberties, and between imposing holiness from an antiquated and harsh law and choosing holiness from a relationship with a loving Father God.

Jim Arlandson (PhD) teaches introductory philosophy and world religions at a college in southern California. He has written a book Women, Class and Society in Early Christianity: Models from Luke—Acts (Hendrickson, 1997).

on "Islam(ists) and religious world domination"

It is a generally recognised fact amongst historians that there exist two totalitarian ideologies: Nazism and Communism. When looking at Nazism and Communism one will see that they have one thing in common: They do not recognise the importance of the single human being. The only thing that matters to them is a big group (i.e. the Aryan Race, the working class). It is this aspect of these two ideologies that make them so-called totalitarian ideologies.

In this piece however, I will contest the fact that there are only two such totalitarian ideologies. I will try to authenticate my belief that there exists yet one more totalitarian ideology: The ideology of modern Humanism.
, there exists yet one more totalitarian ideology: The ideology of modern Humanism.

When one looks up the word 'Humanism' in an encyclopedia it states that Humanism is an ideology which focuses on the importance of every single human being. That it is an "ideology which emphasises the value of the individual human being and its ability to develop into a harmonic and culturally aware personality". This sounds fair enough, right? Indeed it does, but it is my firm belief that the explanation here does not match the humanism of our time.

The so-called Humanists I have met have been putting a strong emphasis on humanity as a gigantic community rather than on the individual. Often one will even find alleged humanists who insist that the views, aspiritions and basic happiness of indigenous Europeans is of no importance. Instead, these Humanists say, indigenous Europeans should bow down and forget about their own wants and desires for the greater good of humanity. The greater good of Humanity usually seems to be to take no interest in Europe's cultural heritage and integrate into a grey, world-wide, uniform "globalisation" with the Coca-Cola-culture as loadstar.

Now think through that idea again: that people should give up their desires for a gigantic community (in this case humankind). Doesn't that sound like something we have heard before? Yes, indeed, this idea is a main trait in Nazism and Communism and constitutes the very thing that makes an ideology totalitarian.

So clearly humanism has become (if it has ever been anything else) a totalitarian ideology in line with Communism and Nazism/Fascism. In fact the Humanists are even worse as the groups whose individual rights they slap down is even bigger.

The totalitarian tendencies within Humanism have not yet revealed themselves in the form of mass-murder or other such atrocities. But that it is certainly capable of that can be seen from several examples. The very fact that many Humanists wish to see a world government really shows the dangerous, totalitarian tendencies of Humanism.

Also notice the way that Humanists insist that human beings should treat each other well merely because, yes, we are all human beings. This line of argument is basically the same as that which was used by the nazis - just applied more broadly. The Nazis believed that people of the same race should be kind to each other and stick together. The argument that humans should be good to each other just because they are of the same species is based on exactly the same way of thinking: whether it is applied to the Aryan Race or humankind it means that people should be kind to each other simply because of their shared genes.

The danger of humanism lies in the fact that it can so easily slip into that the worst of deeds are being seen as acceptable as long as they are done for the greater good of humanity. This is also an argument which been used in the debate over mass-murders in the Soviet Union: Humanists have claimed that because the Communists intended the best for humanity their mass-murders were somehow less terrible than those of the Nazis.

From wikipedia.org

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the power of a single political person, faction, or class, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.[2] Totalitarianism is usually characterized by the coincidence of authoritarianism (where ordinary citizens have less significant share in state decision-making) and ideology (a pervasive scheme of values promulgated by institutional means to direct most if not all aspects of public and private life).[3]
Totalitarian regimes or movements stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of state terrorism.

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers. The term derives from Greek δόγμα "that which seems to one, opinion or belief"[1] and that from δοκέω (dokeo), "to think, to suppose, to imagine".[2] The plural is either dogmas or dogmata , from Greek δόγματα.

Dogma in religionDogmata are found in religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, where they are considered core principles that must be upheld by all followers of that religion. As a fundamental element of religion, the term "dogma" is assigned to those theological tenets which are considered to be well demonstrated, such that their proposed disputation or revision effectively means that a person no longer accepts the given religion as his or her own, or has entered into a period of personal doubt. Dogma is distinguished from theological opinion regarding those things considered less well-known. Dogmata may be clarified and elaborated but not contradicted in novel teachings (e.g., Galatians 1:8-9). Rejection of dogma may lead to expulsion from a religious group.

For Catholicism and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christianity, the dogmata are contained in the Nicene Creed and the canon laws of two, three, seven, or twenty-one ecumenical councils (depending on whether one is Nestorian, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic). These tenets are summarized by St. John of Damascus in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, which is the third book of his main work, titled The Fount of Knowledge. In this book he takes a dual approach in explaining each article of the faith: one, for Christians, where he uses quotes from the Bible and, occasionally, from works of other Fathers of the Church, and the second, directed both at non-Christians (but who, nevertheless, hold some sort of religious belief) and at atheists, for whom he employs Aristotelian logic and dialectics, especially reductio ad absurdum.

The decisions of fourteen later councils that Catholics hold as dogmatic and two decrees promulgated by Popes' exercising papal infallibility (see Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary) are considered as being a part of the Church's sacred body of doctrine.

Catholic dogmata are a distinct form of doctrine taught by the Church, considered as infallible and divine revelation.

Protestants to differing degrees affirm portions of these dogmata, and often rely on denomination-specific 'Statements of Faith' which summarize their chosen dogmata (see, e.g., Eucharist).

In Islam, the dogmatic principles are contained in the aqidah. Within many Christian denominations, dogma is referred to as "doctrine".


Islam (Arabic: الإسلام‎ al-’islām, pronounced [ʔɪsˈlæːm]  ( listen)[note 1]) is the monotheistic religion articulated by the Qur’an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Arabic: الله‎, Allah), and the teachings and normative example (called the Sunnah and Hadith) of Muhammad, often considered as the last Prophet of Islam. In addition to referring to the religion itself, the word Islam means 'submission to God'[1], 'peace', and 'way to peace'.[2] An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim.

Muslims believe that God is one and incomparable.[3] Muslims also believe that Islam is the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed at many times and places before, including through the prophets Abraham, Moses and Jesus.[4] Muslims maintain that previous messages and revelations have been partially changed or corrupted over time,[5] but consider the Qur'an to be both unaltered and the final revelation from God. Religious concepts and practices include the five pillars of Islam, which are basic concepts and obligatory acts of worship, and following Islamic law, which touches on virtually every aspect of life and society, encompassing everything from banking and welfare, to warfare and the environment.[6][7]  Note from Divinereal: Sounds very Totalitarian to me

Most Muslims belong to one of two denominations; with 80-90% being Sunni and 10-20% being Shia.[8][9][10] About 13% of Muslims live in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country,[11] 25% in South Asia,[11] 20% in the Middle East,[12] 2% in Central Asia, 4% in the remaining South East Asian countries, and 15% in Sub-saharan Africa.[13] Sizable communities are also found in China and Russia, and parts of the Caribbean. Converts and immigrant communities are found in almost every part of the world. With about 1.41-1.57 billion Muslims, comprising about 21-23% of the world's population (see Islam by country),[13][14] Islam is the second-largest religion and one of the fastest-growing religions in the world.[15][16][17][18][19]

Islamism (Islam+-ism; Arabic: الاسلامية ‎ al-'islāmiyya) also Arabic: إسلام سياسي‎ al-Islām al-Siyāsiyy, lit., "Political Islam" is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system; that modern Muslims must return to the roots of their religion, and unite politically.
Another definition for إسلام سياسي which is translated as Islamism suggests a different concept. As accepted by a large group of Shia muslims (for example in Iran), إسلام سياسي is 'to know Islam as the right ethical system which must be the core of ethics in politics'. Therefore, if we assume Islamism is إسلام سياسي, then the suggested definition is not accepted by a large group of Muslims and if we want to give the Shia version another name (such as Political Islam), then the general term إسلام سياسي should not be used as the equivalent to Islamism.

Islamism is a controversial term and definitions of it sometimes vary. Leading Islamist thinkers emphasized the enforcement of sharia (Islamic law) on Muslims; of pan-Islamic political unity; and of the elimination of non-Muslim, particularly western military, economic, political, social, or cultural influences in the Muslim world, which they believe to be incompatible with Islam.[1]

Some observers suggest Islamism's tenets are less strict and can be defined as a form of identity politics or "support for [Muslim] identity, authenticity, broader regionalism, revivalism, [and] revitalization of the community".[2] Still others define it as "an Islamic militant, anti-democratic movement, bearing a holistic vision of Islam whose final aim is the restoration of the caliphate".[3]

Many of those described as "Islamists" oppose the use of the term, and claim that their political beliefs and goals are simply an expression of Islamic religious belief. Similarly, some experts favour the term activist Islam [4][5] or political Islam instead.[6]

Central figures of modern Islamism include Abul Ala Maududi,[7] Sayyid Qutb, Hasan al-Banna and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.[8]



Secular Humanism, alternatively known as Humanism (with an emphasis on the capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism), is a secular philosophy that espouses human reason, ethics, and justice, and the search for human fulfillment. It specifically rejects religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.
Secular Humanism is a comprehensive life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead happy and functional lives. Though it posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or God, it neither assumes humans to be inherently or innately good, nor presents humans as "above nature" or superior to it. Rather, the Humanist life stance emphasises the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of Secular Humanism is the strongly held belief that ideology — be it religious or political — must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith.[1] Along with this belief, an essential part of Secular Humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy.

Capitalization of "Humanist" is the recommended and normal usage within the International Humanist and Ethical Union, though some member organizations, such as the Council for Secular Humanism in the United States, continue to use the adjective "secular".


Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or dogma.[1] The cognitive application of freethought is known as 'freethinking', and practitioners of freethought are known as 'freethinkers'.[2]

Freethought holds that individuals should not accept ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their opinions on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any logical fallacies or intellectually limiting effects of authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmas. Regarding religion, freethinkers hold that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena.

A line from "Clifford's Credo" by the 19th Century British mathematician and philosopher William Kingdon Clifford perhaps best describes the premise of freethought: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

2.The theory of evolution, the so-called scientific justification behind the first Humanist Manifesto, started to lose ground in the decades after it was written. It is known today that the scenario proposed for the origin of life by atheist (and no doubt humanist) evolutionists, such as A. I. Oparin and J. B. S. Haldane in the 1930's, has no scientific validity; living things cannot be generated spontaneously from non-living matter as proposed by this scenari[/b]o. [b]The fossil record demonstrates that living things did not develop through a process of small cumulative changes, but appeared abruptly with their distinct characteristics, and this fact has been accepted by evolutionist paleontologists themselves since the 1970's. Modern biology has demonstrated that living things are not the result of chance and natural laws, but that there are in each organism complex systems indicating an intelligent design that are evidence for creation. (For details refer to Harun Yahya, Darwinism Refuted: How the Theory of Evolution Breaks Down in the Light of Modern Science)

Moreover, the erroneous claim that religious belief was the factor that prevented humanity from progressing and drew it into conflict has been disproved by historical experience. :oHumanists have claimed that the removal of religious belief would make people happy and at ease, however, the opposite has proved to be the case . Six years after the first Humanist Manifesto was published, the Second World War broke out, a record of the calamity brought upon the world by the secular fascist ideology. The humanist ideology of communism wreaked, first on the people of the Soviet Union, then on the citizens of China, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba and various African and Latin American countries, unparalleled savagery. A total of 120 million people were killed by communist regimes or organizations. It is also evident that the Western brand of humanism (capitalist systems) has not succeeded in bringing peace and happiness to their own societies or to other areas of the world.

The collapse of humanism's argument on religion has also been manifested in the field of psychology. The Freudian myth, a corner-stone of the atheist dogma since early twentieth century, has been invalidated by empirical data. Patrick Glynn, of the George Washington University, explains this fact in his book titled God: The Evidence, The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World :

   The last quarter of the twentieth century has not been kind to the psychoanalytic vision. Most significant has been the exposure of Freud's views of religion (not to mention a host of other matters) as entirely fallacious. Ironically enough, scientific research in psychology over the past twenty-five years has demonstrated that, far from being a neurosis or source of neuroses as Freud and his disciples claimed, religious belief is one of the most consistent correlates of overall mental health and happiness. [size=18pt]Study after study has shown a powerful relationship between religious belief and practice, on the one hand, and healthy behaviors with regard to such problems as suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, divorce, depression, even, perhaps surprisingly, levels of sexual satisfaction in marriage, on the other hand[/size]. 37

[size=18pt]In short, the supposed scientific justification behind humanism has been proven invalid and its promises vain.[/size] Nevertheless, humanists have not abandoned their philosophy, but rather, in fact, have tried to spread it throughout the world through methods of mass propaganda. Especially in the post-war period there has been intense humanist propaganda in the fields of science, philosophy, music, literature, art and cinema. T[b]he attractive but hollow messages created by humanist ideologues have been insistently imposed upon the masses[/b]. The song "Imagine," by John Lennon, soloist of the most popular music group of all times, the Beatles, is an example of this:

John Lennon, by his lyrics, "Imagine there is no religion," was one of the most prominent propagandists of humanist philosophy in the twentieth century.

Imagine there's no heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

Imagine all the people

Living for today,

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too,

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

This song is a good indication of the sentimentality with which humanism, lacking any scientific or rational foundation, is imposed on the masses. Humanism produces, and can produce, no rational objection to religion or the truths it teaches, but attempts to employ suggestive methods such as these, which it regards as efficacious.

When the promises of the 1933 I. Humanist Manifesto proved vain , forty years passed after which humanists presented a second draft. At the beginning of the text was an attempt to explain why the first promises had come to nothing. Despite the fact that this explanation was extremely weak, it demonstrated the enduring attachment of humanists to their atheist philosophy.

The most obvious characteristic of the manifesto was its preservation of the anti-religious line of the 1933 manifesto: (Surely God is beyond the expressions in the extract below.)

   As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. We believe , that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species, As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity.38

These statements consist of humanist nonsense and represent a very superficial explanation. In order to understand religion, one first needs the intelligence and understanding to be able to grasp profound ideas. The predisposition must be sincerity and the avoidance of prejudice. Instead, humanism is nothing more than the attempt of some individuals, who are passionately atheistic and antireligious from the outset, to portray this prejudice as being, in their own eyes, rational. [size=28pt]And these endeavors are doomed never to bear fruit[/size] .

Yet a blind man that has low intellectual capability is killing himself over a cow droppings

^^^^This character is truly delusional: Evolution has been disproven? By who? Because Vedaxcool says so and its in your quran? So he goes to get some quotes from "scientists" on the fringes. Sorry my guy, Evolution is the standard in biological and medical sciences.  How do you think malaria and Tb parasites become resistant to drugs. What about the numerous types of dogs, cattle, cats,  etc. Anyway I don't have to go far to discredit your rantings and ravings. I understand your worldview has been challenged and is collapsing. Unlike you, I am not trying to convert anybody and I am not advocating Humanism, Atheism, Freethinking for anyone, just asking the audience to do some critical thinking, think for your self!!! Let the evidence guide you and try as much as possible to remove the bias from your thought process. Unlike you that make blanket statements that "Islam is the religion for all mankind"!!! Fanaticism and religious bigotry at its finest.  It's the information age and this information is at our fingertips we don't have to go far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_evolution




Evolution is currently applied and studied in various areas within biology such as conservation biology, developmental biology, ecology, physiology, paleontology and medicine. Moreover, it has also made an impact on traditionally non-biological disciplines such as agriculture, anthropology, philosophy and psychology.


Social and cultural responsesFurther information: Social effect of evolutionary theory and Objections to evolution

As evolution became widely accepted in the 1870s, caricatures of Charles Darwin with an ape or monkey body symbolised evolution.[277]In the 19th century, particularly after the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859, the idea that life had evolved was an active source of academic debate centred on the philosophical, social and religious implications of evolution. Nowadays, the modern evolutionary synthesis is widely accepted by scientists.[14] However, evolution remains a contentious concept for some theists.[278]

While various religions and denominations have reconciled their beliefs with evolution through concepts such as theistic evolution, there are creationists who believe that evolution is contradicted by the creation myths found in their respective religions and who raise various objections to evolution.[143][279][280] As had been demonstrated by responses to the publication of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation in 1844, the most controversial aspect of evolutionary biology is the implication of human evolution that humans share common ancestry with apes, and that the mental and moral faculties of humanity have the same types of natural causes as other inherited traits in animals.[13] In some countries, notably the United States, these tensions between science and religion have fuelled the current creation-evolution controversy, a religious conflict focusing on politics and public education.[281] While other scientific fields such as cosmology[282] and Earth science[283] also conflict with literal interpretations of many religious texts, evolutionary biology experiences significantly more opposition from religious literalists.

The teaching of evolution in American secondary school biology classes was uncommon in most of the first half of the 20th century. The Scopes Trial decision of 1925 caused the subject to become very rare in American secondary biology textbooks for a generation, but it was gradually re-introduced about a generation later and legally protected with the 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas decision. Since then, the competing religious belief of creationism was legally disallowed in secondary school curricula in various decisions in the 1970s and 1980s, but it returned in the form of intelligent design, to be excluded once again in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case.[284]

Social Darwinism is ideas about "survival of the fittest" taken out of their biological context and applied to commerce and human societies as a whole, and misused to justify social inequality, sexism, racism and imperialism.[285] The 19th century Malthusian theory developed by Whig philosopher Herbert Spencer is also seen as belonging to the social Darwinism movement

Only a fool that grows on trees will deny clear Scientific Errors in the theory of Evolution, this Mugu fails to see that Evolution still remains a theory, with case for and case agaisnt it, yet to this ignorant Humanist who deludes himself that he is a man of science but does not:

The fossil record demonstrates that living things did not develop through a process of small cumulative changes, but[size=28pt] appeared abruptly with their distinct characteristics, and this fact has been accepted by evolutionist paleontologists themselves since the 1970's.[/size]

However, humanists’ irrational and illogical claims :oregarding faith in God and monotheistic religions are nothing new; they are a restatement of a mistaken claim that has been made for thousands of years by those who reject God. In the Qur'an, God explains this age-old argument propounded by the unbelievers:

Your God is One God. As for those who do not believe in the hereafter, their hearts are in denial and they are puffed up with pride.

There is no doubt that God knows what they keep secret and what they make public. He does not love people puffed up with pride.

When they are asked, "What has your Lord sent down?" they say, "Myths and legends of previous peoples." (Qur'an, 16: 22-24)

As revealed in these verses, the real reason for the unbelievers' rejection of religion is the arrogance hidden in their hearts. The philosophy called humanism is merely the outward manner by which this age rejects God. In other words, humanism is not a new way of thinking, as those who espouse it claim; it is an age-old, antiquated world-view common to those who reject God out of arrogance.

When we look at the progress of humanism in European history, we will discover many solid proofs for this assertion.

MASONIC HUMANISM: THE WORSHIP OF HUMANITY

The internal publications of the Masons describe in detail the humanist philosophy of the organization and their hostility to monotheism. There are countless explanations, interpretations, quotations and allegories offered on this subject in Masonic publications.

Pico della Mirandola, a Kabbalist humanist.

As we said at the beginning, humanism has turned its face from the Creator of humanity and makes the mistake of regarding man as "the highest form of being in the universe." In fact, this implies the worship of humanity. This belief, that began with the Kabbalist humanists in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, continues so irrationally today in modern Masonry.

One of the fourteenth century's most famous humanists was Pico della Mirandola. His work entitled Conclusiones philosophicae, cabalisticae, et theologicae was condemned by Pope Innocent VIII in 1489 as containing heretical ideas. Mirandola wrote that there is nothing in the world higher than the glory of mankind. The Church saw this as a heretical idea that was nothing less than the worship of humanity. Indeed, this was a heretical idea because there is no other being to be glorified except God. Humanity is merely His creation.

You are absolutley deranged and lost. Your fundamentalism has completely erroded your faculties. Arabicized ABDI, Slave of the Arabs. 
Where is the proof of your assertion that "fossil record demonstrates that living things did not develop through a process of small cumulative changes, but appeared abruptly with their distinct characteristics, and this fact has been accepted by evolutionist paleontologists themselves since the 1970's. "??
Instead of using a scientific approach to refute Evolution he pulls up a FELLOW RADICAL ISLAMIST to support his assertions on Evolution.

This VEDAXCOOL is quoting a Turkish  ISLAMIST  CREATIONIST, Adnan Oktar also known as Harun Yahaya!!!! Here is the article he quoted from http://www.mediamonitors.net/harunyahya47.html with its obvious Islamic bias, and here is the guys profile on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar
Your fellow Islamist doesn't only conjure up and write conspiracy theories about Humanism but also Judaism - Later that year he published a book titled Judaism and Freemasonry based on conspiracy theories that state offices, universities, political groups and media were influenced by a "hidden group".[8] Adnan Oktar later qualified those remarks. (see "Conspiracy Theories" below). The Oktar guy is also a holocaust denier: This book claims that "what is presented as Holocaust is the death of some Jews due to the typhus plague during the war and the famine towards the end of the war caused by the defeat of the Germans."[. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[size=14pt]Even worse, VEDAXCOOL's "scientific" role model was diagnosed as a SCHIZOPHRENIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![[/b]b]Oktar was arrested, charged with promoting a theocratic revolution for which he served 19 months, though he was never formally charged.[5][6] He was confined to a prison clinic, and then Bakirkoy Mental Hospital, where he was diagnosed with an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder and schizophrenia.[6] [/size] Haba !! Vedaxcool you have reached a new LOW!!! Haba na schizophrenic and cocaine user wey you dey quote this days No surprise, your prophet sef was probably on the other side of the sanity considering he heard voices in his head, saw Angels and had mysterious siezures. I have no problems with the mentally unstable but damn dude!!! VEDAXCOOOL  THIS IS A BIG FAT FAIL!!!

The lengths this ignoramus will go to make the savage writings of a barabric bedouin people and their ideology valid is beyond me. He would like to discredit modern science and evolution with his Islamofacist views of the world and conspiracy theories. If its not the Great Satan America, its the Jews, or Europe or the Pagan, Darwin,  Hindus, Masons, Humanists, The Infidels, Marxists, Commies etc etc etc.  Yeah I agree with you, Masons are taking over the world, Jews are pigs and conspiring against Islam, The Holocaust did not happen, Evolution has been refuted, Humanist are interlocked with masons and communists for world domination, yeah, yeah, I get your drift. Please do remember to take your Zanax and Lithium  to stabilize your delusional faculties. Seek some help bro, seek some help you are really on the deep end!!!

VEDAXCOOL/ISLAMIC SCIENCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar
This is the profile of the "SCIENCE" that Vedaxcool is sourcing!!!! Thank you wikipedia

Adnan OktarFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Adnan Oktar

Adnan Oktar
Born Adnan Oktar
February 1956 (age 55)
Ankara, Turkey
Residence Turkey
Other names Harun Yahya, Adnan Hoca
Occupation Author
Known for Islamic creationism, Anti-Zionism, Anti-Masonry
Religion Sunni Muslim
Website
www.harunyahya.com
Adnan Oktar (born Ankara, February 2, 1956), also known as Harun Yahya, is an Islamic creationist.[1] In 2007, he came to international attention when he sent out thousands of unsolicited copies of the Atlas of Creation[2] advocating Islamic creationism to schools, colleges and science museums in several European countries and the USA.[3] Oktar runs two organizations of which he is also the Honorary President: Bilim Araştırma Vakfı ("Science Research Foundation", BAV, established 1990), which promotes creationism and Milli Değerleri Koruma Vakfı ("Foundation to Protect National Values", established 1995) which promotes Turkish nationalism.[4] In the last two decades, Oktar has been involved in a number of legal cases, both as defendant and plaintiff.

Contents [hide]
1 Biography
2 Writings
2.1 Creationism
2.1.1 The Atlas of Creation
2.2 Conspiracy theories
2.3 Holocaust
3 Legal issues, arrest, trial, and sentencing
4 Blocking of Internet sites
5 Bibliography
6 References
7 External links

[edit] BiographyAdnan Oktar was born in Ankara on February 2, 1956. He grew up in Ankara, and lived there through his high school years where he studied the works of Islamic scholars like Said Nursi,[5][6] a Muslim Kurdish scholar who wrote Risale-i Nur, an extensive Qur'anic commentary which includes a comprehensive political and religious ideology.[7]

In 1979, Adnan Oktar came to Istanbul and entered Mimar Sinan University.[8] These years were marked with violence and repression which led to the installation of a military junta following the coup of September 1980. The environment in Turkey was one of political and cultural instability, threatened by Cold War politics, and a clash between Kemalist secular modernisers and a rising tide of Islamic militancy.[6] In this environment he regularly went to the Molla Mosque in Fındıklı locality, close to the academy of fine arts where he studied interior architecture,[9][10] to pray regardless of threats.[8] Edip Yuksel, who knew him during those years, described him as a "Sunni zealot."[5]

In the early 1980s, he gathered young students around him to share his views of Islam. These students belonged to socially-active and prosperous families of Istanbul.[5] From 1982 to 1984, a group of 20 to 30 was formed. They were joined by private high schools students who were from socially active and well-known families with had a high economic status who had become newly religious.[8] Edip Yüksel said he presented his teachings "gently and in a modern fashion to the children of the privileged class, without intimidating them,  a refined and urbanized version of Said Nursi."[5]

In his religious teachings, he argued against Marxism, communism and materialistic philosophy. He attached special importance to refuting the Theory of Evolution and Darwinism[11] because he felt that it had been turned into an ideology used to promote materialism and atheism, and numerous derivative ideologies. He personally funded a pamphlet entitled the Theory of Evolution[8] which combined "mysticism with scientific rhetoric."[5][6]

In 1986 he enrolled in the Philosophy Department of Istanbul University. Adnan Oktar appeared as the cover story of Nokta (The Point) magazine, reporting how he gathered with his friends and held lectures in a mosque. Many university students, mostly from Bosphorus University, one of the most prestigious universities of Turkey, started to participate. Adnan Oktar's name began to appear regularly in the press, sometimes in the headlines. Later that year he published a book titled Judaism and Freemasonry based on conspiracy theories that state offices, universities, political groups and media were influenced by a "hidden group".[8] Adnan Oktar later qualified those remarks. (see "Conspiracy Theories" below)

Oktar was arrested, charged with promoting a theocratic revolution for which he served 19 months, though he was never formally charged.[5][6] He was confined to a prison clinic, and then Bakirkoy Mental Hospital, where he was diagnosed with an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder and schizophrenia.[6] Although doubts exist as to the accuracy of the diagnosis, and whether it was personally or politically motivated .[5][6] Military doctors later declared him mentally sound, he says, but he complains that Turkish media propagated the idea that he was a lunatic.[10] Oktar also claims he was thrown in a mental institution as punishment after the publication of his first book.[12]

Throughout the 1980s and early ’90s, Oktar built up his community. His followers were especially active recruiting in the summer resorts along the shore of the Sea of Marmara. The social organization within the group become more hierarchical and took on a Messianic nature.[6] Oktar says that due to the anarchy and terror in those years, he was unable to continue his studies. He had already begun working on his books, so when he left school he devoted his energy to his books.[13]

In 1990, he founded the Science Research Foundation (SRF, or, in Turkish, Bilim Araştırma Vakfı, or BAV). Oktar founded the Science Research Foundation to hold conferences and seminars for scientific activities "that target mass awareness concerning what the real underlying causes of social and political conflicts are",[14] which he describes to be materialism and Darwinism, though some media describe the BAV as "a secretive Islamic sect"[15] and "cult-like organization, that jealously guards the secrets of its considerable wealth".[16] Members of the BAV are sometimes referred to as Adnan Hocacılar ("Adherents of Adnan the Hodja" by the public[17]

In 1994 the Islamist Welfare Party (Refah Partisi), the predecessor of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), won control of the municipalities of Istanbul and Ankara. The new mayors (in Istanbul this was Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, now Turkey’s Prime Minister) sought broader support. The journalist and editor Fatih Altayli claimed that Oktar made business agreements with municipalities under the control of the Welfare party. This claim was denied by Oktar, and resulted in libel suits against Fatih Altayli with various results.[6]

In 1995, Adnan Oktar founded Foundation for Protection of National Values (FPNV or in Turkish Millî Değerleri Koruma Vakfı), through which he networks with other conservative Turkish nationalist organizations and individuals based on the ideology of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey.[6]

In 1997, after another military intervention, the “bloodless coup” of 1997, the government of Erbakan stepped down and the Welfare Party disbanded. According to the New Humanist, the current AKP government avoids political connections with Oktar and his organization.[6]

In September 1999 Adnan Oktar was arrested and charged with using threats for personal benefit and creating an organization with the intent to commit a crime (see "Legal issues" below).[18] After a court case lasting two years the charges were dismissed.

After September 11, 2001 and the WTC attacks, Oktar published a book called Islam Denounces Terrorism. Oktar spoke more of interfaith dialogue, attempting to unify believers of all stripes. Muslims, Christians and Jews should unite against the corrupting influence of Darwinism, which he held responsible for fascism, anti-Semitism and the holocaust.[6]

Between that time and present, BAV has organized hundreds of conferences on creationism in Turkey[19][20] and worldwide.[21][22] He built a large publishing enterprise[23] with publications sold though Islamic bookstore worldwide.[24] He is considered "one of the most widely distributed authors in the Muslim world".[24] His television show is viewed by many in the Arab world.[25] Adnan Oktar has been preaching about the “Turkish-Islamic Union”, which would bring peace to the entire Muslim world under the leadership of Turkey.[6]

In 2007 he sent out thousands of unsolicited copies of his Atlas of Creation advocating Islam and creationism to schools and colleges in several European countries and the USA.[3]

The next year the 1999 case was reopened by another court (see "Legal issues" below). Adnan Oktar was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.[18] But the verdict was appealed and in May 2010 it was overturned. During these years he engaged in numerous libel suits with various results (See "Legal Issues" below). In some cases he was successful in blocking high-profile websites in Turkey for slander (See "Blocking Internet Sites" below), including that of Richard Dawkins, as well as the complete Wordpress-site.

In 2010, Adnan Oktar was selected as one of the top fifty of The 500 Most Influential Muslims in the World by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre of Jordan for his dissemination of creationism in an Islamic context, and other extensively distributed publications on Islamic topics.[[/b]26]

[edit][b] WritingsOktar has written numerous books under the pen name Harun Yahya. Harun referring to the biblical Aaron and Yahya referring to the New Testament John the Baptist.

Oktar's books on faith-related topics attempt to communicate the existence and oneness of God (Allah in the Qur'an ) according to the Islamic faith, and are written with the main purpose of introducing Islam to those who are strangers to religion. Each of his books on science-related topics stresses his views on the might, sublimity, and majesty of God. These books attempt to display for non-Muslims what Oktar claims to be signs of the existence of God, and the excellence of his creation. A sub-group within this series are the series of "Books Demolishing the Lie of Evolution", a critique of the ideas of materialism, evolution, Darwinism, and atheism.

These publications argue against evolution. They assert that evolution denies the existence of God, abolishes moral values, and promotes materialism and communism.[27] Oktar argues that Darwinism, by stressing the "survival of the fittest", has inspired racism, Nazism, communism and terrorism. A claim not unexpected in Turkey when during the political turmoil before a 1980 military coup, communist bookshops touted Darwin's works as a complement to Karl Marx.[28]

Truman State University physicist Taner Edis, who was born in Turkey, says the secret to BAV's success is the huge popularity of the Harun Yahya books. "They're fairly lavishly produced, on good-quality paper with full-color illustrations all over the place," he says. "They're trying to compete with any sort of science publication you can find in the Western world. And in a place like Turkey, Yahya books look considerably better-published than most scientific publications.".[29] Many of Oktar's books have been made into high-resolution videos which are freely downloadable on the Internet.[30]

[edit] Creationism
Exhibition of Oktar's publisher, Global Publishing, at an unidentified book-fair.The spread of organized Christian creationism to Islam began in the 1980s, when the Muslim minister of education in Turkey turned to the Institute of Creation Research (ICR), a Christian institution in Dallas Texas, for help in developing twofold curriculum that would teach evolution and creation side by side.

In 1990, the Science Research Foundation (BAV in Turkish) was formed in Istanbul, headed by Oktar.[31]

Oktar for many years drew on the writings of young earth Christian creationists to develop his case against evolution. However, Islam does not require belief in Young Earth creationism, and making use of the fact that earth may have existed for billions of years, Oktar later produced material which was more similar to Intelligent Design. So similar in fact, that Harun Yahya's website was listed as an 'Islamic intelligent design' website by the Discovery Institute.[31] However Oktar does not embrace use of the term 'Intelligent Design' due to its lack of specific mention of God, calling it 'another of Satan's snares'.[31] [32]

In early 1998, the BAV launched its first campaign against evolution/Darwinism.[6] Thousands of free copies of Adnan Oktar's book, The Evolution Deceit, and the booklets based on this book were distributed throughout Turkey.[33] They regularly ran full-page ads against evolution in daily Turkish newspapers and even ran an ad in the U.S. magazine TIME.[4] The funding of the campaigns is unknown.[10] BAV spearheaded an effort to confront Turkish academics who taught evolutionary biology[34] A number of faculty members were harassed, threatened and slandered in fliers, leading to legal action against BAV (see "Legal Issues" below).

In 2005, Professor Ümit Sayın summed up the effect of the BAV's campaign when he said to The Pitch:[29]

In 1998, I was able to motivate six members of the Turkish Academy of Sciences to speak out against the creationist movement. Today, it's impossible to motivate anyone. They're afraid they'll be attacked by the radical Islamists and the BAV.

[size=20pt]In September 2008 Oktar issued a challenge offering "10 trillion Turkish lira to anyone who produces a single intermediate-form fossil demonstrating evolution". He has claimed, "Not one [fossil] belongs to strange-looking creatures in the course of development of the kind supposed by evolutionists." Dr Kevin Padian at the University of California has criticized the notion that such fossils do not exist, stating that Oktar "does not have any sense of what we know about how things change through time. If he sees a fossil crab, he says, 'It looks just like a regular crab, there's no evolution.'"[35][/size] However, the reaction of scientific community is negative and dismissive.


[size=20pt]Taner Edis has said "there is nothing new in the Yahya material: scientifically negligible arguments and outright distortions often copied from Christian anti-evolution literature, presented with a conservative Muslim emphasis" concluding it "has no scholarly standing whatsoever".[36] According to Richard Dawkins, Oktar "doesn't know anything about zoology, doesn't know anything about biology. He knows nothing about what he is attempting to refute".[10][/size]In France, scientists spoke out against the book, and American scientists are unimpressed.[37]

[edit] The Atlas of CreationMain article: The Atlas of Creation

Cover of the English edition of volume 1 of The Atlas of Creation (Global Publishing, Istanbul, 2006)Oktar published volume 1 of his Yaratılış Atlası (The Atlas of Creation), with Global Publishing, Istanbul, Turkey in October 2006.[38] Volumes 2 and 3 followed in 2007. A dedicated website (yaratilisatlasi.com, English atlasofcreation.com) registered to Global Yayıncılık (Global Publishing), Istanbul, went online also in 2007.

Tens of thousands of copies of the book have been delivered, on an unsolicited basis, to schools, prominent researchers and research institutes throughout Europe and the United States.[3][39]

[size=20pt]However, the book has been widely criticized and dismissed by scientists.

Gerdien de Jong, one of five biologists at Utrecht University who received a copy of the book, has described its reasoning as "absurdly ridiculous".[40], while Kevin Padian from University of California, Berkeley, said that "[Oktar] does not really have any sense of what we know about how things change through time.” [3]

Biologist PZ Myers wrote: "The general pattern of the book is repetitious and predictable: the book shows a picture of a fossil and a photo of a living animal, and declares that they haven't changed a bit, therefore evolution is false. Over and over. It gets old fast, and it's usually wrong (they have changed!) and the photography, while lovely, is entirely stolen." [41]

The Council of Europe's Committee on Culture, Science and Education wrote in its report on this book that "None of the arguments in this work are based on any scientific evidence, and the book appears more like a primitive theological treatise than the scientific refutation of the theory of evolution." [42][/size]

[edit] Conspiracy theoriesOktar propagates a number of conspiracy theories, beginning with his 1986 Yahudilik ve Masonluk (Judaism and Freemasonry). The book suggests that the principal mission of Jews and Freemasons in Turkey was to erode the spiritual, religious, and moral values of the Turkish people and, thus, make them like animals, as stated in what Oktar refers to as their use of "Distorted Torah."[8][43] Oktar asserts that "the materialist standpoint, evolution theory, anti-religious and immoral lifestyles were indoctrinated to the society as a whole" by Jews and Freemasons.[8]

Oktar's theory of a global conspiracy of Freemasonry is expounded in his book Global Masonluk (English Global Freemasonry) and on his websites Masonluk[44] and Global Freemasonry.[45] According to Oktar, Freemasonry is "the main architect of the world system based on materialist philosophy, but which keeps that true identity concealed." [45] Oktar claims that the theory of evolution is a Masonic conspiracy initiated by the Rosicrucians.

Oktar's recent publications declare Darwinism and Materialism to be conspiracies responsible for anti-semitism and terrorism.[6][46] In recent publications and interviews (since 2004[47]), Oktar qualifies his condemnations of Zionism and Freemasonry by adding the word atheist before them, as in atheist Zionists[48] and atheist Freemasons.[49]

According to an recent interview Oktar's position is essentially merely against atheism as he has met Christians and Jews worldwide. He stated his objectives of a religious alliance "include waging a joint intellectual and spiritual battle against the worldwide growing tide of irreligiousness, unbelief and immorality." The interviewer noted "But even more unusual is their agreement with regard to the need to rebuild the Jewish Temple, a structure that Mr. Oktar refers to as the 'Masjid (Mosque)' or the 'Palace of Solomon.'"[50]

[edit] HolocaustIn 1996, BAV distributed its first book, originally published the previous year, entitled Soykırım Yalanı (The Holocaust Lie).[51][52] The publication of Soykırım Yalanı sparked much public debate.[53] This book claims that "what is presented as Holocaust is the death of some Jews due to the typhus plague during the war and the famine towards the end of the war caused by the defeat of the Germans."[54]

In 1996, during a slander suit brought against Turkish painter and intellectual, Bedri Baykam, Baykam exposed Adnan Oktar as responsible for the publication of The Holocaust Lie.[53]

In 2001, the Stephen Roth Institute, of Tel-Aviv University, listed Oktar as a holocaust denier due to the publication of The Holocaust Lie.[55]

Three years later the Stephen Roth Institute expressed the opinion that Adnan Oktar had increased his tolerance toward others, asserting that "he now works towards promoting inter-religious dialogue".[47] calling upon all Muslims to have "a tolerant and friendly attitude toward other religions".[56]

In 2006, BAV published a book affirming the Holocaust, called The Holocaust Violence. The Holocaust Violence states "The Nazis subjected European Jews to indisputable and unforgivable cruelty during World War II. They humiliated, insulted and degraded millions of Jewish civilians, forcing them from their homes and enslaving them in concentration camps under inhuman conditions,  Certainly the Jewish people, of whom 5.5 million died in concentration camps, were the worst victims of the Nazi barbarity."[57]

In a 2007 interview with The Guardian, Oktar denied writing The Holocaust Lie, a claim that The Guardian stated was "hard to believe.".[58] The next year in an interview with Der Spiegel, Adnan Oktar stated that "The Holocaust Lie," had been written by a member of his organization who had published his own essays using Oktar's pen-name "Harun Yahya", upon his own initiative. Oktar disclaimed the first book, and said the second book reflected his own opinions.[52]

In 2009, Oktar expressed his views for Jews in his own words, "hatred or anger toward the line of the Prophet Abraham is completely unacceptable. The Prophet Abraham is our ancestor, and the Jews are our brothers. We want the descendants of the Prophet Abraham to live in the easiest, pleasantest and most peaceful manner. We want them to be free to perform their religious obligations, to live as they wish in the lands of their forebears and to frequently remember Allah in comfort and security."[59] In 2009 and 2010, Oktar published several websites of Jewish interest.[60][61][62]

[edit] [b]Legal issues, arrest, trial, and sentencingIn the last two decades, Oktar has been involved in a number of legal cases, both as defendant and plaintiff. Oktar is seen as controversial in the Turkish media. Although most of the legal cases are unrelated to creationism or religion, a BAV spokesperson says Oktar is being persecuted “because of his ideas.” Physicist Taner Edis of Truman State University in Kirksville, Missouri, who has followed the case closely says given the political pressures on Turkey’s justice system, that’s “not entirely implausible.”[63]

In the summer of 1986, Adnan Oktar was arrested for his statement "I am from the nation of Abraham and Turkish ethnicity" in a newspaper interview.[64] According to the New Humanist, Oktar was arrested for promoting a theocratic revolution for which he served 19 months, though he was never formally charged.[6]

In 1991, Oktar was arrested for possession of cocaine[65] which he claimed had been planted in one of the books in his library by the security forces, who, he said, also spiked his food with cocaine.[66] He was later acquitted.[65]

In 1996, a Turkish painter and intellectual, Bedri Baykam, published a strongly-worded critique of the book in the Ankara daily newspaper Siyah-Beyaz ("Black and White". A legal suit for slander was brought against him. During the trial in September, Baykam exposed Adnan Oktar as responsible for the publication of The Holocaust Lie.[53] The suit was withdrawn in March 1997.[67][68]

A number of faculty members who taught Evolution were harassed, threatened and slandered in fliers that labeled them "Maoists". In 1999, six of the professors won a civil court case against the BAV for defamation and were each awarded $4,000.[29]

In 1999 Adnan Oktar was arrested and charged with using threats for personal benefit and creating an organization with the intent to commit a crime.[18] BAV's lawyers claimed there were several human rights violations during this police operation, as well as the use of violence during the arrest and afterwards.[69] The judicial process lasted over two years, during which most of the complainants retracted their claims. As a result, cases against Oktar and other BAV members were dismissed.[34]

The 1999 case was reopened by another court in 2008. The indictment from the prosecutor’s office, made public by the widely read daily Cumhuriyet, claimed blackmail and extortion. Among other things, it claimed that BAV used its female members to attract young scholars from rich families with the promise of sexual favors in exchange for attending events. It was claimed that the sexual activities of thousands of people were videotaped with hidden cameras for the purpose of blackmail. Members who wanted to leave the group, would be threatened that the tapes will be made public.[6][70] Consequently, in the face of all these allegations against BAV, the Chairman of the Court announced in the hearing dated 29.02.2008 that testimonies obtained through unlawful means may not be considered as evidence based on article 148 of the criminal code.[71][/b]Oktar was convicted of creating an illegal organization for personal gain. He and 17 other members of his organisation were sentenced to three years in prison.[18][72][73][74] Oktar denied the charges and appealed the verdict.[75][76] In May 2010, the Court of Appeals overturned the conviction and dismissed the charges.[77]

[edit] Blocking of Internet sitesSince 2007 Oktar has successfully had the Turkish government block public access to several websites. In April 2007, Oktar filed a libel lawsuit against the owners of Ekşi Sözlük, a virtual community similar to everything2. The court reviewed the complaint and ordered the service provider to close the site to public access. The site was temporarily suspended so the entry on Oktar could be expunged and locked. Then access to Süper Poligon, a news website, was also restricted following Oktar's complaint.[78] In August 2007, Oktar got a Turkish court to block in all of Turkey. His lawyers argued that blogs on contained libelous material on Oktar and his colleague, which staff was unwilling to remove.[79]

In addition, Edip Yuksel, a Turkish writer who knew Oktar in the 1980s and is now critical of him, had his website banned in Turkey from Oktar's complaints.[65] In addition, Yuksel wrote a Turkish-language book about Oktar called The Cult of the Antichrist, but he has yet to find "a publisher willing to brave Mr. Oktar's lawyers."[65]

On September 19, 2008, a Turkish court banned Internet users in Turkey from viewing the official Richard Dawkins Web site after Oktar claimed its contents were defamatory, blasphemous and insulting religion, arguing that his personality was violated by this site.[73][80][81][82][83] One week later a complaint by Oktar led to the banning of the internet site of the Union of Education and Scientific Workers (Türk Eğitim Sen).[84][85] This was followed by a block of the country's third-biggest newspaper site, Vatan, in October.[86][87][88][89][90]

[edit] Bibliography
A Call For Unity [of Muslims, Christians and Jews] 
The Signs of Jesus' Second Coming

Islam Denounces Terrorism 
Wisdom and Sound Advice from the Torah

Only Love can Defeat Terrorism 
Islam Denounces Antisemitism
Oktar's books and brochures appear in Turkish with "Vural Yayıncılık" ("Global Publishing", Istanbul. English translations of Oktar's books appear with "Ta-Ha Publishers", London, UK; "Global Publishing", Istanbul, Turkey; "Al-Attique Publishers", Ontario, Canada and "Goodword Books", New Delhi, India.

Publication media includes: Books, Booklets (Pamphlets), Children's Books, Journals, Documentaries, Audio Books, CD's, Posters and over a hundred websites. The total number of books and brochures published by Oktar number in the hundreds.[91] The works are lavishly produced, on good-quality paper with full-color illustrations[29] and sold in Islamic bookstores worldwide.[24]

divinereal is correct. changes as in evolution does occur in small cumulative changes.

this is similar to how the wtc fell down all by their own small cumulative changes, over time, ending on 9/11. i remember hearing that larry silverstein the leasee of the building said pull it, and that evening wtc # 7 fell. all by its own natural small cumylative changes.

if that was not amazing enough, a man experience a bridge suddenly appeared, assembling/constructing itself so that the man does not have to travel all the way to the bridge he knows, 5 miles down the river. this phenom was the reason that he arrived at his meeting earlier than everyone.

after he crossed the bridge, he reported it dismantled itself to a pile, then disappeared in material group. it should make sense, just like evolution does make sense.


for secular society like turkey where they were trying to shelf islam for many generations, harune yahya should not be found without any disease. how convenient, just like state of israel thinks about many palestinians that challenge their position.

Sweetnecta:

divinereal is correct. changes as in evolution does occur in small cumulative changes.

this is similar to how the wtc fell down all by their own small cumulative changes, over time, ending on 9/11. i remember hearing that larry silverstein the leasee of the building said pull it, and that evening wtc # 7 fell. all by its own natural small cumylative changes.

if that was not amazing enough, a man experience a bridge suddenly appeared, assembling/constructing itself so that the man does not have to travel all the way to the bridge he knows, 5 miles down the river. this phenom was the reason that he arrived at his meeting earlier than everyone.

after he crossed the bridge, he reported it dismantled itself to a pile, then disappeared in material group. it should make sense, just like evolution does make sense.


for secular society like turkey where they were trying to shelf islam for many generations, harune yahya should not be found without any disease. how convenient, just like state of israel thinks about many palestinians that challenge their position.

lol! , man that is a real cracker!

Divinereal reminds me of baboon in the cartoon ' i am weasels' always pretending to be smarter than horse shit! , here is an individual that cannot even boast of argueing rationally talk less of being scientific in his out look. The Humanist crap that couldn't even defend the article that he brought yet deludes himself of being rational, as you have gone deep in mental distubia that you now quote your Humanist Satanist to damage Harun Yahya, but the fool that has been accusing Islam of all sort of evil failed to read the links that he gave, the links only shows the broad mindedness of harunYahya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Only_Love_can_Defeat_Terrorism.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Islam_Denounces_Antisemitism.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_Call_For_Unity.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wisdom_and_Sound_Advice_from_the_Torah.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Islam_Denounces_Terrorism.jpg

Again devinereal being unintelligent, unstable, unreasonble, unteachable, un. . ., has failed to read and understand what he posted:

In a 2007 interview with The Guardian, Oktar denied writing The Holocaust Lie, a claim that The Guardian stated was "hard to believe.".[58] The next year in an interview with Der Spiegel, Adnan Oktar stated that "The Holocaust Lie," had been written by a member of his organization who had published his own essays using Oktar's pen-name "Harun Yahya", upon his own initiative. Oktar disclaimed the first book, and said the second book reflected his own opinions.[52]

In 2009, Oktar expressed his views for Jews in his own words, "hatred or anger toward the line of the Prophet Abraham is completely unacceptable. The Prophet Abraham is our ancestor, and the Jews are our brothers. We want the descendants of the Prophet Abraham to live in the easiest, pleasantest and most peaceful manner. We want them to be free to perform their religious obligations, to live as they wish in the lands of their forebears and to frequently remember Allah in comfort and security."[59] In 2009 and 2010, Oktar published several websites of Jewish interest

According to an recent interview Oktar's position is essentially merely against atheism as he has met Christians and Jews worldwide. He stated his objectives of a religious alliance "include waging a joint intellectual and spiritual battle against the worldwide growing tide of irreligiousness, unbelief and immorality." The interviewer noted "But even more unusual is their agreement with regard to the need to rebuild the Jewish Temple, a structure that Mr. Oktar refers to as the 'Masjid (Mosque)' or the 'Palace of Solomon.'"


And for th bufoon's(divinecurse) info, So in your humanist vileness, one cannot raise any objection to the Holocaust, and query the numbers invovled? we thought you people were scientific, but instead this cretin of whisical value, does not even understand basic teachings of humanism, only the part that says induldge in any evil act that comes to your mind, that is what caught his fancy, Humanism, defiantely is not the first of its kind, as there were stories of certain sect that rose in Islam who used exactly the same method Humanism(crap) is using, I.e offer free sining lease, that always get blind adherants like divinefool, whose dreams are always evil.

Harun Yahya/Adnan Oktar is a non sequitor, a charlatan and not a credible source as it pertains to  the topic of evolution. He is a crockpot and once again I will repost what erudite biology and evolution scholars have said about Yahya's books on evolution/creationism. The scientific community has disregarded his writings.

In September 2008 Oktar issued a challenge offering "10 trillion Turkish lira to anyone who produces a single intermediate-form fossil demonstrating evolution". He has claimed, "Not one [fossil] belongs to strange-looking creatures in the course of development of the kind supposed by evolutionists." Dr Kevin Padian at the University of California has criticized the notion that such fossils do not exist, stating that Oktar "does not have any sense of what we know about how things change through time. If he sees a fossil crab, he says, 'It looks just like a regular crab, there's no evolution.'"[35]

However, the reaction of scientific community is negative and dismissive.


Taner Edis has said "there is nothing new in the Yahya material: scientifically negligible arguments and outright distortions often copied from Christian anti-evolution literature, presented with a conservative Muslim emphasis" concluding it "has no scholarly standing whatsoever".[36] According to Richard Dawkins, Oktar "doesn't know anything about zoology, doesn't know anything about biology. He knows nothing about what he is attempting to refute".[10]

In France, scientists spoke out against the book, and American scientists are unimpressed.

How does he reach these conclusions, I wonder, imagining him to have laboratories and researchers at his disposal. Oktar himself, by his own admission, has no scientific experience or background. He is not an academic. He studied interior design.

Prof. Dawkins says he has no intention of accepting, as that would only "give legitimacy" to "this weird phenomenon." Mr. Oktar, he says, "doesn't know anything about zoology, doesn't know anything about biology. He knows nothing about what he is attempting to refute."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harun_Yahya
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/dec/22/atlas-creationism-adnan-oktar-harun-yahya



I rest my case.