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.

Islam: Cocooned in Lies
by Ali Sina

20 Nov, 2005

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." Bertrand Russell

--------

In every religion there is something good, something bad and something terribly ugly. The good is what is being preached, the bad is what is being practiced and the ugly is the outcome.

All religions preach honesty, modesty, detachment, kindness, justice and other virtues. These are of course our own spiritual heritage. We humans aspire to evolve spiritually and are attracted towards these qualities. Even those societies that have had no religion at all (in Americas and the Far East) have upheld these qualities. The societies that did not have the tradition of receiving messengers from an invisible god were not worse than those who had them.

But what religions practice is not what they preach. Unfortunately, even the very founders of some of the religions often fail to live an ethical life. The Bible is full of stories of atrocities of Moses, his killings of innocent people all sanctioned by his unfair god. We know very little of Jesus. The Gospels were written 30 to 60 years after his death and cannot be relied as authentic. Yet there are indications in the New Testament that show if he had power, he would probably be as unfair as his predecessor (see `Luk 10:12-13, 19:27 and Rev 2:22-23 ) However we do have a lot of stories recorded from Muhammad. Many of them are considered authentic (Sahih) that can give us a good glimpse into the mind of the man who claimed to be the prophet and the mercy of God to mankind. Yet the picture we get from this last prophet is anything but holy.

He massacred and exterminated all the Jews from Arabia and instigated hatred between his followers and the Jews that has lasted for over 1400 years and has cost millions of lives. Prior to him Arabs and Jews lived in harmony and were allies.

He sent assassins to kill his critics in the middle of the night, who committed no other crime than composing poetries ridiculing his holiness, even if they where old or mothers of several infants. (*)

He raped Jewish girls 40 years younger than him whom he captured in his raids in the same day that he killed their loved ones and their relatives.

He enriched himself by looting caravans, killing the men, usurping their properties and SELLING their wives and daughters as slaves.

After his affluent wife Khadija died and after he enriched himself with spoils of his wars on defenseless people, he invaded the boundaries of decency and performed sex with twenty women, some only 9 years old, some he married, some he captured in wars, some were his slaves and maid servants and some just 'offered' themselves to him. He did even lust after the beautiful wife of his own adopted son.

Muhammad founded a religion that has brought nothing but hatred and discord between his followers (among themselves) and his followers and the rest of mankind. So much war, so many killings that took place in the name of Islam and are taking place still in various corners of the world.

He heralded a misogynistic religion that has undermined the rights of women and subjected them to mistreatment and abuse. Contrary to the claims of the Islamic apologists Islam has actually took away the rights of women and women in Arabia were better off before Islam than after Islam. This is of course much more true in the case of other today's Islamic countries like Iran where in the life time of Muhammad a Queen reigned.

As I write these notes, a couple of Muslims are being prosecuted for blowing the Pan Am flight killing 280 innocent people and ruining the lives of 280 families. While the accused deny the charges and blame the Palestinians for this cowardice attack, we have to question ourselves, where these Islamic terrorist, that are now burgeoning from Philippines to Timor, from Indonesia to Afghanistan, from Iran to Libya, from Canada to US, got their inspiration to kill? Do you think that Islam has nothing to do with that? There are many verses of Quran that encourage the believers to kill the non-believers. In Islam the end justifies the means.

Modernist Muslims prefer to live in denial than come to terms with the fact that Quran is responsible for all these atrocities perpetrated by Muslims. They call for peace, tolerance and freedom of speech. They condemn the extremists and the fundamentalists for misinterpreting Quran. Yet they are the ones who are misinterpreting it, and are not willing to let go the book that promotes war, hatred and suffocation of thoughts.

It is time that we questioned ourselves, when we accept Islam as a legitimate religion, aren't we promoting a doctrine that rears terrorists? What we THINK Islam is, is irrelevant, what we WANT Islam to be is inconsequential. What Islam REALLY is matters.

Islam is not a religion that promotes peace. It orders its believers to kill all those who do not accept its dogma, without mercy. It instructs its followers to subdue the Christians and the Jews and make them pay Jizyah (penalty tax).

Islam is not a religion that promotes equality of genders. Muhammad said women are 'deficient in intelligence', that majority of them go to hell because they are disobedient to their husbands, that they should be beaten if they fail to please their husbands.

Islam is not a religion that promotes equality for all humanity. It clearly regards the non-Muslims as second-class citizens and for those who are not either Jews or Christians it prescribes death. It also allows slavery.

Islam is not a religion that promotes freedom of thought and speech. It curtails the right of all the non-Muslims to teach their religion, to congregate and to celebrate their belief. It instructs killing all those who decide to break rank and think freely and independently.

If what I write offends you, it is not because there is anything offensive in my writings. It is because we Muslims have been cocooned in lies for so long that now the light of truth is blinding us. Religion is compared to opium and we are so much intoxicated by it that any attempt to wean us from it will be faced with hostility and anger.

I am not attacking or insulting my fellow Muslim brothers and sisters. They are in my blood and I am in theirs. I am trying to wake them up, to shake them up, to bring them to their senses and show them the hidden and dark side of Islam. I don't do that because I want to hurt them, I do that because I love them. Because our peace and security, our prosperity and happiness, our unity and integration with the rest of our brothers and sisters in humanity cannot be achieved as long as we are cocooned in the lies of Islam and shackled in hate towards those who do not agree with us,

My writings are my gift of love to my fellow human beings. I do not profit from them nor I seek fame thereof. On the contrary I am being hated by the majority of my Muslim readers and if found I will be put to death. I am not a sadist and tormenting others does not give me pleasure. I feel the pain of every suffering person. I cry like a child when I see the atrocities that some of us inflict on the rest of us. I am at lost when I see the apathy and indifference of some for the misfortunes of others. I am a human, part of humanity, feeling the pain of humanity. It is our responsibility to make each other see the truth. No one will do that for us; no one can do that for us; and no one should do that for us.

I earnestly invite you to study the Quran and question it. Read this book and think with open mind. If you think I am mistaken, show me; I am open to change. Otherwise please join me in this spiritual undertaking. Let us wake up our brothers and sisters. Let us not look down at the unbelievers with disdain. Let us quench this hate that is burning in our hearts. Let us embrace all humanity as our kin. Let us demolish the walls that have separated us from the rest of mankind. Let us descend from this pedestal of self-righteousness. Let us regard women as equal, Let us forget what Muhammad said and listen to the voice of reason. And let us love humanity above any doctrine or deity.

Which Religion Is Good?
Doubt Everything Find Your Own Light.


By Ali Sina

A few months ago, in my community center I picked up a newspaper and read about a new Messiah called John de Ruiter, the hot shot guru from Canada whom some of his followers reckon to be "bigger than Jesus". The article was an interview with Joyce, his wife of 18 years, and the mother of his three children. She was rejecting the claim of her husband to be God (A man worshiped as God may shock a Muslim but not a Christian who accepts the concept of trinity and Jesus as walking God among men).

After many years of forbearance Joyce De Ruiter could not bear it any longer and one day she stood in front of his congregation and complained about her husband's sexual affairs with two of his young and beautiful followers. These two girls are sisters and their parents who are also the followers of John de Ruiter, are ecstatic to know that God makes love to their daughters. The funny thing is that the followers of this new messiah know about the sexual interludes of their master but few give a second thought about it. Once people accept someone as a superior being, a messiah or a messenger of God they become blind to all his flaws and commend even his sins. No Muslim today, e.g. would approve promiscuity. Womanizing and lustfulness is considered immorality. Yet the same Muslims accept with no difficulty Muhammad's promiscuous relationships with a score of women: some his wives, some his maids, some his shares of the booties from the spoils of his wars and some who just offered themselves to him.

De Ruiter Told his congregation that "Truth has told him" to sleep with these girls. How many of his brainwashed followers asked whether "Truth" has a mouth to speak? When someone surrenders his intelligence to someone else, he becomes a zombie who will believe anything. Truth is a concept not a person or a being. How can a concept talk or communicate? The true answer to 2+2 is 4. Any other answer is false. Can I say that 4 told me this or that? How ridiculous is this claim?

De Ruiter denies these relationships are actual affairs, because he claims to be bonded to these women in a spiritual realm (Apparently Mr. De Ruiter's spiritual realm is in his bed). "To me it's not infidelity”, says the self-proclaimed savior of Mankind “It's not unfaithfulness because my heart is still completely with Joyce." Moreover being a god his fornication with these two beautiful well-trimmed young sisters is not for lust but it is the expression of his profound love for others and that his threesomes with them has "spiritual significance", explains in a most relaxed and holy manner the "Guru of Gurus". He originally denied his adulterous relationship and when it came to the light, he brazenly rationalized it. De Ruiter says he originally denied the relationships because he was answering questions on a "personal level." And on this personal level, he is not having affairs, because the relationships are not about lust or sex or physical attraction," And added: "I'm not a sexual wanderer, emotionally. I don't live with lust. I don't struggle with that. It's not a weakness."

edmontonjournal.comwrites:

"While extramarital affairs are in many ways the private business of the parties involved, in this case they indicate a willingness within de Ruiter's group to accept behaviour that violates cultural norms, says a local academic.

Sociologist Steve Kent worries the lack of controversy within the group over the adultery is indicative of the charismatic sway de Ruiter has with followers."

Among his followers there is a well established psychologist who claims that after 30 years of practice he has no doubt of John’s mental health and that he is who he claims to be.

Yesterday in my neighborhood market, I saw his flyer pinned to the billboard. It was an invitation to his conferences with these words:

“John de Ruiter: Master of transformation; living embodiment and teacher of Truth. “

And;

“Through the living essence of Truth emanating from his words and from his presence, John de Ruiter awakens what our hearts most long for…”

See his web site http://www.johnderuiter.com/

These self-acclaimed prophets, messengers and messiahs rehash ideas that are either commonsense and people already know and accept or state empty phrases that at first seem to have a profound meaning. For example De Ruiter says, “Truth is knowable without restriction, however only honesty through openness and softness of heart reveals it”. This is absurd. Truth is the state of being factual. It has nothing to do with openness and softness of heart; it has everything to do with doubting, with rational thinking and facts. Yet despite the frivolity and banality of his teachings there is no want of idiots who would follow him blindly calling him the “master of transformation”, Impressed by such deceiving yet shallow phrases such as above.



For those who cannot see a mentally disturbed man behind those blue eyes of John de Ruiter a quick review of his writings reveal the confusion and incoherence of his thoughts. Words are jumbled in tautological statements and hollow speeches that leave the listener gasping for meaning while the redundancy of vibrant words such as "Truth" and "consciousness" subliminally suggests that something very profound is being said that its full meaning eludes the ken of the listener. But after reading a few of his speeches, after getting over his monotonous catchphrases and mulling over their contents one learns that there is nothing to be learned from them.

The curt and affirmative phrases of John the Ruiter have an uncanny resemblance to the assertive verses of Quran, and perhaps those who think Quran is a miracle; will find De Ruiter's senseless and void writings much to their liking.

I looked at the picture of one of De Ruiter's conferences and saw the attendees were well-dressed middle-class people most of them supposedly with university degrees. I asked myself what is it that these people see in this confused and disturbed man? Why so many educated and "apparently smart" people are so eager to surrender their intelligence to charlatans like John de Ruiter and other impostors like him?

It seems that people are looking for the Truth and guidance in all the wrong places. We somehow believe that there is someone who can tell us what to do and what route to take sparing us from making responsible decisions on our own. We feed the multi million-dollar psychic network industry in the search of response and finance multi billion-dollar religious industry in the hope of salvation. We look for magic bullets; we believe in fairies, angels and ghosts. We follow gurus and prophets because we are not willing to take the responsibility of our lives in our own hands, think with our own brains and live conscientiously.

When there are people who want to be followers, there will come those who will claim to be leaders. When people think like sheep, there will be wolves that pose as shepherds. When we are willing to give a free ride, there will come those who will take us for a ride.

But the real religion starts taking form when these self-proclaimed prophets and gurus die. Then their devotees fabricate myths and legends, attribute miracles to them and portray them as gods and demigods. This is how Jesus was born from a virgin, how he multiplied the bread, how he walked on the waters, how he resurrected the dead and how he himself raised from the death. And this is how thousands of hadithes were created narrating that Muhammad produced waters from between his fingers, multiplied the food to feed an army, spat in a dry well and it gushed with water, split the moon with his sword or when he went to relieve himself the stones moved around to hide his naked butts.

These fables pass from one generation to another and eventually the passage of time seals their credibility until everyone believes in them considering their antiquity and their universal acceptance the proof of their truthfulness and the veracity of the claims of their prophets.

But can anyone really tell us how to find the truth? Is there any religion that can lead us to salvation?

Obviously, the truth is one and it is absolute. It is unchanging, eternal and infinite. If you believe in God, irrespective of your idea of it, you believe that God is the Absolute Truth. The question is whether humans with their limited intellect can grasp the Absolute Truth? Can the finite contain the infinite? Can a cup hold an ocean?

If I am aware of my limited capacity of understanding, I am aware of my ignorance. I know that I don’t know. The truth may be one and infinite but can I grasp it? The answer is no! Yet that does not mean that I should stop searching. In order to understand, I have to ask, I have to be open and non-judgmental, but also I have to realize that I will never find the entire truth.

To reach this level of openness, one has to realize that his thoughts and beliefs are ) largely influenced by his education and environment. In other words, our present beliefs are the result of our past learning. Since every day we learn more, our understanding of the Truth also expands and therefore differs. Heraclitus once said, "you cannot cross the same river twice", because the next time those waters are not the same and you too have changed. As we change our beliefs change too. This happens gradually and subconsciously, even if we consciously resist the change. During the course of our lives we constantly change and with that our views of reality change simultaneously.

Once I know that the change is the constant. I don’t have to hold to my beliefs with tooth and nail. I know they are bound to change. I become detached. I will not try to impose them on others nor will I try to preach to others. I will not try to lead people to the right path as I realize that truth is pathless. Truth is not something that you can reach or grasp. Truth is not a destination. No one can lead you to it because it is not a place. No one can show it to you because it is not a thing.

The process of discovering the truth is not unlike the experiments done by scientists to understand how things work; it starts by making theories, but accepting to discard them once those theories are proven wrong. This is the scientific approach.

Galileo doubted the commonly accepted notion of the geocentric universe. He found that the truth was much different from what was universally believed. Many learned men of his time simply accepted the conventional belief. We remember him and have forgotten them. Darwin is another example. Although a very religious man, he questioned and doubted the biblical story of creation and thus found out the mystery of evolution. All discoveries are made after doubting and questioning the validity of the commonly accepted and the time honored beliefs.

Spiritual realities are not dissimilar with scientific ones and the same process of doubting and questioning should be used to unravel the hidden mysteries of the spiritual domain. We have to doubt everything, including our own beliefs. When we doubt, we question, we learn and we change our mind. Although we will never learn the truth, we can get closer to it. Truth cannot be contained, not in a mind and definitely not in a book. If the knowledge of God is infinite how can an infinite knowledge be contained in few pages of a book?

Once we learn something new, we don’t discard our previous beliefs but our understanding of it changes. I do not discard the Divine reality. Just like Galileo who did not reject the Earth but people’s understanding of it, I do not reject God but people’s understanding of it. For example, the whole notion of a personal God that does not care about us for billions years of evolution and then suddenly, when we have evolved and become humans with a little bit of intelligence, appears in our lives, hiding behind the clouds of secrecy, telling us irrational stories through less than educated men whom he sends as messengers, demanding us to worship him or roast us for eternity in his cosmic rotisserie, does not make sense. The stories in Quran (and the Bible) are absurd. The pathetic efforts of the apologists to explain and justify them are ridiculous. The teachings of these religions are no more applicable. They seem barbaric and outdated. Their definition of God, the next world, and the purpose of creation seem so primitive. Many of their social teachings are harsh and inhumane. Once religions are tested with rational thinking they fail; I am not saying that the truth is somewhere else or that I have found it! Only an impostor or a fool could make such claim. The truth cannot be found in a doctrine or religion. That realization is liberating.

It is time that we stopped looking at other people for guidance. As long as people are willing to be fooled, there will come those who fool them. As long as they want to be followers, there won't be shortage of charlatans who will mislead them.

Doubt everything that you are told and believe. When you doubt you empty the glass of your mind and become receptive to new knowledge, but don’t hold fast to that knowledge either. Be open and let yet fresher insights breath new life into your mind. Religions demand absolute and blind faith. They claim to be the ultimate truth. If you think the faith is superior to doubt, you don’t doubt. When you don’t doubt, you don’t search and when you don’t search you don’t find.

I believe Krishnamurti’s explanation of the Truth is the best. "The core of Krishnamurti's teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said:

'Truth is a pathless land'. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection. Man has built in himself images as a fence of security - religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, and beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man's thinking, his relationships and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all mankind. So he is not an individual."

Last Words

Dear friend, if you look for meaning in life, don’t look for it in religions; don’t go from one cult to another or from one guru to the next. You can spend all your life or look for eternity and will find nothing but disappointment and disillusionment. Look instead in service to humanity. You will find “meaning” in your love for other human beings. You can experience God when you help someone who needs your help. The only truth that counts is the love that we have for each other. This is absolute and real. The rest is mirage, fancies of human imagination and fallacies of our own making.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I received this email from a follower of John De Ruiter. I share it with you in the hope that it may force us to question our own belief system and make us think


Dear Ali

Perhaps you did not know, but it is common knowledge that Krishnamurti slept with his followers as well. Is it possible that sexual expression takes on a different meaning to one who has let go of attachments and needs? When you find Truth in yourself, all kinds of desires and needs no longer hold sway over you, but they simply become a natural expression of a body or vehicle, like eating or sleeping with no deeper meaning, no narcissistic supply for your ego. Anyway try reading some of Johns teachings and you will see much the same truth that has been spoken by prophets and teachers (including Krishnamurti) for eons. By the way I do agree with your assesment about people getting attached to Guru's. It is just an expression of the belief they still have about themselves as a weak finite human with a story that defines them. But maybe they need to believe in something outside themselves until they can find it inside. Maybe the Guru is just mirroring their inner truth back to them. And they will need it til they don't, I don't see how any harm is done.

Peace,

Thomas D.

See how faith damages the brain of people? Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the masses. See how right he was? See how Thomas justifies the shameful acts of infidelity of a crazy man by saying “It is possible that sexual expression takes on a different meaning to one who has let go of attachments and needs”? Isn’t this brainwashing? Is there a substance more potent than faith that could make a person stoop so low? This man is genuinely incapable to see that his guru is a sick man and a pervert that has no control over his animal instincts. He abuses the trust of his brainwashed followers and takes advantage of their gullibility. The stupidity of this poor man is obvious for anyone with a grain of brain, yet he is incapable to see his own follies. Why? Because he is a believer!

I posted this email here to show you how one can believe in the most absurd things and still be convinced of having found the truth. Is it possible that all of us who also “believe” and follow someone else for guidance are as brainwashed as our poor friend Thomas?

If you are a Muslim, recall that Muhammad too had sex with a score of women much younger than himself. Bear in mind that he slept with Ayisha the 9 year old daughter of his brainwashed follower Abu Bakr. Remember that he killed people and took their properties as booty and distributed their wives and children as slaves and sex slaves.

Just as Thomas instead of being disgusted of indecencies and lustfulness of John De Ruiter is apologetic of him and thinks this is something divine, Muslims read the perversities of Muhammad and see no problem in that.

This brainwashing is not reserved to the followers of De Ruiter and Muhammad. The followers of all religions have their stupid beliefs that they are unable to see. These people can see perfectly the errors of the believers of other religions but are incapable of seeing their own.

Shouldn’t we ask ourselves whether we are also as brainwashed as Thomas? Don’t we believe in crazy ideas with no scientific or logical backing? Why is it that we can see so clearly the follies of others and are so blind of our own? I am not just talking to Muslims but to all those who believe. Those who believe in any religion should ask themselves whether they too are Thomases of their religion.



The following article is about John de Ruiter. It gives a very good insight into the gullibility of human nature and the willingness of some to be fooled. It is an excellent read for those who may wonder why people followed Muhammad, or any other prophet for that matter, with such resignation and blissful abandonment.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/ruiter/ruiter3.html

The Gospel According to John
Saturday Night Magazine/May 5, 2001
By Brian Hutchinson
See also these notes about why people love to be fooled

Why Rational People Have Irrational Beliefs.
The Origin of Faith


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is human brain programmed to believe?

Why so many people cling to religion despite the fact that they are unable to produce any evidence for what they believe? This is indeed a fascinating subject. Is religious thinking genetic? Some believe that just as there is a language center in human brain enabling children to instinctively learn a language, there is a religion center in the brain making us believers. Apparently this view is gaining popularity among some neurobiologists as was reported in a recent FrontPage feature on Newsweek (God and the Brain, May 7, 2001)

Could this be possibly true? If so then there is little hope for our species to get rid of religion ever! If we are genetically programmed to be religious then that is what we shall be.

What is religion? If we define religion as faith (putting aside its sociopolitical aspects) then it is belief without evidence. We do not believe nor we have faith in things for which we have evidence. Things for which we have evidence are things that we KNOW. Take the example of the Bigfoot! Some believe that there is a humanoid living in the woods in Saskatoon that has successfully avoided contact with humans. There is nothing unscientific about this belief. Neanderthals were separated from humans, they evolved into a distinct species, and they are assumed to be extinct for at least 30,000 years. Could it be that a small group of them has survived? Is it possible that another ramification of the humanoids has evolved distinctly from humans and has survived up until now? This is all possible. As very close relatives of us, if these creatures exist, they must have huge brains and know the art of survival. They know that humans have tools and can be (in fact are) very dangerous. So it is logical to believe that they hide from us and that is why we have not been able to capture anyone of them yet. However, the evidence of the existence of the Bigfoot is scant. You are free to believe or not to believe in the existence of such creature. But what happens if someone captures a Bigfoot? At that time the evidence become overwhelming and we no more “believe” but “know” that Bigfoot exist. Here is the difference between knowing and believing. Things for which we can produce evidence and are demonstrable by facts become part of our knowledge. Things for which there is little evidence pertain to the realm of the beliefs.

Faith is intense belief. It is the state of being absolutely certain of things for which one has absolutely no evidence. Is this engrained in our brain? Are we genetically wired to believe in things without evidence? I do not believe that is the case. I do not believe that faith or irrational thinking is programmed into our brain. Then the question arises why so many people believe despite having no evidence of what they believe?

The answer could lie in the way we evolve. The growth and development of humanity can be likened to the growth of a single individual comprising it. In the early stages of a child’s growth the rational thinking is all but absent. Children are not rational thinkers, they are magic thinkers. For a child logic has no meaning and he has no need for it. Children believe in the omnipotence of their parents and they need to believe that they are loved and taken care of. This belief in the absolute power of the parent is essential for the child’s sense of security. Through this belief he feels protected and safe. He can rely on his all powerful and infallible genitors who watch over him, provide for him, protect him and come to his rescue in the moment of his needs. In this stage of evolution, there is no need for reason. In fact reason could be even counterproductive. Beliefs are more crucial than reason for the child’s survival. The child needs to have absolute certainty that he will not be abandoned and left to his own means. Only faith, and indeed blind faith in the parent can provide such an absolute sense of security.

A child also needs to expand his imagination and he needs to dream. He needs fairytales, myths and legends. Children are magic thinkers. Magic thinking is necessary for the child’s emotional well-being. The child has no difficulty to envision the animals with human personalities and even inanimate objects like his toys, as living sentient beings. He converses with his imaginary friends as if they were real and is scared of the monster, the figment of his own fantasy, who is hiding beneath his bed. In the moment that he feels weak, beaten and defeated, when he is lonely, scared and vulnerable, he can pretend to be a superman with unlimited powers. In his mind he can overcome his oppressors, take revenge, beat them up and always win. He can be a hero, fly and do other miracles all in his mind. His mind will compensate for all his physical weaknesses by supplying him imaginary supernatural powers. That is why when a child is still helpless and weak, magic thinking is so crucial to his survival.

Children are very cruel to each other, just as our ancestors were to each other. A child who is bullied by bigger boys can take comfort by imagining that one day a powerful imaginary friend would come to punish his oppressors. In his mind he would see his enemies crushed. Our ancestors thought the same way. When the enemy dealt with them cruelly and they had no one to come to their rescue, when they were persecuted and aggrieved, they would plead to God to come to their aid. They would imagine a Messiah who would come to rescue them, who would take vengeance from their enemies and who would rule with justice. The Psalms 35 is such desperate call for help.

1 A psalm of David. O LORD, oppose those who oppose me. Declare war on those who are attacking me. 2 Put on your armor, and take up your shield. Prepare for battle, and come to my aid. 3 Lift up your spear and javelin and block the way of my enemies. Let me hear you say, "I am your salvation!" 4 Humiliate and disgrace those trying to kill me; turn them back in confusion. 5 Blow them away like chaff in the wind – a wind sent by the angel of the LORD. 6 Make their path dark and slippery, with the angel of the LORD pursuing them. 7 Although I did them no wrong, they laid a trap for me. Although I did them no wrong, they dug a pit for me. 8 So let sudden ruin overtake them! Let them be caught in the snare they set for me! Let them fall to destruction in the pit they dug for me. 9 Then I will rejoice in the LORD. I will be glad because he rescues me. 10 I will praise him from the bottom of my heart: "LORD, who can compare with you? Who else rescues the weak and helpless from the strong? Who else protects the poor and needy from those who want to rob them?"

As the species, we humans pass the same stages of growth of a single individual. In the early stages of our evolution we needed to think magically. We needed fairytales. We needed to believe in a powerful, omnipotent, omniscient heavenly father who looked over us, who provided for us, who loved us and even sometimes punished us if we were not good enough. We needed to believe in the power of prayers. In our moments of loneliness, despair and troubles, we needed to believe that we are not alone; that there is an amorous father somewhere in the Heaven who loves us and who cares for us. We needed to believe that he would never let us down. When we could no more rely on our own resources, we still could rely on God. When we were oppressed and could not reclaim our rights, we could believe that there is going to be a Day of Reckoning when the wronged ones would be rewarded and the oppressors would be punished. Even if this God was not real, its effect on our psyche and emotional well-being was very real and indispensable.

When as a species we ate the fruit of the forbidden tree of knowledge, when we were cast out of the paradise of ignorance where all other animals live, when we became aware of our unclothedness, our helplessness and our loneliness, we looked first for a mother god with unconditional love and later a father god with conditional love to protect us and be our refuge.

Not all cultures believed in God, but they all believed in some kind of superpowers, spirits or demigods that served the same purpose of coming to the rescue of the believers in the moment of their need.

So beliefs are primitive but they were essential to our psychological and emotional well-being. When humanity was passing through the stage of its childhood, beliefs helped her to survive, to overcome the difficulties and face the problems. But as we collectively grow out of our childhood, the need to believe in an external power diminishes. We no more need to believe in a god to provide for us, for we can now rely on our own resources. We no more need to supplicate to a god to save us from sickness, calamities and disasters, for we have learned to take care of ourselves through science and our newfound knowledge. We can rely more on our own efforts than on the praying and supplicating a god.

However, although the need to believe in an external power is becoming superfluous as we mature, our need to believe has not disappeared altogether. We still need to believe in our own potentials, that we can do it, that we can pull it out. The belief is still there, although the object of the belief has changed. Once upon a time we believed in an all-knowing God who would come to our rescue if we prayed enough. But now we believe that science and logic hold the answers to most if not all of our problems.

This process of maturity of human race is not complete. We are still evolving and maturing. An elite of humanity has reached this maturity. They are the ones who set the standard. They are the ones who lead the way and define the direction. But the majority of us are not there yet. The majority of us are still emotionally in the stage of our childhood. We still need to believe. A few of us have broken away from beliefs in supernatural, gods, angles and other “adult” fairytales. But most of us are still tied to the manacles of faith.

This majority of the humanity is more emotional than intellectual. That is why you can find people who are highly educated, intellectuals, with many degrees and academic qualifications who are still childish in their emotional maturity. There are still many academicians, scientists and men and women of high intelligence, who cannot get themselves rid of god, religion and faith. As intellectuals, these people would never accept anything without evidence in their area of expertise. Yet they are willing to forego their intelligence and accept religious beliefs solely by faith. This might seem a paradox but in reality it isn’t. Intellectual maturity and emotional maturity are two separate things. One may be a highly intelligent person yet emotionally immature. And because emotional needs always take precedence over intellectual needs, when there is a conflict between the two the person invariably seeks to fulfill his emotional needs rather than his intellectual quest. Upon our emotional satisfaction rests our sense of security. Surely if the notion of God as a being does not make sense intellectually it may be a nuisance but it is not as nearly frightening as the feeling of being left alone without the all-knowing, the caring and the loving parent whom we have learned to rely upon in the darkest moments of our solitude. The thought of being left alone is unbearable. We might be grownup adults and even aging senor citizens, but emotionally we could be still children, needing to cling to our loving parent, needing to believe in God.

There is one point worth mentioning here. We are all believers at times and freethinkers at other times. Just as I spoke of intellectuals who are freethinkers in all aspects of their lives except when it come to religion, there are those who would not accept the idea of God because they find little evidence to support it, yet have no difficulty accepting astrology, for example, (or some New Age mumbo jumbo) as real science. On the other hand there are those who are very religious and would never question the existence of God despite the lack of evidence supporting it, yet do discard astrology as hocus-pocus. There are those who are freethinkers in all areas of their lives yet believe both in God and in astrology and others who spurn all of it. So we are all skeptics in some areas and believers in others.

Belief in materialism is also a belief. Many people have experienced phenomena like near death experience NDE, telepathy, psychic visions and other unexplainable singularities. These experiences are unexplainable. A rational person would pass no judgments until the facts become more clear. Yet the there are those who would deny the occurrence of such phenomena altogether and try to explain them off with arguments that is no more plausible than the jabber of religionists. This absolute or rather blind faith that all phenomena must be explained by human's limited science is also a form of belief that affect many in scientific community, people whom I call pseudo scientists.

The good news is that beliefs though very stubborn are not invincible. There is a point that even the most fanatical and zealot believer finds hard to accept. This is what could be defined as the critical point of the faith of the believer. All faiths are based on beliefs without evidence. But the believer can find something in his belief system that does not make sense to him. This point is different for each person and it depends on the sensibility and the fair mindedness of that individual. It could be ephemeral yet it is the straw that will break the back of the camel and it will start a domino effect that will breakdown his entire belief system. Once the believer finds one point in the doctrine in which he believes that he has difficulty to surmount, soon he will find other points that makes no sense to him. He will start to doubt even those points were he had no difficulty to believe prior to that and the whole sand castle of his faith will come down. Depending on the nature of the belief and its intensity, the believer goes through different phases of denial, confusion, shock, dismay, anger and finally the last phase, which is enlightenment. The process is painful, yet the reward is immense.

However, most people do not make it through the first stage. A great number of the believers will not go beyond the stage of denial. The fear of exploring new territories, the fear of separation, the fear of losing the reliable god of their imagination, the fear of being left with nothing but their own means is too great for some to bear. We all have comfort zones and change means going out of our comfort zone. This is not an easy step. This is like leaving the comfort of home and venturing out in the world with no one to turn to. At home we are being taken care of. At home our emotional needs are being fulfilled. We have someone to turn to, even if in the case of religion that someone is in our imagination. But whom we shall turn to if we venture out? Who will come to our rescue if we feel lonely? The pain of separation is too big. Some prison inmates feel that pain when they are released after decades of staying in the Jail. A great depression overcomes them. The prison was the prison, but it was home. That was the only home they had known for most of their lives. Now that they are free, what can they do? How they can face the world on their own? The pain of separation is so great that many of them are overtaken by a melancholic sense of nostalgia. They go through depression. This pain is what we feel when we think of severing our ties with our imaginary God. We know that if we leave his prison we cannot come back. We have grown so much used to him. He has been our best friend and companion in all the moments of our solitude and despair. Sure he never lift a finger to help us, but he was there to listen to our lamentations, he heard our cries, he wiped our tears.

It is always small incidents that trigger the spark of doubt in the believer’s mind, something that she may find illogical or unjust. But once the seed of doubt is sown, it will eventually grow, sometimes inconspicuous to the believer and the arduous and painful journey to freethinking begins. From the time that the seed of doubt is sown to the moment that it actually comes to fruition in some people could take many years. It depends on our emotional maturity and the level of risk we are willing to take to get out of our comfort zone and leave home. Eventually we will all mature; we will all come to our senses and we will all spurn faith and beliefs but this is a slow process.

Of course just like any seed, the seed of doubt needs proper environment to grow. Where thoughts are suppressed and speeches are censored, rational thinking does not flourish, doubts are uprooted and faith will cast its shadow of ignorance upon the believers. However, that is going to change. As the Internet brings the people of the world together, it becomes harder and harder for the forces of darkness to keep their lid over the truth and harness the freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Ere long the entire humanity will start questioning their time-honored and cherished dogmas and when they find no answer the seed of doubt is sown and the process of enlightenment is already set in motion.

Ali Sina



June 2001

From Belief to Enlightenment:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Ali Sina



I was born into a moderately religious family. On my mother’s side I have a few relatives who are Ayatollahs. Although my grandfather (whom I never met) was somewhat a skeptic, we were believers. My parents were not fond of the mullahs. In fact, we did not have much to do with our more fundamentalist relatives. We liked to think of ourselves as believing in “true Islam,” not the one taught and practiced by the mullahs.

I recall discussing religion with the husband of one of my aunts when I was about 15 years old. He was a fanatical Muslim who was very concerned about the fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). It prescribes the way Muslims should pray, fast, run their public and private lives, do business, clean themselves, use the toilet, and even copulate. I argued this has nothing to do with true Islam, that it is a fabrication of the Mullahs, that excessive attention to fiqh diminishes the impact and importance of the pure message of Islam, to unite man with his creator. This view is mostly inspired by Sufism. Many Iranians, thanks to Rumi's poems, are to a great degree Sufis in their outlook.

In my early youth I noticed discriminations and cruelties against the members of religious minorities in Iran. This was more noticeable in provincial towns where the level of education was low and the mullahs had a better grip over gullible people. Due to my father’s work we spent a few years in small towns out of the capital. I recall one of my teachers who planned to take the class swimming. We were excited and looked forward to it. In the class there were a couple of kids who were Baha'i and Jewish. The teacher did not let them accompany us. He said they are not allowed to swim in the same pool that Muslims swim in. I cannot forget the kids’ disappointment as they left school with tears in their eyes, subdued and heartbroken. At that age, maybe nine or ten, I could not make sense of and was saddened by this injustice. I thought it was the kid’s fault for not being Muslims.

I believe I was lucky for having open-minded parents who encouraged me to think critically. They tried to instill in me the love of God and his messenger, yet upheld humanistic values like equality of rights between man and woman, and love for all humankind. In a sense, this is how most modern Iranian families were. In fact, the majority of Muslims who have some education believe Islam is a humanistic religion that respects human rights, that elevates the status of women and protects their rights. Most Muslims believe that Islam means peace. Needless to say, few of them have read the Quran.

I spent my early youth in this sweet dream, advocating “true Islam” as I thought it should be, and criticizing the mullahs and their deviations from the real teachings of Islam. I idealized an Islam that conformed to my own humanistic values. Of course my imaginary Islam was a beautiful religion. It was a religion of equality and peace. It was a religion that encouraged its followers to go after knowledge and be inquisitive. It was a religion that was in harmony with science and reason. In fact, I thought that science got its inspiration from this religion. The Islam I believed was a religion that sparkled with modern science, which eventually bore its fruit in the West and made modern discoveries and inventions possible. Islam, I believed, was the real cause of modern civilization. The reason Muslims were living in such a miserable state of ignorance, I thought, was all the fault of the self-centered mullahs and religious leaders who for their own personal gain had misinterpreted the real teachings of Islam.

Muslims honestly believe that the great Western civilization has its roots in Islam. They recall great Middle Eastern scientific minds whose contributions to science have been crucial in the birth of modern science.

Omar Khayyam was a great mathematician who calculated the length of the year with a precision of .74% of a second. Zakaria Razi can very well be regarded as one of the first founders of empirical science who based his knowledge on research and experimentation. Avicenna's (Bu Ali Sina) monumental encyclopedia of medicine was taught in European universities for centuries. There are so many more great luminaries who have “Islamic names” who were the pioneers of modern science when Europe was languishing in the medieval Dark Ages. Like all Muslims, I believed all these great men were Muslims, that they were inspired by the wealth of hidden knowledge in the Quran; and that if today's Muslims could regain the original purity of Islam, the long lost glorious days of Islam would return and Muslims would lead the advancement of World civilization once again.

Iran was a Muslim country but it was also a corrupt country. The chance of getting into a university was slim. Only one in ten applicants could get into the university. Often they were forced to choose subjects that they did not want to study because they could not get enough points for the subjects of their choice. Students with the right connections often got the seats.

The standard of education in Iran was not ideal. Universities were under-funded, as the Shah preferred building a powerful military might to become the gendarme of the Middle East rather than build the infrastructure of the country and invest in people’s education. These were reasons why my father thought I would be better off to leave Iran to continue my education elsewhere.

We considered America and Europe, but my father, acting upon the counsel of a few of his religious friends, thought another Islamic country would be better for a 16 year old boy. We were told that the West’s morality is too lax, people are perverted, the beaches are full of nudes, and they drink and have licentious lifestyles, all of which are dangers to a young man. So I was sent to Pakistan instead, where people were religious and thus it was safe and moral. A friend of the family told us that Pakistan is just like England, except that it is cheaper.

This, of course, proved to be untrue. I found Pakistanis to be as immoral and corrupt as Iranians. Yes they were very religious. They did not eat pork and I saw no one consuming alcohol in public, but I noticed they had dirty minds, lied, were hypocrites, were cruel to women, and above all, were filled with hatred of the Indians. I did not find them better than Iranians in any way. They were religious but not moral or ethical.

In college, instead of taking Urdu I took Pakistani Culture to complete my A level FSc (Fellow of Science). I learned the reason for Pakistan's partition from India and for the first time heard about Muhammad Ali Jinah, the man Pakistanis called Qaid-e A’zam, the great leader. He was presented as an intelligent man, the Father of the Nation, while Gandhi was spoken of in a derogatory way. Even then, I could not but side with Gandhi and condemn Jinah as an arrogant, ambitious man who was the culprit for breaking up a country and causing millions of deaths. You could say I always had a mind of my own and was a maverick in my thinking. No matter what I was taught, I always came to my own conclusion and did not believe what I was told.

I did not see differences of religion as valid reasons for breaking up a country. The very word Pakistan was an insult to the Indians. They called themselves pak (clean) to distinguish themselves from the Indians who were najis (unclean). Ironically I never saw a people dirtier than the Pakistanis both physically and mentally. It was disappointing to see another Islamic nation in such intellectual and moral bankruptcy. In discussions with my friends I failed to convince anyone of “true Islam.” I condemned their bigotry and fanaticism while they disapproved of me for my un-Islamic views.

I related all this to my father and decided to go to Italy for my university studies. In Italy people drink wine and eat pork, but they were more hospitable, friendlier, and less hypocritical than Muslims. I noticed people were willing to help without expecting something in return. I met a very hospitable elderly couple, who invited me to have lunch with them on Sundays, so I would not have to stay home alone. They did not want anything from me. They just wanted someone to love. I was almost a grandson to them. Only strangers in a new country, who do not know anyone and cannot speak the language, can truly appreciate the value of the help and hospitality of the locals.

Their house was sparkling clean, with shiny marble floors. This contradicted my idea of Westerners. Although my family was very open towards other people, Islam taught me that non-Muslims are najis (Q.9:28) and one should not befriend them. I still have a copy of the Farsi translation of the Quran I used to often read from. One of the underlined verses is:


“O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as awliya’ (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but awliya’ to one another…Q.5: 51



I had difficulty understanding the wisdom of such a verse. I wondered why I should not befriend this wonderful elderly couple who had no ulterior motives in showing me their hospitality than just making me feel at home. I thought they were “true Muslims” and I tried to raise the subject of religion hoping they would see the truth of Islam and embrace it. But they were not interested and politely changed the subject. I was not stupid enough at anytime in my life to believe that all non-believers would go to hell. I read this in the Quran before but never wanted to think about it. I simply brushed it off or ignored it. Of course, I knew that God would be pleased if someone recognized his messenger but never thought he would actually be cruel enough to burn someone in hell for eternity, even if that person only does good deeds, just because he was not a Muslim. I read the following warning:

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good). Q 3:85,

Yet I paid little heed and tried to convince myself the meaning is something other than what it appears to be. At that moment this was not a subject that I was ready to handle. So I did not think about it.

I hung around with my Muslim friends and noticed that most of them lived a very immoral life of double standards. Most of them found girlfriends and slept with them. That was very un-Islamic, or so I thought at that time. What bothered me most was the fact that they did not value these girls as real human beings who deserved respect. These girls were not Muslim girls and therefore were used just for sex. This attitude was not general. Those who made less show of religiosity were more respectful and sincere towards their western girlfriends and some even loved them and wanted to marry them. Paradoxically. those who were more religious were less faithful towards their girlfriends. I always thought that true Islam is what is right. If something is immoral, unethical, dishonest or cruel, it cannot be Islam. I could not see how the behavior of these immoral and callous Muslims could be the result of what was taught in Islam.

Years later I realized that the truth is exactly the opposite. I found many verses that were disturbing and made me revise my whole opinion of Islam.

As I saw it, the tragedy was that the very same people who lived unethically and immorally were the ones who called themselves Muslims, said their prayers, fasted and were the first to defend Islam angrily if anyone raised a question about it. They where the ones who would lose their temper and start a fight if someone dared to say a word against Islam.

Once I befriended a young Iranian man at the university restaurant, later introducing him to two other Muslim friends of mine. We were all about the same age. He was an erudite, virtuous, wise, young man. My other two friends and I were captivated by his charm and high moral values We used to wait for him and sit next to him during lunch hour, as we always learned something from him. We used to eat a lot of spaghetti and risotto and craved a good Persian ghorme sabzi and chelow. Our friend said his mother sent him some dried vegetables and invited us to his house the next Sunday for lunch. We found his two-room apartment very clean, unlike the houses of other guys. He made us a delicious ghorme sabzi which we ate with great gusto and then sat back chatting and sipping our tea. It was then we noticed his Baha’i books. When we asked about them, he said he was a Baha’i.

That did not bother me at all, but on the way home my two friends said they did not wish to continue their friendship with him. I was surprised and asked why. They said that being a Baha’i makes him najis and had they known he was a Baha’i, they would not have befriended him. I was puzzled and enquired why they thought he was najis if we all were complementing him on his cleanliness. We all agreed he was a morally superior man than all of the Muslim young men we knew, so why this sudden change of attitude? Their response was very disturbing. They said the name itself had something in it that made them dislike this religion. They asked me if I knew why everyone disliked the Baha’is. I told them I didn’t know, and that I liked everyone. But since they disliked the Baha’is, perhaps they should explain their reasons. They did not know why! This man was the first Baha’i they knew this well, and he was an exemplary man. I wanted to know the reason for their dislike. There was no particular reason, they said. It’s just they know that Baha’is are bad.

I am happy I did not continue my friendship with these two bigots. From them I learned how prejudice is formed and operates.

Later I realized the prejudices and hatred that Muslims harbor against almost all non-Muslims is not the result of any misinterpretation of the teachings of the Quran, but is because this book teaches hate and encourages prejudice. Those Muslims who go to the mosques and listen to the sermons of the mullahs are affected. There are many verses in the Quran that call believers to hate non-believers, fight them, call them najis, subdue and humiliate them, chop off their heads and limbs, crucify them, and kill them wherever they find them.



¨



I Learned the truth from the Quran
I left the religion on the backburner for several years. Not that my views about religion had changed or I didn’t consider myself religious any more. I just had so much to do that expending time on religion had become scarce. Meanwhile I learned more about democracy, human rights and other values, like equality of rights between men and women, and I liked what I learned. Did I pray? Whenever I could, but not fanatically. After all, I was living and working in a Western country and did not want to look too different.

One day, I decided that it was time to deepen my knowledge of Islam and read the Quran from cover to cover. I found an Arabic copy of the Quran with an English translation. Previously I read only bits and pieces of the Quran. This time I read all of it. I would read a verse in Arabic, then its English translation, then refer back to the Arabic, and did not read the next verse until I was completely satisfied I understood the Arabic.

It didn’t take long before I came upon verses I found hard to accept. One of these verses was:

“Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed.” 4:48

I found it hard to accept that Gandhi would burn in hell forever because he was a polytheist with no hope of redemption, while a Muslim murderer could hope to receive Allah’s forgiveness. This raised a disturbing question. Why is Allah so desperate to be known as the only God? If there is no other god but him, what is the fuss? Against whom is he competing? Why should he even care whether anyone knows him and praises him or not.

I learned about the size of this universe. Light, which travels at a speed of 300 thousand kilometers per second takes 20 billion years to reach us from the galaxies that are at the edges of the universe. How many galaxies are there? How many stars are there in these galaxies? How many planets are there in this universe? These thoughts were mind-boggling. If Allah is the creator of this vast universe, why he is so concerned about being known as the only god by a bunch of apes living on a small planet down the Milky Way?

Now that I had lived in the West, had many western friends who were kind to me, liked me, opened their hearts and homes to me, and accepted me as their friend, it was really hard to accept that Allah didn’t want me to befriend them.

Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah 3:28,

Isn’t Allah the creator of the unbelievers too? Isn’t he the god of everybody? Why he should be so unkind to the unbelievers? Wouldn’t it be better if Muslims befriended unbelievers and taught them Islam by a good example? By keeping ourselves aloof and distant from unbelievers, the gap of misunderstandings will never be bridged. How in the world will unbelievers learn about Islam if we do not associate with them? These were the questions I kept asking myself. The answer to these questions came in a very disconcerting verse. Allah’s order was to, “slay them wherever ye catch them.” (Q.2:191)

I thought of my own friends, remembering their kindnesses and love for me, and wondered how in the world a true god would ask anyone to kill another human being just because he does not believe. That seemed absurd, yet this concept was repeated so often in the Quran there was no doubt about it. In verse 8:65, Allah tells his prophet:

“O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers.”

I wondered why would Allah send a messenger to make war? Shouldn’t God teach us to love each other and be tolerant towards each other’s beliefs? And if Allah is really so concerned about making people believe in him to the extent that he would kill them if they don’t believe, why would he not kill them himself? Why does he ask us to do his dirty work? Are we Allah’s hit men?

Although I knew of Jihad and never questioned it before, I found it hard to accept that God would resort to imposing such violent measures on people. What was more shocking was the cruelty of Allah in dealing with unbelievers.

I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them 8:12



It seemed Allah was not just satisfied with killing unbelievers, he enjoyed torturing them before killing them. Smiting people’s heads from above their necks and chopping their fingertips were very cruel acts. Would God really give such orders? And yet the worst is what he promised to do with unbelievers in the other world:

These two antagonists dispute with each other about their Lord: But those who deny (their Lord),- for them will be cut out a garment of Fire: over their heads will be poured out boiling water. With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins. In addition there will be maces of iron (to punish) them. Every time they wish to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be forced back therein, and (it will be said), “Taste ye the Penalty of Burning!” 22:19-22

How could the creator of this universe be so cruel? I was shocked to learn that Quran tells Muslims to:

- kill unbelievers wherever they find them (Q.2:191),

- murder them and treat them harshly (Q.9:123),

- fight them, (Q.8:65), until no other religion than Islam is left (Q.2:193)

- humiliate them and impose on them a penalty tax if they are Christians or Jews, (Q.9:29)

- slay them if they are Pagans (Q.9:5), crucify, or cut off their hands and feet,

- expel them from the land in disgrace. And as if this were not enough, “they shall have a great punishment in world hereafter” (Q.5:34),

- not befriend their own fathers or brothers if they are not believers (Q.9:23), (Q.3:28),

- kill their own family in the battles of Badr and Uhud and asks Muslims to “strive against the unbelievers with great endeavor” (Q.25:52),

- be stern with them because they belong to hell (Q.66:9).

How can any sensible person remain unmoved when he or she finds the Quran saying: “strike off the heads of the unbelievers” then after a “wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives” (Q.47:4).

I was also shocked to learn the Quran denies freedom of belief for all and clearly states Islam is the only acceptable religion (Q.3:85). Allah relegates those who do not believe in the Quran to hell (Q.5:11) and calls them najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (Q.9:28). He says unbelievers will go to hell and will drink boiling water (Q.14:17). Further, “As for the unbelievers, for them garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowls and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods” (Q.22:9). How sadistic!

The book of Allah says women are inferior to men and their husbands have the right to beat them (Q.4:34), and that women will go to hell if they are disobedient to their husbands (Q.66:10). It says men have an advantage over women (Q.2:228). It not only denies women equal right to their inheritance (Q.4:11-12), it also regards them as imbeciles and decrees that their testimony alone is not admissible in court (Q.2:282). This means that a woman who is raped cannot accuse her rapist unless she can produce a male witness, which of course is a joke. Rapists don't rape in the presence of witnesses. But the most shocking verse is where Allah allows Muslims to rape women captured in wars even if they are married before being captured (Q.4:24) (Q.4:3). The holy prophet raped the prettiest women he captured in his raids on the same day he killed their husbands and loved ones. This is why anytime a Muslim army subdues another nation, they call them kafir and rape their women. Pakistani soldiers raped up to 250,000 Bengali women in 1971 and massacred 3,000,000 unarmed civilians when their religious leader decreed that Bangladeshis are un-Islamic. This is why the prison guards in the Islamic regime of Iran rape the women and then kill them after calling them apostates and the enemies of Allah.

The whole Quran is full of verses that teach killing of unbelievers and how Allah would torture them after they die. There are no lessons on morality, justice, honesty, or love. The only message of the Quran is to believe in Allah and his messenger. The Quran coaxes people with celestial rewards of unlimited sex with fair houris in paradise and threatens them with blazing fires of hell. When the Quran speaks of righteousness, it does not mean righteousness as we understand it, but it means belief in Allah and his messenger. A Muslim can be a killer and murder non-Muslims and yet be a righteous person. Good actions are secondary. Belief in Allah and his messenger are the ultimate purpose of a person’s life.

After reading the Quran I became greatly depressed. It was hard to accept it all. At first I denied and searched for esoteric meanings to these cruel verses of the Quran, all in vain. There was no misunderstanding! The Quran was overwhelmingly inhumane. Of course it contained a lot of scientific heresies and absurdities, but they were not what impacted me the most. It was the violence of this book that really jolted me and shook the foundation of my belief.



¨



The treacherous passage to enlightenment:
After my bitter experience with the Quran I found myself traveling on a torturous road riddled with torments. I was kicked out of the blissful garden of ignorance, where all my questions were answered. There I did not have to think. All I had to do was believe. Now,the gates to that garden were closed to me forever. I had committed the unthinkable sin of thinking. I had eaten from the forbidden tree of knowledge, and my eyes had been opened. I could see the fallacy of it all and my own unclothedness. I knew I would not be let into that paradise of oblivion again. Once you start thinking, you don't belong there anymore. I had only one way to go and that was forward.

This road to enlightenment proved to be more arduous than I was prepared for. It was slippery. There were mountains of obstacles to climb and precipices of errors to avert. I traveled uncharted territories alone, not knowing what I would find next. It would become my odyssey in the realm of understanding and discovering truth, eventually leading me to the land of enlightenment and freedom.

I will chart these territories for all those who also commit the sin of thinking, find themselves kicked out of the paradise of ignorance and are en route to an unknown destination.

If you doubt, if the mantle of ignorance in which you wrapped yourself is shredded to pieces and you find yourself naked, know that you cannot stay in the paradise of ignorance any longer. You have been cast out forever. Just as a child, once out of the womb, cannot go back, you will not be readmitted into that blissful garden of oblivion again. Listen to one who has been there and done that, and don't cling despondently to the gates. That door is locked.

Instead look forward. You have a trip ahead of you. You can fly to your destination or you can crawl. I crawled! But because I crawled, I know this path quite well. I will chart the road, so hopefully you don't have to crawl.

The passage from faith to enlightenment consists of seven valleys.



Shock

After reading the Quran my perspective of reality was jolted. I found myself standing face to face with the truth and I was scared to look at it. It certainly was not what I was expecting to see. I had no one to blame, to curse and call a liar. I found all the absurdities of Islam and inhumanity of its author by reading the Quran. And I was shocked. Only this shock made me come to my senses and face the truth. Unfortunately this is a very difficult, painful process. The followers of Muhammad must see the naked truth and they must be shocked. We cannot keep sugarcoating the truth. The truth is bitter and it must be accepted. Facts are stubborn and refuse to go away. Only then does the process of enlightenment start.

But because each person’s sensitivity is different, what shocks one person may not shock the other. Even as a man I was shocked when I read that Muhammad instructed his followers to beat their wives and called women “deficient in intelligence.” Yet I have come to know many Muslim women who have no difficulty accepting these derogatory statements uttered by their prophet. It’s not that they agree they are deficient in intelligence or they believe the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women just because the Prophet said so, but they simply block out that information. They read it, but it doesn’t sink in. They are in denial. The denial acts as a shield that covers and protects them, that saves them from facing the pain of reality. Once that shield is up, nothing can bring it down. At this point their beliefs must be attacked from other directions. We have to bombard them with other shocking teachings of the Quran. They may have a weak spot for one of them. That is all they need: a good shock. Shocks are painful, but they can be lifesavers. Shocks are used by doctors to bring back to life a dead patient.

For the first time, the Internet has changed the balance of power. Now the brutal force of the guns, prisons and death squads are helpless and the pen is almighty. For the first time Muslims cannot stop the truth by killing its messenger. Now a great number of them are coming in contact with the truth and they feel helpless. They want to silence this voice, but they cannot. They want to kill the messenger, but they cannot. They try to ban the sites exposing their cherished beliefs, sometimes they succeed momentarily, but most of the time they don't. I created a site to educate Muslims about true Islam. I hosted it at Tripod.com. The Islamists forced Tripod to shut it down and they cowardly complied to appease them Muslims. I got my domain and the site was back again in a couple of weeks. So the old way of killing the apostates, burning their books and silencing them by terror does not work. They cannot stop people from reading. Even though my site is banned in Saudi Arabia, Emirates and many other Islamic countries, a great number of Muslims who never knew the truth about Islam are being exposed to the truth for the first time, and are shocked.

I met a lady on the net who converted to Islam and started to wear the Islamic veil. She had a web site with her picture completely covered in a black veil along with her story of how she became a Muslim. She was very active and she used to advise others not to read my writings. But when she read the story of Safiyah, the Jewish woman that Muhammad captured and raped after killing her father, husband and many of her relatives, she was shocked. She questioned other Muslims about this in vain. Then the door was open and she was cast out of the paradise of ignorance. She kept writing to me and asking questions. Finally, she passed through the other stages from blind faith to enlightenment very quickly and wrote thanking me for guiding her though this arduous path. She withdrew from the Yahoo Islamic clubs altogether.

When people learn about the unholy life of Muhammad and the absurdities of the Quran they are shocked. I want to expose Islam, write the truth about Muhammad’s unholy life, his hateful words, his senseless assertions, and bombard Muslims with facts. They will be angry. They will curse me, insult me and tell me that after reading my articles their faith in Islam is “strengthened.” But that is when I know that I have sown the seed of doubt in their mind. They say all this because they are shocked and have entered the stage of denial. The seed of doubt is planted and it will germinate. In some people it takes years, but given the chance it will eventually germinate.

Doubt is the greatest gift we can give to each other. It is the gift of enlightenment. Doubt will set us free, will advance knowledge, and will unravel the mysteries of this universe. Faith will keep us ignorant.

One of hurdles we have to overcome is the hurdle of tradition and false values imposed on us by thousands of years of religious upbringing. The world still values faith and considers doubt as the sign of weakness. People talk of men of faith with respect and disdain men of little faith. We are screwed up in our values. The word faith means belief without evidence; gullibility also means belief without evidence. Therefore there is no glory in faithfulness. Faithfulness means gullibility, credulity, susceptibility and easy to fleece. How can one be proud of such qualities?

Doubt on the other hand means the reverse of the above. It means being capable of thinking independently, of questioning, and of being a skeptic. We owe our science and our modern civilization to men and women who doubted, not to those who believed. Those who doubted were the pioneers; they were the leaders of thought. They were philosophers, inventors, and discoverers. Those who believed lived and died as followers, made little or no contribution to the advancement of science and human understanding.



Denial

After being shocked, or maybe simultaneously, one denies. The majority of Muslims are trapped in denial. They are unable and unwilling to admit the Quran is a hoax. They desperately try to explain the unexplainable, find miracles in it and would willingly bend all the rules of logic to prove that the Quran is right. Each time they are exposed to a shocking statement in the Quran or a reprehensible act performed by Muhammad they retreat in denial. This is what I did in the first phase of my journey. Denial is a safe place. It is the unwillingness to admit that you have been kicked out of the paradise of ignorance. You try to go back, reluctant to take the next step forward. In denial you find your comfort zone. In denial you are not going to be hurt, everything is okay; everything is fine.

Truth is extremely painful, especially if one has been accustomed to lies all his life. It is not easy for a Muslim to see Muhammad for who he was. It is like telling a child that his father is a murderer, a rapist, and a thief. A child who adulates his father will not be able to accept it even if all the proofs in the world is shown to him. The shock is so great that all he can do is to deny it. He will call you a liar. hate you for hurting him, curse you, consider you his enemy, and may even explode in anger and physically attack you.

This is the stage of denial. It is a self defense mechanism. If pain is too great, denial will take that pain away. If a mother is informed that her child has died in an accident, her first reaction is often denial. At the moment of great catastrophes, one is usually overwhelmed by a weary sense that this is all a bad dream and that eventually you’ll wake up and everything will be okay. But unfortunately facts are stubborn and will not go away. One can live in denial for a while, but sooner or later the truth must be accepted.

Muslims are cocooned in lies. Because speaking against Islam is a crime punishable by death, no one dares to tell the truth. Those who do, do not live long. They are quickly silenced. So how would you know the truth if all you hear are lies? On one hand the Quran claims to be a miracle and challenges anyone to produce a Surah like it.

And if you are in doubt as to which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a sura like it, and call on your helper, besides Allah, if you are truthful. (Q: 2:23)

Then it instructs its followers to kill anyone who dares to criticize it or challenge it. If you ever dare to take up the challenge and produce a Surah as poorly written as the Quran you will be accused of mocking Islam for which the punishment is death. In this atmosphere of insincerity and deceit, truth is the casualty.

The pain of coming face to face with the truth and realizing all that we believed were lies is extremely agonizing. The only mechanism and natural way to deal with it is denial. Denial takes away the pain. It is a soothing bliss,even though it is hiding one’s head in the sand.

One cannot stay in denial forever. Soon the night will fall and the cold shivering reality freezes one’s bones and you realize that you are out of the paradise of ignorance. That door is closed and the key has been thrown away. You know too much. You are an outcast. Fearfully you look at the dark and twining road barely visible in the twilight of your uncertainties and gingerly you take your first steps towards an unknown destiny. You grapple and fumble, reluctantly trying to stay focused. But fear overwhelms you and each time you try to run back to the garden you once again face the closed door.

The great majority of Muslims live in denial. They stay behind the closed door. They cannot go back nor do they dare to walk away from it. Those who are inside the garden are those who never left it. This door will only let you out. You cannot get in. That blissful garden is the garden of certitude. It is reserved for the faithful, for those who do not doubt, for those who do not think. They believe anything. They would believe that night is day and day is night. They would believe that Muhammad climbed the seventh heaven, met with God, split the moon and conversed with jinns.

As Voltaire said, those who believe in absurdities commit atrocities. They also believe that killing infidels is good, bombing is holy, stoning is divine, beating wives is prescribed by God, and hating unbelievers is the will of God. These inhabitants of the paradise of ignorance constitute the majority. Those who doubt are still the minority.

These believers will never see the truth if they are permanently kept cocooned in lies. All they have heard so far is the lie that Islam is good and if only Muslims practiced true Islam, the world would become a paradise, that the problems of Islam are all the fault of Muslims. This is a lie. Most Muslims are good people. They are no worse and no better than others. It’s Islam that makes them commit atrocities. Those Muslims who do bad things are those who follow Islam. Islam rears the criminal instinct in people. The more a person is Islamist, the more bloodthirsty, hate mongering, and zombie s/he becomes.

I wanted to deny what I was reading. I wanted to believe that the real meaning of the Quran is something else, but I could not. I could no longer fool myself saying these inhumane verses were taken out of the context. The Quran does not have a context. Verses are jammed together at random often lacking any coherence.

Confusion
Those who read my articles and are hurt by what I say about the Quran and Islam are lucky. They have me to blame. They can hate me, curse me and direct all their anger at me. But when I read the Quran and learned about its content, I could not blame anyone. After going through the stages of shock and denial, I was confused and started to blame myself. I hated myself for thinking, for doubting and finding fault with what I regarded to be the words of God.

Like all other Muslims, I was exposed to and accepted all the many lies, absurdities and inhumanities. I was brought up as a religious person. I believed in whatever I was told. These lies were given to me in small doses, gradually, since my childhood. I was never given an alternative to compare. It is like vaccination. I was immune to the truth. But when I started to read the Quran seriously from cover to cover and understood what this book is actually saying. I felt nauseated. All those lies suddenly appeared in front of me.

I had heard them all and had accepted them. My rational thinking was numbed. I had become insensitive to the absurdities of the Quran. When I found something that did not make sense, I brushed it off and said to myself that one has to look at the “big picture.” That idyllic big picture, however, was nowhere to be found except in my own mind. I pictured a perfect Islam. So all those absurdities did not bother me because I paid no attention to them. When I read the whole Quran I discovered a distinctly different picture than the one in my mind. The new picture of Islam emerging from the pages of the Quran was violent, intolerant, irrational, arrogant, a far cry from Islam as a religion of peace, equality and tolerance.

In the face of this much absurdity, I had to deny it, to keep my sanity. But how long I could keep denying the truth when it was out like the sun right in front of me? I was reading the Quran in Arabic so I could not blame a bad translation. Later I read other translations. I realized many translations in English are not entirely reliable. The translators had tried very hard to hide the inhumanity and the violence in the Quran by twisting the words and adding their own words sometimes in parenthesis or brackets to soften its harsh tone. The Arabic Quran is more shocking than its English translations.

I was confused and I did not know where to turn. My faith had beeen shaken and my world had crumbled. I could no longer deny what I was reading. But I could not accept the possibility that this was all a huge lie. “How could it be, I kept asking myself. that so many people have not seen the truth and I could see it? How could great seers like Jalaleddin Rumi did not see that Muhammad was an impostor and that the Quran is a hoax, and I see it? It was then that I entered the stage of guilt.



Guilt
The guilt lasted for many months. I hated myself for having these thoughts. I felt God was testing my faith. I felt ashamed. I spoke with learned people whom I trusted, people who were not only knowledgeable but whom I thought were wise. I heard very little that could quench the burning fire within me. One of these learned men told me not to read the Quran for a while. He told me to pray and read only books that would strengthen my faith. I did that, but it did not help. The thoughts about the absurd, sometimes ruthless, ridiculous verses of the Quran kept throbbing in my head. Each time I looked at my bookshelf and saw that book, I felt pain. I took it and hid it behind the other books. I thought if I do not think about it for a while my negative thoughts would go away and I would regain my faith once again. But they didn’t go away. I denied as much as I could, until I could no longer. I was shocked, confused, felt guilty and it was painful.

This period of guilt lasted too long. One day I decided enough is enough. I told myself that it is not my fault. I am not going to carry this guilt forever thinking about things that make no sense to me. If God gave me a brain, it is because he wants me to use it. If what I perceive as right and wrong is skewed, then it is not my fault. He tells me killing is bad and I know it is bad because I do not want to be killed. Then why did his messenger kill so many innocent people and order his followers to kill those who do not believe? If rape is bad, and I know it is bad because I do not want it to happen to people I love, why did Allah's prophet rape the women he captured in war? If slavery is bad, and I know it is bad because I hate to lose my freedom and become a slave, why has the Prophet of God enslaved so many people and made himself rich by selling them? If imposition of religion is bad, and I know that it is bad because I do not like another person to force on me a religion that I don’t want, then why did the Prophet eulogize Jihad and exhort his followers to kill unbelievers, take their booty, and distribute their women and children as spoils of war? If God tells me something is good, and I know that it is good because it feels good to me, then why did his prophet do the opposite of that thing?



Disillusionment

When this guilt was lifted off my shoulders, dismay, disillusionment, or cynicism followed. I felt sorry for having wasted so many years of my life,and for all the Muslims who are still trapped in these foolish beliefs, for all those who lost their lives in the name of these false doctrines, for all the women in virtually all the Islamic countries who suffer all sorts of abuses and oppression.s. They do not even know they are being abused.

I thought of all the wars waged in the name of religion, so many people died for nothing. Millions of believers left their homes and families to wage war in the name of God, never to return, thinking they are spreading faith in God. They massacred millions of innocent people. Civilizations were destroyed, libraries were burned, and so much knowledge was lost, for nothing. I recalled my father waking up in the early hours of the morning and in the icy water of the winter performing voodoo. I recalled him coming home hungry and thirsty during the month of fasting, and I thought of the billions of people who torture themselves in this way for nothing. The realization that all that I believed were lies and all that I did was a waste of my life, and the fact that a billion other people are still lost in this arid desert of ignorance chasing a mirage that to them appears to be water was disappointing.

Prior to that God was always in the back of my mind. I used to talk to him in my imagination and those conversations seemed me. I thought God was watching and taking account of every good act that I did. The feeling that someone was watching over me, guiding my steps and protecting me was very comforting. It was difficult to accept that there is no such thing as Allah and even if there is a God, it is not Allah. I did not give up the belief in God, but by then I knew for sure that if this universe has a maker, it cannot be the deity that Muhammad had envisioned. Allah was ignorant to the core. The Quran is full of errors. No creator of this universe could be as stupid as the god of the Quran appeared to be. Allah could not have existed anywhere else except in the mind of a sick Man. I understood that he was but a figment of Muhammad’s imagination and nothing more. How disappointed I was when I realized all these years I had been praying to a fantasy.




Depression
This feeling of loss and disappointment was accompanied by a sense of sadness, or some kind of depression. It was as if my whole world had fallen apart. I felt like the ground I was standing on was no longer there and I was falling into a bottomless pit. Without exaggerating, it felt like I was in hell.
I was bewildered, pleading for help and no one could help. I felt ashamed of my thoughts and hating myself for having such thoughts. The guilt was accompanied by a profound sense of loss and depression. As a rule, I am a positive thinker. I see the good side of everything. I always think tomorrow is going to be better than today. I am not the kind of person who is easily depressed. But this feeling of loss was overwhelming. I still recall that weight in my heart. I thought God has forsaken me and I did not know why. “Is that God’s punishment?” I kept asking myself. I do not remember hurting anyone ever. I went out of my way to help anyone whose life crossed mine and asked me for help. So, why did God want to punish me in this way? Why was He not answering my prayers? Why has He left me to myself and these thoughts I could find no answers to? Does he want to test me? Then where were the answers to my prayers? Would I pass this test if I became stupid and stopped using my brain? If so, why did he give me a brain? Would only dumb people pass the test of faith?

I felt betrayed and violated. I cannot say which feeling was predominant. At times I was disillusioned, sad, or dismayed. Even if faith is false, it is still sweet. It is very comforting to believe.

Juxtaposing my feelings of sadness and loss, I felt liberated. Curiously I no longer felt confused or guilty. I knew for sure the Quran was a hoax and Muhammad was an impostor.

To overcome this sadness I tried to keep myself busy with other activities. I even took dancing lessons and experienced what it means to be alive, to be free of guilt, to enjoy life and to just be normal. I realized how much I had missed out on and how foolishly I deprived myself of the simple pleasures of life. Of course denial is the way cults exert their control over thier believers. I denied myself the simplest pleasures of life, was living in constant fear of God, and I thought this was normal. I am talking of pleasures like sleeping in the morning, dancing, dating, or sipping a glass of fine wine.



Anger
At this time, I entered another stage of my spiritual journey to enlightenment. I became angry. Angry for having believed those lies for so many years, for wasting so many years of my life chasing a wild goose. Angry at my culture for betraying me, for the wrong values it gave me, with my parents for teaching me a lie, with myself for not thinking before, for believing in lies, trusting an impostor, with God for letting me down, for not intervening and stopping the lies that were being disseminated in His name.

When I saw pictures of millions of Muslims who, with so much devotion, went to Saudi Arabia, many of them spending their life’s savings to perform hajj, I became angry with the lies these people were brought up with. When I read someone had converted to Islam, something Muslims love to advertise and make a big issue of I became saddened and angry. I was sad for that poor soul and angry with the lies.

I was angry with the whole world that tries to protect this lie, defend it, and even abuse you if you raise your voice to try to tell them what you know. It is not just Muslims, but even westerners who do not believe in Islam. It’s okay to criticize anything but Islam. What amazed me and made me even angrier was the resistance I faced when I tried to tell others that Islam is not the truth.

Fortunately this anger did not last long. I knew that Muhammad was no messenger of God but a charlatan, a demagogue whose only intention was to beguile people and satisfy his own narcissistic ambitions. I knew all those childish stories of a hell with scorching fire and a heaven with rivers of wine, milk and honey. orgies, were the figments of a sick, wild, insecure and bullying mind of a man in desperate need to dominate and affirm his own authority.

I realized I could not be angry with my parents; for they did their best and taught me what they thought to be the best. I could not be angry with my society or culture because my people were just as misinformed as my parents and myself. Afer some thought, I realized everyone was a victim. There are one billion or more victims. Even those who have become victimizers are victims of Islam too. How could I blame Muslims if they do not know what Islam stands for and honestly, though erroneously, believe that it is a religion of peace?



Muhammad the narcissist
What about Muhammad? Should I be angry with him for lying, deceiving and misleading people? How could I be angry with a dead person? Muhammad was an emotionally sick man who was not in control of himself. He grew up as an orphan in the care of five different foster parents before he reached the age of eight. As soon as he became attached to someone, he was snatched away and given to someone else. This must have been hard on him and was detrimental to his emotional health. As a child, deprived of love and a sense of belonging, he grew with deep feelings of fear and lack of self-confidence. He became a narcissist. A narcissist is a person who has not received enough love in his childhood, who is incapable of loving, but instead craves attention, respect and recognition. He sees his own worth in the way others view him. Without that recognition he is nobody. He becomes manipulative and a pathetic liar.

Narcissists are grandiose dreamers. They want to conquer the world and dominate everyone. Only in their megalomaniac reveries is their narcissism satisfied.

Some famous narcissists are Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and Mao. Narcissists are intelligent, yet emotional wrecks. They are deeply disturbed people. They set themselves extremely high goals. Their goals always have to do with domination, power and respect. They are nobody if they are neglected. Narcissists often seek alibis to impose their control over their unwary victims. For Hitler it was the party and race, for Mussolini it was fascism or the unity of the nation against others and for Muhammad it was religion. These causes are just tools in their quest for power. Instead of promoting themselves, the narcissists promote a cause, an ideology, or a religion while presenting themselves as the only authority and the representative of these causes. Hitler did not call the Germans to love him as a person but to love and respect him because he was the Fuhrer. Muhammad could not ask anyone to obey him. But he could easily demand his followers to obey Allah and his messenger. Of course Allah was Muhammad’s own alter ego, so all the obedience was for him in the final account. In this way he could wield control over everyone's life by telling them he is the representative of God and what he says is what God has ordained.

Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of “Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited” explains: “Everyone is a narcissist, to varying degrees. Narcissism is a healthy phenomenon. It helps survival. The difference between healthy and pathological narcissism is, indeed, in measure. Pathological narcissism and its extreme form, NPD (Narcissistic Pathological Disorder), is characterized by extreme lack of empathy. The narcissist regards and treats other people as objects to be exploited. He uses them to obtain narcissistic supply. He believes that he is entitled to special treatment because he harbours these grandiose fantasies about himself. The narcissist is NOT self-aware. His cognition and emotions are distorted.”

The above perfectly describes Muhammad. Muhammad was a ruthless man with no feelings. When he decided the Jews were of no use to him, he stopped kowtowing to them and eliminated them all. He massacred all the men of Bani Qurayza and banished or murdered every other Jew and Christian from Arabia. Surely if God wanted to destroy these people he would not have needed the help of his messenger.

So I found there was no reason to be angry with an emotionally sick man who died a long time ago. Muhammad was a victim himself of the stupid culture of his people, of the ignorance of his mother who, instead of keeping him during the first years of his life when he needed her love most, entrusted him to a Bedouin woman to raise him so she could find a new husband.

Muhammad was a man with profound emotional scars. Dr. Vaknin writes that a narcissist "lies to himself and to others, projecting ‘untouchability,’ emotional immunity, and invincibility. For a narcissist "everything is bigger than life. If he is polite, then he is aggressively so. His promises outlandish, his criticisms violent and ominous, his generosity inane." Isn't this the image the Prophet projected of himself?

I could not criticize or blame the ignorant Arabs of the 7th century for not being able to discern that Muhammad was sick and not a prophet, that his outlandish promises, his impressive dreams of conquering and subduing the great nations when he was just a pauper, were caused by his pathological emotional complications and were not due to a divine power. How could I blame those ignorant Arabs for falling prey to a man like Muhammad when only in the last century, millions of Germans fell prey to the charisma of another narcissist who just as Muhammad, made big promises, was as ruthless, as manipulative, and as ambitious as he was?

After serious thought, I realized there is not a single person I could be angry with. I realized we are all victims and victimizers at the same time. The culprit is ignorance. Because of our ignorance we believe in charlatans and their lies, allowing them to disseminate hate among us in the name of false deities, ideologies or religions. This hate separates us from each other, and prevents us from seeing our oneness and understanding that we are all members of the human race, related to each other and interdependent.

It was then that my anger gave way to a profound feeling of empathy, compassion and love. I made a promise to myself to fight this ignorance that divides the human race. We paid, and are paying, dearly for our disunity. This disunity is caused by ignorance and the ignorance is the result of false beliefs and pernicious ideologies that are concocted by emotionally unhealthy individuals for self-serving purposes.

Ideologies separate us. Religions cause disunity, hate,fighting, killing, and antagonism. As members of the human race, we need no ideology, cause, or religion to be united.

I realized that the purpose of life is not to believe but to doubt. I realized that no one can teach us the truth because truth cannot be taught. It can only be experienced. In reality, no religion, philosophy or doctrine can teach you the truth. Truth is in the love we have for our fellow human beings, in the laugher of a child, in friendship, in companionship, in the love of a parent and a child, and in our relationships with others. Truth is not in ideologies. The only thing that is real, is love.





Synthesis

The process of going from faith to enlightenment is an arduous and painful process. Let us borrow a term from Sufism and call that the seven “valleys” of enlightenment.

Faith is the state of being confirmed in ignorance. You will continue to stay in that state of blissful ignorance until you are shocked and forced out of it. This shock is the first valley.

The natural first reaction to shock is denial. Denial acts like a shield. It buffers the pain and protects you from the agony of going out of your comfort zone. The comfort zone is where we feel at ease, where we find everything familiar, where we don't face new challenges or the unknown. This is the second valley.

Growth doesn’t take place in comfort zones. In order to go forward and evolve we need to get out of our comfort zones. We won't do that unless we are shocked. It is also natural to buffer the pain of shock by denial. At this moment we need another shock, and we may decide to shield ourselves again with another denial. The more a person is exposed to facts and the more he is shocked, the more he tries to protect himself with more denials. But denials do not eliminate the facts. They just shield us momentarily. When we are exposed to facts, at a certain point we will be unable to continue denying. Suddenly we won’t be able to keep our defenses up and the wall of denials will come down. We can’t keep hiding our heads in the sand prepetually. Once doubt sets in, it will have a domino effect and we find ourselves hit from all directions by facts that up until now we avoided and denied. Suddenly all those absurdities that we accepted and even defended, are no longer logical and we reject them.

We are then driven into the painful stage of confusion and that is the third valley. The old beliefs seem unreasonable, foolish and unacceptable, yet we have nothing to cling to. This valley, I believe, is the most dreadful stage in the passage from faith to enlightenment. In this valley we lose our faith without having found the enlightenment. We are basically standing in nowhere. We experience a free fall. We ask for help but all we get is a rehashing of some nonsense clichés. It seems that those who try to help us are lost themselves, yet they are so convinced. They believe in what they don't know. The arguments they present are not logical at all. They expect us to believe without questioning. They bring the example of the faith of others. But the intensity of the faith of other people does not prove the truth of what they believe in.

This confusion eventually gives way to the fourth valley, guilt. You feel guilty for thinking. You feel guilty for doubting, for questioning, for not understanding. You feel naked, and ashamed of your thoughts. You think it is your fault if the absurdities mentioned in your holy books make no sense to you. You think that God has abandoned you or that he is testing your faith. In this valley you are torn apart by your emotions and your intellect. Emotions are not rational, but they are extremely powerful. You want to go back to the paradise of ignorance, you desperately want to believe but you simply can't. You have committed the sin of thinking. You have eaten the forbidden fruit from the tree o

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.

Im going to post this as its own topic

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 incest 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. Incest 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 genitals together for social binding, no ape commits or procreates by incest. 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 nude. 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 rape are stoned to death in the most horrendous way because they could not produce four witnesses to the rape 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 breasts 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.

http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=273


Unification of Religions

The Presidency of Islamic Research and Ifta - Riyadh
Under The General Supervision of the Grand Council of Scholars
Fatwa No: 19402, Dated 25 Muharram 1418H   
     







Praise be to Allah alone, and salaat and salaam be upon Muhammad, his family, companions, and those who righteously follow him until the Day of Judgment.

The Permanent Committee for Islamic Research and Ifta has reviewed the inquiries, opinions and essays propagated in the mass media concerning the "Call for the Unification of Religions" ie; Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, and studied what has originated from the call to:

· Build a Mosque, a Church, and a Jewish Temple in one area, especially in universities, airports, and public squares etc. · Print the Noble Qur'an, the Torah, and the Bible in one book. · Other consequences of such a call in the form of conferences, symposiums, and solicitations to be established both in the East and the West.

After comprehensive study the committee resolves the following:-

1. One of the fundamentals of Faith in Islam, which is known as an essential part of the religion and upon which all Muslims have agreed, is that there is no true religion on the earth except Islam, and that it is the Final religion which abrogated all previous religuions and creeds. Therefore, no other religion remains on earth by which Allah can be worshipped except Islam. Allah The Most High says, "And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers." [Al-Qur'an 3:85].

2. One of the fundamentals of faith in Islam is what Allah's Book (the Qur'an) is the last Book that was revealed by the Cherisher of the Worlds. It abrogated all the Books revealed by Allah before it, such as the Torah, the Psalms, and the Bible, and as such no other Book has been left by which Allah can be worshipped except the Qur'an. Allah, The Most High, says, "And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad) the Book (the Qur'an) in truth, confirming the Scriptures that came before it, and trustworthy in highness and a witness over it (old scriptures). So judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires." [Al-Qur'an] 5:48]

3. It is our belief that both the Torah and the Bible were abrogated by the Qur'an, and that they were changed by means of additions or deletions by their followers. This was indicated in some verses in Allah's Book - the Noble Qur'an. Allah, The Most High, says in His Qur'an, "So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them." [Al-Qur'an 5:13]

"Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, 'This is from Allah.' To purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for thet they earn thereby." [Al-Qur'an 2:79]

"And verily, among them is a party who distort the Book with their tongue (as they read), so that you may think it is from the Book, but it is not from the Book, and they say, 'This is from Allah', but it is not from Allah; and they speak a lie against Allah while they know it." [Al-Qur'an 3:78]

Accordingly, even whatever is considered as correct in these Books, has been abrogated by Islam. The remaining parts are altered. This is proved by the following incident. The Prophet (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) got angry when he saw 'Umar ibn Al-Khattab holding a sheet containing some verses from the Torah and he said to him, "O 'Umar! Are you in doubt? Have I not brought (the Message) as clear as white? If my brother Musa ('alaihi salam) had been alive, he would have followed me." Narrated by Ahmed, Ad-Daarimi and others.

4. Another fundamental of Faith in Islam is that our Prophet and Messenger Muhammad (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) id the seal of all the prophets and messengers. Allah says, "Muhammad (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) is not the father of any man among you, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the last (end) of the Prophets. And Allah is Ever All-Aware of everuthing." [Al-Qur'an 33:40] As such, no other messenger is left to be followed except Muhammad (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam).

If any of Allah's Prophets and Messengers had been alive, they too along with their followers would have followed Muhammad (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam). Allah, The Most High, says, "And (Remember) when Allah took the Covenant of the Prophets saying 'Take whatever I gave you from the Book and Hikmah (understanding of the Laws of Allah etc.) and afterwards there will come to you a messenger (Muhammad) confirming what is with you. You must then believe in him and help him.' Allah said: 'Do you agree (to it) and will you take up My covenant (which I conclude with you)?' They said, 'We agree'. He said, 'Then bear witness; and I am with you among the witnesses (for this)." [Al-Qur'an 3:81]

When Jesus ('alaihi salam), the Prophet of Allah, comes in a later time he will follow Muhammad (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) and rule according to Muhammad's (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) legislation. Allah, The Most High, says, "Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write (Muhammad) whom they find written with them in the Taurah (Torah) [Deut. CVIII,15] and the Injeel [Gospel of John XIV,16]" [Al-Qur'an 7:157]

In addition, one of the basic pillars of faith in Islam is that Muhammad (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) was ent to all human beings, and Allah says, "Say (O Muhammad) 'O mankind! Verily, I am sent to you all as a Messenger of Allah - to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, none has the right to be worshipped but He." [Al-Qur'an 7:158]

5. One of the fundamentals of Islam is that any Jew or Christian who does not embrace Islam should be considered and designated as an unbeliever (Kafir) as well as an enemy of Allah, of His Messengers and the Believers (Muminoon), and such people will be the people of the Fire in accordance to Allah's Saying, that, "Those who disbelieve from among the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) and among al-Mushrikun (Polytheists), were not going to leave (their disbelief) until there came to them clear evidence." [Al-Qur'an 98:1]

And Allah says, "Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur'an, and the Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam)) from among the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) and al-Mushrikun (Polytheists) will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures." [Al-Quran 98:6]

It was narrated in Sahih Muslim that the Prophet (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "Anyone of this Ummah, whether a Jew or a Christian who heard about me and died without believing in what was revealed to me, he will be among the people of the Hell-Fire."

Based on the above, anyone who does not charge Jews and Christians with Kufr will be a Kaafir himself according to the Shari'ah principle. (ie; Anyone who does not charge the Kaafir with Kufr will be Kaafir himself.)

6. Adulterating the fundamentals of Islamic Faith and the facts of Islamic Law (Shari'ah) to serve the call (for the unification of religions), by mixing them together and casting them to one mould is but a wicked call. It aims at mixing the Truth with Falsehood, destroying Islam, demolishing its foundations and bringing all Muslims to clear apostasy (Riddah). This can be seen in the saying of Allah, The Most High, "And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion (Islamic Monotheism) if they can." [Al-Qur'an 2:217]. Allah Says, "They wish that you reject faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you will become equal (like one another)." [Al-Qur'an 4:89]

7. The inevitable consequence of such evil calls are:

· The cancellation of differences between Islam and Kufr, Truth and Falsehood, and complete negation of enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong.

· Breaking of barriers of alienation between Muslims and Kafiroon (unbelievers) so that no loyalty nor Jihad nor struggle for the sake of elevating Allah's Word on Allah's earth may take place. Allah, The Most High, commands "Fight against those who (1) do not believe in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, (4) those who acknowledge not the religion of Truth - ie Islam, among the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." [Al-Qur'an 9:29]

"And fight against the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolators, disbelievers in the oneness of Allah) collectively, as they fight against you collectively. But know that Allah is with the pious." [Al-Qur'an 9:36]

Had this (unification) call emanated from a Muslim, it would be considered explicit Riddah (apostasy) from Islam, as it is in conflict with the principles of Islamic faith, and accepts disbelief in Allah - The Glorified. This call annuls what was proved by the Qur'an as true, and denies that the Qur'an has abrogated all the books that preceded it, and also negates that Islam had abrogated all the previous religions. Based on this, the call for unification is rejected according to Shari'ah and is strictly prohibited by all evidences of Islam in the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and Ijmaa' (consensus).

Based on the aforesaid:

· It is not permissible for any Muslim who believes in Allah as the Rabb (Creator/Provider/Owner), in Islam as the religion, and Muhammad (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) as a Prophet and Messenger, to call for this abominable belief, or encourage others to join it, or spread it among other Muslims, let alone accepting it, attending its conferences or symposiums and affiliating with its assemblies.

· It is prohibited for any Muslim to print the Torah and the Bible even independently. So how could it be permissible to print them with the Qur'an in one book? Accordingly, whoever does that, or calls for it, has strayed far away (from the Right Path), as this is but a combination of the Truth (the Noble Qur'an) with the altered or abrogated books of the Torah and the Bible.

· It is prohibited for any Muslim to respond to that call for building (a mosque, a church, and a temple) in one complex, as this would imply a confession that there are religions by which Allah can be worshipped, besides Islam. This would also involve a denial that Islam is the purest of all the other religions. It would also imply a serious admission that religions are three and that people on earth may adopt whatever they wish of them, equally, and that Islam has not superseded the religions that preceded it.

· Undoubtedly, approving, believing, or accepting this call is considered Kufr (disbelief) and explicit error as it plainly contradicts the Noble Qur'an, the Purified Sunnah, and the Muslim Ijmaa' (consensus). It would also imply an agreement that the alterations done by the Jews and Christians are from Allah - Glory Be to Him. Moreover, it is not permissible to call churches, Allah's houses', as the Christians do not perform a correct worship that is accepted by Allah, and it is a kind of worship not based on Islam. Allah, The Most High, Says, "And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be one of the losers." [Al-Qur'an 3:85]

Rather they - (churches) are houses where Kufr in Allah is practiced. We seek refuge with Allah from Kufr and those who belong to it. Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah rest his soul in peace) stated in "Majmoo` Al-Fatawa" (collection of Islamic Rulings) 162/22, as follows:-

"Churches and Synagogues are not Allah's houses, but Allah's Houses are the Mosques. Rather, they (churches and synagogues) are houses of Kufr even though Allah's name is mentioned in them. Houses are regarded acording to the creed of the people. These people rejected Allah's last Prophet (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) and as such they are Kuffaar (disbelievers), hence theirs are but houses designated for the worship practiced by the Kuffaar."

It is noteworthy that calling the Kuffaar in general and the People of the Book in particular to Islam is incumbent upon all Muslims as per the explicit texts of our Noble Book, the Qur'an, and the Sunnah. However, a response may not be achieved except through kind words and sound arguments. It should, nonetheless, be done on condition not to drop any of the rules of Islam, so that they might either be convinced of Islam and embrace it, or reject it and die after a clear warning (had been given) to them. Allah, The Most High, Says, "Say (O Muhammad) 'O People of the Scripture! (Jews and Christians) Come to a word that is Just between us and you, that we worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords, besides Allah. Then if they turn away, say, 'I bear witness that we are Muslims.'" [Al-Quran 3:64]

However, debates, meetings, and dialogue held with them in order to enable them in achieving their desires, fulfilling their aims, breaking the bonds of Islam, and bending the Fundamentals of Islamic Faith are all considered as invalid, which is rejected by Allah, His Messenger (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam), and all believers. Allah, The Most High, Says, "And follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they turn you (O Muhammad) far away from some of that which Allah has sent down to you." [Al-Qur'an 5:49]

The committee, in resolving and issuing this verdict for all people also seeks all Muslims in general and scholars in particular, to fear Allah and protect Islam and preserve the Muslim Creed from error, and its callers to error and from Kufr and its people.

It also urges them to take precautions against this obvious Call for Unbelief (for the Unification of Religions) and against falling into its traps. We seek refuge with Allah for every Muslim from becoming a reason for bringing such an error to the Muslim nations and dpreading it among them. We ask Allah by His Supreme Names and Attributes to protect us from these devious afflictions and make us guides and be guided to The Right Path, and majke us protectors of Islam deriving light and guidance from our Rabb till we meet Him and he is pleased with us. He is the Grantor of success, and may His salaam be upon our Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) his family and all his companions.

The Permanent Committee for Academic Research and Ifta
(Verdict)
Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baz, President
Abdul-Aziz Ibn Abdullah Al-Shaykh Abdullah, Vice President
Salih Ibn Fawzan Al-Fawzan, Member
Bakr Ibn Abdullah Abu Zaid, Member


Our final call is indeed, all praises are for Allaah, Lord of all the Worlds. His prayers and peace upon His Messenger Muhammad, his family and Companions and on all those who strive to follow them in goodness. Was-salaam alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatahu

and this,

http://sultanknish..com/2011/01/fall-of-strongmen.html



The Fall of the Strongmen
The attempt to establish a post-colonial order of kings and strongmen to replace the British and French colonial rule over the Arab Muslim world was doomed from the start. Some of the kings were overthrown by native officers who had been trained by the British and the French to fight their wars. The officers who overthrew them became strongmen themselves.


The recently deposed Ben Ali was a Tunisian officer trained in French and American schools, who had helped push out the French and his predecessor. Egypt's Mubarak was an Air Force officer who replaced Sadat, who replaced Nasser-- all members of the Free Officers Movement which overthrew the Egyptian monarchy. Saddam Hussein took power in a coup against the coup led by army officers which had deposed the King of Iraq. Syria's Assad was an Air Force officer who took power after a long series of coups by army officers that it would take too long to list. If you're seeing a pattern here, congratulations and welcome to the Middle East.

The only Middle-Eastern Arab countries which held onto their monarchies, were either oil rich enough to spread the wealth to the important families and retain only a weak military to avoid the risk of being overthrown by their own army while relying on US protection (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE) or so small and deliberately apolitical to avoid attention (Jordan, Morocco). The rest ended up with military strongmen, some backed by the US, some backed by the Soviet Union. The Soviet backed strongmen usually unveiled some poorly thought out version of Arab Socialism. The US backed strongmen just stuck to taking a cut of everything and packing it away in foreign banks.

But there was a ticking time bomb underneath these pyramids of wealth and misery. Islam. The kings had been nothing more than British puppets. The strongmen that replaced them were the apex of a new praetorian guard. Despite whatever philosophies they brought to the table, sooner or later they tried to become kings as well. Syria's Assad passed power on to his son. Saddam was preparing his sons to oversee his own dynasty. In Egypt, Mubarak is trying to do the same thing. But they have no tradition and no history on their side. Their rule is a farce in which they call themselves presidents and prime ministers, and go through the pretense of holding elections, but function like absolute monarchs. An unbalanced situation that eventually implodes.

The strongmen depend on army backing, but the armies of the Arab world are split drastically between an elite officer corps and the soldier who is treated like sheep dung. The officers and the secret police run the country, but when a mob gathers, it's up to the soldiers to hold them back. If the soldiers choose not to, then it's time for the strongman to get on a plane and escape the country. (This is essentially what also brought down the Soviet Union.) As an alternative, the strongman will leverage support from tribal structures, appointing loyalists to top positions in the bureaucracy and the military. (This is what kicked off the initial insurgency in Iraq.) But that too is a balance. Elevating one family, alienates another family. The tribal power structure has its own enemies built in. Those maneuvers for power can cause the incredible chaos so common after the fall of a strongman.

The Arab world may hold elections, but it is a long way from accepting notions such as equality, open access or guaranteed freedoms. Its rulers will occasionally sign on to UN covenants on women's rights or religious rights, without ever taking them seriously. The idea that one man is just as good as another, regardless of his family or religion, is a completely alien one to them. A woman being just as good as a man is not even a conversation starter. The Middle East still mostly consists of peasants from feudal backgrounds lorded over by a small elite. Bring democracy and human rights to the Middle East? You might as well walk into 12th century Europe with a copy of the Constitution and expect not to be beheaded.

So what happens when a strongman is overthrown? Either he will be replaced by one of the coup leaders who will become the new strongman. If not he will also be overthrown. Or he will be replaced by an oligarchy which will eventually come to be dominated by its strongest and most ruthless member who will become the new strongman. (That is how Iraq ended up ruled by the House of Saddam.) As you can see there really isn't an alternative here. It's the strongman or nothing.

But there is a seeming alternative. A different power structure than a corrupt dictator and his thugs. One  based not on power, greed and family-- but religion. Islam.

Most of the 'reformers' are usually fighting for either a takeover by the local socialist party or the local Islamist party. The general public will join in the stone throwing and the looting, without necessarily taking sides. Often the socialists and the Islamists will actually cooperate to bring down the dictator. Then one will take power and begin killing the other. Western media rarely bother to report this, either out of ignorance or due to propaganda. They treat most of the crowd scenes as popular uprisings, which they are but not in the sense that the people will get to decide one way or another. Only that they get a chance to take part in the brief spurt of violence before being ordered to go home.

The Islamists promise a system based on Allah's law. Rule by moral clerics instead of greedy officials. Traditional values, benefits for families and teddy bears not named Mohammed for everyone. It's a scam of course. The Islamist takeover means another strongman or oligarchy. Except instead of being named General Saddam Hussein, he'll be known as the Ayatollah Khomeini. The differences are minimal. The ruling families will still sock away money in foreign banks. Loyalists will still be appointed to top positions. The bureaucracy will go on abusing and blackmailing the public. The police will still be vicious thugs. And law will be promulgated by Imams or Muftis or Mullahs, but it will still be the law that those at the top want.

Despite all that, or maybe because of it, the Islamists are still inevitable. Islam manufactures a group identity that may be paper thin, but it still more solid than recently manufactured national identities for regional Arabs who are expected to see themselves as Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians or Iraqis. Islam bridges tribal identities better than strongmen do. Its rulers will ultimately still reward their own families and favor their own tribes, but the process will take place under the guise of Islam.

When Mohammed invented Islam, he took existing beliefs and laced them up into a grand tribal identity. Islam is the meta-tribe, less a religion than a makeshift political system based on tribal alliances with the convenient sanction of a deity. Islam expands by creating a two-tier system that puts non-Muslims on the bottom, and encourages Muslims to wage constant war against them. None of this makes for a stable system, but it does make for a very volatile and expansionistic one. Arabs who will not die for Saddam or Ben Ali or Mubarak, will die for Islam.


The Islamists may not take over in Tunisia this time, but they will take over sooner or later. There and all across the Muslim world. (If it happened in militantly secularist Turkey with its army, then it really can happen anywhere.) Dictators will come and go, and eventually the local Islamists with funding from Saudi Arabia or Iran will put together a proper show and take over. And eventually the people will get tired and try to throw them out, as is happening in Iran. It's the natural political cycle of a region with no true national identities, no real principles of government, no law and no commitment to anyone outside the family.

We could slow down or even avert the process, by pushing Westernization and cutting the legs off Saudi Arabia and Iran. But we aren't about to do it. We could at least stop sending them money by the barrel, but we aren't about to do that either. And that's the real problem, not Ben Ali or Mubarak. Calling for the regimes to respect democracy and human rights just undermines whoever is in power. It does not lead to them being replaced by anything better. To do that, the entire culture would have to change. And that isn't happening.

The strongmen will fall. And the media will act like it's Romania in 1989, rather than just part of the cycle of coups in a system that cannot have anything better than tyrants of one sort or another. Eventually Islamists will come to power and wage war against us. It's up to us whether they win or not.

Thoughts on this article

http://sultanknish..com/2011/02/what-if-problem-really-is-people.html
What if the Problem Really is the People?
A thousand talking heads and neo-conservative experts on the region assure us that a bright future stretches out before Egypt like a magic carpet. "Democracy," "Freedom", "Representative Government" are the buzzwords that trickle wetly out of their printers. All cynicism is disdained and skepticism swept into the dustbin. History is being made here. But the tricky thing about history is that it isn't a point on a map, but a continuous wave. Like the tide, history is made and remade over and over again, formed and repeated, washed and beached on the shores of time.


Mubarak is the problem, we are told. And he certainly is their problem. The pesky 82 year old air force officer standing in the way of their dreams of a new Egypt. If not for him, Egypt would be a liberal model for the region. Just like Gaza, Lebanon and Iraq. But is it the dictator or the people who are the problem? The protesters are unified by a desire to push out Mubarak. But what do they actually stand for, besides open elections.

59 percent of Egyptian Muslims want democracy and 95 percent want Islam to play a large part in politics. 84 percent believe apostates should face the death penalty. That is what Egyptian democracy will look like. A unanimous majority that wants an Islamic state and a bare majority that wants democracy. Which one do you think will win out? A democratic majority of the country supports murdering people in the name of Islam. Mubarak's government does not execute apostates or adulterers. But a democratic Egypt will. Why? Because it's the will of the people.

The cheerleaders shaking their pom poms for Egyptian democracy don't seem to grasp that the outcome could be anything other than positive. It's an article of faith for them that freedom leads to freedom. That open elections give rise to human rights. That the problem can only be the dictator, not the people. Never the people. That is their ideology and they will stick to it.

Ever since World War II, we have been working off the "Hitler Paradigm". The "Hitler Paradigm" says that there are no bad nations, only bad governments. The people themselves are perfectly fine, but occasionally a tiny minority of extremists seize power. This allows the liberally minded to reconcile the need for occasional wars with their faith in mankind. Instead of fighting wars against nations, they fight wars to liberate nations from their despotic regimes. And ever since we have been fighting these "Wars of Liberation."

We fought to free Korea and Vietnam from Communism, but we lacked one basic thing. Ground level support from the people we were fighting to protect. Today South Koreans like Kim Jong Il more than they like us. We fought to free the tyrants of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein. As a reward, they financed the terrorists who have been killing us ever since. We fought to free Iraq from Saddam, and the entire country imploded into armed camps. Our "Victory in Iraq" came about because we cut a deal with the Baathists against the Shiites and Al Qaeda, essentially restoring a broken version of Saddam's old status quo. We fought to liberate Afghanistan, and now we find ourselves allied with some Muslim warlords who abuse women and rape little boys-- against the other Muslim warlords who abuse women and rape little boys.

Handing out democracy like candy does not fix existing cultural problems. It does not end bigotry, free women or stop murder in the name of Allah. Open elections are only as good as the people participating in them. And the 84 percent of Egyptians who want to murder apostates have issues that democracy will not solve. The problem with Egypt is not Mubarak-- but the Egyptians.

Let's take another example. In Jordan, the next target on the freedom tour, King Hussein passed a bill to criminalize the honor killings of women. And their democratically elected parliament voted 60 to 25 to strike the bill down. It took them only 3 minutes. That's what democracy would mean for the Jordanian girls murdered by their husbands, brothers and fathers. The right of the people and their duly elected representatives to legalize the murder of women.

The Hitler Paradigm says that all you have to do is take away the dictator and his staffers to usher in democracy, freedom and mutual amity. But what if the dictator is not the problem, but the symptom of a larger cultural problem?

Take the Cold War. We defeated Communism without a massive war. The Berlin Wall came down. Democracy came to Russia. Except here we are back to square one. The situation in the region has been reset back to before WW2, with a chaotic Eastern Europe and a predatory Russia. Economic liberalization and even the end of Communism did not change the underlying pattern. Despite a brief period of democracy, Russia reverted to a totalitarian regime with designs on the rest of the region. And that should have shocked no one, because it is exactly what happened after the fall of the Czars culminating in the Bolshevik takeover. All the reforms and liberalization did not give the average Russian what he wanted most-- stability, order and a strong nation.

Freedom is culturally determined. It is not the same thing as democracy. Nor is democracy as ubiquitous and universal as its advocates would like us to believe. Like all forms of power, it can only be exercised by those who are ready for it. Much of the world is not ready for it, no more than 12th century Europe was ready for the Constitution. Given the power to choose, they will choose tyranny. They will choose the known over the unknown, the stable over the unstable, and order over freedom.

A society with a social hierarchy embedded in its culture will preserve that hierarchy even with democratic elections  Such elections will not give women freedom or rights to religious minorities or freedom of expression to unpopular views. These are things which stem from legal guarantees such as the Constitution, they do not arise out of the natural course of open elections. And the pundits who are busy pretending that this is how it works in the columns of every major newspaper are playing the fool.

The United States has freedom due primarily to its culture. Those freedoms were an outgrowth of the rights of Englishmen and the Enlightenment. They cannot be exported to another country-- without also exporting the cultural assumptions that produced them.

Egypt's period of greatest liberalization was under British rule. Since then its cosmopolitan nightspots have been torched and it has drifted closer to Islamization. Even Egypt's current level of human rights under Mubarak is above that of most of its neighbors. And the reason for that is Mubarak's ties to America. The more democratic Egypt becomes, the more its civil rights will diminish. Its rulers will see social issues as an easy way to compromise with the Muslim Brotherhood. As Egypt's cultural ties to the West diminish, so will its freedoms.

The Islamists understand this far better than the neo-conservatives. That is why they campaign so ruthlessly against Western culture. They understand that it is cultural assumptions that dictate behavior, more than any law. While we try to export institutions to the Muslim world, they export Muslim culture to us. And they have had far more luck changing us, than we have had changing them. Institutions are shaped by culture, but cultures are not shaped by institutions. Export every aspect of American government to Egypt, and it will run along Egyptian lines, not American ones. And within a year, Egypt's government will run the same way it does today. Only the window dressing will be different.


Mubarak is one of the last of the Janissaries, the Western trained army officers who seized power across the Arab world in order to implement some twisted semblance of a modern system of government. When the army's grip on power fails, then Egypt will fall even further. The loss of power by the Turkish military meant a descent into Islamism and terrorism. It will mean the same thing in Egypt.

The "Hitler Paradigm" is the ideological blindspot of so many liberals and the liberally minded who insist that an entire nation cannot be bad, only a dictator, just as a religion cannot be bad, only a tiny minority of extremists. Their knee jerk response to every crisis is to insist that a change of government will change everything, that opening up the system will inherently and inevitably mean freedom. As is so often the case, a single bad idea can lead to tremendous folly.

A people who do not believe in the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will not be free no matter how many times they go to the polls. You can place voting booths outside every home and run elections every week, and it will still do no good. Freedom may be the birthright of every man, woman and child on earth-- but it cannot be theirs until they claim it. As long as they believe in the right of the majority to oppress the minority, in the value of order over liberty, and the supremacy of the mosque over any and all civil and legal rights-- then they will never be free. Never. Their elections will either give rise to chaos or tyranny. That is how it is in the Middle East. That is how it will always be until they claim their birthright by closing the Koran and opening their minds.

Definitely after college/university. It is pertinent for one to learn critical life and survival skills.

3. Most Muslims are Arabs
While Islam is often associated with Arabs, they make up only 15% of the world's Muslim population. The country with the largest population of Muslims is Indonesia. Muslims make up 1/5 of the world's population, with large numbers found in Asia (69%), Africa (27%), Europe (3%) and other parts of the world.

At the core of Islam is Arabic culture and vice versa. The 2 can never ever be separated. Mohammed saw piety through the lens of Arab culture and Arab culture only. Hence the overarching Arab theme. As I stated in my earlier posts that Islam is sanctified Arab culture, its goal is to form an Arab hegemony under the guise of religion. Yes there are many nonarabs that are muslim but they all submit to the "superiority" of Arab culture,  Arab theology and Arabization. In my opinion, Islam is a great religion for the Arabs but unfortunately not for humanity.

6. Islam is intolerant of other faiths
Throughout the Qur'an, Muslims are reminded that they are not the only ones who worship God. Jews and Christians are called "People of the Book," meaning people who have received previous revelations from the One Almighty God that we all worship. The Qur'an also commands Muslims to protect from harm not only mosques, but also monasteries, synagogues, and churches -- because "God is worshipped therein."

So what is Islam's stance on non abrahamic faiths such as Hindus, Aboriginal traditional religions (African, Native American, European, Asian etc), polytheists, Atheists, Agnostics, confucianists? I think the Quran is clear on it's stance on those moral systems. Even her older monotheistic Abrahamic faiths - Christians and Jews are relegated to dhimmi status in Islamic society. Islam and other Middle Eastern Religions do not have a monopoly on religion, morality, spirituality, god(s) or goddesses. So stop trying to sell the politically correct version of your religion.

Yeah Lying makes you smile, the jikes on you though, funny thing is your still lying by posting here guess your 21st century morals is deeply rooted in telling lies. , Just as you re - translate the Qur'an to make it say what you want to, my Fatwa(wich means Judgment but the Ignoramus in you think otherwise) on you is "You are a certified Liar who lies repeatedly, pls change for the better.

Ad hominem attacks once again.
Per the lies, I wonder what your thoughts are on “Taqiyya”?
Replace “Fatwa” with “judgment” and my statement is still robust!



Despite showing you verses of the Qur'an and hadith that clearly shows that Islam is not misogynist, you prefer repeating yourself like my broken CD player, man I am loving it , could hardly make sense of the rest of the stuff you wrote.
You provided some verses with positive views on women and I provided some with very negative views at best it shows contradictions in this purported holy book.



Yawns, since I have given you the prophet words on it I see no sense is quoting a scholar's interpretation of the issue, feel free to keep repeating your self. But I wonder where is the morality in sleeping with a love-peddler? where is the morality in adultery?

I take the consequentialist point of view on punishment. Does the ends justify the means? I assert unequivocally that stoning or advocating stoning anybody to death in 2011 is barbaric.  I do not advocate adultery as there are negative effects to a family and society however, I believe in human redemption, many marriages survive infidelity. Adultery can be punished in a civil manner by divorce, punitive financial arrangements and at worst jail time but definitely not stoning!!!
Before you throw stones when you live in a glass house, Mohammed and Muslims contributed to a myriad of sexualized culture over the years: Harems, Sexual Slavery, Institutionalizing Pedophilia (where today an abominable Nigerian senator marries an Egyptian minor and claims it is his religious right!!!), Polygamy, temporary marriages (Nikah mut‘ah), Inbreeding (marrying of cousins, even though it is scientifically proven to be detrimental to offspring) etc etc.  These are not unique to Islam or Islamic culture but the negation of cultural evolution attributable to a “divine” ideology that is unbendable is the quandary.


but I guess it is a waste asking you since to you because Giraffe's practice homosexuality , then humans with all our higher intelligence should follow suit(follow animals) or didn't you say:
Quote from: divinereal on January 21, 2011, 05:38 PM
1)   Homosexuality:  This phenomenon occurs in nature in many animals (dolphins, bonobos, and giraffes) and amongst human beings from all countries and societies (including Muslims countries) from time in memorial.  Homosexuality is very prevalent in strict Muslim societies due to the separations of genders http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/asia-mainmenu-33/5883-more-pakistani-teens-choosing-gay-and-lesbian-sex.
Man you can follow the bonobos and dolphines for all I care, it only shows how rational and logical you are, Lol!    

You failed to get the crux of my argument. I am not following animals, however, if it is proven that a trait such as homosexuality is found in many animals, a plethora of disparate human cultures and scientifically there may even be a “gay” gene, then one needs to reassess their views on this observable natural occurring fact.  Life forms come in different shapes and sizes, many of us come in different shades, varying intellect, physical prowess and quirks, a spectrum of humanity that can only be explained by evolution. Such a phenomenom as homosexuality should be studied and understood not relegated to stoning. Now if you take the point of view of a religionist, then you will need to pose the question Why would any god make gays or for that matter children with physical disabilities?

HEhehehe, is some one high or what, so many of the idiotic cultures the pre - islamic Arabs Practice were refuted, like the habit of burying daughters aive, Islam forbade such practice, the arabs love to have binges, Islam put a stop tyo that, the arabs were superstitious people, the advent of Islam put an end to that, so many evil practices of the arabs did Islam end  But can a man with a queer logic that pretends to be rational ever be more sensible, do you expect him to be any wiser in thinking before making statements that utterly false? I do laugh in Germanica to this queer logics.

Most ignorant people remain superstitious. Islam and Islamic culture is replete with Arabian superstitions including Jinn’s (absolutely ridiculous), Evil Eye (Muslim 5427), Spells (Muslim 5428) Witchcraft & Sorcery, Yawning being of the devil (Bukhari 73:245). Women today in Islamic countries are arrested and prosecuted for black magic. Not unique to just Muslim societies as many African countries have similar problems which I detest just as vehemently. The biggest superstition is that believers need to travel to Mecca and circle a meteorite seven times.  A practice appropriated from the Arab pagans from preislamic Arabia. From the idols worshipped by the pagans at Mecca in Muhammad's time, guess which stone was allowed to remain? The black rock that was holy to his Quraish tribe. Quite a sinister lad this Mohammed guy!


if you can't stick to the topic( because your futile points have been waved asside, then you can keep ranting, I will limit myself to the topic, keep twisting and turning. Looks who is actually moving the goal post, truly like i said earlier you are simply a regurgitator of ideas you do not even understand.

I am not moving the goal post, I am stating my argument quite lucidly and responding to your statements. I guess I expect much more perfection from a divine being versus the glaring imperfections in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic theology.


Per your reference to you calling me a bigot, its a ruse and extremely defensive. I identify myself first and foremost as a human being and have more in common with you than you would acknowledge.  Critiquing the doctrine and theology of belief systems including is not bigoted.

So I "lied" about posting another blog, stone me, put a fatwa on my head,  (Joke, cheer up man!).

I never stated that the Quran had only immoral misogynist topics from a female perspective as most popular and mythical stories have both morality and immorality that can't be derived from the readings, writings or storyline. However, the clear contradiction in verses pertaining to women, and at best, the laissez-faire attitude of the Quran and Bible towards slavery is strong evidence of their fallibility.

You guys are moving the post again conveniently ignoring the 2nd to the last post from a Muslim website that clearly states that a husband can sleep with his wife whenever he pleases (provided she is healthy) and condones sleeping with ones SLAVES!! Where’s the morality there? It only makes sense when you look through the lens of Islam as a sanctified 7th century Arabic culture at best Islam cannibalized Arabian culture of the era. The many gods of pre Islamic Arabia where wiped out by the Mohammed (possibly a mythical figure) while most traditions of the era remained the same. Even the name Allah is from that the era of polytheism in Arabia, the Kaaba housed the multiple gods of Arabia. What is shocking is that Africans who had their own mythical legends and stories have now been totally brainwashed (admittedly not over night) by an Arabian myth and moral code.  I mean take the topic of covering women or women lowering their gaze? What makes you think that covering women up is pious? Why the thought that men are beings that cannot control their sexual appetites and thoughts? How does this edict relate to tribal societies where the people go naked or are barely covered in remote parts of Africa and South America?  How would you justify stoning an adulterer, or a homosexual, Apostate, dhimmitude or genocide because people have different beliefs from you or cutting off a person’s hand because they stole a goat for crying out loud? Really is it that serious? A god that cant/or refuses to stop wars, hurricanes, famine, tsunamis and other more important issues but cares about who a person sleeps with, what they eat (pork) or demands that we violently sacrifice an animal (halaal) as long as we pray over it with the head facing Mecca (even though there are more humane methods to sacrifice an animal) its ok? Come on people!!
Please I am not condoning adultery but I think death by stoning for the guilty is a bit excessive. 

Let me highlight the fact that these issues are not only related to Islam but all monotheistic religions. So I am not attacking Muslims, Christians or Jews but the very doctrines and theology that they believe in. The morality of these Middle Eastern religions is built on a house of cards.  I don’t know the answer to a lot of humanities problems.

Lastly, it is very interesting how this topic was moved to the Nairaland forum for Muslims!!! I am taking note it was originally just in the religion forum.  Administrators are you moving topics around to generate more traffic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQJ8Rbgiox4

I promise this is my last post on this topic but had to share:
This is from an Islamic website smh

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/33597



Is it permissible for a man to force his wife or slave to have intercourse if she refuses?.


Praise be to Allaah.   

The woman does not have the right to refuse her husband, rather she must respond to his request every time he calls her, so long as that will not harm her or keep her from doing an obligatory duty.

Al-Bukhaari (3237) and Muslim (1436) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)  said: “If a man calls his wife to his bed and she refuses, and he spends the night angry with her, the angels curse her until morning.”
If she refuses with no excuse, she is disobeying and is being defiant (nushooz), and he is no longer obliged to spend on her and clothe her.

The husband should admonish her and remind her of the punishment of Allaah, and forsake her in her bed. He also has the right to hit her, in a manner that does not cause injury. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next) refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allaah is Ever Most High, Most Great”

[al-Nisa’ 4:34]

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked what a husband should do if his wife refuses him when he asks for intimacy.

He replied:

It is not permissible for her to rebel against him or to withhold herself from him, rather if she refuses him and persists in doing so, he may hit her in a manner that does not cause injury, and she is not entitled to spending or a share of his time [in the case of plural marriage].” Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 32/279.

And he was asked about a man who has a wife who is rebellious and refuses intimacy – does she forfeit the right to maintenance and clothing, and what should she do?

He replied:

She forfeits her right to maintenance and clothing if she does not let him be intimate with her. He has the right to hit her if she persists in being defiant. It is not permissible for her to refuse intimacy if he asks for that, rather she is disobeying Allaah and His Messenger (by refusing). In al-Saheeh it says: “If a man calls his wife to his bed and she refuses, the One Who is in heaven will be angry with her until morning comes.”

From Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 32/278. The hadeeth was narrated by Muslim, 1736.

So the wife should be admonished first, and warned against defiance (nushooz) and of the anger of Allaah and the curse of the angels. If she does not respond, then the husband should forsake her in her bed, and if she does not respond to that, then he may hit her in a manner that does not cause injury. If none of these steps are effective, then he may stop spending on her maintenance and clothing, and he has the right to divorce her or to allow her to separate from him by khula’ in return for some financial settlement, such as giving up the mahr.

Similarly a slave woman does not have the right to refuse her master’s requests unless she has a valid excuse. If she does that she is being disobedient and he has the right to discipline her in whatever manner he thinks is appropriate and is allowed in sharee’ah. And Allaah knows best.

So slavery is still acceptable in Islam

Lol, your ad hominem attacks are quite infantile. Dude no be fight with all this BOLD lettering. You are allowed to criticize my posts, I have no problem with that. The scientific method includes peer reviewing, lol

Back to our discourse:

Quranic rules are differentiated by sex, with men seemingly given greater rights and responsibilities. You cannot continue to use semantics or "classical" arabic to explain away what is self evident in your "holy" books and Islamic culture. There are innumerable verses that are abhorent and misogynist.  In an earlier post I posted 2 discussions by Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hersi that debated on women status in Islam.

Wife Beatings

Quran verse 4:34
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
 

Lastly, I think Wole Soyinka as well as Tai Solarin were great leaders from Nigeria. Im not ashamed to have them as role models and dicuss religion over a beer with them




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3Eam5FX58&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9cAa6SP79M&NR=1


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6bFR4_Ppk8

greed the god of the torah/bible was a tyrannical, diabolical, genocidal, jealous, narcissistic being.


CHRISTIAN GOD - AN EVIL DIABOLICAL KILLER
BY OLEG DEI
The Christian Fundamentalists state God is
good, but the evil Bible teaches otherwise!
1. God drowns the whole earth.
In Genesis 7:21–23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women,
children, and fetuses. Only a single family survives. In Matthew 24:37–42, the evil
Jesus approves of this genocide and plans to repeat it when he returns.
2. God kills half a million people.
In 2 Chronicles 13:15–18, God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow
Israelites.
3. God slaughters all Egyptian firstborn.
In Exodus 12:29, God kills all Egyptian firstborn children and cattle because their
king was stubborn.
PAGE 1
4. God kills 14,000 people for complaining that God keeps killing them.
In Numbers 16:41–49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them.
So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.
5. Genocide after genocide after genocide.
In Joshua 6:20–21, God helps the Israelites destroy Jericho, killing “men and
women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” In Deuteronomy 2:32–35, God
has the Israelites kill everyone in Heshbon, including children, and plunder the
country. In Deuteronomy 3:3–7, God has the Israelites do the same to the people of
Bashan. In Numbers 31:7–18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the
virgins, whom they take as spoils of war. In 1 Samuel 15:1–9, God tells the Israelites
to kill all the Amalekites—men, women, children, infants, and their cattle—for
something the Amalekites' ancestors had done 400 years ago.
6. God kills 50,000 people for curiosity.
In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant.
PAGE 2
7. 3,000 Israelites killed for inventing a god.
In Exodus 32, Moses has climbed Mount Sinai to get the Ten Commandments. The
Israelites are bored, so they invent a golden calf god. Moses comes back and God
commands him: “Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the
camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.”
About 3,000 people died.
8. Amorites destroyed by sword and God's rocks.
In Joshua 10:10–11, God helps the Israelites slaughter the Amorites by sword, then
finishes them off with rocks from the sky.
9. God burns two cities to death.
In Genesis 19:24, God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah with fire from the sky.
Then God kills Lot’s wife for looking back at her burning home.
10.God has 42 children mauled by bears.
In 2 Kings 2:23–24, some kids tease the prophet Elisha, and God sends bears to
maul them.
11. A tribe slaughtered and their virgins raped for not showing up at roll call.
In Judges 21:1–23, a tribe of Israelites misses roll call, so the other Israelites kill
them all except for the virgins, which they take for themselves. Still not happy, they
hide in vineyards and pounce on dancing women from Shiloh to take them for
themselves.
12. 3,000 crushed to death.
In Judges 16:27–30, God gives Samson strength to bring down a building to crush
3,000 members of a rival tribe.
13. A concubine raped and dismembered.
In Judges 19:22–29, a mob demands to rape a godly master's guest. The master
offers his daughter and a concubine to them instead. They take the concubine and
gang-rape her all night. The master finds her on his doorstep in the morning, cuts
her into 12 pieces, and ships the pieces around the country.
14. Child sacrifice.
In Judges 11:30–39, Jephthah burns his daughter alive as a sacrificial offering for
God’s favor in killing the Ammonites.
PAGE 3
15.God helps Samson kill 30 men because he lost a bet.
In Judges 14:11–19, Samson loses a bet for 30 sets of clothes. The spirit of God
comes upon him and he kills 30 men to steal their clothes and pay off the debt.
16.God demands you kill your wife and children for worshipping other gods.
In Deuteronomy 13:6–10, God commands that you must kill your wife, children,
brother, and friend if they worship other gods.
17.God incinerates 51 men to make a point.
In 2 Kings 1:9–10, Elijah gets God to burn 51 men with fire from heaven to prove he
is God.
18.God kills a man for not impregnating his brother's wife.
In Genesis 38:9–10, God kills a man for refusing to impregnate his brother's wife.
19.God threatens forced cannibalism.
In Leviticus 26:27–29 and Jeremiah 19:9, God threatens to punish the Israelites by
making them eat their own children.
PAGE 4
20.The coming slaughter.
According to Revelation 9:7–19, God’s got more evil coming. God will make horselike
locusts with human heads and scorpion tails, who torture people for 5 months.
Then some angels will kill a third of the earth's population. If he came today, that
would be 2 billion people.
Christians have spent thousands of years coming up with excuses for a loving
god that would allow or create such evil. Instead the Bible depicts an evil
demon God killing at the drop of a hat. Then you wonder why the history of
Christianity is filled with murder, killing and violence.
PAGE 5

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122669909279629451.html


WORLD NEWS NOVEMBER 15, 2008
Professor Hired for Outreach to Muslims Delivers a Jolt

Islamic Theologian's Theory: It's Likely the Prophet Muhammad Never ExistedArticle Comments more in World »Email Print
By ANDREW HIGGINS

MÜNSTER, Germany -- Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a Muslim convert and Germany's first professor of Islamic theology, fasts during the Muslim holy month, doesn't like to shake hands with Muslim women and has spent years studying Islamic scripture. Islam, he says, guides his life.

So it came as something of a surprise when Prof. Kalisch announced the fruit of his theological research. His conclusion: The Prophet Muhammad probably never existed.

Theology Without Muhammad
Read a translated excerpt from "Islamic Theology Without the Historic Muhammad -- Comments on the Challenges of the Historical-Critical Method for Islamic Thinking" by Professor Kalisch.
Muslims, not surprisingly, are outraged. Even Danish cartoonists who triggered global protests a couple of years ago didn't portray the Prophet as fictional. German police, worried about a violent backlash, told the professor to move his religious-studies center to more-secure premises.

"We had no idea he would have ideas like this," says Thomas Bauer, a fellow academic at Münster University who sat on a committee that appointed Prof. Kalisch. "I'm a more orthodox Muslim than he is, and I'm not a Muslim."

When Prof. Kalisch took up his theology chair four years ago, he was seen as proof that modern Western scholarship and Islamic ways can mingle -- and counter the influence of radical preachers in Germany. He was put in charge of a new program at Münster, one of Germany's oldest and most respected universities, to train teachers in state schools to teach Muslim pupils about their faith.

Muslim leaders cheered and joined an advisory board at his Center for Religious Studies. Politicians hailed the appointment as a sign of Germany's readiness to absorb some three million Muslims into mainstream society. But, says Andreas Pinkwart, a minister responsible for higher education in this north German region, "the results are disappointing."

Prof. Kalisch, who insists he's still a Muslim, says he knew he would get in trouble but wanted to subject Islam to the same scrutiny as Christianity and Judaism. German scholars of the 19th century, he notes, were among the first to raise questions about the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Many scholars of Islam question the accuracy of ancient sources on Muhammad's life. The earliest biography, of which no copies survive, dated from roughly a century after the generally accepted year of his death, 632, and is known only by references to it in much later texts. But only a few scholars have doubted Muhammad's existence. Most say his life is better documented than that of Jesus.


Muhammad Sven Kalish
"Of course Muhammad existed," says Tilman Nagel, a scholar in Göttingen and author of a new book, "Muhammad: Life and Legend." The Prophet differed from the flawless figure of Islamic tradition, Prof. Nagel says, but "it is quite astonishing to say that thousands and thousands of pages about him were all forged" and there was no such person.

All the same, Prof. Nagel has signed a petition in support of Prof. Kalisch, who has faced blistering criticism from Muslim groups and some secular German academics. "We are in Europe," Prof. Nagel says. "Education is about thinking, not just learning by heart."

Prof. Kalisch's religious studies center recently removed a sign and erased its address from its Web site. The professor, a burly 42-year-old, says he has received no specific threats but has been denounced as apostate, a capital offense in some readings of Islam.

"Maybe people are speculating that some idiot will come and cut off my head," he said during an interview in his study.

A few minutes later, an assistant arrived in a panic to say a suspicious-looking digital clock had been found lying in the hallway. Police, called to the scene, declared the clock harmless.

A convert to Islam at age 15, Prof. Kalisch says he was drawn to the faith because it seemed more rational than others. He embraced a branch of Shiite Islam noted for its skeptical bent. After working briefly as a lawyer, he began work in 2001 on a postdoctoral thesis in Islamic law in Hamburg, to go through the elaborate process required to become a professor in Germany.

The Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S. that year appalled Mr. Kalisch but didn't dent his devotion. Indeed, after he arrived at Münster University in 2004, he struck some as too conservative. Sami Alrabaa, a scholar at a nearby college, recalls attending a lecture by Prof. Kalisch and being upset by his doctrinaire defense of Islamic law, known as Sharia.

In private, he was moving in a different direction. He devoured works questioning the existence of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Then "I said to myself: You've dealt with Christianity and Judaism but what about your own religion? Can you take it for granted that Muhammad existed?"

He had no doubts at first, but slowly they emerged. He was struck, he says, by the fact that the first coins bearing Muhammad's name did not appear until the late 7th century -- six decades after the religion did.

He traded ideas with some scholars in Saarbrücken who in recent years have been pushing the idea of Muhammad's nonexistence. They claim that "Muhammad" wasn't the name of a person but a title, and that Islam began as a Christian heresy.

Prof. Kalisch didn't buy all of this. Contributing last year to a book on Islam, he weighed the odds and called Muhammad's existence "more probable than not." By early this year, though, his thinking had shifted. "The more I read, the historical person at the root of the whole thing became more and more improbable," he says.

He has doubts, too, about the Quran. "God doesn't write books," Prof. Kalisch says.

Some of his students voiced alarm at the direction of his teaching. "I began to wonder if he would one day say he doesn't exist himself," says one. A few boycotted his lectures. Others sang his praises.

Prof. Kalisch says he "never told students 'just believe what Kalisch thinks' " but seeks to teach them to think independently. Religions, he says, are "crutches" that help believers get to "the spiritual truth behind them." To him, what matters isn't whether Muhammad actually lived but the philosophy presented in his name.

This summer, the dispute hit the headlines. A Turkish-language German newspaper reported on it with gusto. Media in the Muslim world picked up on it.

Germany's Muslim Coordinating Council withdrew from the advisory board of Prof. Kalisch's center. Some Council members refused to address him by his adopted Muslim name, Muhammad, saying that he should now be known as Sven.

German academics split. Michael Marx, a Quran scholar at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, warned that Prof. Kalisch's views would discredit German scholarship and make it difficult for German scholars to work in Muslim lands. But Ursula Spuler-Stegemann, an Islamic studies scholar at the University of Marburg, set up a Web site called solidaritymuhammadkalisch.com and started an online petition of support.

Alarmed that a pioneering effort at Muslim outreach was only stoking antagonism, Münster University decided to douse the flames. Prof. Kalisch was told he could keep his professorship but must stop teaching Islam to future school teachers.

The professor says he's more determined than ever to keep probing his faith. He is finishing a book to explain his thoughts. It's in English instead of German because he wants to make a bigger impact. "I'm convinced that what I'm doing is necessary. There must be a free discussion of Islam," he says.

—Almut Schoenfeld in Berlin contributed to this article.

Vedaxcool you assumed that I am Christian but you are misguided again. I am a humanist, secular in my views and a fierce skeptic of religion. As I alluded to in my earlier posts, I criticize ALL Religions especially the Abrahamic Religions because they are aggressive by nature and are currently doing a lot of damage in Nigerian society. You can see more of my posts on Christianity, traditional practices and mysticism in other discussions.

The ideology of Islam is not immune to criticism. From your point of view, Islam is a doctrine from the divine for all mankind. However, there are 1.5Billion Muslims in the world but in reality; it is only an ideology of a minority of the 6.7Billion people on earth. That is a mere 22% of the world population.  There are thousands of other religious doctrines that all make claims to the “truth”, the way and the light. This is not unique dogma. Think about it, they all cannot be right! But there is a strong possibility that they are all wrong.  I am not here to argue about whether 1 god, 3 gods or 10,000 gods is the way to go. If you make claims that your god/doctrine is “SUPREME” or the answer to the myriad of mankind’s problems then be prepared to debate on its doctrine. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


As for you assertions of my views pertaining to
1) Homosexuality:  This phenomenon occurs in nature in many animals (dolphins, bonobos, and giraffes) and amongst human beings from all countries and societies (including Muslims countries) from time in memorial.  Homosexuality is very prevalent in strict Muslim societies due to the separations of genders http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/asia-mainmenu-33/5883-more-pakistani-teens-choosing-gay-and-lesbian-sex.

Science already has theories of socialization and evolution as a driver of such a phenomenon and proof of "gay" gene.  Though I am a heterosexual and not completely comfortable with some aspects of the gay lifestyles or agenda, my creed is live and let live. Under no circumstance should homosexuals receive capital punishment as Islam strictly doles out. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Islam
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/family-die-Imam/article-3100449-detail/article.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals


2) Abortion: I am for abortions and a woman’s right to choose especially in cases of rape, deformity of a fetus or if the mothers health is in danger. I do not support the use abortions as a means of contraception nor do I support late term abortions.

3) Nuclear weapons: I do not support the use of Nuclear Weapons and it’s a travesty that the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, we must also note that Japan dragged the United States into 2nd World War by attacking Pearl Harbor. I support the current US/Russia Nuclear disarmament policy and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Yes, Iran (or any other diabolical, messianic, theocratic state) should NEVER EVER get a nuke and if they continue their nuclear facilities should be eliminated.

4) Alcoholism: This is an addictive disease that is associated with abuse of alcohol. As a consumer of fine spirits, I am absolutely against prohibition of alcohol and believe that it should be an INDIVIDUAL choice not the government/religion. Moderate consumption of alcohol has been shown to have very positive effects on overall health
Moderate drinkers tend to have better health and live longer than those who are either abstainers or heavy drinkers. In addition to having fewer heart attacks and strokes, moderate consumers of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or distilled spirits or liquor) are generally less likely to suffer hypertension or high blood pressure, peripheral artery disease, Alzheimer's disease and the common cold. Sensible drinking also appears to be beneficial in reducing or preventing Moderate drinkers tend to have better health and live longer than those who are either abstainers or heavy drinkers. In addition to having fewer heart attacks and strokes, moderate consumers of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or distilled spirits or liquor) are generally less likely to suffer hypertension or high blood pressure, peripheral artery disease, Alzheimer's disease and the common cold. Sensible drinking also appears to be beneficial in reducing or preventing diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, bone fractures and osteoporosis, kidney stones, digestive ailments, stress and depression, poor cognition and memory, Parkinson's disease, hepatitis A, pancreatic cancer, macular degeneration (a major cause of blindness), angina pectoris, duodenal ulcer, erectile sysfunction, hearing loss, gallstones, liver disease and poor physical condition in elderly.
I would advocate several troubled Muslim youth join their contemporaries in the rest of the world to have a glass of wine from time to time, have fun with some girls, it beats taking trips to Yemen, to engage in global Jihad via bombs in underwear while on airplanes as our Muslim brother AbdulMutallab did.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0804c.shtml


Well, just wanted to share my thoughts…, don’t be threatened by knowledge or science. Utilize your critical thinking faculties, contemplate on ideas and come to your own conclusions based on scientific facts and not emotion, religion, a book or culture. Have a nice day!!!

As we were about to leave, a small, middle-aged man jumped in to address the passengers. “I greet you all in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.”

“Welcome and thank you, man of God”, replied the passengers and bus driver.

He spoke at length of the evils of ember months (September, October, November and December), stressing the need to confront the devil and its agents. Then he declared, “I bind all blood-thirsty demons, I rebuke all witches and wizards, I soak the driver, the passengers and the engine of the bus in the blood of Jesus.” He ended by assuring the passengers of a safe journey and soliciting payment.

I suggested that what mattered was for the driver to observe traffic regulations and drive safely rather than bothering about witches and wizards.

The “man of God” was angry

“No bus I have prayed for any has ever had any accident!” he said.

“We are not quarrelling over that, I just want to arrive safely,” I responded

“If you are an agent of demon or a member of a secret society, I rebuke you in Jesus name!” he yelled.

Annoyed, I replied that I had once been like him but was now liberated.

Various passengers now came to the defence of the preacher and made verbal attacks on me.

The bus started off. From time to time the driver went at a high speed but when I protested aloud he reduced his speed. Other passengers, however, made disparaging remarks about me and asked him to continue since God was in control.

Luck ran out when our driver dosed off, and our bus flew through the air and somersaulted three times. It crashed into a concrete pole that supported live, high-tension wires. The entire bus was smashed, and many passengers sustained serious injuries. My friend and I were unhurt. We climbed out and started mobilizing sympathetic nearby villagers for a rescue operation.

One of the most badly injured was Minaso Kalada Joseph, a university student in his late 20s. He had been sitting near the point where the bus first hit the pole, and suffered severe injuries to his head and body. He had been among the most voluble of my attackers. Nevertheless, I took him to a private clinic, which was dirty and inadequate. The “matron” asked me to pay N4000 for first-aid treatment to poor Minaso Kalada Joseph. I did, out of my own pocket.

We later transferred him to a hospital owned by the State Government. Although better in some ways than the clinic, it lacked modern medical facilities. After we had contacted the family of the victim, he was taken to the Teaching Hospital in Port Harcourt.

The bus driver told the police that one of the tyres of the bus had been punctured and this had caused the accident. I later countered the lie and gave the police a true picture, but they never arrested the driver. As I wrote later in my regular column [1], I discovered that the police had accepted a bribe from the bus company and everyone had walked free.

Our Debacle

The above account illustrates some of the effects of belief in the supernatural. Belief leads to an attitude of lazily waiting for divine intervention instead of taking action.

Shakespeare’s play Macbeth shows Macbeth’s belief in the powers and protection of witches leading him and his nation to his ruin. Belief in the supernatural constitutes a major thematic element of Shakespeare’s plays. Shakespeare was writing in England in the early 17th century, a period characterized by religious dogmatism, under-development, superstition and belief in witchcraft, much as we find in Nigeria today.

Winging From Oblivion

The “Renaissance” (meaning “rebirth) is a name given to a period in European history. It covers many discoveries such as printing and the rediscovery of Greek classical writings.

In many other respects, the Renaissance was essentially the continuation of the Middle Ages. There were a few giants, but modern Science cannot be said to begin in earnest until the 17th century with such men as Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler and Réné Descartes. During the Renaissance, printing shops became very numerous and the number of printed books increased immeasurably. The steady accumulation of knowledge was guaranteed [2].

The growth of seventeenth-century empiricism into modern science has brought the same pitfalls that befell old dogmas. Scientists have often become detached from the daily life of the average citizen, while their research and achievements remained beyond the easy grasp of laymen’s understanding. [3] Laymen may therefore be tempted simply to trust the methods and conclusions of scientists and ignore their own duty to understand the bases for those conclusions.

And science is not exclusively Western: there is nothing Western, or African about it. Science is science.

Religion and Development

All over the world religions stifle the growth of society. Science alone might have advanced humanity far beyond our present stage. Richard Dawkins argues that [4]:

“Fundamentalists know that they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief. The truth of the holy book is an axiom, not the end product of a process of reasoning. The book is true, and if the evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must be thrown out, not the book. By contrast, what I, as a scientist, believe (for example, evolution) I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence. It is really a very different matter. Books about evolution are not believed because they are holy. They are believed because they present overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence. In principle, any reader can go and check that evidence. When a science book is wrong, somebody eventually discovers the mistake and it is corrected in subsequent books. That conspicuously doesn’t happen with holy books”.

Religion leads to the under-development of society. Science and technology, on the other hand, have developed rapidly and in many directions, bringing great social benefits. Had religious dogmatism reigned supreme, many important discoveries would not have been possible. Science had made life easier and enjoyable. Although some of those who contributed to the advancement of science and technology were religious, they pursued a secular discipline with commitment, passion and dedication, without the help of any deity.

The Great Delusion

Nigeria has been described as the most religious nation on planet earth. Our country is highly underdeveloped and infested with crime, violence, immorality, corruption and prostitution. Religious nonsense has compounded our problems and deepened our contradictions. All kinds of religions have tapped into our superstition and our outlook is now bleak. In Europe and elsewhere, people are closing down churches because they have not added value to their lives, but have spread ignorance. Even European merchants who gave us the “holy books” are thinking of new ways of advancing their lives through science and art.

In Nigeria, people daily die through ignorance; I nearly lost my life in the bus accident because of religious nonsense. In Nigeria, those who fail in their goals suddenly hear the voice of a god or spirit, and turn to hawking miracles, raising the dead, curing HIV/AIDS, diabetes, malaria, fever and other life-threatening ailments.

Everywhere in Nigeria, there are churches, mosques, shrines, etc., yet the people who propagate religious abracadabra are those who are also encouraging corruption, participating in crimes, telling lies, perpetrating fraud and practising other vices. Nigeria is a secular state by statute, but its rulers use taxpayers’ money to promote this religious absurdity, while our infrastructure is hopelessly deficient. Shouting “God” or “Allah” becomes the easiest way to get to power, so as to loot our treasury. Clerics became rich overnight. Ignorance pervades the land, and critics are condemned as satanic agents.

Religion encourages laziness and blind, unquestioning acceptance of the status quo. Religious extremism is pushing our society towards the edge of the precipice. Ritual killing is happening because some religious people believe it brings wealth, power and success. As an undercover investigative reporter, I have seen how miracles claimed by juju priests, Pentecostal pastors and others are all exaggerated and fake stories put together to maintain their steady income from their clients. I used to be a mystic and juju worshipper, later a Pentecostal preacher. Over the years, I have discovered a lot of deceits and false claims in religion and will die a Humanist. Since becoming a Humanist, I have led a more honest, truthful and sincere life than I did when religious.

Humanism

Humanism is a most human philosophy of life. Its emphasis is on the human, the here-and-now, and the humane. It is not a religion and it has no formal creed, though Humanists have beliefs. Humanists are atheists or agnostics and do not expect an afterlife. Humanism brings values and meaning into life [5].

Humanism is not a set of doctrines, but an attitude to life. To the Humanist, the miracle is here and now. It is the miracle of nature; there is nothing supernatural about it. Because the Humanist believes that this life is the only life we expect to have, it is especially important to make this life a good one. So, although Humanism is based on atheism or agnosticism, it is not merely negative. It also includes positive commitments to make the best possible use of our lives – both for ourselves and for others [6].

Humanists are concerned to make the world a better place to live in, not only for people alive today, but for future generations also. Above all, Humanists regard each individual person as an end in himself or herself, never as a means to achieve something, however desirable that may be. In order to be a Humanist one has to be an atheist or agnostic. But it is possible to be an atheist or agnostic without being a Humanist. The Russian Dictator, Stalin, was an atheist, but he was certainly not a Humanist, because he did not respect the rights of people who disagreed with him.

Humanism is not a novel concept newly emerged in the 21st century. Barbara Smoker refers to Humanists in the ancient world: thinkers who harboured Humanist views, such as Pericles and Hippocrates and many more.

Epilogue

I urge Nigerians to join the Nigerian Humanist Movement (NHM). The NHM is “an association of non-religious people who seek a rational, constructive approach to human affairs. It offers a positive alternative to all religious and dogmatic creeds. It acts to uphold and defend the human rights of humanists and of the general public. It supports via legislation any other democratic and constitutional means to improve social conditions. It supports the widest conception of education and enlightenment for the better understanding and enjoyment of life.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ough-e6ThWE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir_JNPn_GNM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7w6Ysll2CA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

It is impossible to debate rationally with Islamists (and all fundamentalist religous people) as they conitnuously use circular reasoning in their discourse.  Realize that you have displayed that you have not looked at your religion from an objective stand point and refuse to develop critical thinking abilities as it pertains to Islam. I beckon you to come into the modern world, base your morality and reason on 21st century value system and not 7th century tribal Arabia.

Here are a few videos that I would like you guys to watch:

[url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ough-e6ThWE&feature=youtube_gdata_player[url]
[url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir_JNPn_GNM&feature=youtube_gdata_player[url]
[url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7w6Ysll2CA&feature=youtube_gdata_player[url]

Here we go again with the same old lines from the Muslim apologists. I will concede that marrying child brides was the norm in Semite, western and probably global culture. So was slavery, infanticide, human sacrifice and other despicable atrocities that humans inflict on one another. Now if the premise of your position is that your Prophet Mohammed was supposed to have been speaking Gods word in the form of the Quran, then don't you think your "Allah" who is lord of all worlds and is omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence would be aware of the negative effect of such practices on humanity?? If this was a message for all time wouldn't the divine Allah have been aware that there are absolute morals that transcend time and location?
In my research on Islam Mohammed did a lot to establish some reasonable order in warring, fiercely tribal 7th century Arabia. However, he committed and propagated innumerable despicable immoral acts in the process including but not limited to genocide, pedophilia, sexism, rape, murder etc etc. Islam in my opinion is sanctified 7th century Arabic culture. Who are you or your religion to tell others to cover up with a veil? What makes that holy or pious?? My skin crawls with disgust when I see Nigerian women in hijabs/niqabs and the like parading around like they are in Arabia.

Please address these facts in your "holy book" and stop moving the post.

Take solace, I debunk and criticize the morality, doctrines and theology of all Abrahamic Middle Eastern religions not just Islam.


Qur'an (4:11) - (Inheritance) "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" (see also verse 4:176).
Sura (2:222) “They ask thee concerning women's courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean.”

Sura 4:43 “Muslims, draw not near unto prayer…(if) ye have touched women…then go to high clean soil and rub your face and your hands.” (Muslim women are pariahs and dirty).”

Sura (5:6) - ", if ye have had contact with women, and ye find not water, then go to clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it."
Sura (2:228) - "And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And God is Exalted in Power, Wise.”

Sura (4:11) - God (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females. (see also Sura 4:176)

Sura (4:176) “They ask thee for a legal decision. Say: God directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. , if there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female.”

Sura (53:27) - "Those who believe not in the Hereafter, name the angels with female names." (i.e., Angels, the sublime beings, can only be male.)

Sura (37:149-155) “Now ask them their opinion: Is it that thy Lord has (only) daughters, and they have sons?- Or that We created the angels female, and they are witnesses (thereto)? Is it not that they say, from their own invention, "God has begotten children"? but they are liars! Did He (then) choose daughters rather than sons? What is the matter with you? How judge ye? Will ye not then receive admonition?”


Bukhari 7:62:132
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Zam'a:
The Prophet said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day." (Ideally when you flog one of your wives, let her recuperate that day and sleep with your other wives or your slave girls.)

Fewer seats for women in Allah's Paradise

Islamic Scriptures inform us that most Muslim women will go to hell.


The Quran:

Sura (37:22-23) “Those who "did wrong" will go to hell, and their wives will go to hell with them (no matter how they behaved).”


From Hadith:

Bukhari (2:28) - Women comprise the majority of Hell's occupants. This is important because the only women in heaven ever mentioned by Muhammad are the virgins who serve the sexual desires of men. (A weak Hadith, Kanz al-`ummal, 22:10, even suggests that 99% of women go to Hell).

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

The Prophet said: "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful." It was asked, "Do they disbelieve in Allah?" (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, "They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, 'I have never received any good from you."


"Among the inmates of Heaven women will be the minority" (Sahih Muslim 36: 6600)

"I (Mohammed) have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were women, [because] they are ungrateful to their husbands and they are deficient in intelligence" (Sahih Bukhari: 2:18:161; 7:62:125, ).

Islamic Apologists are hilarious, please stop shifting the goal post!!! Marrying and having sexual relations with a 6,9 or 12 years old is IMMORAL! Here are other examples of the quotes from the Quran that support the ill treatment of women. And dont even try to explaing them away as "not being translated correctly" or "it doesnt say that in the "arabic quaran",


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



Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

Qur'an (38:44) - "And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath, " Allah telling Job to beat his wife.

From the Hadith:



Bukhari (72:715) - A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that she it is described as being "greener" than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires.



Bukhari (72:715) - "Aisha said, 'I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women'" This is Muhammad's own wife complaining of the abuse that the women of her religions suffer relative to other women.



Muslim (4:2127) - Muhammad struck his favorite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house without his permission. Aisha narrates, "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain."



Muslim (9:3506) - Muhammad's father-in-laws (Abu Bakr and Umar) amused him by slapping his wives (Aisha and Hafsa) for annoying him. According to the Hadith, the prophet of Islam laughed upon hearing this.



Abu Dawud (2141) - "Iyas bin ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when ‘Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them." At first, Muhammad forbade men from beating their wives, but he rescinded this once it was reported that women were becoming emboldened toward their husbands. Beatings are sometimes necessary to keep women in their place.



Abu Dawud (2142) - "The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife."



Abu Dawud (2126) - "A man from the Ansar called Basrah said: 'I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet).' The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: 'She will get the dower, for you made her vagina lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her'" A Muslim man thinks his is getting a virgin, then finds out she is pregnant. Muhammad tells him to treat the woman as a sex slave and then flog her after she has delivered the child.



Ishaq 969 - Commands that a married woman be "put in a separate room and beaten lightly" if she "act in a sexual manner toward others." According to the Hadith, this can be for an offense as petty as merely being alone with a man to whom she is not related.




Additional Notes:


Some contemporary Muslim apologists often squirm over this relatively straightforward verse from the Qur'an (4:34). Their masterful aerobics of denial inspired us to write a separate article:



Wife Beating- Good Enough for Muhammad, Good Enough for You



Others are not nearly as squeamish. Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradhawi, one of the most respected Muslim clerics in the world, once made the famous (and somewhat ridiculous statement) that "It is forbidden to beat the woman, unless it is necessary." He also went on to say that "one may beat only to safeguard Islamic behavior," leaving no doubt that wife-beating is a matter of religious sanction. (source)



Dr. Muzammil Saddiqi, the former president of ISNA (the Islamic Society of North America), a mainstream Muslim organization, says it is important that a wife "recognizes the authority of her husband in the house" and that he may use physical force if he is "sure it would improve the situation." (source)



Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Muhammad Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, the head of Al-Azhar, Sunni Islam's most prestigious institution says that "light beatings" and "punching" are part of a program to "reform the wife". (source)



During Ramadan of 2010, another cleric named Sa'd Arafat actually said the woman is "honored" by the beating (source). No one else seemed surprised.



According to Islamic law, a husband may strike his wife for any one of the following four reasons:

- She does not attempt to make herself beautiful for him (ie. "let's herself go"

- She refuses to meet his sexual demands

- She leaves the house without his permission or for a "legitimate reason"

- She neglects her religious duties

Any of these are also sufficient grounds for divorce.



Muslim apologists sometimes say that Muhammad ordered that women not be harmed, but they are actually basing this on what he said before or during battle, such as in Bukhari (59:447), when Muhammad issued a command for all the men of Quraiza be killed and the women and children taken as slaves. (Having your husband murdered and being forced into sexual slavery apparently doesn't qualify as "harm" under the Islamic model).



But, in fact, there are a number of cases in which Muhammad did have women killed in the most brutal fashion. One was Asma bint Marwan, a mother or five, who wrote a poem criticizing the Medinans for accepting Muhammad after he had ordered the murder of an elderly man. In this case, the prophet's assassins literally pulled a sleeping infant from her breast and stabbed her to death.



After taking Mecca in 630, Muhammad also ordered the murder of a slave girl who had merely made up songs mocking him. The Hadith are rife as well with accounts of women planted in the ground on Muhammad's command and pelted to death with stones for sexual immorality - yet the prophet of Islam actually encouraged his own men to rape women captured in battle (Abu Dawood 2150, Muslim 3433) and did not punish them for killing non-Muslim women (as Khalid ibn Walid did on several occasions - see Ibn Ishaq 838 and 856).



In summary, according to the Qur'an, Hadith and Islamic law, a woman may indeed have physical harm done to her if the circumstances warrant, with one such allowance being in the case of disobedience. This certainly does not mean that all Muslim men beat their wives, only that Islam permits them to do so.

Interesting article,


http://www.iheu.org/deconversion-christianity

Deconversion from Christianity
Submitted by Matt on 1 October, 2010 - 15:40
Nigeria IHN 2010.2 May International Humanist News
I was converted from Christianity to atheism between the ages of 16 and 18. By age 15, I was beginning to question intelligent design. As a young science student, learning the fundamentals of critical thinking, the fact that I could not intellectually defend my belief in God as the ‘unmoved mover/uncaused causer’ was beginning to bother me. I needed an answer to the question: If God created the world, who created God? I found it difficult to suppress the cognitive dissonance between my logical and reasoning mind and the leap of faith in the belief in a supreme being-God that is: Omnipotence – with the absolute power to do anything He desires; Omnipresence - present in all places at all times; Omniscience - all-knowing ability to know absolute everything. A belief in a set of propositions based solely on faith and contrary to the sum of the evidence for the belief.

Being a good Catholic girl, I reduced this dissonance by syncretising creationist and evolutionary theory to explain how the world came into existence: that God created atoms; and once created, these atoms initiated the evolutionary process! How very clever. I somehow felt that nature was too complex and variable for one person or Supreme Being to design all alone.

In my last two years in secondary school, like a good statistician that I was, I hedged my bets and practised what Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion called the Pascal Wager: ‘Better believe in God because if you are right you stand to go to heaven, and if you are wrong it won’t make any difference anyway. Whereas, if you don’t believe in God and you end up being wrong, you are condemned to eternal damnation in hell.’

During this period, I struggled with questions such as: Why do I believe that God exists? What is the nature of God? How does God interact with humans? Does he actively intervene or is he powerless to intervene? Why did an omnipotent God create an imperfect world or allow catastrophes to happen? I rationalised that God has no control over the evolutionary process he initiated, and that was why Man has free will. Significantly, though Mass attendance in school was mandatory, my religiosity during this period was moderated. I continued to find the rituals of the Catholic Mass, Stations of the Cross, and the Rosary, etc. very comforting.

In the intervening years between living in the secure doctrinaire environment of a Catholic boarding school and my Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC), my religiosity was tepid.

Over the course of my university education, I became completely faithless and unable to believe in God in the absence of verification. I became a science fiction aficionado, and an ardent follower of the television series Star Trek.

At the end of four years of studying for a science degree (Biology Major and Chemistry Minor), I was 100 percent convinced that God did not exist, and the world was not created by a single Supreme Being. Rather, I was preoccupied with questions, such as: Are we indeed alone in the universe? Are there more intelligent beings out there in the universe? What is the future of human evolution?

By the time I left university, I had become confidently and unequivocally a religious and able to rationally disentangle morality from religion. I viewed ‘God’ as a universal concept of perfection and goodness, not a spiritual being; just a concept, an ideal standard which I did not humanise and to which I did not ascribe absolute supernatural characteristics. As Emile Durkheim observed, I had concluded my personal journey of enlightenment: from faith in magical powers to explain the world to a gradual shift to the superior explanatory model of science.

By the time I was 35 years old I began to view religion as a barrier to maturity: moral immaturity that keeps you trapped in an arrested state of character development, where morality is based on the fear of God’s retribution, bereft of goodness for the sake of goodness; intellectual immaturity that halts intellectual growth as deviation from faith- based beliefs have frightening consequences; inhibited personal growth that embraces a party line of morals, beliefs, and opinions, rather than learning to think for yourself.

These days, I see religion as a crutch and a security blanket for the weak, the needy, the spiritually craven and the intellectually wanting. It is a sign of human weakness and lack of mental aptitude to manage the difficulties of life on one’s own without trust in a Supreme Power beyond man. A solace for the soul and an "opiate of the masses” that sees believers choosing to live by pre-digested philosophy, morality, and instructions for daily life, rather than think for themselves.

I have a strong aversion to fellowshipping with believers who appeal to emotion rather than critical thinking. I am unable to ignore their illogic and bewildering close-minded ignorance and circular reasoning. I refuse to derive my worldview and self-worth from a priest/pastor/spiritualist that expects me to accept without question everything it teaches, even when it contradicts science, history, logic, and even itself. My special vitriol is reserved for Pentecostals who venture to ‘save me’ (recruit me).

Sadly, I live in a country where people have outsourced responsibility to the devil and principalities and solutions to God. We want the fruits of scientific labour, but shun the mental discipline of scientific rationality. As the modern world pushes new frontiers in science and technology, my people conveniently escape into the world of magic and superstition. Though a necessary dissonance reduction mechanism for coping with powerlessness in a complex world in which we are increasingly becoming irrelevant, the wider ramification is damning and alarming. We have ceased to take responsibility for our lives and destiny, and resort to the magical powers of faith and prayer to effect change in our personal circumstances, national governance and leadership, economic development. In this 21st century, democracy in Nigeria has been redefined as: ‘Power belongs to God’ as opposed to ‘Power to the People’.

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

--Enotie Ezekiel

Mrs Enotie Ezekiel, a Nigerian Humanist, is a 54 year old businesswoman, married with four children. She lives in Lagos.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Islam+condones+wife+beatings/4118854/story.html

Yes, Islam condones wife beatings


For The Calgary Herald January 17, 2011 9:29

Recently, Marvin Levant (Dec. 28), Steve Harris (Dec. 30), Syed Soharwardy (Jan. 2), and Riazuddin Ahmed (Jan. 5) debated Islam through the forum of the Herald's letters to the editor.

The issue of wife beating and gender inequality in Islam has become convoluted and highly controversial as many Muslims try to sugar-coat the ugly truths and others try to shed some light on the issue.

Soharwardy's statement that "Beating one's wife is not only wrong, it is criminal and completely un-Islamic" is incorrect. The Qur'an says that "men are in charge of women because Allah has made one of them (men) to excel the other (women), thus man's superiority over women . . . good women are the obedient ones . . . admonish the rebellious women and banish them, and scourge them (whip them severely to inflict pain) (4:34) . . . smote them (hit or strike with the hand or with a weapon causing pain, beat them . . . (4:62)".

Islam does not recognize gender equality. For example, polygamy is accepted in Islam, but polyandry is not. A woman's testimony is considered half as worthy as a man's in court; a son inherits twice as much as a daughter does. Muslim men may marry Muslim, Jewish or Christian women, but Muslim women can marry only Muslim men. In short, sharia law leads to the inhuman treatment of Muslim women by their husbands and others, especially in South Asia and the Middle East.

Higher education is emphasized more for sons than for daughters; in cultural honour killings, almost always women are the target for murder. Under sharia, divorced Muslim women get custody of their sons under eight years of age and daughters until puberty, and then the fathers take the children away. Sharia enabled one of the worst fundamentalists, the vile and ruthless military dictator, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, to put more than 15,000 rape victims in jail because they could not comply with the absurd Islamic condition requiring them to have numerous male witnesses of their victimization. They were charged with fornication and their rapists were let go free.

At birth, all infants are equal, but Islam makes then unequal; sharia is incompatible with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Soharwardy knows all of this to be true. It is in his Qur'an and other Islamic texts. I have no desire to hear useless excuses from mullahs for all these gender inequalities in Islam.

Soharwardy and I were on CHQR Radio in Calgary to discuss the issue of a 17-year-old Muslim boy who beat his 16-year-old sister. That boy was incited by an illiterate mullah to discipline his sister because she was suspected of flirting with a white boy in northeast Calgary. Soharwardy and I agreed it was not an Islamic requirement for the boy to do what he did. I mentioned that Muslim husbands do have sharia-sanctioned power to discipline their wives.

Soharwardy personifies an addiction to religion. I watched him on his own community TV channel shouting his head off just before the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Dec. 9, 2004, in favour of same-sex marriage, and Parliament passed the civil marriage legislation, C-38, recognizing same-sex marriage on June 28, 2005. He literally shouted that "Canada will be wiped off the face of the Earth by a tsunami if it accepts same-sex marriage. . . . Who the (heck) does the Parliament of Canada think it is to make laws? The laws are made by God."

That is clearly an addiction to religion. God may be sovereign in the constitutions of countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but in secular democracies such as Canada, the people have the sovereign power to make laws.

In its infancy, Islam was known to be the religion of the sword. The Taliban and al-Qaeda have made it the religion of international terrorism and suicide bombers. They are violating the Islamic tenet that "Muslims who murder and commit suicide will be condemned to hell." Yet, suicide bombers commit both of these sins and claim to end up in paradise. Not only have Islamists committed atrocities against non-Muslims, but they have done worse to their fellow Muslims. I have a video that shows fundamentalists who slaughtered 33 Muslims and taped their criminal acts in northern Pakistan in 2010.

One of the cruellest Islamic dicta is the law of blasphemy, which carries the death penalty against those who insult the Qur'an or the Prophet Muhammad. Zia-ul-haq imposed it in Pakistan. Not only has that law mostly targeted moderate and secular Muslims, it has also been used against minorities, especially the Christian population of Pakistan. One of its victims is Asia Bibi, a Christian woman who was accused of insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Over the years, I have learned of hundreds of blasphemy cases against Christians in Pakistan. The law is often used by Muslims to take revenge on a neighbour. These blasphemy laws must be removed from the books.

On Jan. 3, Salman Taseer, governor of Punjab, was murdered by his own bodyguard because Taseer spoke against the blasphemy law. It is shameful that more than 500 mullahs honoured the killer and celebrated Taseer's murder on the streets of Islamabad and Karachi. I have not heard any Islamic group condemning it except for the one I belong to, the Muslim Canadian Congress.

The Muslim world is ruled by a corrupt elite, including the monarchs, oligarchs, military dictators, corrupt politicians, depraved bureaucrats, and the murderous fundamentalist Muslim clerics. On the whole, Muslims seem to be frustrated, less recognized except in international terrorism, less secularly educated than the West and less developed. Without a democratic system of government, they are hopeless, hapless, desperate, and mad at Jews and Christians. That is really sad.

Mahfooz Kanwar, PhD, is a professor emeritus at Mount Royal University


Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Islam+condones+wife+beatings/4118854/story.html#ixzz1BK8t69UO