tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-77014818154002522552024-03-18T13:11:41.382+06:00The Skeptic MindA blog reflecting skepticism, free-thinking and rational thoughts.Skeptic Mindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03377806985317206338noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-34136881564689781222012-08-29T22:31:00.006+06:002012-09-19T12:33:31.883+06:00Blasphemy law in IslamIt is one thing to follow a moderate, watered-down version of islam via cherry picking and reinterpretation, it is totally another thing to outright deny the existence of blasphemy laws in Islamic sharia. There are several examples of executions for blasphemy, both state ordered and vigilante, during the life of the Prophet Muhammad.<br /><br />Imam Ibn Taymiyyah has written a whole book on the subject, called: "<b>The Drawn Sword upon the one who Curses the Messenger</b>."<br /><br />I can suggest a lecture/pamphlet in English that gathers all the evidences, it was written by Sheikh <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi">Anwar al-Awlaqi</a>, called, "<b>The Dust will Never Settle Down</b>" (<a href="http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/The%20Dust%20Will%20Never%20Settle%20Down.pdf">pdf file</a>)<br /><br />Let me give you an authentic example from the aforementioned pamphlet:<br /><br /><blockquote>A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (pbuh) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit.<br /><br />One night she began to slander the Prophet and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there.<br /><br />When the morning came, the Prophet (pbuh) was informed about it. He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.<br /><br />He sat before the Prophet (pbuh) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.<br /><br />There upon the Prophet (pbuh) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.</blockquote><br /><br />The Hadith was narrated by Abdullah Ibn Abbas and can be found in Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Hadith Number <a href="http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=38&translator=3&start=0&number=4348#4348">4348</a> which <a href="http://www.islam.tc/cgi-bin/askimam/ask.pl?q=6491&act=print">has been authenticated</a> by the scholars.<br /><br />Another book called <b>"Healing by news of the choosen one"</b>, which was authored by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qadi_Ayyad">Qadi Ayyad Ibn Musa</a> details punishment for blasphemy in <a href="http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4intro.htm">Part 4</a> : <b>The Judgements concerning those who think the Prophet imperfect or curse him</b>.<br /><br />For the legal rulings (fatwa), see also:<br /><br />* <a href="http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/22809">Ruling</a> on the one who insults the Prophet Muhammad.<br /><br />* <a href="http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/34725">Ruling</a> on one who tells lies about the Prophet Muhammad.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-85977833934234933232012-06-29T16:59:00.003+06:002012-08-29T23:02:36.044+06:00Quran chapter 3, verse 56Disbelievers will be severely punished in this world. Allah says in <a href="http://quran.com/3/56">Quran 3:56</a>,<br /><br /><blockquote>And as for those who disbelieved, I will <b>punish them with a severe punishment in this world</b> and the Hereafter, and they will have no helpers</blockquote><br /><br />Let's see what the punishment is for the Disbelievers who disbelieved in Allah and prophet Muhammad. Below are the classical scholary exegesis of the above verse.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=533&Itemid=46">Tafsir Ibn Kathir</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>This is what Allah did to the Jews who disbelieved in Isa and the Christians who went to the extreme over him. Allah tormented them in this life; <b>they were killed, captured, and lost their wealth and kingdoms</b>. Their torment in the Hereafter is even worse and more severe</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=56&tDisplay=yes&LanguageId=2">Tafsir al-Jalalayn</a><br /><br /><blockquote>As for the disbelievers, I will chastise them with a terrible chastisement in this world, <b>through being killed, taken captive and made to pay the jizya</b>, and the Hereafter, in the Fire; they shall haveno helpers, none to protect them from it.</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=56&tDisplay=yes&LanguageID=2">Tafsir Ibn Abbas</a><br /><br /><blockquote>(As for those who disbelieve) in Allah and in His messengers Muhammad and Jesus (I shall chastise them with a heavy chastisement in the world) <b>by exposing them to the sword and the capitation tax (jizyah)</b> (and the Hereafter) by throwing them into the Fire; (and they will have no helpers) to save them from Allah's punishment in this world or in the Hereafter.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-56909918213215951382012-05-13T16:54:00.004+06:002012-05-13T19:55:15.541+06:00Cosmological Criticism: Part 3This is part of a <a href="http://skeptic-mind.blogspot.com/2012/01/cosmological-argument.html">sequence</a> on Cosmological argument.<br /><br />The 2nd premise of Modal Cosmological argument is an argument from Contingency. It states that the Universe is contingent.<br /><br /><b>Fallacy of Composition</b>: Even if we agree that all parts of the Universe is contingent, that doesn't mean Universe as a whole is contingent. It's possible for the necessary universe to be composed entirely of contingent parts.<br /><br /><b>Counter argument</b>: If the Universe is non-contingent, then Universe either necessarily exist or impossible to exist. But the Universe exists. Which means Universe necessarily exists.<br /><br />Which means it's impossible for the Universe not to exist. To say that Universe's existence is necessary is to say that its non-existence is impossible. If we can produce a logical contradiction then this impossibility will be easily recognized. For example: a square-circle is impossible because it's self-contradictory.<br /><br />Considering the Universe to be the whole of existence, the analytic truth<sup>[1a]</sup> is: [Nothing] doesn't have the property of existence. It's impossible for [Nothing] to exist. Therefore, there must necessarily exist something. Therefore it's impossible for something (universe) not to exist. Therefore Universe necessarily exist.<br /><br />Universe is not contingent.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-31067137148089433872012-05-07T20:59:00.004+06:002012-05-08T15:15:23.485+06:00Monogamy better than Polygamy for society<b><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124093142.htm" target="_blank">Monogamy reduces major social problems of polygamist cultures</a></b><br /><br />In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalized and practice monogamous marriage.<br /><br /><b><a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201109/why-we-think-monogamy-is-normal" target="_blank">Why We Think Monogamy Is Normal?</a></b>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-83304998539842263292012-05-07T17:39:00.007+06:002012-05-17T11:28:13.613+06:004 witnesses necessary to prove RapeRape in Islamic sharia is equivalent with that of a Highway robbery. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudud">Hudud</a> punishments are those punishments which are specified in Quran and Hadith. It needs 4 adult, male witnesses OR confession of the criminal to deliver prescribed Hudud punishment for adultery, rape, robbery etc. That's the Islamic Sharia. <br /><br />Sahih Bukhari, Vol 8, Book 82, <a href="http://sunnah.com/bukhari/87/26">Hadith 816</a>, Narrated Ibn Abbas,<br /><br /><blockquote>Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and <b>the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.</b>"<br /><br />Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him."</blockquote><br /><br />Therefore, according to this divine law, Hudud punishment for rape which is death penalty could only be given in two cases:<br /><br />1. Confession by the rapist, or<br /><br />2. Testimony of 4 (adult, male) witnesses.<br /><br />A raped woman's accusation on another person is simply not enough. In Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 40, (Chapter: Regarding one deserving of the punishment coming to confess) <a href="http://sunnah.com/abudawud/40/29">Hadith 29</a>, we read: Narrated Wa'il ibn Hujr:<br /><br /><blockquote>When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (pbuh) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me.<br /><br />They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse withher and brought him to her. She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah (pbuh).<br /><br />When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her. He (the Prophet) said to her: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. But he told the man some good words (AbuDawud said: meaning the man who was seized), and of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death.<a name='more'></a><br /><br />He also said: He has repented to such an extent that if the people of Medina had repented similarly, it would have been accepted from them. Abu Dawud said: Asbat bin Nasr has also transmitted it from Simak.</blockquote><br /><br />In this particular Hadith we see, Muhammad was about to pass the judgement but didn't do so until the rapist confessed of the crime. Only after the original rapist confessed did Muhammad deliver his verdict and sentenced the original rapist to death. This is an important to remember.<br /><br />Proof of Zina (adultery) or Zina Bil-Jabr (rape) liable to Hadd shall be one of the following:<br /><br />(a) The accused makes confession or<br /><br />(b) There are at least four Muslim adult male witnesses<br /><br />[source: Pakistan <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudood_Ordinance">Hudood Ordinance</a> VII of 1979 amended by Ordinance XX of 1980]<br /><br />Proof of adultery or rape liable to Hadd shall be one of the following:<br /><br />a. The accused makes confession, or<br /><br />b. There are at least four Muslim adult male witnesses.<br /><br />[source: Codified Islamic Law Volume 1, Law#133]<br /><br />Punishment will take place when Zina or rape have been proved by witness.<br /><br />[source: Codified Islamic Law #135]<br /><br /><b>Sharia Law rejects the witness of women in Hudood cases.</b><br /><br />[source: Hanafi Law-Page 176, 353, Shafi’i Law- page 638 Law#o.24.9, Criminal Law in Islam and the Muslim World –page 251, The Penal Law of Islam – Kazi Publications Lahore- page 44, 45]<br /><br />The evidence of women is originally inadmissible on account of their weakness of understanding, want of memory and incapacity of governing.<br /><br />[source: The Penal Law of Islam – Kazi Publications Lahore- page 44 – 45]<br /><br /><b>What happens when the rapist do not confess or the raped woman is unable to provide 4 male witnesses?</b><br /><br />The Qadhi (islamic judge) may consider <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tazir">Tazir</a> punishments. The judge may accept other evidences such as DNA, circumstantial etc and deliver the Tazir. If rape is not proven then the judge may dismiss the case. Or, depending upon how fundamentalist The sharia court is...the judge may reject Tazir and dismiss the case because of lack of witnesses.<br /><br />The raped woman then may get accused of adultery (zina) because she <b>confessed</b> of having a sexual intercourse or becomes pregnant as a result of rape. Then she might get stoned to death.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-71398323996426520662012-04-30T22:14:00.003+06:002012-04-30T22:19:55.127+06:00Water isn't defiled by anything!Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 1: Book of Purification, <a href="http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=1&translator=3&start=0&number=0066#0066" target="_blank">Hadith 66</a><br /><br />Narrated Abu Sa'id al-Khudri<br /><br /><blockquote>People asked the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) : Can we perform ablution out of the well of Buda'ah, which is a well into which menstrual clothes, dead dogs and stinking things were thrown?<br /><br />He replied : Water is pure and <b>is not defiled by anything</b>.</blockquote><br /><br />Seriously Mo, as a messenger of God, spouting scientifically inaccurate views is the last thing you wanna do !!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-55474180265257969062012-04-29T21:23:00.005+06:002012-04-30T21:07:16.940+06:00Honor Killing in IslamIslam gives tacit support to the despicable act known as honor killing. In Quran the story of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khidr">Khidr</a> depicts killing of a young boy because he was going to become an evil individual.<br /><br />The arabic word <b>Ghira</b> has wide range of meanings. It could mean:<br /><br />• Honor<br />• Self-respect<br />• Protective Jealousy<br />• A feeling of fury with great anger when one's honor and prestige is challenged or injured.<br /><br /><br /><a name='more'></a>According to islamic hadith, in Vol. 8, Book 82, <a href="http://sunnah.com/bukhari/87/39">Hadith 829</a> it was Narrated by Al-Mughira that:<br /><br /><blockquote>Sa`d bin Ubada said, "If I found a man with my wife, I would <b>kill him with the sharp side of my sword</b>." When the Prophet heard that he said, "Do you wonder at Sa`d's sense of ghira (self-respect)? Verily, I have more sense of ghira than Sa`d, and Allah has more sense of ghira than I."</blockquote><br /><br />More aHadith on <a href="http://sunnah.com/search/Ghira">Ghira</a>.<br /><br />Umar's Refusal Of A Gift For His Wife<br /><br />Ibn ‘Umar said:<br /><br /><blockquote>Abu Moosa Al-Ash’ari gave a mat to ‘Umar’s wife ‘Aatikah Bint Zayd, and I think that it was one cubit and a handspan. ‘Umar saw it with her and said, “ Where did you get this from?<br /><br />She said, “ Abu Moosa Al-Ash’ari gave it to me. ‘Umar took it and <b>hit her with it</b>, then he said, “ Bring Abu Moosa to me.<br /><br />“So he was brought to him and he (Abu Moosa Al-Ash’ari) said, “Don’t be hasty, O’ Ameer Al-Mu’mineen (Leader of the believers).<br /><br />‘Umar said, “ What madeyou give gifts to my womenfolk?” Then ‘Umar took it and <b>hit him with it</b>, and said, “Take it, we have no need for it.</blockquote><br /><br />[Taken from 'Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, His Life AndTimes, By 'Ali Muhammad As-Sallaabi, Vol. I, Pp. 134-135 & 251]<br /><br />A father who kills his child must NOT be subject to punishment (retaliation). The first text is “Umdat al-Saliq” or “Reliance of the Traveller”, a manual of Islamic law certified in 1991 as a reliable guide to Sunni Islam by Cairo’s renowned al-Azhar University, the most prestigious and authoritative institute ofSunni Islamic jurisprudence in the world. This manual, composed in the 14th century,states that punishment or “retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and withoutright” EXCEPT when “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers)” kills their “offspring, or offspring’s offspring” (section o1.1-2).<br /><br />In other words, a parent who murders his/her child for the sake of honour, is not penalized under Islamic law or Shariah.<br /><br />This book is by no means an irrelevant or outdated document, and its rulings, including those on the subject of retaliation for murder, are legally binding and not subject for debate.<br /><br />Another text that supports the immunity for parents who kill their children was written by the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1902-1989), an authority of Shi'ite Islam who led the Iranian Islamic revolution in 1979. In his book “Resaleh Towzih Al-Massael” or “A Clarification of Questions” published in 1961, Khomeini specifies under “conditions of retaliation” (section 2.3 of Appendix II) that there is no penalty for a father who kills his child, the father will simply not be punished under Islamic law. A killer is punished if: “The slayer is not the father of the slain, nor the parental grandfather (apparently)”.<br /><br />Both aforementioned Sunni and Shiite texts support the practice of honour killing in Islam, contrary to muslims' claim, and serve as authentic and authoritative sources of Islamic law to this day.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-72498146383180728112012-04-29T19:39:00.011+06:002012-04-29T20:56:45.229+06:00Analytic thinking facilitates AtheismAs I previously expressed my interest in <a href="http://skeptic-mind.blogspot.com/2011/12/religion-is-natural.html">one blog post</a> that I will be keeping an eye on the topic of human religiosity in spiritual & social context, couple of recent studies thus rightfully attracted my attention. The first one, as it appeared to me, understandably was all over atheist blogosphere. The article cites a study which says "<b><a href="http://www.livescience.com/19923-analytic-thinking-religious-disbelief.html" target="_blank">Analytic Thinking Can Promote Atheism</a></b>". Deliberate analytical thinking could cause people to believe less in God. While religion entertains emotion and intuition, it's the deliberately acquired cognitive thinking skill that enhances logical and rational disposition. I believe atheism is a direct result of this disposition.<br /><br />Some other studies which were not so noticable in my atheist news feed were....<br /><br />* <a href="http://www.livescience.com/19971-belief-god-atheism-age.html" target="_blank">Older People Hold Stronger Belief in God</a>...Which is quite understandable.<a name='more'></a> We are emotional being and don't usually like the idea that we will cease to exist in near future. People would want to think of an eternal afterlife as they approach old age. It's a very strong emotional feeling and an absolute trump card meme for religions to propagate. For atheists who don't seriously entertain the notion of an afterlife, Transhumanistic ideas appeared in response to this inevitable end of our mortal lives.<br /><br />* People exposed to death more likely to believe in God, <a href="http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/04/25/people-exposed-to-death-more-likely-to-believe-in-god-study/" target="_blank">study finds</a>. Which is also pretty obvious. Fear, death and violence play major roles in believing in God and religion. One interesting tidbit I found from the article was that the <b>Atheist countries operate at higher levels of mutual trust than religious societies</b>. My two cents... in the absence of a supposed higher moral authority (which is nothing but wishful thinking), atheists generally are inclined to put their trust on other atheists' judgement. I wish to write more about this in a future post.<br /><br />For an elaborate explanation I recommend checking out Luke Muehlhauser's article: <b><a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/7e5/the_cognitive_science_of_rationality/" target="_blank">The Cognitive Science of Rationality</a></b>. Plus, <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201004/why-atheists-are-more-intelligent-the-religious" target="_blank">an article</a> which all atheists would just love to read again & again & again!!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-53968698872042421782012-04-25T20:36:00.004+06:002012-04-25T20:53:22.421+06:00Indian rationalist charged with BlasphemyDr. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanal_Edamaruku">Sanal Edamaruku</a>, a prominent Indian Rationalist, Skeptic and "Guru-Buster" was charged with blasphemy against christian church. He faces punishment (possible prison time) for busting the miracle catholic cross hoax...in India.<br /><br />Wow...just wow! When it comes to using blasphemy laws, it seems christians are just as enthusiastic as muslims.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-47554043875194337882012-04-25T18:11:00.007+06:002012-04-25T19:04:05.864+06:00Another ex-muslim Atheist facing persecution in TurkeyNon-muslims, Ex-muslims and Atheists are getting persecuted all over the world especially in muslim majority countries where blasphemy laws have been enacted by the muslims to stop any kind of criticism of Islam. Latest victim, Fazil Say an ex-muslim atheist from Turkey. Weren't we all quite sure of Turkey being the modern muslim secular democratic country? Well, guess we are wrong again just like we were about Indonesia and Malaysia. <br /><br />And just like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza_Kashgari">Hamza Kashgari</a>, the Turkish pianist came under investigation over some harmless tweets. Surprising?...Hardly. Consider <a href="http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=5&verse=33">this verse</a> from Quran:<br /><br /><blockquote>Only recompense for those who wage war against allah and his messenger and strive in the earth spreading <a href="http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Mischief#Tafsir">Fasad</a> (mischief) is that they be killed or crucified or be cut off their hands and feet of opposite sides or they be exiled from the land, that is for them disgrace in the world and for them in the Hereafter is a punishment great.</blockquote><br /><br />I, as an ex-muslim know how dangerous it is to come out of the closet and declare yourself a Murtad in muslim countries. You risk losing not only your social but physical life as well. I wish Mr. Fazil all the best in his new life in Japan. At least he got the opportunity to <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100152667/fazil-say-and-turkeys-war-on-atheism/">move from the country</a> and hopefully Japan would be the last country to extradite him like Malaysia for offending muslims.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-37148450677773291042012-04-25T15:11:00.006+06:002012-04-25T19:03:18.504+06:00God has a plan for you<b>Hi, I'm God. I let humans starve to death & perish in natural disasters. That makes me impotent, evil, or non-existent. You choose.</b><br /><br />Here's a cool picture.... <a name='more'></a><br /><br /><img border="0" src="http://s5.postimage.org/vul5votiv/309723_10150823059745215_591655214_21038830_6430.jpg"/>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-8286692924436714062012-04-04T01:14:00.009+06:002012-05-18T21:34:01.287+06:00What is Atheism?Depending on the definitions of "god (G)" preferred by different theists, I could be labeled differently by different individuals. To understand how this may work check out other posts (<a href="http://skeptic-mind.blogspot.com/2012/03/general-discussion-on-belief.html">Part 1</a>, <a href="http://skeptic-mind.blogspot.com/2012/03/agnosticism-other-positions.html">Part 2</a>) in the series.<br /><br />Consider the proposition: P = G exists.<br /><br /><b>Atheism</b><br /><br />Atheism is about belief claim. An atheist can simply lack belief/disbelive in G, Or he can proceed further to believe in lack of G. If he lacks belief in G then he is defined as an Atheist.<a name='more'></a><br /><br />If I define theism as "with G" and atheism as "not with G" then, "not with G" can be of two types:<br /><br />1. Lack belief in G. Which means a <b>lack of belief</b> in G. Can also be called Soft or Negative or Weak Atheism. Or <b>Nontheism</b>. Regarding the proposition that G exists, nontheist don't believe that P is true. This is the general type.<br /><br />2. Belief in ~G. Which means a belief in the non-existence of G. Alternatively, a <b>belief in lack</b> of G. This is Hard or Strong or Positive Atheism or <b>Anti-theism</b>. Regarding proposition P, strong atheists believe P is probably false or false. This position is a special subset of the general one.<br /><br />There are also Implicit and Explicit Atheism. Strong atheism is always explicit. Weak atheism can be:<br /><br />> Weak Implicit Atheism: Lack of belief in G without a conscious effort.<br /><br />> Weak Explicit Atheism: lack of belief in G with a conscious effort. <br /><br />Of course Agnostic Non-theism is a preferable philosophical position in regard to G when this position is taken with a conscious effort. But one may ask, what about those atheists who live their lives as if certain types of Gods do not exist? This question is generally asked in regard to a specific type of God. Therefore, one might ask the question, an agnostic atheist who has belief in ~G, would you consider him dogmatic and his belief as faith, if his contingent belief is fueled with a high degree of confidence?<br /><br />...and my answer for this...each & every time will be...NO. Since his belief is contingent and the probabilistic confidence depends on degrees of epistemic certainty which is not anything like faith.<br /><br />So, I must emphasize again that, <b>All atheists are, by definition, non-theists, they lack belief in Gods. Atheism is lack of belief. Among the atheists some are anti-theists which can't be compared with faith.</b>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-34627872753578993202012-04-01T19:06:00.018+06:002012-07-03T10:05:32.044+06:00Problems with Zaid's compilation of QuranFrom <a href="http://sunnah.com/urn/43560">multiple</a> <a href="http://sunnah.com/urn/67570">hadiths</a> of bukhari, we came to know that loss of Quran memorizers prompted Abu Bakr and Umar to assign Zaid to collect the Quran in one book which Muhammad didn't do in his lifetime. Now there are some questions related to the Two witnesses criteria:<br /><br />• Why was this criteria adopted? Why not 3 witnesses or 4? Who came to the conclusion that 2 witnesses are enough?<br /><br />• What was expected from these witnesses to testify on isn't clear. Muslim apologist like <a href="http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/are_the_verses_from_surah_9_128_129_and_surah_33_23_falsely_added_to_the_quran_">this</a> argue that, simply to have listened from muhammad wasn't enough. They must had to testify on verses which were written in front of muhammad. <br /><br />• What about the literary eloquence of Quran? Why eloquence was never a criteria for inclusion or exclusion of a verse for Zaid and his Quran collection team? Somehow it didn't seem a valid criteria to them.<a name='more'></a><br /><br />Zaid compiled the Quran based on the criteria of two witnesses. Any verses written anywhere which didn't have two witnesses was not considered part of Quran & was discarded. If this is how the process underwent then one might wonder whether there were actual verses excluded from Muhammad's Quran simply because lack of 2 witnesses! Consider this: In the Itqan, while discussing of the number of witnesses, al-Suyuti quotes from Ibn Ashta's Kitab al-Masahif that,<br /><blockquote>The people would come to Zaid ibn Thabit and he would only write a verse from two upright witnesses. Even though the end of Surat al-Bara'a was not found except with Khuzaima ibn Thabit, he said: Write it, for God's messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, made his testimony as the testimony of two men. So it was written, even though Umar brought the verse of stoning and it was not written because he was alone (Ibn Ashta in al-Suyuti vol. 1,58).</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khuzaima_ibn_Thabit">Khuzaima</a> who testified for the written verse, we know from <a href="http://sunnah.com/urn/26210">this hadith</a> that his testimony had the value that of two witnesses. In the same way, though Umar and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajm">others</a> knew Muhammad recited the verse of stoning, this verse wasn't included in the Quran because there was no 2nd witness who could have testified for it with Umar.<br /><br />Umar was <a href="http://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/13/12">outspoken</a> of this verse. Early islamic scholars tried to reconcile this by claiming that, the recitation of this verse is abrogated while ruling still applies! To me it appears as a convenient excuse. More on this verse and others <a href="http://www.faithfreedom.org/one/corruption-tahreef-in-quran/">here</a> and <a href="http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Corruption_of_the_Qur'an#Lost_Verses">here</a>.<br /><br />Ibn Abi Dawud in Kitab al-Masahif, p. 23 wrote,<br /><blockquote>Many (of the passages) of the Qur'an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama....but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur'an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them.</blockquote><br />According to one report by the son of the second caliph Umar given by Suyuti in his al-Itqan part 3, page 72, the present text of the Quran is incomplete since much of it has disappeared:<br /><blockquote>Abdullah b. Umar reportedly said, 'Let none of you say, "I have got the whole of the Qur'an." How does he know what all of it is? Much of the Quran has lost [arabic: Dhahab also used in <a href="http://sunnah.com/urn/46640">this hadith</a>]. Let him say instead, " I have got what has survived."</blockquote><br />Read detailed explanation <a href="http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/quran_lost.html">here</a> and see why Gibril's response is <a href="http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?15525-Ibn-Umar-s-statement-on-the-Qu-ran-Shayk-G.F.-Haddad-s-fatwa-on-it">incorrect</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-73136698281944781172012-03-23T20:02:00.004+06:002012-03-23T20:48:00.860+06:00Ex-muslim: Personal accounts→ A <a href="http://www.reddit.com/help/faqs/exmuslim#RecommendedReadings">collection of short accounts</a> describing the journey to become ex-muslim posted on r/Ex-muslim.<br /><br />→ Shabbir Akhtar could <a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=103103§ioncode=26" target="_blank">no longer defend his faith</a> in Islam.<br /><br />→ Muslim apologist Farhan Qureshi <a href="http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/apostates-of-islam/i-declare-my-apostasy/" target="_blank">left islam</a>.<br /><br />→ <b>Palestinian Ex-muslim blogger <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walid_Husayin" target="_blank">Walid Husayin</a> shares his story <a href="http://proud-a.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-i-left-islam.html" target="_blank">here on his blog</a>. He was tortured and jailed for leaving Islam and criticising it, after release from prison he now recieving death threats from muslims and <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/29/activists-climate-intolerance-west-bank/?page=all" target="_blank">living in constant fear</a></b>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-46161757604876612732012-03-23T18:49:00.010+06:002012-03-23T19:50:41.564+06:00How many muslims leave Islam?→ According to research carried out by the respected Pakistani-born American Muslim Dr. Ilyas Ba-Yunus (1932 - 2007), <b>75% of New Muslim Converts in the US leave Islam within a few years</b>. Listen to <a href="http://www.radioislam.com/_asx/PublicAffairs/whynewmleave.asx" target="_target">the clip</a> detailing this research (or <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44dO9lWO830">watch on Youtube</a>).<br /><br />→ <b>70% new muslim become apostates in USA, 30-40% in UK!</b> This is a iERA video in which a british convert Yusuf Chambers (now works with iERA) begging for donations and Zakat while stating this fact. Perhaps he was a bit naive and honest, since most muslims do not acknowledge the existence of ex-muslims. (<a href="http://vimeo.com/27686437" target="_blank">watch on Vimeo</a>).<br /><br />→ <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUBAvosmb5I" target="_blank">Iranians are leaving islam in growing numbers.</a><br /><br />→ There are certainly no penal sanctions for converting from Christianity to any other religion. In Islamic countries, on the other hand, the issue is far from dead. Ibn Warraq's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyufZQkUaYA" target="_blank">Leaving Islam - Apostates Speak Out</a> is worth watching.<br /><br />→ <a href="http://pjmedia.com/blog/muslims-leaving-islam-in-droves/" target="_blank">Muslims Leaving Islam in Droves</a>.<br /><br />→ <a href="http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=513" target="_blank">2 million ethnic Muslims converted to Christianity in Russia</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-69935945604259393052012-03-23T12:10:00.004+06:002012-04-26T13:52:36.461+06:00Light Bulb JokesSo I was surfing the fat atheist blog and came across <a href="http://blog.thatfatatheist.com/post/19735739891/light-bulb-jokes">this post</a>. I LOL'd while reading and thought why not modify and add some more into the collection. Enjoy!<br /><br /><div align="center"><b>How many Christians does it take to change a light bulb?</b><br /><br />None. They just pray for light.<br /><br /><br />≈ ≈ ≈<br /><br /><br /><b>How many muslims does it take to change the light bulb?</b><br /><br />None. They sit in the dark and blame it on Jews.<br /><br /><br />≈ ≈ ≈<br /><br /><br /><b>How many jews does it take to change the light bulb?</b><a name='more'></a><br /><br />Two. One to call the fused bulb a racist, anti-semite. Another to lend some money to a gentile who wish to change it for them.<br /><br /><br /><br />≈ ≈ ≈<br /><br /><br /><b>How many atheists does it take to change the light bulb?</b><br /><br />An unlimited number. One to change the light bulb and all the other to argue with religious people who think God did it.<br /><br /><br /><br />≈ ≈ ≈<br /><br /><br /><b>How many liberals does it take to change the light bulb?</b><br /><br />None. They're too worried that filling a dark room with white light might be racist.<br /><br /><br /><br />≈ ≈ ≈<br /><br /><br /><b>How many conservatives does it take to change a light bulb?</b><br /><br />None. Conservatives are uncomfortable with change.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-35332562226906883672012-03-06T02:03:00.002+06:002012-04-26T13:53:16.195+06:00Agnosticism & other positionsDepending on the definitions of "god (G)" preferred by different theists, I could be labeled differently by different individuals. To understand how this may work check out other posts (<a href="http://skeptic-mind.blogspot.com/2012/03/general-discussion-on-belief.html">Part 1</a>, <a href="http://skeptic-mind.blogspot.com/2012/04/what-is-atheism.html">Part 3</a>) in the series.<br /><br />Consider the proposition: P = G exists.<br /><br /><b>Theism</b><br /><br />If you think P is true, then you have a belief in god. You believe that G exists. If you do not have evidence for this belief then it's a non-contingent belief aka faith. You are a <b>Theist</b>. Degrees of confidence for this belief is based on psychological certainty which may differ for different religious individuals.<br /><br /><b>Agnosticism</b><br /><br />If you <b>do not know</b> whether P is true or false, if you don't claim to have knowledge about the existence of G, then you're an Agnostic. Agnosticism is about knowledge claim. It means "without knowledge". Now you may have a stance regarding this proposition P or not have any stance on either side after all. Which gives us the following types:<br /><br />• <b>Agnostic Theist</b>: An agnostic who is also a theist. Someone who has a belief in G but does not claim to have knowledge of its existence.<br /><br />• <b>Agnostic Atheist</b>: Someone who is Agnostic and also an Atheist.<a name='more'></a><br /><br />In other words, an agnostic can suspend his judgement about G, can be with G or without G respectively.<br /><br />Agnosticism could also be of two forms.<br /><br />Weak or Subjective Agnosticism.<br /><br />Strong or Objective Agnosticism.<br /><br /><b>Apatheism</b><br /><br />Those who don't think or care about G. <br /><br /><b>Untheism</b><br /><br />Those who don't even know about the concept of god. For example: A group of tribal people who were never exposed to the concept of Abrahamic god.<br /><br /><b>Ignosticism</b><br /><br />Those who think the concept of god is meaningless. They are non-cognitivist in regard to proposition P. Again, this depends on how the theist defines his god. Sometimes the definition they give just doesn't make any sense to me.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-40857040502194569042012-03-02T23:49:00.001+06:002012-04-26T13:53:53.874+06:00A general discussion on BeliefWe need to have ideas of some basic terms before we can discuss atheism. I have given a structural definition with the set analogy. I also proposed a definition of knowledge (100% epistemic certainty) and confidence (< 100% either epistemic or psychological or both) using probability here.<br /><br /><b>What's belief?</b><br /><br />Belief is the psychological state in which an individual accepts a proposition or statement to be either true or false. Any particular mental state of a thinking mind has a belief set i.e. A set of beliefs. Consider the set<br />B= {a, b, c}<br />Here the Belief set B has some members where,<br />a = the truth value of the statement a where A person has the belief that a is true or false. Similarly, b = truth value of the statement b where A person has the belief that b is either true or false and so on.<br /><br />There are some beliefs which are contingent (depends upon evidence) and some beliefs which are non-contingent type. These beliefs are all subsets of the belief set B.<br />You could have an empty set B ={ } when you lack belief. You lack belief about statement a and statement b which were given in regard to something or someone.<br /><br /><a name='more'></a><b>What's Faith?</b><br /><br />Faith is the non-contingent belief. Indeed it seems to be the purpose of faith to quite deliberately not be subject to correction or revision based on available evidence. Faith = a belief which is non-contingent. I'd say a person who has this belief (non-contingent/faith) also has a degree of confidence. This degree of confidence generates from psychological certainty and not from epistemic certainty.<br /><br />I define knowledge as that statement of which we're 100% or close to 100% epistemically certain. Any less certainty will be called "degrees of confidence" and not strictly knowledge. However, due to some philosophical problems (for exp: Problem of Induction), full certainty isn't possible therefore we usually accept something as knowledge for which we have a very high degree of epistemological certainty.<br /><br />Indeed this means there are three distinct mental states....actually an infinite number of metal states if one takes into account degrees of confidence (which maps very nicely onto probability).<br /><br />No belief/lack of belief does not need any degrees of confidence. Only beliefs need to have confidence. For rational people this confidence comes from degrees of epistemic certainty (contingent belief).<br /><br />There is another type of non-contingent belief which rely on little or no evidence. This belief is called Taste or personal preference of something. However, this type of belief is irrelevant to this discussion.<br /><br /><b>Why we hold beliefs?</b><br /><br />A belief is held because of either motivation or evidence or both. Similarly a lack of belief results from lack of motivation or evidence or non-cognizability or all of these reasons combined. Strong desire or motivation could turn out enough of a reason for someone to hold a belief which has an overwhelming evidence against it. For example: if someone accepts the belief that "human beings are intelligently designed by a supernatural entity and not evolved from earlier species via biological evolution" to be true. This is an example of faith.<br /><br /><b>Evidence?</b><br /><br />Philosophically speaking, I'm an empiricist. Empirical evidence is the real evidence which can be obtained via scientific method which is deeply interwined with cause & effect nature of reality. I adhere to the correspondence theory of truth, metaphysical and methodological naturalism.<br /><br />To learn more on Belief, Certainty, Truth, Evidence etc...I suggest checking <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/">Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-90265633635672713642012-03-02T20:08:00.008+06:002012-03-10T13:01:29.809+06:00Cosmological Criticism: Part 2This post is part of a <a href="http://skeptic-mind.blogspot.com/2012/01/cosmological-argument.html">sequence</a> on Cosmological Argument.<br /><br />The Universe began to exit is the 2nd premise of KCA. Since the Big Bang theory is NOT a theory of the origin of Universe<sup>[2a]</sup>, it no longer holds much importance in Cosmological argument. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig argues that The Borde, Guth, Vilenkin Theorem<sup>[2b]</sup> acts as a empirical scientific evidence to establish the truth of this premise.<br /><br />Victor J. Stenger in his most recent book, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning<sup>[2c]</sup> :<br /><br /><blockquote>The conclusion that Borde and collaborators had proved that the universe had to have a beginning was disputed the same year by University of California-Santa Cruz physicist Anthony Aguirre and Cambridge astronomer Steven Gratton in a paper that Craig ignores. Being good scholars, Borde et al. refer to Aguirre and Gratton in their own paper. I contacted Aguirre and Vilenkin, the latter whom I have known professionally for many years. I greatly admire the work of each, which will be referred to often on these pages. I first asked Vilenkin if Craig's statement is accurate. Vilenkin replied:<br /><br />"I would say this is basically correct, except the words “absolute beginning” do raise some red flags. The theorem says that if the universe is everywhere expanding (on average), then the histories of most particles cannot be extended to the infinite past. In other words, if we follow the trajectory of some particle to the past, we inevitably come to a point where the assumption of the theorem breaks down—that is, where the universe is no longer expanding.<br />This is true for all particles, except perhaps a set of measure zero. In other words, there may be some (infinitely rare) particles whose histories are infinitely long."<br /><br />I then asked Vilenkin, “Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning?”<br /><br />He immediately replied,<br />"No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time."<br /><br />Vilenkin further explained, "For example, Anthony in his work with Gratton, and Carroll and Chen, proposed that the universe could be contracting before it started expanding. The boundary then corresponds to the moment (that Anthony referred to as t = 0) between the contraction and expansion phases, when the universe was momentarily static. They postulated in addition that the arrow of time in the contracting part of space-time runs in the opposite way, so that entropy grows in both time directions from t=0."<br /><br />I also checked with Caltech cosmologist Sean Carroll, whose recent book From Eternity to Here provides an excellent discussion of many of the problems associated with early universe cosmology. Here was his response:<br /><br />"I think my answer would be fairly concise: no result derived on the basis of classical spacetime can be used to derive anything truly fundamental, since classical general relativity isn't right. You need to quantize gravity. The BGV [Borde, Guth, Vilenkin] singularity theorem is certainly interesting and important, because it helps us understand where classical GR breaks down, but it doesn't help us decide what to do when it breaks down. Surely there's no need to throw up our hands and declare that this puzzle can't be resolved within a materialist framework. Invoking God to fill this particular gap is just as premature and unwarranted as all the other gaps.</blockquote><br /><br />William Craig frequently quotes Vilenkin in his arguments although Vilenkin dismissed<sup>[2d]</sup> the existence of God as a cause of the begining of the Universe. But most recently in 11 january, 2012 in the New Scientist magazine<sup>[2e]</sup>, Vilenkin argued for a begining of the Universe. <br /><br />Alan Guth in his Cosmic Inflation paper<sup>[2f]</sup> wrote,<br /><br /><blockquote>There is, of course, no conclusion that an eternally inflating model must have a unique beginning, and no conclusion that there is an upper bound on the length of all backwards-going geodesics from a given point. There may be models with regions of contraction embedded within the expanding region that could evade our theorem. Aguirre & Gratton (2002, 2003)have proposed a model that evades our theorem, in which the arrow of time reverses at the t = -1 hypersurface, so the universe “expands” in both halves of the full de Sitter space.</blockquote><br /><br />See <a href="http://skeptic-mind.blogspot.com/2012/02/cosmological-criticism-bibliography.html">Bibliography</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-29649019510690523272012-03-02T18:24:00.015+06:002012-03-23T20:02:14.813+06:00Fight Islamic Inquisition!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/evlc1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="" width="" src="http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/evlc1.jpg"/></a></div><br /><br /><br /><br />Fight against <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2011/06/07/the-islamic-inquisition/trackback/" target="_blank">The Islamic Inquisition</a> just got a lot bolder. Maryam Namazie amounced in her blog, <b>International Day of Action to Defend Blasphemers and Apostates</b> which will be organized on 14 March 2012. As an ex-muslim atheist I couldn't be happier to see this event. The recent disturbing development of increased harassment, torture, jailing and murdering of ex-muslim atheists to the charges of apostasy and blasphemy against islam in muslim countries reminds me of nothing but a death cult which is slowly depriving us of our basic human rights such as freedom of speech and freedom to reject religious doctrines.<br /><br />Maryam wrote,<br /><br /><blockquote>Countless individuals face threats, imprisonment, and execution because of their criticism of religion and religious authorities. Blasphemy and Apostasy laws as well as uncodified rules imposed by both state and non-state actors aim primarily to restrict thought and expression and limit the rights of Muslims, ex-Muslims and non-Muslims alike.<br /><br />Such rules exist in a number of countries including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Jordan, Morocco, Turkey, Yemen,Iraq and elsewhere.</blockquote><br /><br />Then she announced the initiative...<br /><br /><blockquote><b>On 14 March 2012, we, the undersigned, are calling for simultaneous events and actions in defence of the critics of religion in order to highlight medieval laws and exert pressure to save the lives of the women and men facing execution, imprisonment or threats.</b></blockquote><br /><br />I fully agree. This is what we need. To put pressure on islamic governments not to practice sharia. <b>No more sharia, no more human rights violations</b>.<br /><br /><blockquote>Whilst there are countless people awaiting punishment under these rules and regulations, we are highlighting ten such cases...</blockquote><br /><br />Read <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2012/03/02/14-march-2012-international-day-of-action-to-defend-blasphemers-and-apostates/trackback/" target="_blank">rest of the post</a> on her Free Thought blog where she put a list of the victims of islamic blasphemy law. By the way, it seems that one guy is missing from the list which I pointed out also in the comment section. Not to mention, the Palestinian ex-muslim atheist Walid who is constantly <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/29/activists-climate-intolerance-west-bank/?page=all">living under fear</a> after being tortured by palestinian sharia police. I know there are countless other victims of islamic sharia who could never reach us via news media. But we have to keep on fighting for freedom. Right?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-39799247776369083372012-02-28T08:18:00.002+06:002012-03-23T18:04:32.155+06:00Problem of Evil: an introduction<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b70/Dariobattisti/epicurus1j_uj82.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="353" src="http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b70/Dariobattisti/epicurus1j_uj82.jpg" width="550" /></a></div><br /><br /><div align="center"><b>Epicurus — kicking God's arse since 300 B.C. !</b></div><br /><br /><br />The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil">problem of evil</a> is one of the best and most debated philosophical arguments against the existence of god. Actually in my opinion, it is the best argument ever! A modern version of this argumet is follows something like this: Let, God be defined as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, ontologically basic, non-contingent, disembodied mental entity.<br /><br />1. If god is Omnibenevolent, he would want to prevent evil.<br /><br />2. If god is omniscient he would know every possible way in which evil may occur.<br /><br />3. If god is omnipotent then he would act in every possible way in order to prevent evil from manifesting in every possible way.<br /><br />4. God is non-contingent which means god is either necessary (necessarily true) or impossible (necessarily false).<br /><br />5. Assuming god as a necessarily true existent being, god exist necessarily in all possible worlds.<br /><br />6. In a world E, (subjective, objective or gratuitous) Evil exist. In that world E, also god exist.<br /><br />7. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent which leads to a contradiction with manifestation of Evil in the world E.<br /><br />8. Therefore according to proof by contradiction, such a god is impossible to exist.<br /><br />9. Therefore, God does not exit.<br /><br />Here I just presented a general version of the argument. As I read more about this topic, sophisticated arguments and their implications will follow through.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-9815124157113583852012-02-25T19:52:00.009+06:002012-02-25T22:34:06.453+06:00Anthropomorphic AllahOften it appears that muslims think they know and have all the rights to explain christianity for christians. Imagine muslims lecturing christians why Jesus couldn't be a god since he had human attributes. I find it quite funny when Islamic preachers throw challenge to christians asking for a bible verse where Jesus claimed to be god yet try to downplay the same problem in their own religion. I can turn the table and accuse muslims of worshipping a deity who, according to Quran and Hadith, has physical attributes. We could draw quite a similitude — Just like trinitarian christians wholeheartedly accept Jesus' divinity despite him being a human, muslims consider islamic god Allah <a href="http://quran.com/112/4">unique</a> even though some verses of the Quran and multiple Hadiths indicate anthropomorphipm.<br /><br />Allah has a <a href="http://quran.com/55/27">face</a>, <a href="http://quran.com/38/75">hands</a>, <a href="http://sunnah.com/urn/266990">fingers</a>, <a href="http://quran.com/68/42">shin</a>. Allah has <a href="http://quran.com/20/39">an eye</a>, <a href="http://sunnah.com/urn/62630">foot</a> also. Allah goes up because he has <a href="http://quran.com/20/5">a place to stay and sit</a>. What goes up must come down therefore <a href="http://sunnah.com/bukhari/19/26">allah descends</a>!<br /><br />Of course, muslims vehemently deny all these features and resort to semantic gymnastics in order to explain away the <a href="http://quran.com/3/7">Mutashabihat</a>... unclear, ambiguous verses. <br /><br />According to the islamic scholars, there are three ways of understanding the mutashabihat Quranic verses and hadiths:<br /><br />1. <b>Tafwid</b> which basically means uttering: "allah knows best" because we are clueless. The companions of Muhammad as well as classical scholars held the position that only allah has full knowledge of these ambiguous verses.<br /><br />2. <b>Ta’wil</b> which means ‘figurative interpretation within the parameters of classical Arabic usage. It is to claim that these are all metaphorical or poetical figure of speech etc. Muslims who like to defend their religion generally adopt this position. After all, who likes to appear clueless in a debate? And lastly,<br /><br />3. <b>Tashbih</b> or anthropomorphic literalism. More specifically Tasjim, meaning ascribing bodily characteristics to god. Most muslims do not agree with it except perhaps some fringe minority.<br /><br />In order for allah to see or do certain things, it need not have to posses eyes, foot, hands etc. This is a collective <a href="http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy">Mind</a> <a href="http://neq1.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/walking-in-someone-elses-shoes-and-the-mind-projection-fallacy/">projection</a> fallacy which was committed by the then pagan idol worshipping society. Muhammad demanded everyone should accept him as the messenger of this pagan deity and modified the deity to suit abrahamic god. But he couldn't refrain himself from humanizing this deity since it was after all, a projection of his own mind.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-69859802901907250632012-02-17T12:35:00.001+06:002012-03-03T13:00:30.088+06:00Necrophilia in Islam1. Islamic Legal Fatwa: <a href="http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2011/05/fatwa-necrophilia-now-halal-says-sheikh.html">Necrophilia now halal</a> says Sheikh Abdelbari Zamzami<br /><br />2. Sexual intercourse with dead bodies is ok in Islam and is religiously permissible - Reddit thread on r/exmuslim: <a href="http://redd.it/psn5l">http://redd.it/psn5l</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-9468746701039139122012-02-15T22:20:00.001+06:002012-04-15T12:05:34.031+06:00Sexy virgins for muslims<b>Oh Mo, bribing your horny followers with promises of poon, eh?</b><br /><br />LOL I love how Muslim culture is obsessed with modesty even though Mo used some pretty pornographic language to tempt his followers to do his bidding. Here are just some descriptions of the hoor al-ayn:<br /><br /><b>PERKY BOOBIES, YAY!</b><br /><br /><blockquote>A houri is a girl of tender age, having large breasts which are round (pointed), and not inclined</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/4851927/Qualities-and-Attributes-of-Hoors-Hoor-alaynHouris-of-Jannah-Paradise">At-Tirmizi, Volume Two</a><br /><br /><b>NO "WIZARD SLEEVE" VAG FOR YOU MY FRIEND... ONLY THE BEST! (psst...Viagra pills included!!!!)</b><br /><br /><blockquote>Every one of them will have a pleasant vagina and he (the man) will have sexual organ that does not bend down during sexual intercourse (perpetual erection).</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/4851927/Qualities-and-Attributes-of-Hoors-Hoor-alaynHouris-of-Jannah-Paradise">Imam Ghazzali: Ihya Uloom Ed-Din, Vol. 4</a><br /><br /><b>lol WHAT IS THIS OBSESSION THAT MO HAD WITH UNBROKEN HYMENS?</b><br /><br /><blockquote>Wherein both will be those (maidens) restraining their glances upon their husbands, whom no man or jinn yatmithhunna (has opened their hymens with sexual intercourse) before them.</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://quran.com/55/56">Qur'an 55:56- Muhsin Khan</a><br /><br /><b>DAT BONE MARROW!</b><br /><br /><blockquote>...everyone will have two wives from the houris, (who will be so beautiful, pure and transparent that) the marrow of the bones oftheir legs will be seen through the bones and the flesh.</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://sunnah.com/urn/30400">Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 476</a><br /><br /><b>JANNAH IS A BIG BROTHEL</b><br /><br /><blockquote>Allah's Apostle said, "In Paradise there is a pavilion made of a single hollow pearl sixty miles wide, in each corner of which there are wives who will not see those in the other corners; and the believers will visit and enjoy them....</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://sunnah.com/urn/45570">Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 402</a><br /><br />lol as they say, "sex sells" :D<br /><br />source: <a href="http://redd.it/plqm1">http://redd.it/plqm1</a><br /><br />Check out the <a href="http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Virgins">72 virgins</a> !!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701481815400252255.post-14500385451054925442012-02-08T09:15:00.003+06:002012-08-17T12:06:16.206+06:00What is Big Bang?The Big Bang theory says nothing about the origin of the Universe.<br /><br /><b>BBT is the expansion of Universe from its earlier, hot, dense state.</b><br /><br />1. <a href="http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html">The definition of Big Bang from NASA's website</a>.<br /><br />2. The big bang was <b>NOT</b> <a href="http://www.astronomycafe.net/cosm/bang.html">a fireworks display</a>! It wasn't like a bomb explosion.<br /><br />3. If the whole Universe is infinitely large now, then <a href="http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm#e1">it was always infinite</a>...including during the Big Bang as well !!<br /><br />4. Sascha Vongehr <a href="http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/big_bang_not_follow_pluto-79780">explains the theory</a> of Big Bang.<br /><br />5. <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html">Evidence</a> of the Big Bang with some yet to be resolved problems and their implications.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1