Perfidy, Qur’anic Apostasy or Hermeneutics?

The only thing i Found in your article which disturbed me a lot was you have given reference of the scholars who were merely based in the western part of the world. This is a sophisticated issue and in order to under one is supposed to refer not only the western scholars` work but also the middle eastern and sub continents` scholars` work. As far i Have understood Quran is not a book of simplicity there are words with 1000s` of meaning, in order to understand Quran one has to understand life itself, none of us is in the position to question Quran especially when the question arises whether Quran is only for Arabs` or not.

Quran is a book of knowledge & its a miricle book, In surat Toobah Allah had clearly mention that this book is for all living thing, if Quran was only for arabs then maybe i am not a living thing. At the time of Prophet Muhammad (p.B.U.H) population density of the human world negligible compare to our present time, there is however no historic proof of great pepople living in sub continent and remember there was no america at that time and europe did not care about the world at that time. Living and reading in west Do have a wrong impression on muslim community because it is psycological for people to ask question about their own faith.

Quran is for every living creature, man and jinn, its just people do not under its presence.

I reached a similar conclusion while reading Quran. My simple understanding is that Allah is the most merciful and the most benevolent, hence loving and kind towards people, then I read 4:34 and was surprised that Allah would allow beating women. My late grandfather told me never to raise voice or hurt women and here I was holding a Green Card towards violence towards a fellow being. This was a few years ago.
Now recently I came across the Millenium Biograpghy of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and while reading about the pre-Muhammad era of Arab peninsula in this fine book and the striking resemblance to laws and rights mentioned in Quran leads me to believe that may be Quran / Islam maybe more geared towards a certain people (Arabs). For instance polygymy was rampant in pre-Mohammad days and post-Mohammad it was just legalized under a different context.

Regarding the Following Quote from the above article:
``Muqtader Khan of Adrian College says “In an Islamic democracy every individual is a vicegerent of God (Qur’an 2:30) and therefore has the legitimate authority to act in God’s name. Thus every citizen has the right to interpret and claim what is law (divine or otherwise). Though sovereignty is always God’s in principle, human agency is what matters in practice”.``

Now this got me thinking about 6:159 where Allah tells muslims to leave people with sects alone. Now we are all well aware of sectarian violence in and about muslim countries. Considering the above verse 2:30 and comparing it with 6:159 seems like a slight contradiction in a perfect book.
Quran today and the way it was revealed is not same since during the time of Muhammad the verses /chapters were shuffled around, which makes the context (historical) in which Quran was delivered out of sync with events that took place while reveleations occured.
Regarding Jesus`s death which is a big event recorded in Roman and Jewish history is only worth a verse or two in Quran.

I reached a similar conclusion while reading Quran. My simple understanding is that Allah is the most merciful and the most benevolent, hence loving and kind towards people, then I read 4:34 and was surprised that Allah would allow beating women. My late grandfather told me never to raise voice or hurt women and here I was holding a Green Card towards violence towards a fellow being. This was a few years ago.
Now recently I came across the Millenium Biograpghy of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and while reading about the pre-Muhammad era of Arab peninsula in this fine book and the striking resemblance to laws and rights mentioned in Quran leads me to believe that may be Quran / Islam maybe more geared towards a certain people (Arabs). For instance polygymy was rampant in pre-Mohammad days and post-Mohammad it was just legalized under a different context.

Regarding the Following Quote from the above article:
``Muqtader Khan of Adrian College says “In an Islamic democracy every individual is a vicegerent of God (Qur’an 2:30) and therefore has the legitimate authority to act in God’s name. Thus every citizen has the right to interpret and claim what is law (divine or otherwise). Though sovereignty is always God’s in principle, human agency is what matters in practice”.``

Now this got me thinking about 6:159 where Allah tells muslims to leave people with sects alone. Now we are all well aware of sectarian violence in and about muslim countries. Considering the above verse 2:30 and comparing it with 6:159 seems like a slight contradiction in a perfect book.
Quran today and the way it was revealed is not same since during the time of Muhammad the verses /chapters were shuffled around, which makes the context (historical) in which Quran was delivered out of sync with events that took place while reveleations occured.
Regarding Jesus`s death which is a big event recorded in Roman and Jewish history is only worth a verse or two in Quran.

I reached a similar conclusion while reading Quran. My simple understanding is that Allah is the most merciful and the most benevolent, hence loving and kind towards people, then I read 4:34 and was surprised that Allah would allow beating women. My late grandfather told me never to raise voice or hurt women and here I was holding a Green Card towards violence towards a fellow being. This was a few years ago.
Now recently I came across the Millenium Biograpghy of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and while reading about the pre-Muhammad era of Arab peninsula in this fine book and the striking resemblance to laws and rights mentioned in Quran leads me to believe that may be Quran / Islam maybe more geared towards a certain people (Arabs). For instance polygymy was rampant in pre-Mohammad days and post-Mohammad it was just legalized under a different context.

Regarding the Following Quote from the above article:
``Muqtader Khan of Adrian College says “In an Islamic democracy every individual is a vicegerent of God (Qur’an 2:30) and therefore has the legitimate authority to act in God’s name. Thus every citizen has the right to interpret and claim what is law (divine or otherwise). Though sovereignty is always God’s in principle, human agency is what matters in practice”.``

Now this got me thinking about 6:159 where Allah tells muslims to leave people with sects alone. Now we are all well aware of sectarian violence in and about muslim countries. Considering the above verse 2:30 and comparing it with 6:159 seems like a slight contradiction in a perfect book.
Quran today and the way it was revealed is not same since during the time of Muhammad the verses /chapters were shuffled around, which makes the context (historical) in which Quran was delivered out of sync with events that took place while reveleations occured.
Regarding Jesus`s death which is a big event recorded in Roman and Jewish history is only worth a verse or two in Quran.

#73 and #76

masadi

Thank you dear Masadi. That is what I wanted to point out that Quran can be distorted, not only by changing its wording but also by subjective interpretation or selection. The Mullah says Allah has guaranteed its protection. But how can one know about the correction when the Mullah has blocked all communication with Allah.

For example, the Soora in question (Maoon) has been subjected to somewhat contradictory interpretations. In fact the Mullah is allergic to this Soora as it questions his `dhanda` of ritualism even at the expence of human welfare.

One unfinished thought that I want to complete before I begin my protest against CHOWK:

#81, einsteinwallah; in my post #51 I wrote

Quote <<< #32, #33- Great going you use fictional tales to disprove something you know nothing about- great going; amazing methodology to decipher the truth. >>>

This should have read #30, #31, It did NOT refer to your posts but to the posts about Mullah Nasruddin made by Sailen to prove his points; those were the ``fictional tales`` I was referring to; your post #33 was answered in the same post #51 which I reproduce below:

Quote<<<

#33 you write <<>>

Great methods of argumentation, define the opposing argument yourself as a straw man, and then dismantle the straw man. Religion doesn’t give a complete system of thought it just points you in the correct direction, so that you see the inter connectedness between all things- there is nothing unscientific in that. The universe began as a singularity. >>>>

Sorry about the confusion. Any and all concerns/questions referring to my posts should henceforth be directed to Asadi@asadi.org

Thanks.

Thank you for your time everyone and goodbye to you all. It was fun, I learned quite a bit hopefully you all did too. Since CHOWK is baselessly censoring all of my articles, in protest, I will not be posting here anymore, until they get rid of their biased pro-US elite stance. You all are welcome to visit http://www.asadi.org and use the forum over there

Here is an extract from the CBC news report (Jan 12, 2004) on American inspired Islam of the Mujahideen:

The whole report quotes the man behind the text book project, Tom Goutier, and can be read at http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/schools.html

Quote <<
But the Mujahideen had a lot of help to create this warrior culture in the school system from the United States, which paid for the Mujahideen propaganda in the textbooks. It was all part of American Cold War policy in the 1980s, helping the Mujahideen defeat the Soviet army on Afghan soil. The University of Nebraska was front and center in that effort. The university did the publishing and had an Afghan study center and a director who was ready to help defeat the ``Red Menace.`` >>>>

In addition to the below, I would like to say that ``lack of decision`` when you have the power of decision in the region, like the US did- amounts to complicity. When the US tolerated the Taliban and implicitly helped them in that civil war-something that almost led to an Iran/Pakistan skirmish, if you remember with Iran gathering troops on its border- it states complicity. ``Action`` or ``lack of action`` is equal when you have the power of decision.

#83, the timing was discussed in post #79, and it does contradict what you said since US support for the Mujahideen and creating trouble for the Afghan government started long before any ``Hind`` helicopters. It is prepostrous to state that the US had nothing to do with the ten years of war in Afghanistan, a situation that led directly to the emergence of the Taliban, who were the same people under a different label. The US is most definitely to blame, along with the Soviets for creating a mess in Afghanistan and Pakistan and implanting the US/Saudi version of radical Islam in that region~ They are culprit #1, even more so than the Soviet Union. How come whenever a government tries to undertake land reforms and help the people, the US starts trouble and civil wars- this is a pattern not only restricted to Afghanistan.

The Truth About the Origin of Man.

In the beginning God created Eve. And she had 3 breasts.
After three weeks in the garden, God came to visit Eve.

How`re things,Eve? He asked.
``It is all so beautiful, God,`` she replied. ``The sunrises and sunsets are breathtaking, the smells, the sights, everything is wonderful but I just have this one problem. It`s these three breasts you`ve given me. The middle one pushes the other two out, and I am constantly knocking them with my arms, catching them on branches, snagging them on bushes, they`re a real pain,`` reported Eve.
``That`s a fair point,`` replied God, ``but it was my first shot at that you know. I gave the animals, what, six? So I just figured you`d need half, but I see that you are right. I`ll fix that up right away!``
So, God reaches down and removes the middle breast, tossing it into the bushes.
Three weeks passed, and God once again visited Eve in the garden.
``Well, Eve, how`s my favourite creation?`` He asked.
``Just fantastic,`` she replied, ``but for one small oversight on your part. You see, all the animals are paired off. The ewe has her ram, the cow has her bull, all the animals have a mate, except me. I feel so alone.``
God thought for a moment. ``You know, Eve, you`re right. How could I have overlooked this! You do need a mate and I will immediately create Man from a part of you!``

``Now, let`s see ....... where did I put that useless tit?``

On #82, just to summarize: while there is no conflict between religion and science IN THEORY, there is indeed a conflict IN PRACTICE. And this is a result of the fact that what is practiced in Pakistan is not the message of the Quran, but the message cooked up by individuals in their quest for a living (in case of the run of the mill maulvis) or power (in case of the more ambitious mauvlis).

masadi #79/80: thanks for the references, but they really dont address the points i made. #79 merely refers to one aspect of what i discussed in #74 (namely, the timing of US involvement), and if you read my post carefully you will see that this does not contradict anything I wrote. #80 presents one man`s view (and a partisan one at that - a Republican trying to discredit Clinton) which is in clear contradiction to the facts as we know them now.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to cut and paste these references.

einsteinwallah #81 The only reason you see a conflict between the ``Weltanschauung of Science`` the Freud puts forwards and the ``Weltanschauung of Religion`` as you describe it is in my view a result of the way you define the latter.

To use your example: ``Supposing in present times somebody came to you and said that he has been receiving these messages from God. What would you think? Would you not think that the person is hallucinating? Where is any diagnosis at all? Seeing things other cannot see is hallucination. The concept of hallucination does not need any deep knowledge of psychology. Why judgment we would pass on somebody of present times should not also be passed on Muhammad?``

The above assumes that you fully understand what gives rise to ``hallucinations``. Actually you dont. Freud did not either, btw (and indeed his entire approach to psychoanalysis is today not just discredited but blamed for diverting the focus of psychiatry away from drug-based treatments whose effectiveness was understood only by chance through use of lithium). Nor does biological science today understand the full workings of the mind that give rise to hallucinations (or any other mental functions for that matter).

And even as and when we understand the biological processes (which is decades away at the least), we still would not not understand the molecular and sub-atomic processes that underlie the biology. And significantly, as string theory indicates, the sub-atomic world itself seems to have not just four (length, breadth, hight, time) dimensions but nine! And what we perceive, per the string theory, is merely a four dimensional PROJECTION of processes occurring in these nine dimensions (see the latest issue of the Scientific American which has a cover story on this, and it had another one on this concept of the universe as a hologram projecting from a knowledge source outside our known dimensions).

The bottom line, therefore is, that we humans can understand the ultimate reality no more than a dog can solve difference equations. We simply lack the wiring to do that.

This resolves the conflict you see between the ``Weltanschauung of Science`` and the `` ``Weltanschauung of Religion``: In its own domain (i.e. in matters that we know - including all of science, politics, and so forth), the ``Weltanschauung of Science`` reigns supreme. However, in matters that we dont know and cannot know according to religion - God - the `` ``Weltanschauung of Science`` is no longer interested. Put simply, we are free to conjecture what happened in that cave 1400 years ago as long as we dont claim to know what actually happened. This also provides the basis of what I said in an earlier post below about religion being a personal matter - something that should not be mixed with politics or science.

This is fully consistent with the teachings of the Quran as well, as I understand them. Allah is supreme over everything, but is also unknownable. He resides outside the realm of science. Thus, IN THEORY, there is no conflict between the two.


I will now sadly admit that the above discussion is, however, quite irrelevant IN PRACTICE. This is because this is not the Islam that is practiced or promoted in Pakistan. The Islam that is promoted seeks to see Islam as a substitute for Science (or Political Theory), rather than as something an inspiration for something much, much higher - namely the Unknowable on the one hand, and as means for the individual to build character and self-respect.

Re: # 51

{#32, #33- Great going you use fictional tales to disprove something you know nothing about- great going; amazing methodology to decipher the truth. }

In #33 I just wrote what Sigmund Freud wrote in Lecture 35 in ``New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis.`` What I wrote was paraphrase of what he writes. Let me quote his exact words. This is from English translation of ``New Lectures`` published by Penguin Books as Volume 2 in Penguin Freud Library. I reproduce first three paragraphs of this lecture. The lecture title is ``The Question of a Weltanschauung``.

``Ladies and Gentlemen, - At our last meeting we were occupied with little everyday concerns - putting our own modest house in order, as it were. I propose that we should now take a bold leap and venture upon answering a question which is constantly being asked in other quarters: does psychoanalysis lead to a particular Weltanschauung and, if so, to which?

```Weltanschauung` is, I am afraid, a specifically German concept, the translation of which into foreign languages might well raise difficulties. If I try to give a definition of it, it is bound to be seen clumsy to you. In my opinion, then, a Weltanschauung is an intellectual construction which solves all the problems of our existence uniformly on the basis of one overriding hypothesis, which accordingly, leaves no question unanswered and in which everything that interests us finds its fixed place. It will easily be understood that the possession of a Weltanschauung of this kind is among the ideal wishes of human beings. Believing in it one can feel secure in life, one can know what to strive for, and how one can deal most expediently with one`s emotions and interests.

``If that is the nature of a Weltanschauung, the answer as regards psychoanalysis is made easy. As a specialist science, a branch of psychology - a depth-psychology or psychology of the unconscious - it is quite unfit to construct a Weltanschauung of its own: it must accept the scientific one. But the Weltanschauung of science already departs noticeably from our definition. It is true that it too assumes the uniformity of the explanation of the universe; but it does so only as programme, the fulfilment of which is relegated to future. Apart from this it is marked by negative characteristics, by its limitation to what is at the moment knowable and by its sharp rejection of certain elements that are alien to it. It asserts that there are no source knowledge of the universe other than the intellectual working-over of carefully scrutinized observations - in other words, what we call research - and alongside of it no knowledge derived from revelation, intuition or divination. It seems as though this view came very near to being generally recognized in the course of the last few centuries that have passed; and it has been left to our century to discover the presumptuous objection that a Weltanschauung like this is alike paltry and cheerless, that it overlooks the claims of the human intellect and needs of human mind.``[page 193-4]

How can you say that this is ``fictional tales``?

In fact you are the one who is using Ad Hominem argument. Your argument is as follows:

einsteinwallah is writing about something he knows nothing about.
einsteinwallah is writing ``fictional tales``.
einsteinwallah is therefore trash.
We are trying to have serious discussion.
We are discussing this brand new concept called ``Hermeneutics`` (which, forget einsteinwallah, even Albert Einstein would not understand).
Since einsteinwallah is writing non-serious fictional tales, his post is trash.

Islam is allegedly a most complete religion and as such it is alleged to have this property of being a Weltanschauung. Science is bound to have conflict with any Weltanschauung because it recognizes sovereignty of reason and observation. A scientist says what Muhammad sees I cannot see therefore Muhammad is wrong. The very fact that, a person of science will necessarily become an apostate of Islam and expose him/herself to ire of current executives and executioners of Islam, means Islam is already outmoded. Christianity solved this problem by taking wise advice of St. Augustine and Galileo. (Read Oxford University Press published book on Galileo in their ``A Very Short Introduction`` series. Author is: Stillman Drake)

{#33 you write <<>>

Great methods of argumentation, define the opposing argument yourself as a straw man, and then dismantle the straw man. Religion doesn’t give a complete system of thought it just points you in the correct direction, so that you see the inter connectedness between all things- there is nothing unscientific in that. The universe began as a singularity. }

I am defining nothing. The straw man has come into existence with works of Galileo and those who followed him. March of history cannot be stopped. You cannot say, okay, let us go back to pre-Galileo times. Science and its methods are here to stay.

{#36~ amazing move, from being a philosopher of science you move into the realm of psychology and give your diagnosis. That is the sorry case of you Quran deniers- which is that you have no case besides illogical Ad Hominem arguments. }

Let me ask. Supposing in present times somebody came to you and said that he has been receiving these messages from God. What would you think? Would you not think that the person is hallucinating? Where is any diagnosis at all? Seeing things other cannot see is hallucination. The concept of hallucination does not need any deep knowledge of psychology. Why judgment we would pass on somebody of present times should not also be passed on Muhammad?

Here also you yourself are using Ad Hominem method. First you are trashing me by saying that I am moving from being philosopher of science into realm of psychology as if this is some kind of clever maneuver some kind of ``move`` with ulterior motive. I am not a philosopher of science. Just as Shakespearewallah is not Shakespeare, einsteinwallah is not Einstein. ``einsteinwallah`` is just my userid. I am not moving from anything to any other thing.

Ad Hominem arguments are here in chowk everywhere. It is the content of messages you are supposed to reply. And my posts do not have Ad Hominem arguments. OTOH your post is full of it.

Here is some documentary evidence that goes to the heart of the matter:
<<<

July 12, 2000
Hearing Of the House International Relations Committee on ``Global Terrorism And South Asia.``

Chaired By: Representative Benjamin Gilman (R-NY)

Witnesses: Michael Sheehan, State Department Coordinator For Counterterrorism; Alan Eastham, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary Of State For South Asian Affairs

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank you very much for holding this hearing.

As we discuss terrorism in South Asia, I think it is important to renew the members of this committee`s and the public`s acquaintance with the request that I have made for the last three years concerning American policy toward the Taliban, because as we examine -- as we examine terrorism in South Asia, one can`t help but recognize that if it weren`t for the fact that the Taliban are in power, there would be a different equation going on.

It would be whole different situation in South Asia.

After a year of requesting to see State Department documents on Afghan policy -- and I would remind the committee that I have -- I have stated that I believe that there is a covert policy by this administration, a shameful covert policy of supporting the Taliban -- the State Department, after many, many months -- actually, years -- of prodding, finally began giving me documents, Mr. Chairman. And I have, in the assessment of those documents, I have found nothing to persuade me that I was wrong in my criticism. And I might add, however, that there has been no documents provided to me, even after all of these years of requesting it, there have been no documents concerning the time period of the formation of the Taliban. And I would, again, I would hope that the State Department gets the message that I expect to see all those documents. And the documents that I have read, Mr. Chairman, indicate that the State Department, time and again, has had as its position that they have no quarrel, or that it would give them no heartburn, to have the Taliban in power. This, during the time period when the Taliban was struggling to take over Afghanistan.

And although the administration has denied supporting the Taliban, it is clear that they discouraged all of the anti-Taliban supporters from supporting the efforts in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban. Even so much as when the Taliban was ripe for being defeated on the ground in Afghanistan, Bill Richardson and Rick Inderfurth, high-ranking members of this administration, personally visited the region in order to discourage the Taliban`s opposition from attacking the Taliban when they were vulnerable, and then going to neighboring countries to cut off any type of military assistance to the [opponents of the] Taliban. This, at a time when Pakistan was heavily resupplying and rearming the Taliban.

What did this lead to? It led to the defeat of all of the Taliban`s major enemies except for one, Commander Massoud, in the north, and left the Taliban the supreme power in Afghanistan.

So what we hear today about terrorism and crocodile tears from this administration, let us remember this administration is responsible for the Taliban. This administration has acted in a way that has kept the Taliban in power.

#76, religion when understood as a strictly personal matter leads to atrocities not when it is understood as a public ``humanitarian`` matter. When religion has defaulted its moral and political mooring is when it has been used as a reactionary force by the powers that be for their various ends. When religion is reduced to the realm of the private it becomes merely symbolic and then its symbols are exploited by the powers that be

#78. It was a proxy cold war that the US had been fighting with the soviets in Afghanistan long before the Soviets were lured in there, via Iran and the Shah. The US started its indoctrination campaign at least 5 months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. President Carter authorized this direct support (as have various US regimes to the rightists fighting the leftists) and was told by Zbigniew Brzezinski told Carter ````I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.``- you can read his interview here
http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/104868

The US/CIA covert operation there was clearly aimed at indoctrination, that is how they work. The other name associated with this campaign was of Zalmay Khalilzad, the same Neo-Con reactionary who was pushing for war with Iraq. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were wars of liberation being supported by the US. You are also forgetting the role of Iran after the US left a power vacuum there. The Masud group was being supported by Iran and the US provided implicit support to the Taliban, even invited a delegation to visit the US for oil/gas talks. The Clinton missile attacks you mention were for home consumption, they had no military significance. They were a joke, more or less.

The ``evil`` regime you mention did no more ``evil`` than the Mujahideen were doing in Afghanistan before they reappeared under the title of ``Taliban``. You point me to a biased source, even back then the US was denying helping the Mujahideen when it clearly was, like the lies that revealed Iran/Contra. You have to look at the socio-political context that gave birth to the Taliban, it is the same context that gave rise to the Afghan ``holy war`` which started long before the soviet invasion, it was the same context that removed Bhutto and brought Zia to power. It stinks of US intervention by fact and proxy.

You are also forgetting that regardless of label (Tiliban or Mujahideen), those people had their origin in the same area and the same camps that fueled the Jihadist atmosphere during the soviet/afghan war. That pipeline was constructed, maintained and radicalized by the US.

masadi #75 I think sir that you need to read a good book (or books) on the Soviet-Afghanistan War and its aftermath. Your are not clear on the facts of the situation by any means.

this may have been before your time, but contrary to your belief that ``Taliban were merely the faction that the US and its indigeneous base in Pakistan, the Pakistan Army supported``, the fact is that no one had heard of the taliban until after the soviets were out in 1989 or so. Far from supporting the taliban, the US at best tolerated the Pakistan support to them in the 1990`s. in the mid-1990`s, the US even launched in fact lauched a missile strike against ben ladin inside taliban-ruled afghanistan. in addition, according to accounts i have read, it is clear that the UK was directly supporting massoud in the 1990`s - who was clearly the leading figure in the struggle against the soviets and later against the taliban. This was while pakistan was supporting the taliban. It is only after the US told pakistan ``you are either with us or against us`` that pakistan finally relinquished its support for this evil regime.

Also, you are not correct when refer to the ``the US indoctrination of the mujahideen``, and indeed unduly belittle the legitimate desire for freedom of the afghan people that feuled this war. Contrary to your understanding that the afghan freedom fighters had started their resistance war in 1979 before the US stepped in in any significant way. They were running into trouble due to soviet use of the Hind helicopter in particular. The US then stepped in in a big way around 1982 to provide the mujahedeen an effective countermeasure to the Hind, namely the Stinger missile, along with massive increases in aid. Read ``Charlie Wilson`s War`` (Charlie Wilson being the congressman who spearheaded the US increased funding for the war, and also rounded up funds from the saudis, as well as weapons from countries around the world - egypt and so forth).

it is OK to have differences of opinions. But not OK to not be aware of basic facts and to form opinions based on hearsay. I suggest you study the history of the Soviet-Afghan war and its aftermath before reaching conclusions, the same way as you have done wrt the Quran.

anil #69 religion is indeed a personal matter between the individual and God. It has been forced into the public sphere by those seeking to earn a living by conducting religious rituals, and (when they get more ambitious) to seek power over society by setting themselves up as the spokesmen for God. The latter has turned religion into a dysfunctional factor in society. That is my view.

#74, the military in Pakistan has always proved to be convenient to the US,- the Taliban were merely the faction that the US and its indigeneous base in Pakistan, the Pakistan Army supported. The CIA/Mujahedeen connection was the rise of the distorted Islam gaining power in the political arena of Afghanistan, so I would blame them.

Religion, be it distorted forms of it, have been used by the political and economic institutions for their various agendas, such was the case behind the US indoctrination of the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the soviets; therein the Taliban had their origin. We see a complete absence of such a phenomenon in the pre-Mujahideen era.

In #74, the second sentence should start ``On #70...``, and not ``On #72...``. sorry.

masadi #73 good points in your responses to posts #68/71/72.

On #72 the facts point in the other direction: i.e. the basic determinants underlying the dysfunctional rule of the taliban were (1) the casting of primitive traditions as ``Islam``, when in fact they are often a violation of the basic teachings of Islam, which of course is a broader problem pervading all muslim societies; and (2) the role of the Pakistan military. The CIA no doubt provided arms throughout the 1980`s - but those arms were to fight the soviet invaders. Once the last soviet soldier had left (1989 I think), the US moved on to far bigger things - namely the breakdown of the soviet empire itself. Guess who stepped into the power vacuum? our own pakistan military, which proceeded to help the taliban (arms, advisers) that helped them take Kabul within a couple of years of the soviet departure.

These facts are important to keep straight, since they point to the great importance of ending the confusion over religion that exists in Pakistan. We will never have a working democracy as long as military interference in politics (i.e. 2 above) as well as ignorance of the peaceful message of Quranic teachings among muslims (i.e. 1 above) exists. Blaming CIA for the above, as for every other problem on earth, is a convenient thing to do - but is a cop out from the real causes of these problems.

#68, the Quran contains God`s message/system for humanity. It does not contain everything for everybody unless it is distorted. The Sura you quote does away with the mullah version of Islam, it is stating very clearly that your ``namaz`` is totally worthless if people`s basic needs are not being met. That my friend is the humanitarian message of the Quran, unsurpassed in either the religious or the secular worlds- expressed in just a few words.

#71, you apparently have no idea about contexulization of the text, so the rest of your rambling is immaterial. Learn what it means first. Religion as a dependent variable has been used and abused by those in command postions of the economic and political domains, it has happened for all religions iincluding Islam. George Bush talks to ``god`` often as well. Contexualization of the text means reading the Quran within the logical boundaries of interpretation that it has defined for itself, which is closely related to the use of words and ideas within the text of the Quran itslef. Unlike Maudoodi and Israr, it does not associate other words with the words of the Quran~ it doesnt accept that baggage that entered Islam under the banner of hadith and fiqh to start with.

#72, pondering, reflection, arguing is a major part of the Quran`s invocations, therefore writing is a big part of Islam, as is reading and reasoning

#70, the Taliban had a context and a cause, that cause can be found more in the CIA and America than in the Quran- I rest my (damn) case.

this guy has gathered so many things in one article and i believe on each thing which he tried to gather......an article can be written.....and in the end he just fluctuate the article rather gathering it.......
and would like to say islam is a religion of practice instead making comments or writing articles....i ain`t saying writing articles on islam or QURRAN either is a bad thing....but i am trying to say practicing islamic values is a good things....this is the big threat for other people around you belong to other religions if you practice exactly what ALLAH has said in QURRAN and hazrat MUHAMMAD SAW has done in his life....but we muslims just make comments....this is why today american soldiers are disgracing islam by putting QURRAN PAK in toilet.....(sorry to say but this is truth,and no one can deny this bitter truth)so in the end i am pleating my post by saying it again islam is the religion of practice......that`s it

Contextualization of the text is indeed the most important ingredient in an `understanding` of the text. Much of `religious scholarship` of the likes of Dr. Israr Ahmeds and Moudidis consist of spreading the political propoganda than praising the almighty...............................all worded in the form of political propagandas to achieve domination over other humans in the guise of spreading brotherhood..............................such contextualization of the texts takes away the agenda of domination over other discourses by espousing certain `immutable discourses` by the likes of Mr. Masadi......................

#66 by Urstruly

[If burner was extinguished by colonization and neo-colonization, then logically it makes sense to remove the effects that caused so.]

How very logical! Even more logical would be your move back to Pakistan, or more specifically the NWFP where your MMA chums are in power.

Being colonized by force is bad enough, but going abroad to get colonized like you have done is worse. I wish proponents of Islamic rule here like you and masadi had the experience of living under the Taliban in Afghanistan and seen first-hand the wonders of an Islamic (Riba-free) economy sans foreign influence.

Re: # 64

Tahmad Sahib:

Is it then correct that you also seem to belive and practice that religious belief belong in the personal space?

Anil Kapuria

Quran is a great book. It being user oriented has every thing for every body - Hadood for the despot and the tyrant; and rituals and terrorism for the Taghooti Mullah. As for common Muslim meaning `Maghloob` like me is Soora Maoon as interpretted hereunder:-


SMALL KINDNESSES ( Soora-e-Maoon, 107)

Have you seen that who belies deen (as it enjoins human welfare)?

That is he who repels the orphan (i.e. indigent).

And urges not the feeding of the needy.

Ah, woe unto worshipers (That is, ‘Musallin’ who call themselves ‘Namazi’)

Who are heedless of the real objective of the Salaat (which they call ‘Namaaz’)

Whose purpose is to make a show of their worship (To impress people with their religiosity)

Yet refuse (obstruct) small kindnesses (selfless human welfare)

#66 great point

Re: # 65

If burner was extinguished by colonization and neo-colonization, then logically it makes sense to remove the effects that caused so. In other words we cannot benefit the social aspect of our religion as long as there is a disconnect between our beliefs and the demand they put on us (socially). If our understanding is correct then this disconnect can only be repaired if not only we break the shackles and chains neo-colonialists but also eliminate the social class among us that has been propped up by them as the custodian of their interests.

#60 & #64 yes, religion (not only what is labelled Islamic) has unfortunately become a joke in today`s world due to the political and moral default of its purported practitioners. Instead of being concerned with the end result of what the Quran desires, a socially conscious, humanitarian, free human being, the believers have become busy with formulas, they have converted means (eg the ritual of prayer) into ends and lost touch with the actual end purpose . In that capacity religion becomes merely a distraction from reality and a total distortion of what actually is Islam according to the Quran.

Kulharee sahib, the burner was deliberately extinguished through generations of colonization, and now neo-colonization where buying F-16s worth billions and howitzers worth tens of millions is more important for pleasing the American masters, than social services and education. IMF/WB requirements dictate much the same.

malikjahanzeb #63 I dont think there is any change in my basic views - i.e. while I have always been very comfortable (and remain comfortable) with my being a muslim, this is based on MY understanding of the message of Islam, NOT the one that I admit is prevalent in the muslim world, is preached in mosques, practiced at homes (e.g. in the form of ``magic emblems`` to ward of evil in the form of ayaats from the Quran), and certainly not the one emphasized by power hungry men. I realize that this view is not what commonly passes for Islam today in any muslim country in the world, and that is fine since I am not interested in convincing anyone to sharing my views (although I am happy to discuss it on chowk, of course).

What you find different is my reference to the practical implications for what is considered to be Islam by most people. And there I agree that it has proved to be a major impediment to progress in Pakistan and the root of many evils.

tahmed32:

I sense that you are in the process of making an idealogical shift towards a better alternative. You are still in early stages of doing that but the change can be sensed.

For me, it is good to see that. Just don`t let personal reasons come in the way.

kulharee: ``You guys are waving your lantern without any burner or lite in it. ``

ha! ha! you come up with good ones sometimes, esteemed mr. kulharee.

Is religion a net benefit to society? i.e. has it done more harm than good? I think today, at least in Pakistan, there is no question that religion (not Islam per se, which is very simple and straightforward matter, but the meal that has been made out of it in muslim countries) is a major impediment to social, political and economic progress.

Most people pray because they are dead-scared of hell and so try to balance off their debits (sins) with credits - not because they find prayer to be a healthy source of reflection. Most people do the hajj for the same reason.

The above is bad enough. It gets worse when men try to gain political power by using Islam. Most people accept any bs that is put forward under the label of ``Islam`` (whether it is piree faqeeri, or justification for dictatorships, or creation of a legal basis for tyranny over the poor) in Pakistan not because they are stupid but because they are scared of hell. Power hungry men exploit this moral weakness, and so have created hellish conditions for the poor in Pakistan, and probably will end up in hell themselves anyway as a result. Poetic justice.

Understanding Quran (and that too in Arabic) is a joke considering that the average literacy rates among muslims fluctuates between 3 and 19%. You guys are waving your lantern without any burner or lite in it.

#58, evolutionists practice scientism, science as an ideology rather than a method, I practice science as method, I rest my case as well.

Re: # 57

sorry. that should have been scientism.

Re: # 55
There is science. And there is scietism. I rest my case. Hopefully finally this time!!!

#50 you write <<< Almost 1.5 Billion people believe that there was immaculate conception 2006 years ago.

Over 1 Billion believe that God was deeply interested in Arabic verses about 600 years later.

Several thousand years before that we are told Moses was up to the same tricks. >>>

No big deal about the immaculate conception, as fact it can be reproduced in the lab today. How the constants of nature have the values they have for no natural reason, which led to the universe having a particular shape and being fit for life is a much bigger wonder and miracle than any immaculate conception.

Your comments about Muslims is an incoherent ramble and not much else. The Quran was revealed to the Arab society at first, it was in Arabic, they were expected to take it to the rest of the world, humankind, just like other communities had had thier messengers, same message but different language, what`s so difficult to understand about that?
What tricks was moses up to?

All this reveals is that you have absolutely no clue about what you`re talking about.

#54, infallibility, is item specific and is itself a claim that is very open to testing. Where it comes to social recommendations the criteria is benefit to humanity and not infallibility there can be no true or false policy and so on.

The analysis part comes first, the word of God (based on assumptions associated with that claim), follows only later, after it is established scientifically. What is so difficult to understand in this? Just like a hypothesis is tested scientifically before being accepted or discarded, we can test the hypothesis of the Quran being from an all-knowing creator before we accept its claim of being from a creator: the claim comes with certain assumptions about the concepts involved in the claim, those can be logically and scientifically tested; unless you don`t accept the scientific system of inquiry. In that case you will have to show me a better way at arriving at truth~ so far the method of science is the only valid system that people can use to get to the truth and facts.

Qur`an must be an interesting and wonderful text full of valid guidance for leading a fulfilling life. And like any other text it is also open to interpretation. No one can argue with that. One is making a very simple and humble, but one hopes, yet pertinent point.

It is impossible for any person to analyse a text in an interpretative framework if the same person holds the same text to be infalliable.

This holds true for Qur`an also. One cannot hold the belief that Qur`an is the literal word of god and then analyze it also. Interpretation involves being `scientific` , which means believing that all human attempts at truth are approximations of a reality out there.

#52, capitalism survives on mythology and symbols too, and many of those symbols and status enhancing bs is being used by IT proponents on here as well. Common myths of capitalism that is nurtured upon inequality are 1. US is classless society 2. There is equal opportunity for all 3. Education is the great equalizer and so on. 4. Developing countries are not developed because of their own faults, they have equal opportunities compared to developed countries etc. All myths that perpetuate a capitalist world system.

“Is Qura’n meant for Arabs only? ”
I did not find a succinct answer to the authors own question.
Of course it is not only for Arabs. No book or any written statement is , unless stamped “Strictly Confidential” ; irrespective of what language it is written in. Magna Carta, for example, though meant for English gentry and written in their language had a profound effect on the peoples of the world. ‘Thought’ has no language of its own but has to be expressed in the thinker’s language and place of abode, and so it is with Qura’n.
However the question itself is of immance significance.
The institution of Church, thrives on ‘icons’ and invents them for its sustenance and strength. This is the case with every thing Arabic. Suffice it to say that by propagating the holiness of the locale and the language, the Muslim ‘piety industry’ as a whole and its patrons the Arabs have, and are benefiting enormously at the expense of the ignorant multitude. Even the Arab dress is now concidered ``Islamic``.
To elaborate on the above, I was told of the following incident that occurred in Cairo:
“ While walking on the street my companion picked up a sheet of paper, dusted it, kissed it and put it in his pocket to dispose of it appropriately by setting it alight at home”—on questioning his action he informed that the page has Arabic writing on it and “it is sinful to step on it”. The sheet happened to be a page from a girly Arabic magazine!
Rashid

Amazing amount of BS and speculation and Ad Hominem attacks you all have produced in just a few hours. How can you all live your lives like this? Not one of your contentions is backed up by any reference, not a single one makes a case using anything factual. You construct straw men, throw out few random verses and mix them up in Ad Hominem attacks against the prophet and then you assume you’ve disproven Islam. You pretend to be anthropologist, psychologist, historian at the same time, yet don’t present a single iota of reference literature.

#32, #33- Great going you use fictional tales to disprove something you know nothing about- great going; amazing methodology to decipher the truth.

#33 you write <<>>

Great methods of argumentation, define the opposing argument yourself as a straw man, and then dismantle the straw man. Religion doesn’t give a complete system of thought it just points you in the correct direction, so that you see the inter connectedness between all things- there is nothing unscientific in that. The universe began as a singularity.

#34 there is ample proof see http://www.rationalreality.com and follow the linked articles. Read them first before blabbering on here how it is all nonsense.

#36~ amazing move, from being a philosopher of science you move into the realm of psychology and give your diagnosis. That is the sorry case of you Quran deniers- which is that you have no case besides illogical Ad Hominem arguments.

#37, to decipher evolution scientists look at indirect evidence. Whatever you see in the Universe forms less than 10% of matter, the rest is dark matter and dark energy- what is the tangible ``direct`` proof that they exist- you cannot see them? Ample indirect evidence exists in support of the god hypothesis see http://god.rationalreality.com

#38 you say <<< Only if there is talk can people overcome their inhibitions and lifelong brain washing >>> true, if you read the Quran properly you’d recognize its methodology is the same, give argumentation, point to nature, discuss using logic so that the blinders that people develop living in their society are removed for something that is based on reality. When the corporate media feeds you BS about Islam 24/7, chances are you’ll be brain washed. All these damn fools and idiots came out of the woodwork after 9/11, all claiming to ``know`` Islam when they know damn all about it.

#39 really, you mean to tell me there is no concept of Justice in Hinduism, you can go on a killing spree and no one will punish you? How about you give up Hindu mythology and find yourself reincarnated as a monkey? That shouldn’t stop you from giving up the mythology since monkeys live a freer life than what is offered to humans in America.

#48 - I think you have to believe. There is no evidence for the more profound things.

How did Morpheus know that Neo was the one? I mean, come on. Not everyone is a blithering idiot. Some of us know - just like Morpheus did. And Neo saved Zion! [refer to Matrix series]

Moving on ...

Almost 1.5 Billion people believe that there was immaculate conception 2006 years ago.

Over 1 Billion believe that God was deeply interested in Arabic verses about 600 years later.

Several thousand years before that we are told Moses was up to the same tricks.

The colorful Hindus have no shortage of their own indigenous wonders. I mean why would anyone leave the Hindu fold? They have everything that anyone could need.

We all know that there is no evidence that can be produced. Just like there is no evidence that Bush has a brain, Gates is a genius, Diana is dead or alive OR did she even exist, and so on.

I think the best chapter/verses in Quran is 33, revelations from Allah regarding Prophet`s wives..

I was ROFL`ing.. when Allah would ``reveal`` it is Ok for the Prophet to take as many wives but limiting the choices to other ``believers``.. and also instruct ``Prophet`s wives`` on how they will get ``double rewards`` / ``double punishments``.. Looks like even the ``carrot and stick`` policy is invented by Quran.. :-))

---

033.028
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! Say to thy Consorts: ``If it be that ye desire the life of this World, and its glitter,- then come! I will provide for your enjoyment and set you free in a handsome manner.

033.029
YUSUFALI: But if ye seek Allah and His Messenger, and the Home of the Hereafter, verily Allah has prepared for the well-doers amongst you a great reward.

033.030
YUSUFALI: O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for Allah.

033.031
YUSUFALI: But any of you that is devout in the service of Allah and His Messenger, and works righteousness,- to her shall We grant her reward twice: and We have prepared for her a generous Sustenance.

033.032
YUSUFALI: O Consorts of the Prophet! Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if ye do fear (Allah), be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just.

033.033
YUSUFALI: And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.


033.050
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

033.051
YUSUFALI: Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to the cooling of their eyes, the prevention of their grief, and their satisfaction - that of all of them - with that which thou hast to give them: and Allah knows (all) that is in your hearts: and Allah is All-Knowing, Most Forbearing.

masadi,

..... the more i think about it, the more curious i get ....... is there any proof that the koran is the word of god ? ..... witnesses, eye witness reports, circumstantial evidence, forensic evidence, etc. etc ? ........ the usual stuff, you know ......from what i have heard, the only witnesses were ali, his nephew, and khadija who bankrolled the venture and therefore had a vested interest in propagating the company line ...........

..... it is hard to believe that god could write such a book...... today i doubt any serious publisher would take a second look at the manuscript, and god would have to find another line of work to make a living - writing is obviously not his strong suite ....

Re: # 41

A somewhat similar chllenge was made by Ustad Imam Din, a Punjabi poet of Gujerat, but nobody seems to have dared to accept that challenge to this day. Why? The questioon is who will be the Judge? Mind dear Quran also says that those who do not use their `aql` (the gretest gift of Allah to humans) are worse than animals.

Re: # 18: the reason you can`t use your basis of argument is that your logic is circular. QUran is the word of god..why..because it says so in the quran. Nice logic...

why do you folks need to prove faith? it is asinine..makes mockery of islam.

#44

``........Hitler COULD pull it off in 1940.......``


And Bush is pulling it off .... right in front of us....

On the heaps of lies and deciet and plain arrogance.....

To add to #43:

The very concept of Un-believers is proof enough that When Mohamad came and told the people in his village that he had visions from god, then obviously nobody believed him and those became un-believers. Mo regularly had delusions of god and him being prophet. Initially he was laughed at and ridiculed but then events took a turn and favored him. He went to Medina with his men and luckily he won a battle with fewer men. It always happens. There are various factors for it. The major one maybe the fearlessness of his followers for they are assured HEAVEN and 72 virgins if they die in the battle field. Now the tribals without education or means for a living THAT promise itself is indeed heaven.

Then his job becomes easier to convince the IGNORANT tribals that he indeed is the prophet. Then you dont even have to have delusions anymore. All you need is say whatever you want as gods words and thats it. Now with a bigger force behind Mo, he comes back and conquers Mecca and the people who ridiculed him. Maybe we atleast should give him credit for being a decent warrior. Heck, Hitler COULD pull it off in 1940s in the midst of full blown science and technological development and educated people. Why couldn`t Mo not have done it in an il-literate, ignorant arabia?

#40 flatlanders:

A belief system is still a strong motivator for the humans to tide off the tough times in life. Somebody with belief in god can always fare better during moments of utter crisis and desperation for the very survival since people can always gain strength in the power of God. So there is nothing wrong with the inherent belief in something that is superhuman. We dont have to debate if that Super-human god is present or not. It is beyond our vision.

That super-human god can have any name you want, depending on your own culture or language or environment. Calling god by Hindi or arabic or mandarin doesn`t change the super-human nature of god. Neither does seeking strength by prayer in a temple or mosque or church change the super-human nature of god. Also, it doesn`t change the super-human nature of god if you call urself muslim or hindu or christian. This is the essence of Hindu philosophy WHICH is misconstrued and demonized as Polytheism by the ignorant tribal arabs and hebrew tribals. So the point is the belief in god per se is not wrong. But calling others as evil/satan and believing they go to hell gets into the realm of dogmas and tribal myths.

Is the Hindu philosophy divine and given by god to Humans. NO. Knowledgeable Hindus enlightened by years of rational questions about god and universe have evolved to be tolerant and inclusive since they had the luxury of wealth and huge resources to afford to be inclusive. But the tribal hebrews and arabs living in resource poor deserts CANNOT afford to be inclusive since the desert environment cant provide for everybody. So they had to closely identify who is their tribe and who is not to use their mimimal resource more usefully. Thats the reason for the, if you are not one of us you are evil/satan theory. In a tribal world with minimal resources if one tribe raids another and runs away with their stored food then it means death during a harsh summer. So no wonder they called those who are not themselves as evil. They are constantly fighting for their very survival year in and year out. The same applies to the COLD Europe and Christianity and their satan myths.

Whereas in a resource rich India(and China) , you have year round crops since the land is fertile and you can afford to be inclusive and one single act of plunder doesn`t mean death. It only means bad karma. Now people who evolve with this luxury of assured resources year round have the time to think about philosophy, growth and developement INSTEAD of always fighting for survival. It becomes a cyclical evolution.

There is NO other land in the whole earth with the combination of right environment, size, huge resources and the resultant huge numbers. Thats the reason why whenever India was attacked they could go south re-group and come back and attack the muslims. Thats the reason why the muslim invaders never could conquer India one last time like they could with a desert Persia or a desert Egypt. Same applies to Europe, Americas and Africa. But not to India and China. Both had the luxury of size and resources spread almost evenly in their huge land mass. If the southern India had been a desert then the story could be much like the Persians. So its always RESOURCES the stupid.

Now, to try to come to such solution you need to READ a lot and research and analyze a lot. How can a muslim who is taught that Koran is the source of all the GENIUS of the world read something else and learn and evolve. Whereas a hindu growing up with a culture of question everything including GITA adapts and changes faster and are ready to dump GITA if it doesn`t serve them to move on.

Watch the growth of the Europeans after the mass that makes a difference dumped the Bible and moved on. Muslims never had that kind of opportunity or leadership to make the jump on their own. But now they dont have a choice and will be made to jump kicking and screaming by the rest of the world.

#41 - also called a self-fulfilling prophecy. Damned if you do and damned if you dont. This dust is certainly raw!

Hermeneutics and other gimmics - a boobytrap?
Allah Mian says:


02:23:
SHAKIR: And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful.

02:24:
SHAKIR: But if you do (it) not and never shall you do (it), then be on your guard against the fire of which men and stones are the fuel; it is prepared for the unbelievers.

#39 - ``.. what happened to the Dinausaurs which didn`t or couldn`t adapt. Islam and Christianity wont survive this century with their dogmas. They will eventually get diluted and they will become more spiritual. ``

Good point. May you be right. As a born muslim I would prefer to have a belief system that creates peace and harmony. I always thought my religion did that until I took the trouble of reading it and asking questions. Now I am rudderless and find solace in philosophy, humility and other such things. My world is simple.

#37 Parthaab, Sailen, Einsteinwallah, macgupta and other Hindus:

The very reason why Hindus are able to make a few mental jumps which the mullah muslims find very hard to make is coz hindu philosophy has no DOGMAS which tells that the hindus will go to some imaginary hell if they jump the Hindu ship of myths. So this gives infinitely more freedom to think out of the box for a hindu. So it gives an average hindu enough leverage and gives them a chance to adapt and change faster. Thats the reason for their longevity(5000+ years of civilizational continuity) despite huge odds. The same reason applies to the taoist chinese. That and Huge Indian/Chinese resources and size are the reasons why the ALL CONQUERING Christianity and Islam which conquered the entire Europe, Americas, Africa, Parts of asia came to a grinding halt when they faced the hindu-taoist-buddhist INDIA-CHINA-Japan. Other than this 2.5 billion mega group, the rest are all either christian or muslim for the most part.

It is infinitely difficult for mullahs like masadi and tahmed to make the same jump coz the arab tribal dogmas threaten them with fatwas and death and hell if they jump the arab ship of myths. We all what happened to the Dinausaurs which didn`t or couldn`t adapt. Islam and Christianity wont survive this century with their dogmas. They will eventually get diluted and they will become more spiritual.

#36 - most people dont like to believe it. It is cretainly in the realm of possibility (i remember my mushroom experience quite vividly :=)). There is a lot of ``believing`` and much of it blind if this is not considered a possibility. I dont want to hurt anyones feelings but at a pure discussion level, this possibility needs to be recognized. Similarly, one must ask the question, is God the dad of Jesus and how? I mean we have serious problems - doesnt matter if you are of any religion. There are plenty of bizarre expectations made from people who follow faith. This article and similar efforts are needed badly to help people see inside their so-called blind-spots. Only if there is talk can people overcome their inhibitions and lifelong brain washing. There is no way that there are different gods handling different religions - we all connect somewhere. We must strive to cross our repective chasms and connect.

The point is, if God really does exist, it would be easy to prove, as there would be tangible evidence. What we have instead is standard mass delusion.

Religion exists solely because people don`t understand stuff and look for meaning, even though all that does is move the problem elsewhere. (I.e. where did God come from)

The actual religions and the sources they`re based on are totally irrational, not least because each one claims to be right. That shows just how hard it is to understand `God`s will`.

Once you alight on the reasonable assertion that religion is *just* organised mass delusion, everything fits neatly into place.

God won`t save the poor from devastation because there is no God.

Rama, Mohamed and Jesus, The Holy Ramayana, The Holy Quran and The Holy Bible, didn`t save the human race, because there`s no saving to be done. Hell and Heaven don`t exist. Full Stop.

Is it possible that Muhammad hallucinated all or at least some revelations? From what I know of his circumstance at the time it happened he was starving or eating certain food. If you eat same type of food over and over you may deprive yourself of some essential nutrient and then you may have frank psychiatric symptoms. It is possible.

Re: # 33

thanks

........ just curious ...

........ is there any ``proof`` that the koran is the word of god ?...... were there any witnesses to the event ?.... did anyone, other than mo of mecca, see the winged creature in the cave ?........... are ali and khadija reliable witnesses ?........

.......... anyhow, it doesn`t really matter whether it is the word of god or not ..... what matters is that a billion people believe in it and are beginning to become a real pain in the collective keester of the rest of the world ...........

A Weltanschauung solves all the problems of existence uniformly on the basis of one overriding hypothesis leaving no question unanswered. In Science uniformity of explanation of universe is assumed but not as a completed task rather as a programme which furnishes progressively more accurate version of truth. While Science is doing its work the truth is known approximately and that state of affairs remains in Science forever. Therefore, the term “Scientific Weltanschauung” is oxymoron.

Religion tries to give a Weltanschauung; a complete system of thought. Since the birth of Science even a littlest acceptance of science’s methods is bound to lead to rejection of any Weltanschauung type of thinking.

Re: # 31

sorry

it`s

www.warriorofthelight.com

``The devil was talking to his friends when they noticed a man walking along a road. They watched him pass and saw that he bent down to pick something up.
- What did he find? - asked one of the friends.
- A piece of Truth - answered the devil.
The friends were very concerned. After all, a piece of Truth might save that man`s soul - one less in Hell. But the devil remained unmoved, gazing at the view.
- Aren`t you worried? - said one of his companions. - He found a piece of Truth!
- I`m not worried - answered the devil. - Do you know what he`ll do with the piece? As usual, he`ll create a new religion. And he`ll succeed in distancing even more people from the whole Truth.``

From www.thewarriorofthelight.com

`` Nasrudin decided to go in search of some new meditation techniques. He saddled his donkey, went to India, China and Mongolia, talked to the great masters, but found nothing.
He heard tell of a wise man in Nepal: he journeyed there, but as he was climbing the mountain to meet him, his donkey died of exhaustion. Nasrudin buried him there and then, and wept sadly. Someone passed by and commented:
- You came in search of a saint, this must be his tomb and you are lamenting his death.
- No, this is the place where I buried my donkey, who died of exhaustion.
- I don`t believe it - said the new arrival. - No one weeps over a dead donkey. This must be a place where miracles occur, and you want to keep them for yourself.
Although Nasrudin explained again and again, it was no use. The man went to the next village and spread the story of a great master who cured people at his tomb, and soon the pilgrims began to arrive.
Gradually, news of the discovery of the Wise Man of Silent Mourning spread throughout Nepal - and crowds rushed to the place. A wealthy man came, thought his prayers had been answered, and built an imposing monument where Nasrudin had buried his ``master``.
In view of everything, Nasrudin decided to leave things as they were. But he learned once and for all, that when someone wants to believe a lie, no one can convince him otherwise. ``

From - www.warriorofthelight.com

#28, correct, similarly another verse of the Quran states ``seeing they see not, hearing they hear not..`` which refers to the same phenomenon you talk about. Also note in that verse that the idea of believing and rejecting comes after argumentation (the context), thus the believing does not refer to label or being born Muslim etc.

#27, Ali Sina is having a field day with that news report. He has declared victory over Islam. Many of his trolls roam Chowk as well, randomly firing at Islam. However, the Pentagon should read the Old Testament for radicalism

EZEKIEL 6:12-13 The Lord says: ``... they will fall by the sword, famine and plague. He that is far away will die of the plague, and he that is near will fall by the sword, and he that survives and is spared will die of famine. So will I spend my wrath upon them. And they will know I am the Lord, when the people lie slain among their idols around their altars, on every high hill and on all the mountaintops, under every spreading tree and every leafy oak....``

Or Maybe they should raid Pat Robertson`s mansion for his New Testament has this quote:

``For those enemies of mine who would not have me reign over them bring them here and slay them before me.`` (Jesus Christ in Luke 19:27)

Good day to you all.

masadi #26 This is a very relevant quote indeed that you provide. The verse is reveals a very human peculiarity that is well recognized by psychologists too I think - Back in 1986, I attended a management training seminar (organized by a top-knotch international agency) where they told us about how the human mind ``filters out`` information that is contrary to its preconceived notions. Put simply, we tend to hear what only we like to hear.

This Quranic verse you provide resonates that idea - thus, in case of the first example of ``muslim myths`` that I provide in #25 (i.e. individual responsibility to use one`s common sense, even if it goes contrary to generally accepted traditions and conventions), people who are afraid to think for themselves and are tradition bound cannot be accepted to believe the Quran when it says otherwise. Similarly for the second myth, i.e. that muslims are something special, insecure people cannot be expected to believe the Quran when it says that there is nothing special about being a muslim and that all religions come from God.

Of course, these ``filters`` apply to everyone - not just to those who fall in the category of ``traditional muslims`` in Pakistan, but to you and me as well. Thus, this verse you provide is a reminder that we need to retain an open mind to all information and to take responsibility for reaching reasonable conclusions based on this. But to ``believe`` the verse, we need to have the basic mindset (through training, education and so forth) to do so. It is a Catch-22 situation in a way, but one where there is a way out if one has faith in oneself.

This may be of interest:

The Pentagon Breaks the Islam Taboo

Now for the first time, a key Pentagon intelligence agency involved in homeland security is delving into Islam`s holy texts to answer whether Islam is being radicalized by the terrorists or is already radical.

#25, From the Quran itself:


``Whether it is Arabic or non-Arabic, say, ``For those who believe, it is a guide and healing. As for those who disbelieve, they will be deaf and blind to it, as if they are being addressed from faraway.`` (Quran 41:44)

Let me restate #24 since one of the sentences is messed up:

Forget about hermeneutics and other scholarly refinements. We are talking about basics here: the Quran clearly says things that are the opposite of the general muslim culture today. For example, to look at the issues raised in this article:

1. Myth: As expressed in a modest manner in this article - ``Raised in a Muslim family and as an unthinking person in matters of faith, I have generally never questioned the validity of my parents’ faith``.

Fact: The Quran explicitly says that in matters of faith it is the individual`s responsibility before God to distinguish between right and wrong AND if the faith of his parents does not make sense, it is the responsibility of that individual to reject the faith of his parents (while maintaining, of course, his love and respect for them). I have found the Quran to be most liberating in the sense that it reinforces my belief in using my common sense and in the importance of individual responsibility. Of course, common sense is quite uncommon, as someone said. Particularly in the muslim world.

2. Myth: The Quran is meant for all people.

Fact: The Quran explicitly says that it is the ``ARABIC Quran``, meant for a people (i.e. Arabs) who did not understand other languages in which the message had been previously revealed (i.e. Aramaic, Hebrew etc.). Does this mean that those who do not understand Arabic cannot be muslims? Of course not - AS LONG AS they read the Quran the way it was meant to be read, i.e. as a book to be understood. Not as a magical incantation to be repeated in hopes of obtaining ``sawab``.

Forget about hermeneutics and other scholarly refinements. We are talking about basics here: the Quran clearly says things that are the opposite of the general muslim culture today. For example, to look at the issues raised in this article:

1. Myth: As expressed in a modest manner in this article - ``Raised in a Muslim family and as an unthinking person in matters of faith, I have generally never questioned the validity of my parents’ faith``.
Fact: The Quran explicitly says that in matters of faith it is the individual`s responsibility before God AND that if that the individual may reject the faith of his parents (while maintaining, of course, his love and respect for them).

2. Myth: The Quran is meant for all people.
Fact: The Quran explicitly says that