Ethicalhumanist vs. Zahid.

 The following debate is taken from The Society For Islamic Humanists

Ethicalhumanist

message # 337

Dear Zahid: I know time is a scarce commodity for you, so I decided to summarize my questions to you in a single post (almost like a question paper!) -- and you don't have to waste time searching for my questions from previous posts. When you answer, please refer to the questions with the pre-assigned numbers (1 to 7).

Question #1: Bipedalsim (two legged walking) among early hominids arose 4 million years ago when arboreal (tree-based travelling ceased) among our ancestors. Following that rational thought and reasoning arose 2 millions years ago with the coming of homo habilis (stone-age tool maker) who embarked on goal-based problem solving. Why did God or Gods wait until 10,000 years ago to announce their presence as evidenced by paleolithic painting and evidence of burial and worship found in caves? Why were other Gods eliminated to accommodate a single God?

Question #2: Before you judge others' knowledge, it is imperative a committee of learned people of the field in question to declare that you are knowlegeable in that field and you are worthy enough to guide or judge others. Every man or woman goes through such a process before attaining the pinnacle in scholarly (Ph.D.) or theological (e.g., Dalai Lama -- he has to pass several viva-voce and written exams before the title is conferred on him) areas. If I am missing a point, please enlighten me as to your credentials.

Question #3: What is your opinion on Padre Pio: http://www.padrepio.com/ Does God communicate through multiple means and methods. Or do you say that miracles from other traditions are false and figments of one's imagination since they do not concur with what the Islamic tradition has to say.

Question #4: As you mentioned rightly, you look things in your perspective -- i.e., Islam, the revealtions of Islam's God, and its traditions; whereas I am looking from a variety of sources: Philosophy, anthropology, cosmology, theology (of all shades and hues),etc., without making my opinions a slave to anyone field or an individual. In life each one has to follow our conscience: you follow yours and I will follow mine. Again, as long as we respect each others rights and do not infringe on others rights that's fine. Because that is the theme we require everywhere for a peaceful and betterment of humanity. And, finally, no one tradition or religion holds the truth. As a secular humanist I strive for progress based on freedom of thought and expression. I do not say that people who do not listen to me are doomed. Do you think that people who don’t listen to you or Islamic teachings will be doomed? (burn in hell or something on those lines)

Question #5
So why don’t you make your position clear by answering this question: Should religion be a private matter between an individual and his or her God(s), or should people be forced to accept an individual’s view point due to fear of retribution Furthermore, should everyone be forced to practice religion whether they like it or not due to the insistence of a theocratic government.
What is your call on this?

Question #6: You have not commented on the killings in Algeria, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and a bunch of other so called Islamic countries. Do you know that slavery exists in the Sudan?

Question #7: Please take a few moments and read the following two links:
(on the origin of Koran)
http://theatlantic.com/issues/99jan/koran.htm
and (the story of Abraham)http://www.humanist.net/publications/humanist/articles/delaney.html

The intent here is for some stimulating discussion and not to change opinions. We are best left the way we are: "You go your way and I will go mine."
Would love to hear your views and critical comments.

Thanks,
EH

Zahid

Messages # 341,342

Thank You EH, for this, i will try my best to see how i can answer this.

1) Bipedalism is a thing or charachteristic which separates Humans from Animals. Nobody is Sure of the Origins of it, so telling anything about it is in vain. What do you mean that other gods were eliminated to accomodate a single God. There was always a single God concept in the Huiman Histoy. People made gods so satisfy their will. I Read a Book, a book on Philosophy, probably its title was, "The Origin of the Gods", or maybe that was a chapter in that, in that how the Author described the Concept of Gods Emerged. Maybe if someday you get the Reference of that, tell it to me.

2) YEs You Are Right About that. As i said, i am not a very Learned Person in the feild of Religion. My Other GEneral Qualifications can be found on My Homepage, but that wont Prove anything. OK, i Do Hold a Diploma in Bible Studies from the Living Life Bible Society (if i am not wrong). Except that, i Have Learned some basic Sanskrit once, and Have Read Geeta and Upanishad in Hindi, but that was some 7 years back. and As far as Quran is Concerned no i not hold any Qualification except that i have read Different translations of it myself, and one day plan to Memorize it. I Know that wont be 1/10th of yours, but yes i am a student in this feild, and i have other restrictions, otherwise i might have had some more knowledge like you. Since i am new in my Feild, i like to dedicate more time to that, and some day i will dedicate my life for Islam.

3) I do not comment on Miracles which are perforemd by people. Christians Perform Miracles in name of Jesus, so what here People Perform Miracles in namre of Sai Baba, and in the Name of Various Religious Persons. Like you must be knowing People going to Kabrastan, and asking in the Name of Baba or Walis, and they get things and Miravcles (what you say) do happen. But is that a Criteria for Judgement. Whu does this happen. It is a test from Allah (now i know you are thinking of me as a fanatic, but cool down). He Gives You Free will, but He decides the Situation himself. Otherwise how would you call his test a proper test. Someday i dream, that i am going to be a Millionare, and i find a Wallet full of 1000$ notes, what would i do. Do i say that it is a miiracle and keep it, or do i earch the onwer and return it, just to remain poor as i was. In Hope you see the Logic what i wan to say.

4) Well EH, a very good way to ask a question, after reading this, i remembered a story in Bible. Where once Jews come and Ask to Jesus, "Should we pay Tax". If he says yes, then they will say he is a Ceasers Man, and if no, they will tell Ceaser that he is opposing the tax system. So, let me answer you in this way, that since, I Believe that Quran is true, for the Numerous facts which have been found, the others will also be true.

5) Religion is always a private matter. Quran does say "Let thewre be no compulsion in religion" right! I was Going through a book once, and i came across this book by Bertrand Russel(if i recall it correctly). There he said, that till the 20th Century Islam was a very Tolerant religion, and the Europe as a whole was Intolerant....and now its because of some wrong leaders Teaching of Islam has been changed." (i do not recall exactly, but this was conveyed).

6) No i dont know that slavery still exists in Quran. About the Other killings, please clarify. If you are telling me the RExecution of people carried out for crime by people in Saudia, yes i do support it, and you can compare the crime rate difference in Saudia and USA. If you are talking of those Bomb Blast things, and millitancy i do not support it, since it is not Islamic.

7)Now regarding your Links, i wonder what you require. You can see Islam Awareness Homepage in Quran section for the Authenticity of Quran. Yemen was a land of Fitna. After our Prophet, too many prophets appeared over there, claiming to be Muhammed(pbuh), so "Abou Bakr Al sedik" the Caliph, fought with them and brought to common sense. As for the Egyptian Nasr Abou Zeid, no one seems to have heard of Him. Remember Pal, on the Net people write things, and claim things, which are not there. I cross Checked with a lot of People about this Person, he Does NOT EXIST or NO ONE HEARD OF HIM. So, now what thing you gave was a wrong thing :). This was Hindus have come up with a thing known as TEJO MALI which they say, that Taj Mahal was a Temple by the name Tejo Mali. And Muslims made it a Tomb and now they wanna fight for it. If you read it for the first time you will feel that they are saying the truth. Then somebody found out that it is a big lie, and a joke, but they distorted so many minds. So please do not believe on things like this :).


 
Ethicalhumanist

Message #351

Zahid: First of all let me thank you for taking the time to come up with your answers and opinions. For the sake of convinience let us work out an indexing system. My threads to the questions numbered 1 through 7 will go with odd numbers. For example, my reply to your answers will be 1.1, 1.3, with respect to question #1. And if you wish to respond, to 1.1, your answer will be 1.2; and my answer to your response # 1.2 will be 1.3; your answer to 1.3 will be 1.4 and so on. The same logic applies to other questions as well. For example, 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 (replies from EH), and 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, etc. (replies from Zahid). I hope you agree to this. And this in the hope that you will continue to respond until the issue is resolved one way or the other.

Thanks,
EH
 

Message #352

Thread 1.1:
Zahid says: "Bipedalism is a thing or charachteristic which separates Humans from Animals. Nobody is Sure of the Origins of it, so telling anything about it is in vain." Who told you that nobody is sure about the origins of bipedalism???!!! It is written and discussed in many volumes on anthropology, evolution, etc., from Darwin's time, including many peer-reviewed scientific journals (not the web pages with drivel exsisting on the Internet). The Paleoanthropologists Mary and Richard Leakey have published several papers which discuss the change in the anatomic structures of the hip and knee joints (in the hominid genus: Australopithecus) to clearly demonstrate the evolution from quadripedal and arboreal locomotion. If you want to get some current thought on it you can read authors such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, among many, many others. In other words, we have evolved from animals, and in terms of cognition and culture the prefrontal cortex of the brain is the clinching factor. How do you know that animal's lack culture and teaching. For instance, recent studies have shown that Chimps have a culture and teach other on the usage of tools (stones) for nut cracking and twigs to fish out ants.

Zahid says: "There was always a single God concept in the Huiman Histoy. ". You are totally wrong and off the mark. The early homosapiens (humans) worshiped multiple Gods and formed a metaphor and linked them with the Sun, moon, wind, fire, earth, etc. And then came Zeus, Mithra, Shiva, etc. I think no culture or civilization began worship by proclaiming there is only one God. It has always been a process of reduction. Perhaps there will be a time when One God (1) will become Zero (0).

Zahid also said: "People made gods so satisfy their will". Since you say this, it appears that even the single God who was procalimed specially by the Jews and the Muslims was made by semitic tribes in the Middle East to "SATISFY THEIR WILL"!!!

-EH
 

Message # 353

1.2

Zahid you say: "I Know that wont be 1/10th of yours, but yes i am a student in this feild, and i have other restrictions, otherwise i might have had some more knowledge like you. " Please don't take me wrong and think that I am trying to parade my knowledge. My question #2 to you was to know what you know, since you started to judge my knowledge and concluded that I do not know much about Islam. Perhaps nobody on this earth knows. Even a Ph.D. in Islam will learn something new every day. I feel humbled when I think of how much knowledge exists out there from the time of Aristotle and even before to the year 1999. We as a whole (humanity) do not know much, nor is it possible to have an encyclopedic knowledge of every field which exists out there. Although recent philosphers in the U.S. say that education should be designed for consilience -- i.e., bringing together of knowledge from diverse areas. For example, I would say that a computer science graduate's education is incomplete if he does not know a little of areas such as history, philosophy, ethics, psychology, etc. So it is a common quest for all humanity to learn and share knowledge. It is nice to know that you have taken the effort to formally learn about the bible, Sanskrit, and the Upanishads. In fact, you may have seen the common theme they all have: mythologies and Good vs. Evil, and who triumphs, of course, the Good. In fact, the Bhagavad Gita is a classic example. Humanity always needed such stories to triumph in the face of hardships and dangers. Finally, I would say that all humanity put together perhaps knows only 1/10th of the entire knowledge exists out there. Keep learning, keep reading and expand your horizon. If you wish to take inspiration from Islam go for it; never look back; and commit that you will recognize that individuals differ greatly from one another and are capable of choosing paths best suited for them to attain salvation, nirvana, or whatever they wish to attain. And believe your religion is unto to you and avoid coaxing and cajoling others into accepting your interpretation of life and God. As for me, a secular democracy is fine since it allows people to follow their conscience without infringing on others' rights.

-EH


Zahid

Message #359

***1.2***

Thats a nice way EH for the game, i will try to be Quick, but if i am a bit late, do excuse me, as i gnereally have lot of work, so in the Night Cyber Cafe's Close down early, and accesing this site from Company is a risk :)

Regarding Darwins Theory you are seeing Just One sided View of the Darwins Theory. Today The Researchers Do not Hold True DARWINS Theory. I think you did not see "Chamber and Spencers" Paper on Evolution, which is contrary to Darwin and also Lewontins Paper. They have also Published Numerous Papers, look at them. Thats why i said that.

In fact there were 2 Thesis, which i had a look once on this topic, where the authors had explained why it failed completely. And now you wont find this theory in text books any more, why ???

When i said, there was a single God in Human History, i said if you see the Scriptures which exist, you will find it. The Hindus for Example have 33 Crore Gods, where do they came from. See the Vedas, there as such is only one god. Then for their own sake they expand one to many, saying that they are attributes or something that sort. They have the Same Funda as christins, like God is one in Many.

Ethicalhumanist

Message #362

1.3
Dear Zahid: It was a very interesting reply. Can you give me the exact citation (journal name, year, issue number and page numbers) for the article referred to you by Chambers and Spencers and the one by Lewontins. I hope you are not getting carried away by what you are hearing and reading on the Internet vicariously. Let me make it clear: I always try to get my information from peer-reviewed journals where an editorial committee (peers) verifies the validity of the finding before it is allowed to be published. And personally I have gone through that process myself when publishing papers from the research studies I have done. I would say that there are two kinds of sources, which are fairly reliable: (1) peer-reviewed scientific journals such as Science, Nature, Journal of Physical Anthropology, Learning and Cognition, etc.; and (2) reliable media such as CNN, Time, Newsweek, Atlantic magazine, which are reputed since they practice sincere journalism where they cover both sides of an issue (freedom of press in honest terms) and do not indulge in propagandistic word play. For example, they are not like Cine Blitz which published the gossip of Bollywood. So likewise I suggest that when it comes to scientific work or even opinions about certain matters do not stick with private web pages. You are welcome to quote from such web pages in this forum but you should do so with a disclaimer stating that it is one or a few person’s opinions which have not been critically reviewed.

Now let me explain more about Darwinian theory. What people confuse about Darwinian theory is that they think that evolution is totally random and is based on one-step selection, similar to the one I gave in my previous post about typing of the sentence (Zahid is Best Islamic Thinker). And it appears to me that you seem to have fallen for that. Neo-Darwinists such have a Hawkins and Gould have modified the theory in that they state that it is not one step selection where random tries are given until an elegant solution is obtained (for example, the ability to see through a well developed organ such as an eye, or the ability to walk on two legs). It is, in fact, a process of “CUMULATIVE SELECTION” where the previous solution is used as the building block to refine it further and develop the next solution. So the example of typing that sentence is one-step selection, where every attempt begins with a totally new random selection, which is not the right method to interpret Darwinian theory. However, cumulative selection starts with random mutation of the genes but refines itself from that point onwards – in a nonrandom manner -- to adapt to the environment and becomes better and better. You and me and our descendents will keep evolving since it is unstoppable. Some times completely random mutations do take place since the genes do not know what environmental changes to expect – and most of the times they lead to congenital birth defects (six fingers, two heads, and changes in the autonomic nervous and immune systems). And sometimes these nonrandom changes end up being helpful. I hope you are clear about it now. If you are a total disbeliever in Darwinian theory, than I would like to know from you, whether birds, animals, trees, and humans fell out of the sky??? Or perhaps you might say that God used clay to mould them?

As far as Gods are concerned you fail to see the fact that humans always take a anthropomorphic view of things around them. Does a country have two kings? Does your institution have two principles? Does India’s cricket team have two or five captains? Institutions are lead by one person and governed by a bunch of people. For example, a Prime Minister and a bunch of ministers for this and that. So the same concept applies to the human’s approach of making Gods until Moses came with the idea of one God.

-EH

Message #363

3.1

Zahid: You say you don’t believe non-Islamic miracles by stating “Christians Perform Miracles in name of Jesus, so what here People Perform Miracles in namre of Sai Baba, and in the Name of Various Religious Persons.” How is that you believe in the miracle of the Angle Gibrael coming down from the heavens and communicating with a lonely human sitting in a cave, who later is proclaimed as a Prophet. (note: this is not to be deemed as an attack on anybody’s sacred belief systems; but such statements are necessary for critical analysis). You also say “It is a test from Allah (now i know you are thinking of me as a fanatic, but cool down). He Gives You Free will, but He decides the Situation himself.” You seem to be contradicting yourself: “Freewill” and “He decides the Situation himself”. If God is omniscient He will a priori know the outcome of the freewill he gives to humans. So from your statement it appears that God gave Adolf Hitler freewill, following which Hitler exercised it to fulfill his plan he sketched out for the Jewish problem(Final Solution) in Germany in his book Mein Kempf, and promptly executed 6 million Jews in the holocaust. The existence of freewill appears to be governed by one’s internal value system, external environment, and at a neurotransmitter level by dopamine (reward and punishment). Is it God given? I would strongly doubt it and it is questionable. If one goes by Skinner’s stimulus-response theory of stimulus, response, conditioning, etc., the thesis of “God given” freewill sounds vapid!
-EH
 

Message # 372

4.1
Zahid your faith is deep and profound and you have found your calling in Islam, the Koran – and it gives you a lot of meaning in life. Furthermore, I should hereby conclude that your “faith” in Islam makes you believe that it is God’s word and is irrevocable. And, I should also add that you think that the Koranic revelations are out of bounds for human analysis, and if at all someone comes up with a rational explanation (e.g., the link to the article on Koran’s origin in the Atlantic Monthly) you are bound to summarily conclude that they are false. On those grounds (don’t take me wrong), according to the Western civilization’s interpretation of people accepting the scriptures as the word of God on blind faith, you will be categorized as a fundamentalist. In my opinion, you are just acting out your deep and profound psychological need for a creator and to take solace in Him (or Her?). And this has been the case in a vast majority of humans from the dawn of civilization. I would accept this question to be resolved, if you accept that individuals differ within and between religions greatly and should be left to discover the meaning of life at a personal level without infringing the liberty of others. This applies to me as well. I do not want to indoctrinate you with my ideas but only demonstrate to you in a civil manner that I greatly differ from your interpretation of the meaning of life; I want you to blossom in life, but if you were to become a leader of a nation or community and if I were to be a citizen , I will not accept you if you persecute me for my beliefs -- on the lines of freedom of religion, thought, and conscience.

-EH

Message # 373

5.1
You are right about Europe being intolerant. Before the reformation, enlightenment, and renaissance periods in the second millenium of the modern era, Europe was a hell-hole due to the policies of the catholic church. In the case of Islam you say – and people have said – that “There he said, that till the 20th Century Islam was a very Tolerant religion, and the Europe as a whole was Intolerant....and now its because of some wrong leaders Teaching of Islam has been changed." But you seem to be forgetting the Arab imperialism (similar to European colonialism) which followed the rise of Islam. The Arab armies conquered nations all the way up to Spain (e.g., the caliphate of Cordoba/the Moors; luckily the Moors broke away from the Meccan Arabs and allowed culture to flourish due to the synergy of Christian, Moslem, and Jewish cultures). In our own subcontinent (10th century), Mohammed Bin Qasim arrived as an invader and defeated the Raja of Sind. He and his Arab army were not invited into the sub-continent to enlighten the local populace and free them from their idols. Mahumud of Ghazni’s raids on the Somnath temple (and other temples) are legendary. I don’t see any tolerance in Islam before the 20th century. Islam was a convenient vehicle for imperialistic expansion for the Arab and the Ottaman empires. That is the problem when religion is mixed with politics. I have no problems if Islam is used at the personal level to nourish the soul. Well I should conclude that in the 20th century Osama bin Laden has replaced Mahumud of Ghazni. Hope more enlightened thinkers like you arrive on the horizon so that Islam is not interpreted wrongly at least in the remaining one year of the 20th century and thereafter! You also said “Religion is always a private matter. Quran does say "Let thewre be no compulsion in religion" right!” kudos to you. We have common ground there. You cite the teaching of the Koran and I believe in the Universal declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 at the U.N. (based on human reasoning). You should also note that quotes from afreethinker contradict your citation of “no compulsion…”. Are there different versions of the Koran, or are there any printing errors? Please clarify.
-EH
 

Message#374

6.1
Good to know that you do not believe in violent approaches to enforce one’s opinions on others as demonstrated by religious militants around the world. You say that crime rates are much lower in Saudi when compared to the USA. So do you mean that executions and amputations of hands without due process (for example, absence of the right for an accused to legal representation in a court of law) is OK? What about stoning to death of adulterers, is it OK? Or do you mean to say that the Islamic jurists of our times are misinterpreting Islamic law, and that Islamic law is much more humane than secular law (regarding secular law – also known as nature’s law -- you may want to read a little about British philosopher John Locke’s political theory [separation of church and state, structuring of the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government, etc], which inspired the making of the U.S. constitution. As far as crime is concerned the biggest problem in the U.S. is the easy availability of guns for private purchase, due to the second amendment, which states the right to bear arms. Personally I do not agree with the second amendment as a humanist and pacifist, and express my dissent. And let me also add there are aspects of U.S. democracy, which have to be reformed. If you are interested in political theory I can throw more light on those aspects.
-EH

Message #381

7.1
Zahid about the article on the origins of the Koran and Yemen you say “After our Prophet, too many prophets appeared over there, claiming to be Muhammed(pbuh), so "Abou Bakr Al sedik" the Caliph, fought with them and brought to common sense.” I would like to learn a little more from you about the word “fought” you have used in the above sentence within the context of your answer for my question #5, where you stated that Islam was a very tolerant religion until the 19th century and lost its direction – became intolerant -- in the 20th century. So does fought mean silencing opponents through their execution, or Gandhi like satyagragha (non-violent protest)?

About the Egyptian Nasr Abou Zeid, you say “no one seems to have heard of Him. Remember Pal, on the Net people write things, and claim things, which are not there. I cross Checked with a lot of People about this Person, he Does NOT EXIST or NO ONE HEARD OF HIM.” Have you checked the records of the Al Azhar university in Cairo and with the editors of the Atlantic Monthly, or did you speak with your neighbors or use the Yahoo search engine to locate Nasr Abou Zaid???!!! Or perhaps the Yahoo person search functions conked since there was a typo in Zaid (you have typed "Zeid") since you assumed that he may have a Yahoo ID!! Also, please let me know who were those “lot of people”.

You also wrote “This was Hindus have come up with a thing known as TEJO MALI which they say, that Taj Mahal was a Temple by the name Tejo Mali. And Muslims made it a Tomb and now they wanna fight for it. If you read it for the first time you will feel that they are saying the truth. Then somebody found out that it is a big lie, and a joke, but they distorted so many minds.” What you have quoted above is a classic example of a delusional mind of a Hindu fundamentalist whose psyche has been hijacked by religious fervor. This is equivalent to a delusional Muslim fundamentalist claiming that there was never an Ayodyha Temple (Ram temple) before Babri Masjid, and King Babur broke ground to build the Babri Masjid from its foundations. Let us not become pawns of history bestowed upon us due to invaders and foreign powers. Let us learn from the good things every human culture can offer to us from around the world. Is a Muslim superior to a Hindu because he worship’s one God; that is besides the point. What is more important is how good a human s/he is, in terms of love, kindness, and compassion.

Finally, you have not answered my question #7 to the point: Was the Koran the word of God verbatim and was not the creation of humans as implied by the Atlantic Monthly article; and like Abraham if a man in the 20th century hears a voice from the sky that he should sacrifice his son to show his love to the voice (assuming the man thinks it is God speaking to him) that he should go ahead and just do that. Assuming the man does sacrifice his Son and to his dismay does not find a lamb slaughtered instead, should he be let go by the rule of law since it was God who commanded him to do that.

Eagerly waiting for your X.2 series of replies.

-EH
 

Zahid

Message #382

3.2
EH, there is a difference, when i say Miracles. These Miracles, which are performed by them, all those i mentioned, is more of Physical things. Like there is a person whom i know, he can bend a spoon, if he looks at it. He calls it some form of Exercise. Similarly, there are persons, who say that they cast out devils and those things, by taking all those names, but who really knows whether they do it. These things have a lot of debate going on. But who knows what is the truth.

Do, you believe in Ghosts and those sort of things ? I never used to, but after i read some Historical book, about the things like ghost. I will cite you an instance of some Princess of some where in England. She was killed in her fort. But before she was, she ran the whole of the steps, before she reached a door, and banged it several times to open it, but nobody did, and she was murdered. Some people who now also visit that Palace, sometimes see a girl running and banging a door before dissapearing. And what is strange is that somebody by chance took a Photograph of her, and it was transparent. That book is quite famos, but as such i dont remeber its Title or Author. So, there are things like this, where we get to see, Miracles (or whatever you say happening).

We have 3 dimensions, maybe there are some other form of Life which has more than 3 dimension physically, maybe something, which can traverse in time also. Who knows. We have some limited form of Knowledge on whose basis we comment. Why cant there exist such a Think as Angel.

As far as Freewiil is concerned, i said, He sets up a situation and then he gives us a chance, it is upto us what we decide. IF that is not the thing, then there is no criteria, to judge the right and the wrong. He might give us a tempting situation, but it is us who have to decide. I will have to check, if god says he is omniscient.

EH, i wonder, if you can give me your thinking on these Questions.

1) When Islam was Peaking, the Pagans came to Prophet and told him, that they will make him King, if he can put their gods along with Allah, but he rejected. Why ?

2) When Islam became dominant, then also, the Prophet never became a King and took some money from others. He earned his living, till he died. Sometimes he had to go, with half stomach. Why he did not make himself a king ?

Message #383

5.2
Well, Thats a wonderful peice of lecture there. I do agree, with what you said. But as i say, dont judge Islam by Muslims.

As far as Quran is concerned, there is just one Quran, no versions exist and none will come till eternity. But there are different translations. The initial translations of the Quran in different language were made by Non-Muslims and particularly Christian Missionaries. So, for their own benifit they changed the wordings according to their wish. And they did it so perfect, like in the first reading you will never find that its wrong. Still people like Freethinkers follow them.

All Islamic Scholars, hold Abdullah Yusuf Ali's Translation to be the Best one, and you can see that as to what is written. FT gives one version of that verse, i have two more versions of that verse. One of which is in Jehovah's Witnesses Book. To see how well they are programmed, you should sometime attend their meetings.


Ethicalhumanist

Messaage #392

3.3
I am an empiricist, and for me “knowledge is the fruit of sensory experience (visual, auditory, tactual, olfactory, and in the palate)”. You argue that miracles, magic, angels, and such things exist based on what you have read about others seeing it or experiencing it – and this for you is not even a vicarious or second hand experience because it is purely the power of the language and the printer matter which moves you to believe in such phenomena. In fact, I do not question your profound beliefs in such matter since your psyche – including mine – still carries the remnants of the primitive man’s psyche. And this primitive man believed in all sorts of things fairies, dragons, monsters, God (s), earth being balanced on the snake’s head (Hindu mythology), etc. I would argue that 10,000 or 20,000 years from now this primitive psyche would be reformed as more and more people (the collective unconscious of mankind) starts to move away from metaphysics to empirical science.

In this context, I would like to quote Carl Jung (Swiss Psychiatrist) who did a lot of research in occult, alchemy, magic, and parapsychology.

“The first is the autonomy of unconscious psychic contents. During states of semi-somnambulism or preoccupation, such autonomous elements may assume control, producing “automatisms” of various sorts: hallucinatory visions, sensations, or voices (which may be interpreted as of spirits), automatic movements, writings, etc….”

Since you say that you believe in ghosts and angels (“Why cant there exist such a Think as Angel”) I would suggest that you experience one (see or feel or perhaps hear one before you concluding that angels exist. However, I should warn you that the 20th century doctors are not very kind to people who experience such phenomenon since they diagnose such conditions as schizophrenia (a neurotic condition where voices in the head talk to people), and treat them with suitable therapeutic interventions, which I will not expand upon since it is in the realm of mental health.

The mind and body combined can result in enormous will power. The Chinese call this CHI (the life force). For example, Tibetian monks can survive in sub-zero temperatures in the Himalayas by visualizing hot tubes and meditating on them – and thus altering their physiological process and develop heat in their body to fight cold. Professor Nayak from the University of Mangalore (India) has demonstrated that tongue piercing, walking on nails or hot coal, or pulling a vehicle with hooks pierced in the body can be performed without the help of the Gods (as claimed by the Hindu God men). It is a combination of practice, concentration, and the release of hormones which enable men to do that.

You also asked me the following two questions:
“1) When Islam was Peaking, the Pagans came to Prophet and told him, that they will make him King, if he can put their gods along with Allah, but he rejected. Why ?
2) When Islam became dominant, then also, the Prophet never became a King and took some money from others. He earned his living, till he died. Sometimes he had to go, with half stomach. Why he did not make himself a king ?”

Assuming that the above story is true, I would say it is due to the vision and will power a man has for the future. I can quote you similar examples. Despite the expansion of the Roman empire Julius Caesar was a believer in the senate and Rome as a republic. He rejected the idea of him becoming a King and refused the crown.

Even if the British had offered Gandhi the post of Viceroy for India he would have never accepted it. His goal was for total independence from Britain and was not interested in titles and positions. He went past the “half-stomach mark” and almost came to dying on a couple of occasions when he went on a “fast on to death” to stop Hindu-Muslim communal violence. On the same lines Muhammad Ali Jinnah was offered the post of Prime Minister of United India if he were to drop the idea of a Muslim state (Pakistan). But he refused it since he was vision was for a separate Muslim state carved out of India.

At a personal level I had opportunities to pursue my career in a theocratic state (Saudi Arabia). But I chose not to despite the quick riches which could be made since as a secular humanist I was not willing to sacrifice my values to quick riches; nor do I want my wife who is an athlete, a swimmer, and a physician to be governed by medieval laws and to be clothed in a suffocating robe. And I am happy that I was successful in my struggle in my early years to stick with my vision, although I had to do physical labor, and fulfill my goals of higher education in the US – and lead a life which is inspired by love and guided by knowledge (to quote Russell).

On freewill you said "I will have to check, if god says he is omniscient" -- so are you in direct communication with God?? Would like to know from you how you accomplish this since I want to practice it myself.

-EH
 

Message # 392

4.3

Zahid: I would first like to respond to your quotations from Bertrand Russell’s book. Let me requote what you wrote in your post:
“I have read, a lot of papers by Atheists, and agnostics. I was reading, sometime back, a Paper by Bertrand Russel, (i think God and Religion was the name), where he describes, how people out of fear made god. I do not completely agree with his viewpoints, but what i want to emphasize here is that i also read such papers. But isnt he the person, who praised the Islamic Civilization. Here is what he said:

******
Bertrand Russel in ‘History of Western Philosophy,’ London, 1948, p. 419.

"Our use of phrase 'The Dark ages' to cover the period from 699 to 1,000 marks our undue concentration on Western Europe...

"From India to Spain, the brilliant civilization of Islam flourished. What was lost to christendom at this time was not lost to civilization, but quite the contrary...

"To us it seems that West-European civilization is civilization, but this is a narrow view."
********* ”
End of quote authored by Zahid

I also have a copy of Bertrand Russell’s book A History of Western Philosophy (published by Simon and schuster). And now let me start my response. He has devoted a chapter titled ‘Chapter X: Mohammedan Culture and Philosophy’. This chapter runs from pages 419-428. I have carefully read and re-read this chapter and I do not find anywhere the following sentence "Our use of phrase 'The Dark ages' to cover the period from 699 to 1,000 marks our undue concentration on Western Europe...” verbatim, which you have quoted above. Russell does praise Mohammedan culture in two places, which I am quoting below, but do not completely resemble what you have quoted.

From Page 427: “Mohammedan civilization in its great days was admirable in the arts and in many technical ways, but it showed no capacity for independent speculation in theoretical matters. Its importance, which must not be underrrated, is as a transmitter. Between ancient and modern European civilization, the dark ages intervened. The Mohammedans and the Byzantines, while lacking the intellectual energy required for innovation, preserved the apparatus of civilazation – education, books and learned liesure*. Both stimulated the West when it emerged from barbarism—the Mohammedans chiefly in the thirteenth century, the Byzantines chiefly in the fifteenth. In each case the stimulus produced new thought better than any produced by the transmitters—in the one case scholasticism, in the other the renaissance (which however had other causes also)”.
*note from EH: mainly refers to the works of Aristotle and Plato – if not for the translation and preservation of their works by philosophers such as Al Kindi and Ibn Sina they may have perished and would have been lost forever for future civilizations.

From page 421-2: “under the early Abbasids the caliphate attained its greatest splendour. The best known of them is Harun-al-Rashid (d. 809), who was a comtemporary of Charlemagne and the Empress Irene, and is known to every one in legendary form through the Arabian Nights. His court was a brilliant centre of luxury, poetry, and learning; his revenue was enormous; his empire stretched from the Straits of Gibraltar to the Indus. He will was absolute; he was habitually accompanied by the executioner, who performed his office at a nod from the Caliph**. This splendour, however, was short-lived. … the last Caliph of the Abbasid dynasty was put to death by the Mongols in 1256, along with 800,000 of the inhabitants of Baghdad.”

**Note from EH to Zahid: It contradicts your claim of lack of violence in Islam before the 20th century.
 

Message #396

Even the portions where Russell has praised Islam (see my previous post) end in criticism and contempt. So Zahid, slicing sentences, and quoting them out of context can turn out to be falsehood, as evidenced from your post. Continuing with Russell’s book I would like to quote paragraphs which Zahid has conveniently ignored because it does not show Islam in good light.

Cont’d: From Bertrand Russell’s A History of Western Philosophy

From Page 422: “The political and social system of the Arabs had defects similar to those of the Roman empire, together with some others. Absolute monarchy combined with polygamy led, as it usually does, to dynastic wars whenever a ruler died, ending with the victory of one of the ruler’s son and the death of all the rest.”**

From Page 419: “The Hegira, with which the Mohammedan era begins, took place in A.D. 622; Mahomet died ten years later. Immediately after his death the Arab conquest began, and the proceeded with extraordinary rapidity. In the East, Syria was invaded in 634, and completely subdued within two years, In 637 Persia was invaded; in 650 its conquest was completed. India was invaded in 664; Constantinopole was beseiged in in 669 (and again 716-17). The westward movement was not quite so sudden, Egypt was conquered by 642., Cartharage not until 697. Spain, except for a small corner in the north-west, was acquired in 711-12. Westward expansion (except in Sicily and Southern Italy) was brought to a standstill by the defeat of the Mohammedans at the battle of Tours in 732. Just one hundred years after the death of the prophet”.**

From Page 421: “The first dynasty, that of the Umayyads, which lasted till 750, was founded by men whose acceptance of Mahomet was purely political, and it remained always opposed to the more fanatical among the faithful. The Arabs, although they conquered a great part of the world in the name of a new religion, were not a very religious race; the motive of their conquests was plunder and wealth rather than religion. It was only in virtue of their lack of fanatisicm that a handful of warriors were able to govern, without much difficulty, vast populations of higher civilization and alien religion.**

**Note from EH to Zahid: It contradicts your claim of lack of violence in Islam before the 20th century.

So Zahid, I am not sure how is that you quote certain lines of Russell’s book totally out of context, and, then, believe it. But ignore, other parts, which I have quoted which talks about violence, mayhems, invasions, “intolerance” (all beginning in the seventh century!!), well before the 20th century where you claim Islam – due its leaders – became intolerant.

Since a discussion has come about that you suspect others as liars, I am willing to photocopy the chapter on Mohammedan culture in Russell’s book and mail it to you. Or, if you are in Bombay, the British Council library is sure to have a copy of Russell’s A History of Western Civilization.
I will come back to the rest of your material in your response (5.2) in later posts.

Until then happy reading of veracious material,
EH



Zahid

Message #401

6.2
Religious Millitants as i said dont follow the religion. As far as my religion is concerned, it dosent teach so. So, if u r talking of things like Islamic Militants, Thats not true. Take a look at http://www.oocities.org/~itmr/terrorism.htm which shows the Terrorism in Us, who causes it :) and what Msuslims do in america, you can have a look at http://channelone.com/news/special/islam/ . (Source IMTR Daily).

Why dont you have a look at the stats of Saudi Crime, you will find its Negligible . If that is what that law does, than whats the harm. Please note that there they dont execute anybody. They do look in for proofs, and witnesses. Do you think Adultery is a right thing. Well then here i disagree. This is what finally causes increase in Lust, and a lot of rapists are because of this initial freedom. You can well throw light on the political theories.

Message #402

7.1
Dear EH, that was the time, when people were too sentimental, after the prophet died. So, when those false prophet arrived, they used to gain material things, and people used to believe them. That was the time, when Hadhrat Abu Bakr, warned them, and they did not listen, so he had to go and with Voilence bring those false Prophets to senses.

As for that Egyptian is concerned, i checked out with the group who is active in that field, and they said they have not heard of him. I do not just base my things from the net. And as far as search quesry is concerned, i was a web programmer, so i know quite well, how to find strings. I did not serch on it.

Finally to your main point, the answers of Authenticity of Quran, can be found from my Homapage in Quran Section, the link is http://www.oocities.org/WestHollywood/Park/6443/Quran/index.html . Please read the first 5 articles over there.

ZTG

Message #421

3.4
Well, this type of things are quoted a lot by sceintific people, but as of today, even sceintific people doubt about their theories.

Lot of people have experienced, things, which make them believe about ghosts. Iniyially Sceintists, used to ignore this thory completely. But later, when some incidents forced them, they started making theories. Like one theory, i read real long back, suggested, that Ghost Theories can be explained with the help of very low frequesncy sound wave trapped inside buildings.

Maybe you can also have a look at this site http://www.reverb.com/1996/96oct/ghost.htm

Somebody had sent me a link, long time back, have a look at it http://www.nwighosts.com/FAQs/photographing/michelle.jpg
(Note thats a fake image :) )

Great people, and sceintists are always sceptic, about everything in nature. I remeber of a story of Richard Feynman, in an article "A Visit With Uri Geller", he goes into the experiment with the pre-conceived notion that Geller was a trickster. This may be acceptable if it is not allowed to cloud his judgement, but from the outset it was clear what Feynman's opinion would be: if Geller was successful, he was a fake; if not, an incompetent fake.

Lastly, i want to write about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem :

*Any logical system is unable to prove all the mathematical statements that are actually true
*Any system of logic is unable to prove its own logical consistency.
-Proven by Kurt Gödel in 1931

In his book(i dont remeber the name) he says, "The only justification we have is that it has not failed us yet "

So Science and Mathematics, also need faith

Message #430

4.4
I wonder, what are you trying to prove in the last verse of yours. Are you trying to Prove to me the Quran, when he says to muslims :

"Anyone who acts niggardly is miserly only so far as his own soul is concerned. God is Transcendent
while you are poor. If you should turn away [from the call of duty and belief], He will replace you with some other folk who then will not be like you at all! " Quran 47:Verse 38 (Surah Muhammed)

Well yes, maybe he says futher to it

"And if it were Our Will, We would have [destroyed you (mankind) all, and] made angels to replace you on the earth. " Quran Surah 43:60

But then there would have been no challenge in life no fun, right :)

Ethicalhumanist

Message #446

4.3  Addendum
To ZTG: You laid a great emphasis on your fundamentals and proudly crowed that you were a fundamentalist. Unfortunately, with people like you the world does not make progress as vividly described by Russell in his chapter on Mohammedan culture, where he states that the Islamic empires of the past kept the orthodoxy (fundamentalists) out of the scene with regards to the governance of the empire. I would also like to add the following from Joseph Campbell’s book Myths to Live By (Page: 14-15); Bantam Books/1972 edition (11th printing: 1988).

Chapter 1: The Impact of Science on Myth

“One of the most interesting histories of what comes of rejecting science we may see in Islam, which in the beginning received, accepted, and even developed the classical legacy. For some five or six centuries there is an impressive Islamic record of scientific thought, experiment, and research, particularly in medicine. But then, alas! The authority of the general community, the Sunna, the consensus -- which Mohammed the Prophet had declared would always be right – cracked down. The word of God in the Koran was the only source and vehicle of truth, scientific thought led to “loss of belief in the origin of the world and in the creator”. And so it was that, just when the light of Greek learning was beginning to be carried from Islam to Europe – from Circa 1100 onward – Islamic science and medicine came to a standstill and went dead; and with that Islam itself went dead (note from EH: of course, Zahid the savior is busy reviving it along with his other comrades in arms elsewhere so that the hallucination of the golden past, dawns again on mankind). The torch not only of science, but of history as well, passed on to the Christian West. And we can thereafter follow the marvelous development in detail, from the early twelfth century onward, through a history of bold and brilliant minds, unmatched for their discoveries in the whole long history of human life”.

If you want to dispute the above statement please get in touch with the author, Joseph Campbell. Since he is no more, and a Kafir, and was a non-believer according to your theories he should be burning in the fires of hell -- you may want to lay a T1 or an ISDN line so that you can communicate with him when you reach heaven.

In my opinion Francis Bacon (empricism: knowledge is the fruit of sensory experiences), Descartes (cogit ergo sum/I think therefore I am), and Voltaire (the last King should be strangled with the entrails of the last priest*) – and. of course, not to forget great men such as Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Averroes (Ibn Rushd), among other brave thinkers the Arab world laid the foundations for modern civilization.

*As a humanist, I do not want to see such violence inflicted in reality.

So Zahid, thanks to Francis Bacon, Descartes, and then to Borland and Sun that your are able to write stuff in C++ or in Java today. Can you show me one thing invented by the fundamentalists what is in use today – unless you have invented something. I am just getting warmed-up with regards to addressing the vapidity of you presenting the difficulties in proving or disproving the proof for axiomatic consistencies (Godel’s Incomplete theorem) to demonstrate that angels, heaven, hell, and the satan (?) exist “out there”. I am going to dedicate 15 minutes every other day – for Yahoo club activities -- to make you realize that there is heaven on earth.

-EH

Zahid

Message #449


4.3 Addendum
Strange da!! Why dont you have a look at what Science is according to Quran and Islam. You can have a look at my homepage.

PS: Zahid is back on reviving track :)
 

Ethicalhumanist

Message #460

4.4
I hope you got a chance to review my complete answer -- i.e., 4.3, including the addendum. Before you proceed with your answer, get to the major point -- do not dodge around the issue of your false quotations of Russell (you remind me of the character "Artful Dodger" in the book Oliver Twist.) The ethical way in life is to admit a fuax pas, rather than act virtuous. And let me also remind you, that one doesn't be a believer or a church/mosque/synagogue goer to be a good human with the highest moral standards(e.g., Abraham Lincoln, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, ....), which are unfortunately are lacking in you.

More than piety or love for your God,which is personal (and rightfully owned by you), how you live out your life on this earth sans lies, sans hatred, sans intolerance, sans plagiarism, is one cut above that.
-EH


 

Content

We Welcome Your Suggestions, Comments Or Articles. 

Email