Excerpt from Age of Reason by Thomas Paine

[Personal note: Paine describes his reasons, from earliest recollection, for doubting the mythology of Christianity. I harbored as a child and have harbored ever since similar feelings toward the doctrine and so I think others may have felt the same way.]

From the time I was capable of conceiving an idea, and acting upon it by reflection, I either doubted the truth of the christian system, or thought it to be a strange affair; I scarcely knew which it was; but I well remember, when about seven or eight years of age, hearing a sermon read by a relation of mine, who was a great devotee of the church, upon the subject of what is called Redemption by the death of the Son of God. After the sermon was ended, I went into the garden, and as I was going down the garden steps (for I perfectly recollect the spot) I revolted at the recollection of what I had heard, and thought to myself that it was making God Almighty act like a passionate man, that killed his son, when he could not revenge himself any other way; and as I was sure a man would be hanged that did such a thing, I could not see for what purpose they preached such sermons. This was not one of those kind of thoughts that had any thing in it of childish levity; it was to me a serious reflection, arising from the idea I had that God was too good to do such an action, and also too almighty to be under any necessity of doing it. I believe in the same manner to this moment; and I moreover believe, that any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child cannot be a true system.

It seems as if parents of the christian profession were ashamed to tell their children any thing about the principles of their religion. They sometimes instruct them in morals, and talk to them of the goodness of what they call Providence... But the christian story of God the Father putting his son to death, or employing people to do it, (for that is the plain language of the story,) cannot be told by a parent to a child; and to tell him that it was done to make mankind happier and better, is making the story still worse; as if mankind could be improved by the example of murder; and to tell him that all this is a mystery, is only making an excuse for the incredibility of it.

[Later, in the second section, Paine gives his reasons for doubting the Old Testament. Similarly, when I read the text, I too was filled with suspicions about it being anything related to truth - moral or otherwise. Below is just a brief segment of his treatise.]

There are matters in that book, said to be done by the express command of God, that are as shocking to humanity, and to every idea we have of moral justice, as any thing done by Robespierre, by Carrier, by Joseph le Bon, in France, by the English government in the East Indies, or by any other assassin in modern times. When we read in the books ascribed to Moses, Joshua, etc., that they (the Israelites) came by stealth upon whole nations of people, who, as the history itself shows, had given them no offense; that they put all those nations to the sword; that they spared neither age nor infancy; that they utterly destroyed men, women, and children; that they left not a soul to breathe; expressions that are repeated over and over again in those books, and that too with exulting ferocity; are we sure these things are facts? are we sure that the Creator of man commissioned those things to be done? Are we sure that the books that tell us so were written by his authority?

It is not the antiquity of a tale that is an evidence of its truth; on the contrary, it is a symptom of its being fabulous; for the more ancient any history pretends to be, the more it has the resemblance of a fable. The origin of every nation is buried in fabulous tradition, and that of the Jews is as much to be suspected as any other.

To charger the commission of things upon the Almighty, which in their own nature, and by every rule of moral justice, are crimes, as all assassination is, and more especially the assassination of infants, is matter of serious concern. The Bible tells us, that those assassinations were done by the express command of God. To believe therefore the Bible to be true, we must unbelieve all our belief in the moral justice of God; for wherein could crying or smiling infants offend? And to read the Bible without horror, we must undo every thing that is tender, sympathizing, and benevolent in the heart of man. Speaking for myself, if I had no other evidence that the Bible is fabulous, than the sacrifice I must make to believe it to be true, that alone would be sufficient to determine my choice.

[Personal note: similar to the sentiments that Paine expresses toward the Jews in the Old Testament, I find the actions of Muhammad, the reported prophet of the Arabs, equally repugnant. That his followers try their best to emulate such wanton filth and that they also think this is the will of God, I find as the most disturbing relics of a putrid, nonsensical Abrahamic belief system.]

Social Contract Theory; Sources, Ideas as an Inspiration for American Leadership

The two most fundamental enlightenment-era ideas that inspired leadership during the formation of the government of the United States are the Social Contract and Natural Law. Together, these two concepts would inspire men to revolt against British rule over American colonies, to establish a new and experimental form of government, and, eventually, to endow citizens and the government with a respect for equal rights under the law. Additionally, these groundbreaking ideas would provide inspiration for freedom seekers wherever they were studied and in many ways influence relations between all nations. Indeed, these concepts would in many ways continue to inspire or vex leaders of nations around the globe and serve as a contrast between nations in the “free world” or “new world” and those of the “old world.”

Since in many ways the Social Contract theory is derived from Natural Law, it is best to first define what Natural Law is. First and foremost, Natural Law is derived from, in essence, the “golden rule” that one should “do unto others as he would have done unto himself.” Most scholars would acknowledge Leviathan, written by Thomas Hobbes and published in 1651 as one of the earliest works that proposes Natural Law as the pretext for a Social Contract. In describing what a Law of Nature is, Hobbes says that it is foremost a precept, found through reason, by which people are forbidden from destroying life or from destroying the means to self preservation. His first natural law states, “That every man, ought to endeavor Peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps, and advantages of War.” The two branches of this law are: 1) that people should seek peace whenever possible and that, 2) people reserve the right to self defense. In summary, he was stating that people have a right to self preservation and that they have an inherent duty to preserve peace. His second law is very much a paraphrased version of the “golden rule” stating that “... a man be willing, when others are so too, as far-forth, as for Peace, and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself.” He admits his law is a paraphrase of the Gospel text by saying: “This is that Law of the Gospel; ‘Whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do ye to them.’ And that Law of all men, ‘Quod tibi feiri non vis, alteri ne feceris.’” Many have expounded on or attempted to explain what can be derived from this pretext, but ultimately they all follow back to this one basic law. The law itself may cause one to ask a simple question, “What should one necessarily wish to have done to himself and therefore be willing to do likewise unto others?” It is at this simple question that the many derivations arise.

Enlightenment thinkers, when asked this question, may have had several different answers. However, they would have all agreed that one should derive at the answer through reason. In fact, the numerous examples of natural law being described by enlightenment thinkers can be summed up, most appropriately, by John Locke and, subsequently in abbreviated form, by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, as inalienable rights to life, health, liberty, or possessions.

John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government (published in 1689) and later Jean Jacques Rousseau in his Social Contract or Principles of Political Right (published in 1762) both provided interpretations of natural law and both used their interpretations as a basis for their theories on Social Contract. They both, in describing Natural Law, draw upon the concepts introduced by Hugo Grotius in his On the Law of War and Peace (published in 1625). The three of them seem to agree on the primordial concept that each person is allowed a right to self preservation. From this preeminent right, others can further be derived. Grotius summed up his Natural Rights thusly:

Since the COMMON RIGHT TO THINGS has been established, the COMMON RIGHT TO ACTIONS follows next in order, and this right is either absolute, or established by the supposition of a general agreement amongst mankind. Now all men have absolutely a right to do such or such acts as are necessary to provide whatever is essential to the existence or convenience of life. (Hugo Grotius, On the Law of War and Peace)

Ultimately, those things which allow man to provide for himself are, so aptly noted by John Locke, his health, his limbs, his personal ownership of things, and his liberty or freedom (intellectual or otherwise). Rousseau similarly acknowledges the primordial right to preservation in his treatise saying: "His first law is to provide for his own preservation, his first cares are those which he owes to himself; and, as soon as he reaches years of discretion, he is the sole judge of the proper means of preserving himself, and consequently becomes his own master." (Jean Jacques Rousseau, Social Contract or Principles of Political Right) Thus, they all agree that the concept of Natural Law derives from the fundamental right to self preservation. Thereby, they form the basis of the Social Contract, which follows that peace can only be preserved by acknowledging and protecting the right of all mankind to this fundamental precept and, consequently, they each, like Hobbes, hold that peace is a fundamental goal for civil society.

The Social Contract, therefore, is best described as the act of the individual foregoing natural rights to the sovereign in return for the sovereign acknowledging and protecting the rights of the individual to self preservation. Enlightenment philosophers primarily differed only in what or who justly constitutes the sovereign.

According to Hobbes, the sovereign is a person or group of peoples who serves as the authority over the civil society and that, in return for protection and the preservation of peace, the society gives up certain rights to the sovereign. Hobbes further believed that the society should be only expected to rebel against the sovereign in severe circumstances in which the sovereign is abusing their authority. He disliked the idea of separation of powers and thought that, once the sovereign is established – either the individual or the institution – the sovereign power cannot be disestablished or forfeited. According to Hobbes, the enumerated rights that the subjects lose and, by nature of the authority, grant to the sovereign when so established are: the right to protest, the right to punish the sovereign entity, the right to accuse the sovereign of injustice, the right to judge or determine what is necessary for peace, the right to determine educational or doctrinal teachings to be taught, the right to make rules or laws, the right to make war or the terms of peace, the right to choose ministers, the right to determine punishment or rewards, the right to coin money, and the right to enforce law and order. In short, Hobbes viewed the authority of the sovereign to be absolute and indivisible.

The near-absolute authority vested in the sovereign described by Hobbes is very much different from the authority Locke described as a sovereign’s legitimate role. Locke viewed the rights divested by society as being granted to the sovereign inasmuch as the sovereign limited its role to providing for peace, security, and the common public good. The people gave up certain natural rights only to the extent that the rights of each individual to life, liberty, and property were equally protected. All other powers executed by the sovereign are not granted to it by the people and are therefore abuses of this authority. While Locke agrees with Hobbes in that the legislative power of government, the power to create laws, was exclusive, but he felt that it must be limited to creating laws that equally applied to all and that the purpose of those laws be limited to the common good and thereby serve to equally protect each person’s right to self preservation. While Hobbes would have preferred the sovereign to be a monarch, Locke seems to have preferred a republican form of government.

Rousseau agreed with Locke on a number of issues and went one step further in describing the sovereign. Rousseau believed in popular sovereignty, which views all people who are mutually endowed with rights and invest in a popular contract for the common good share sovereignty or authority with one another. This power, in Rousseau’s view, is an inalienable and an indivisible power expressed and executed by the general will of the public. In this way, Rousseau believed in plebiscite rule and popular self-determination. The legislative body could only propose laws while the people should determine their passage. Locke, and, in many respects, the leadership of the United States at its inception differed from Rousseau on this point and believed that representative leadership voted by people ought to promote the will of their voting constituency.

Not unsurprisingly, philosophers after Rousseau thought of democratic plebiscite rule as tantamount to Ochlocracy or “mob rule.” Alexis de Tocqueville in his Democracy in America, the first volume of which was published in 1835, coined the term “tyranny of the majority” and warned of how unfettered democratic rule would necessarily lead to the downfall of the state. He eloquently describes this possibility by saying, “If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the unlimited authority of the majority, which may at some future time urge the minorities to desperation, and oblige them to have recourse to physical force. Anarchy will then be the result, but it will have been brought about by despotism.” Moreover, John Stuart Mill, in the mid-1800s warned in his essay “On Liberty” that this direct democratic rule would lead to a tyranny of the majority and envisioned a society becoming a tyrant itself.

In the end, the concepts described by enlightenment philosophers vis-à-vis natural law and the Social Contract inspired the sculptors of the American government. They saw fit to establish the first government of its kind in order to support and protect the rights of the individual to self determination and self preservation. In so doing, the experimental form of government has gone on to inspire other governments to establish similar principles in republican or democratic rule. Like enlightenment-era philosophers, the end goal, so described in published executive strategies of current and former presidents, is the security of freedom and protection of the rights of American citizens with the hope that an enduring peace and stability can be established for all mankind. Is this goal too idealistic and too ambitious?

Age of Reason - Of Missions and Revelations, etc., by Thomas Paine

EVERY national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God [Personal note: I cannot but think of Blues Brothers when I read this], communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word 'revelation.' Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tablets of the commandments from the hand of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some [biased] historian telling me so, the commandments carrying no internal evidence of divinity with them. They contain some good moral precepts such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver or legislator could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention. [Personal note: I automatically think of Confucius, who no Christian would acknowledge was divinely inspired but who spoke with wisdom that makes Moses seem like a child by comparison.]

When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven, and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes to near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and therefore I have a right not to believe it.

When also I am told that a woman, called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not: such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it: but we have not even this; for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves. It is only reported by others that they said so. It is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not chose to rest my belief upon such evidence.

It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new thing at that time to believe a man to have been celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabitated with hundreds; the story therefore had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene; it was comfortable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, or mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews, who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited the story.

It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian Church, sprung out of the tail of heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand. The statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for everything. The church became as crowded with the one, as the pantheon had been with the other; and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.

- Concerning the character of Jesus Christ, and his history.

NOTHING that is here said can apply, even with the most distant disrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and amiable man. The morality that he preached and practiced was of the most benevolent kind; and though similar systems of morality had been preached by Confucius, and by some of the Greek philosophers, many years before, by the Quakers since, and by many good men in all ages, it has not been exceeded by any.

Jesus Christ wrote no account of himself, of his birth, parentage, or anything else. Not a line of what is called the New Testament is of his writing. The history of him is altogether the work of other people; and as to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was the necessary counterpart to the story of his birth. His historians, having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have fallen to the ground.

The wretched contrivance with which this latter part is told, exceeds everything that went before it. The first part, that of miraculous conception, was not a thing that admitted publicity; and therefore the tellers of this part of the story had this advantage, that though they might not be credited, they could not be detected. They could not be expected to prove it, because it was not one of those things that admitted of proof, and it was impossible that the person of whom it was told could prove it himself. [personal note: DNA or parental testing had not yet been discovered.]

But the resurrection of a dead person from the grave, and his ascension through the air, is a thing very different, as to the evidence it admits of, to the invisible conception of a child in the womb. The resurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken place, admitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the ascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon day, to all Jerusalem at least. A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal; and as the public visibility of this last related act was the only evidence that could give sanction to the former part, the whole of it falls to the ground, because that evidence never was given. Instead of this, a small number of persons, not more than eight or nine, are introduced as proxies for the whole world, to say that they saw it, and all the rest of the world are called upon to believe it. But it appears that Thomas did not believe in the resurrection; and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I; and the reason is equally good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.

It is in vain to attempt to palliate or disguise this matter. The story, so far as relates to the supernatural part, has every mark of fraud and imposition stamped upon the face of it. Who were the authors of it is as impossible for us now to know, as it is for us to be assured that the books in which the account is related were written by the persons whose names they bear. The best surviving evidence we now have, respecting this affair is the Jews. They are regularly descended from the people who lived in the time this resurrection and ascension is said to have happened, and they say 'it is not true.' It has long appeared to me a strange inconsistency to cite the Jews as proof of the truth of the story. It is just the same as if a man were to say, I will prove the truth of what I have told you, by producing the people who say it is false.

That such a person as Jesus Christ existed, and that he was crucified, which was the mode of execution at that day, are historical relations strictly within the limits of probability. He preached most excellent morality, and the equality of man; but he preached also against the corruptions and avarice of the Jewish priests, and this brought upon him the hatred and vengeance of the whole order of the priest-hood. The accusation which those priests brought against him was that of sedition and conspiracy against the Roman government, to which the Jews were then subject and tributary; and it is not improbable that the Roman government might have some secret apprehension of the effects of his doctrine as well as the Jewish priests; neither is it improbable that Jesus Christ had in contemplation the delivery of the Jewish nation from the bondage of the Romans. Between the two, however, this virtuous reformer and revolutionist lost his life.

[personal note: if you would like to read on, you may find the text in its complete narrative at: http://manybooks.net/titles/painethoetext03twtp410.html]

Syllabus of an Estmate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus, Compared With Those of Others - by Thomas Jefferson

In a comparative view of the Ethics of the enlightened nations of antiquity, of the Jews and of Jesus, no notice should be taken of the corruptions of reason among the ancients, to wit, the idolatry & superstition of the vulgar, nor of the corruptions of Christianity by the learned among its professors.

Let a just view be taken of the moral principles inculcated by the most esteemed of the sects of ancient philosophy, or of their individuals; particularly Pythagoras, Socrates, Epicurus, Cicero, Epictetus, Seneca, Antoninus.

I. PHILOSOPHERS.

1. Their precepts related chiefly to ourselves, and the government of those passions which, unrestrained, would disturb our tranquility of mind. In this branch of philosophy they were really great.

2. In developing our duties to others, they were short and defective. They embraced, indeed, the circles of kindred and friends, and inculcated patriotism, or the love of country in the aggregate, as a primary obligation: toward our neighbors and countrymen they taught justice, but scarcely viewed them as within the circle of benevolence. Still less have they inculcated peace, charity and love to fellow men, or embraced with benevolence the whole family of mankind.

II. JEWS.

1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief of one only God. But their ideas of him and his attributes were degrading and injurious.

2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason and morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us; and repulsive and anti-social, as respecting other nations. They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.

III JESUS. In this state of things among the Jews, Jesus appeared. His parentage was obscure; his condition poor; his education null; his natural endowments great; his life correct and innocent; he was meek , benevolent, patient, firm, disinterested, and of the sublimest eloquence.

The disadvantages under which his doctrines appear are remarkable.

1. Like Socrates and Epictetus, he wrote nothing himself.

2. But he had not, like them, a Xenophon or an Arrian to write for him. On the contrary, all the learned of his country, entrenched in its power and riches, were opposed to him, lest his labors should undermine their advantages; and the committing to writing his life and doctrines fell on the most unlettered and ignorant men; who wrote, too, from memory, and not till long after the transactions had passed.

3. According to the ordinary fate of those who attempt to enlighten and reform mankind, he fell an early victim to the jealousy and combination of the altar and the throne, at about 33 years of age, his reason having not yet attained the maximum of its energy, nor the course of his preaching, which was but 3 years at most, presented occasions for developing a complete system of morals.

4. Hence the doctrines which he really delivered were defective as a whole and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, and often unintelligible.

5. They have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of the schismatising followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating and perverting the simple doctrines he taught by engrafting them the mysticisms of a Grecian sophist, frittering them into subtleties, and obscuring them with jargon, until they have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, and to view Jesus himself as an impostor.

Notwithstanding these disadvantages, a system of morals is presented to us, which if filled up in the true style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.

The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers, and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merits of his doctrines.

1. He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of his attributes and government [personal note: Jesus did not argue the merits of this belief, but offered an alternate, more benevolent description should one accept the existence of God]

2. His moral doctrines, relating to kindred and friends, were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.

3. The precepts of philosophy, and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountainhead.

4. He taught, emphatically, the doctrines of the future state, which was either doubted, or disbelieved by the Jews; and wielded it with efficacy, as an important incentive, supplementary to the other motives to moral conduct.

- Thomas Jefferson, penned in 1803

- Personal note: From a philosophical standpoint, the doctrine of Jesus as regards morality can be reduced to the Golden Rule. I cannot sufficiently describe how this basis can form an entire view of humanity in philosophical terms and will simply defer these arguments to the great philosophers of the enlightenment era - such as Locke and Kant. However, it is interesting to note that the Golden Rule forms the basis for "natural law" from which we derive the rights of humanity. Jefferson, himself, was likely a Deist considering his points of view on miracles and superstition. He wrote an alternate view of the life of Jesus by reducing the gospels to their fundamental lessons on morality and removing all semblance of superstition and mythology. The only public domain version that I've seen on the internet can be found here: http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/ but it can also be purchased at Amazon and elsewhere.

Religion and Science - by Albert Einstein

Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and desire are the motive forces behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present itself to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man [and I personally believe this is also evident as an underlying theme in all Abrahamic religion] it is above all fear that evokes religious notions--fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates for itself more or less analogous beings on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. One's object now is to secure the favor of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed towards a mortal. [Note how akin the primitive religion's sacrificial offering is to the belief that God sacrificed his son?] I am speaking now of the religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases the leader or ruler whose position depends on other factors, or a privileged class, combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause their own interests.

The social feelings are another source of the crystallization of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes, the God who, according to the width of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even life as such, the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing, who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God.

The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, which is continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step int he nation's life. That primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that they are all intermediate types, with this reservation, that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.

Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. Only individuals of exceptional endowments and exceptionally high-minded communities, as a general rule, get in any real sense beyond this level. But there is a third state of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form, and which I will call cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to explain this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the nothingness of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. He looks upon individual existence as a sort of prison and wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear in the earlier stages of development--e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer especially, contains a much stronger element of it.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no Church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with the highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as Atheists [heretics - such as Bruno and Galileo], sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are capable of it.

We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events--that is, if he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible [see my previous two notes], any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it goes through. Hence science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear and punishment and hope of reward after death.

It is therefore easy to see why the Churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees. On the other hand, I maintain that cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest incitement to scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion which pioneer work in theoretical science demands, can grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to those like-minded with themselves, scattered through the earth and the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man strength of this sort. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.

By the Invention of the Dogma of the Eternal Torments of Hell, Theologians Have Made of Their God a Detestable Being

The inventors of the dogma of eternal torments in hell, have made of the God whom they call so good, the most detestable of beings. Cruelty in man is the last term of corruption. There is no sensitive soul but is moved and revolts at the recital alone of the torments which the greatest criminal endures; but cruelty merits the greater indignation when we consider it gratuitous or without motive. The most sanguinary tyrants, Caligula, Nero, Domitian, had at least some motive in tormenting their victims and insulting their sufferings; these motives were, either their own safety, the fury of revenge, the design to frighten by terrible examples, or perhaps the vanity to make parade of their power, and the desire to satisfy a barbarous curiosity. Can a God have any of these motives? In tormenting the victims of His wrath, He would punish beings who could not really endanger His immovable power, nor trouble His felicity, which nothing can change. On the other hand, the sufferings of the other life would be useless to the living, who cannot witness them; these torments would be useless to the damned, because in hell is no more conversion, and the hour of mercy is passed; from which it follows, that God, in the exercise of His eternal vengeance, would have no other aim than to amuse Himself and insult the weakness of His creatures. I appeal to the whole human race! Is there in nature a man so cruel as to wish in cold blood to torment, I do not say his fellow-beings, but any sentient being whatever, without fee, without profit, without curiosity, without having anything to fear? Conclude, then, O theologians! that according to your own principles, your God is infinitely more wicked than the most wicked of men. You will tell me, perhaps, that infinite offenses deserve infinite chastisements, and I will tell you that we cannot offend a God whose happiness is infinite. I will tell you further, that offenses of finite beings cannot be infinite; that a God who does not want to be offended, cannot consent to make His creatures' offenses last for eternity; I will tell you that a God infinitely good, cannot be infinitely cruel, nor grant His creatures infinite existence solely for the pleasure of tormenting them forever.

It could have been but the most cruel barbarity, the most notorious imposition, but the blindest ambition which could have created the dogma of eternal damnation. If there exists a God who could be offended or blasphemed, there would not be upon earth any greater blasphemers than those who dare to say that this God is perverse enough to take pleasure in dooming His feeble creatures to useless torments for all eternity.

- Paul Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach writing as Jean Meslier

Free will is an idle fancy

Theologians tell and repeat to us that man is free, while all their teachings conspire to destroy his liberty. Trying to justify Divinity, they accuse him really of the blackest injustice. They suppose that, without grace, man is compelled to do evil: and they maintain that God will punish him for not having been given the grace to do good! With a little reflection, we will be obliged to see that man in all things acts by compulsion, and that his free will is a chimera, even according to the theological system. Does it depend upon man whether or not he shall be born of such or such parents? Does it depend upon man to accept or not to accept the opinions of his parents and of his teachers? If I were born of idolatrous or Mohammedan parents, would it have depended upon me to become a Christian? However, grave Doctors of Divinity assure us that a just God will damn without mercy all those to whom He has not given the grace to know the religion of the Christians.

Man's birth does not depend upon his choice; he was not asked if he would or would not come into the world; nature did not consult him upon the country and the parents she gave him; the ideas he acquired, his opinions, his true or false notions are the necessary fruits of the education which he has received, and of which he has not been the master; his passions and his desires are the necessary results of the temperament which nature has given him, and of the ideas with which he has been inspired; during the whole course of his life, his wishes and his actions are determined by his surroundings, his habits, his occupations, his pleasures, his conversations, and by the thoughts which present themselves involuntarily to him; in short, by a multitude of events and accidents which are beyond his control. Incapable of foreseeing the future, he knows neither what he will wish, nor what he will do in the time which must immediately follow the present. Man passes his life, from the moment of his birth to that of his death, without having been free one instant. Man, you say, wishes, deliberates, chooses, determines; hence you conclude that his actions are free. It is true that man intends, but he is not the master of his will or of his desires. He can desire and wish only what he judges advantageous for himself; he cannot love pain nor detest pleasure. Man, it will be said, sometimes prefers pain to pleasure; but then, he prefers a passing pain in hope of procuring a greater and more durable pleasure. In this case, the idea of a greater good determines him to deprive himself of one less desirable.

...But man, say you, can resist his desires; then he is free. Man resists his desires when the motives which turn him from an object are stronger than those which draw him toward it; but then, his resistance is necessary. A man who fears dishonor and punishment more than he loves money, resists necessarily the desire to take possession of another's money. Are we not free when we deliberate?--but has one the power to know or not to know, to be uncertain or to be assured? Deliberation is the necessary effect of uncertainty in which we find ourselves with reference to the results of our actions. As soon as we believe ourselves certain of these results, we necessarily decide; and then we act necessarily according as we shall have judged right or wrong. Our judgments, true or false, are not free; they are necessarily determined by ideas which we have received, or which our mind has formed. Man is not free in his choice; he is evidently compelled to choose what he judges the most useful or the most agreeable for himself. When he suspends his choice, he is not more free; he is forced to suspend it till he knows or believes he knows the qualities of the objects presented to him, or until he has weighed the consequence of his actions. Man, you will say, decides every moment on actions which he knows will endanger him; man kills himself sometimes, then he is free. I deny it! Has man the ability to reason correctly or incorrectly? Do not his reason and his wisdom depend either upon opinions that he has formed, or upon his mental constitution? As neither the one nor the other depends upon his will, they cannot in any wise prove his liberty.

...But you will say, "I feel myself free." It is an illusion which may be compared to that of the fly in the fable, which, lighting on the shaft of a heavy wagon, applauded itself as driver of the vehicle which carried it. Man who believes himself free, is a fly who believes himself the master-motor in the machine of the universe, while he himself, without his own volition, is carried on by it. The feeling which makes us believe that we are free to do or not do a thing, is but pure illusion. When we come to the veritable principle of our actions, we will find that they are nothing but the necessary results of our wills and of our desires, which are never within our power. You believe yourselves free because you do as you choose; but are you really free to will or not to will, to desire or not to desire? Your wills and your desires, are they not necessarily excited by objects or by qualities which do not depend upon you at all?

- Paul Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach writing as Jean Meslier

My personal note: I personally feel that such remarkable sociological and psychological insight is remarkable from a text written in this era.

A God who punishes the faults which he could have prevented, is a fool, who adds injustice to foolishness

What would we say of a father who, we are assured, watches without relaxation over the welfare of his feeble and unforeseeing children, and who, however, would leave them at liberty to go astray in the midst of rocks, precipices, and waters; who would prevent them but rarely from following their disordered appetites; who would permit them to handle, without precaution, deadly arms, at the risk of wounding themselves severely? What would we think of this same father, if, instead of blaming himself for the harm which would have happened to his poor children, he should punish them for their faults in the most cruel way? We would say, with reason, that this father is a fool, who joins injustice to foolishness. A God who punishes the faults which He could have prevented, is a being who lacks wisdom, goodness, and equity. A God of foresight would prevent evil, and in this way would be saved the trouble of punishing it. A good God would not punish weaknesses which He knows to be inherent in human nature. A just God, if He has made man, would not punish him for not being strong enough to resist his desires [which necessarily would have been given him by the Creator]. To punish weakness, is the most unjust tyranny. Is it not calumniating a just God, to say that He punishes men for their faults, even in the present life? How would He punish beings whom He alone could correct, and who, as long as they had not received grace, cannot act otherwise than they do?

According to the principles of theologians themselves, man, in his actual state of corruption, can do nothing but evil, for without Divine grace he has not the strength [nor the courage] to do good. Moreover, if man's nature, abandoned to itself, if destitute of Divine help, inclines him to evil, or renders him incapable of doing good, what becomes of his free will? According to such principles, man can merit neither reward nor punishment; in rewarding man for the good he does, God would but recompense Himself; in punishing man for the evil he does, God punishes him for not having been given the grace [given only by Him], without which it was impossible for him to do better.

- Paul Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach writing as Jean Meslier

The Fallacy of the Young Nation - G.K. Chesterton

...In the case of America, indeed a warning to this effect is instant and essential. America, of course like every other human thing, can in spiritual sense live or die as much as it chooses. But at the present moment and matter which America has very seriously to consider is not how near it is to its birth and beginning, but how near it may be to its end. It is only a verbal question whether the American civilization is young; it may become a very practical and urgent question whether it is dying. ...There are three main shapes or symbols in which a nation can show itself essentially glad and great - by the heroic in government, by the heroic in arms, and by the heroic in art. Beyond government, which is, as it were, the very shape and body of a nation, the most significant thing about any citizen is his artistic attitude toward a holiday and his moral attitude towards a fight - that is, his way of accepting life and his way of accepting death.

Subjected to these eternal tests, America does not appear by any means as particularly fresh or untouched. She appears with all the weakness and weariness of modern England or of any other Western power. In her politics she has broken up exactly as England has broken up, into a bewildering opportunism and insincerity. In the matter of war and the national attitude towards war, her resemblance to England is even more manifest and melancholy. It may be said with rough accuracy that there are three stages in the life of a strong people. First, it is as small power, and fights small powers. Then it is a great power, and fights great powers. Then it is a great power, and fights small powers, but pretends that they are great powers, in order to rekindle the ashes of its ancient emotion and vanity. After that, the next step is to become a small power itself...

But when we come to the last test of nationality, the test of art and letters, the case is almost terrible. The English colonies have produced no great artists; and that fact may prove that they are still full of silent possibilities and reserve force. But America has produced great artists. And that fact most certainly proves that she is full of a fine futility and the end of all things. Whatever the American men of genius are, they are not young gods making a young world. Is the art of Whistler a brave, barbaric art, happy and headlong? Does Mr. Henry James infect us with the spirit of a schoolboy? No; the colonies have not spoken, and they are safe. Their silence may be the silence of the unborn. But out of America has come a sweet and startling cry, as unmistakable as the cry of a dying man.

- G.K. Chesterton

In calling mortals into life, what a cruel and dangerous game does the Divinity force them to play!

Travelers assert that in some part of Asia reigns a sultan full of phantasies, and very absolute in his will. By a strange mania this prince spends his time sitting before a table, on which are placed six dice and a dice-box. One end of the table is covered with a pile of gold, for the purpose of exciting the cupidity of the courtiers and of the people by whom the sultan is surrounded. He, knowing the weak point of his subjects, speaks to them in this way: "Slaves! I wish you well; my aim is to enrich you and render you all happy. Do you see these treasures? Well, they are for you! try to win them; let each one in turn take this box and these dice; whoever shall have the good luck to raffle six, will be master of this treasure; but I warn you that he who has not the luck to throw the required number, will be precipitated forever into an obscure cell, where my justice exacts that he shall be burned by a slow fire." Upon this threat of the monarch, they regarded each other in consternation; no one willing to take a risk so dangerous. "What!" said the angry sultan, "no one wants to play? Oh, this does not suit me! My glory demands that you play. You will raffle then; I wish it; obey without replying!" It is well to observe that the despot's dice are prepared in such a way, that upon a hundred thousand throws there is but one that wins; thus the generous monarch has the pleasure to see his prison well filled, and his treasures seldom carried away. Mortals! this Sultan is your God; His treasures are heaven; His cell is hell; and you hold the dice!

- Paul Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach writing as Jean Meslier

All religions are ridiculed by those of opposite though equally insane belief.

Nothing appears more ridiculous in the eyes of a sensible man than for one denomination to criticize another whose creed is equally foolish. A Christian thinks that the Koran, the Divine revelation announced by Mohammed, is but a tissue of impertinent dreams and impostures injurious to Divinity. The Mohammedan, on his side, treats the Christian as an idolater and a dog; he sees but absurdities in his religion; he imagines he has the right to conquer his country and force him, sword in hand, to accept the faith of his Divine prophet; he believes especially that nothing is more impious or more unreasonable than to worship a man or to believe in the Trinity. The Protestant Christian, who without scruple worships a man, and who believes firmly in the inconceivable mystery of the Trinity, ridicules the Catholic Christian because the latter believes in the mystery of the transubstantiation. He treats him as a fool, as ungodly and idolatrous, because he kneels to worship the bread in which he believes he sees the God of the universe. All the Christian denominations agree in considering as folly the incarnation of the God of the Indies, Vishnu. They contend that the only true incarnation is that of Jesus, Son of the God of the universe and of the wife of a carpenter. The theist, who calls himself a votary of natural religion, is satisfied to acknowledge a God of whom he has no conception; indulges himself in jesting upon other mysteries taught by all the religions of the world.

- Paul Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach writing as Jean Meslier

Comment: Daniel Wultz has died...so Islamic Jihad must be dancing in the streets...The below article came out when Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. Any doubts as to the Jihadist's acceptable means, to include murder of innocent people, to attain their goals ought to be thrown out the window.

Comatose Florida teen 'best target we can dream of'
Terror leaders rejoice in injuries of boy critical after Tel Aviv bombing

Original text can be found here.

JERUSALEM – Daniel Wultz, a Florida teenager lying in a coma after being critically injured last week in a suicide bombing at an Israeli restaurant, is the "best target combination we can dream of – American and Zionist," Abu Nasser, a leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, one of the groups responsible for the deadly blast, told WorldNetDaily.

Abu Ayman, a leader of the Islamic Jihad, which also took responsibility for the April 17 bombing in which Wultz was injured, threatened all Americans and Jews worldwide and expressed regret Wultz is still alive.

Wultz, 16, was one of over 60 people injured in the attack in which a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up in a crowded section of Tel Aviv as Israelis celebrated the fifth day of the Passover holiday. The blast ripped through a falafel restaurant just outside the city's old central bus station, killing nine. The same restaurant was hit by a suicide attack in January, wounding 20 people.

Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Brigades, the declared military wing of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party, claimed responsibility for the bombing.

Wultz is a resident of Weston, Fla. He was on Passover vacation in Israel along with his family. The teenager was seated with his father, Yekutiel, at an outside table of the targeted restaurant when the bomb was detonated.

Thousands mourn Pakistani student

The full text can be found here.

Amer Cheema, 28, died in custody 10 days ago after being arrested in March on charges of attempting to kill the editor of Die Welt for reprinting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad first published in Denmark last year.


My thoughts: Pakistan mourns the death of an individual who hanged himself...yes, this is pretty sad, except that he hanged himself in prison while awaiting trial for attempted murder. It's pretty easy to determine that the entire Western world would say a collective, "good riddens." And it's also pretty easy to determine that the cosmic justice flies in the face of those in the Muslim world who would love nothing more than the killing of those who "defamed" the prophet. It's pretty simple to see that Muslims generally think it OK to murder whenever they feel it's right. Well, by that measure, I personally find it right that Amer sent his own sorry ass to the grave.

Islamist parties opposed to Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president, have sought to make political capital from the death of Cheema, depicting him as a martyr for defending Muslim honour.


My thoughts: Defending honour by attempting to murder is hardly honourable. Martyrdome in the Christian faith is facing persecution and threat of death while still holding true to ideals. In that respect, the Danish cartoonists are the true martyrs in this scenario.

German justice officials said last week the student had hung himself using his clothes. But Farid Piracha, a lawmaker from the Jamaat-i-Islami party who first raised the issue in the National Assembly over a week ago, said at the funeral that Cheema had been killed. "The killing of Cheema was a barbaric act. He was killed by torture," Piracha said.

My thoughts: Pakistani Muslims, like many Muslims, refuse to believe that anything bad could be done by Muslims, nor that anything good can be done by anyone other than Muslims. I'm surprised that Farid didn't blame the Jews for Cheema's death. Why not? Everything else is blamed on the Jews or the West (well, they did work in some blame for the West). Pathetic...

Gaddafi, the supreme potentate of Libya, has released a message for the West: (my comments are in the brackets)...

Muhammad is the Prophet of all people. He superseded all previous religions. If Jesus were alive when Muhammad was sent, he would have followed him. All people must be Muslims. [By the same logic all people must be “Branch Davidians” or Mormons or Seventh Day Adventists or…wait, which is the most recent?]

But the people who defamed Muhammad were defaming their own prophet, because Muhammad is the prophet of the people in Scandinavia, in Europe, America, Asia and Africa. But since the holy texts that they read in Scandinavia are forged and call for hatred, they believe Muhammad is not their prophet. [That’s right, the original Bible mentions that Muhammad would be the last prophet…but that little bit was taken out by the satanic Jews and Catholic Church right? It’s that damn DaVinci Code again…]

We expect to see a picture of Jesus with nuclear bombs over his head, because the nuclear bomb was developed by the followers of Jesus. [So wouldn’t this mean that Iran ought not to seek the bomb, since it’s so evil? The drawing wasn’t actually a nuclear bomb anyway, it was a drawing of a regular old TNT type, you know the ones that Muslims consistently strap to themselves and use to blow up innocent civilians…]

Christian women are naked. In Scandinavia women are naked. [Really, wow—I really want to go to Scandinavia then…all those buxom dames walking around in cold weather with no clothes on—high-beam city…lol I think what he means is that not wearing a veil is an obscenity—of course! All it takes for men to attack women in sinful carnal delight is for him to see the unadorned face—away, foul temptress! Take your unadorned face and ankles elsewhere harlot!]

In any case, the holy texts of the West, of Europe and America, call for hatred, there is no doubt about it. This text is corrupt and inhumane. [Turn the other cheek and love thy enemy…nothing but hatred indeed…please oh follower of Christianity, enlighten me to these texts that call for oppression of Muslims and Jews—I can’t find them, but even if I could I wouldn’t follow such jibberish, for I know that it isn’t the will of God.]

The so-called Old Testament and New Testament are neither Old Testament nor New Testament - because both testaments were superseded, and they are forged. They were written by hand hundreds of years after Jesus. [More like about 50 years, approximately the same time before the Koran was compiled. Oh, and the ahadith were composed even later, from supposed stories told about how Muhammad acted…perhaps they are forgeries too?]

Today’s Bible does not mention Muhammad, whereas our Lord’s Bible mentions Muhammad repeatedly. [What about the holy prophet Joseph Smith? He’s mentioned in the Book of Mormon, so obviously since the Koran doesn’t mention him, the Koran is forged!]

We must search for the Gospel of Barnabas, of St. Barnabas, because this is the true gospel. This gospel explicitly mentions that Muhammad would come after Jesus. [The Bible also mentions false prophets, so which is correct?]

Today, we are correcting human history from here, in Timbuktu. [Say what?]

We have fifty million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. [Oh man, the swords and guns and conquests are where the fun is at—just ask Osama…]

Allah mobilizes the Muslim nation of Turkey, and adds it to the European Union. That’s another 50 million Muslims. There will be 100 million Muslims in Europe. Albania, which is a Muslim country, has already entered the EU. Bosnia, which is a Muslim country, has already entered the EU. 50 percent of its citizens are Muslims. [So why is Albania a Muslim country again? Oh yeah, because they massacred or forcefully converted all the Christians, the same goes for Turkey which was a conquest of part of the Holy Roman Empire—so that’s what’s needed to make Europe a Muslim state, a high Muslim birth rate and massacre of the non-believer…yes, true peace awaits, after we kill everyone peace will prevail!]

Europe is in a predicament, and so is America. They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time, or else declare war on the Muslims. [These are the only two options? How about you leave the West the hell alone or how about you step into the modern era, with universal respect for all?]

All people have the right to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, and to circle the Ka’ba. [And the right to oppress women, Jews, and Christians…and the right to kill the apostates, atheists, pagans, idol worshippers, etc.]

The verse says that polytheists are impure, hence they are forbidden from coming near the Haram. [Here they go with the hatred of the Christian concept of a Triune God.]

If the American president comes to make a pilgrimage, they will say to him: You are impure, a polytheist. But he will reply: I am not a polytheist. Nor am I impure. How can you make such serious allegations against me? If I am impure, how come you shake my hand and break bread with me? [Say what? I’m speechless…]

He will pull out the one dollar bill that we use, and he will say: Go ahead, read what’s written on it.

Translator: “In God we trust.”

Mu’ammar Al-Qadhafi: It says what the translator said: “In God we trust.” Here, we have a dollar. Where is it? Read it… “In God we trust.” [We trust that God will empower us to kill all the unbelievers! God willing we will end this scourge—freedom must be defeated for peace to prevail!]

The below is a dialogue that occured between myself and a couple of Muslims. The original text in its entirety can be found here.

Assalamau-Alaikum all,

Brother of the umma Mohideen, you are a conservative muslim and having lived & taught in America....you have done very well to ensure that Infidel thinkiing has not clouded your judgement.

The Infidel says that you cannot be muslim & be clever...but you have proved many of the infidel wrong. I so want for your miracles work to continue ...you are a model muslim that others need to aspire to...you even acknowledged that Ahmadis are muslims too....progress indeed.

As an Ahmadi MUSLIM...I have tried to fulfill my primary role of dawa on this infidel blog...I mean why bother on a muslim website...they already know what we know.

My brother of the Umma, your one statement however made today troubles me somewhat and some of the infedel has picked on it too...

"Islam is perfect".

I am troubled because I believe that Islam is ALMOST perfect but not perfect.

There are a few inaccuracies that have been highlighted within Islam literature which are not 100% true.

The earth is flat (I can live with this one...because this is an abstract model...Allah showed the muslim that the West too is for the muslim...this is best examplifed on a flat surface).

The moon is fiery ball...generating it's own light ...but it gets the light from the sun.

The sun sets in a muddy environment & can only rise after permission from Allah (swt).

I am sure it is my lack of understanding that is at fault here and I pray that Allah (swt)shows me the light ...but at the moment I am troubled by this.

Also being a woman ...our's prophet's (pbuh) marriage to Aiesha at the age of 6 disturbs me greatly....was there a need for this? Many muslims I have spoken to lie and say she was 18 but the Hadith clearly talk about her playing with dolls. Allah forgive my need to question this.

Getting back to this topic, I have a question too. Allah (SWT) will forgive our past sins when we convert, but is this done only once? For example if one converts...can he/she deconvert...perform a sin and then reconvert to have this sin removed?

This question troubles mE somewhat too? In the UK I have asked a muftis these questions and was only TOLD to pray to Allah for forgivness in thinking in this corrupt manner. I prayed very hard for many days but these questions linger?

I was brought up in the UK and mixing with infedel childrens has not helped me...but you seem to have survived this trauma...truly Allah is with you.

Me, I am much afraid that hellfire is for me...it is why I perform dawa with much devotion, but I am afraid...and I keep thinking that Allah punished me for this by almost taking my shor Anwer away from me in the earthquake.

Unlike you I am much troubled in mind because I think Islam is almost perfect but not completely so.

I still wish Islamic peace & jilbabs for the infedel and want to be stong in belief in Allah(swt).

Posted by: Naseem at April 3, 2006 10:58 AM

Dear sister Naseem,

Assalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmathullah

May I rephrase this question? Why evil thoughts occur? The answer is found in http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=occurs&translator=2&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
===
Abu Huraira reported that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), said: When it occurs to my bondsman that he should do a good deed but he actually does not do it, record one good to him, but if he puts it into practice, I make an entry of ten good acts in his favour. When it occurs to him to do evil, but he does not commit it, I forgive that. But if he commits it, I record one evil against his name. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) observed. The angels said: That bondsman of Yours intends to commit evil. though His Lord is more Vigilant than he. Upon this He (the Lord) said: Watch him; if he commits (evil), write it against his name but if he refrains from doing it, write one good deed or him, for he desisted from doing it for My sake. The Messenger of Allah said: He who amongst you is good of faith, all his good acts are multiplied from ten to seven hundred times (and are recorded in his name) and all the evils that he commits are recorded as such (i, e. without increase) till he meets Allah. (Book #001, Hadith #0235) (Sahih Muslim)
===

An evil thought that was not implemented is rewarded by Allah. So, do not be perturbed by your lingering questions. Yes, beware you don’t act on any evil thought as it would be recorded against you.

In India and other countries, when an inquisitive child asks a difficult question that child is asked to shut up and behave well in future by not asking such questions. However, in USA I found that the elders try their level best to answer the most difficult questions. When they feel that they do not have the ability, they often direct the child to investigate and help the child in the investigation. This encourages the child to be curious and learn more.

May Allah SWT endow the Muslim mother with the patience to educate her child even if the questions are downright infuriating.

Inshah Allah, I hope to attempt to answer your questions. I pray to Allah to help me.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at April 3, 2006 04:01 PM

How is that answering questions? All you did was tell her it was all right to ask questions--what question did you answer? Perhaps you don't know the answer, which is why you tell her to ask some such authority. Perhaps you fail to realize that religion OUGHT to make sense. If questions aren't easily answered it's not because you lack the capacity to answer them, it's because the religion has failed to do so. This is why Muslims get defensive when you mention something like Muhammad's pedophilia--the questions aren't easily answered because it DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. I would bet that if you had been honest with yourself you simply CANNOT defend such an act.

How can an imperfect man deliver a perfect message? Muhammad introduced his personal biases for he could not have known truth as it was revealed to him (for to be perfect would be god-like indeed). Not to mention, as Profitsbeard said, "Even Muslims admit that some suras were lost, one even eaten by a jackass that wandered into some early believer's tent and munched down that specific verse ...which had been scribbled on a palm leaf, or some other form of edible medieval post-it note." There are inherent FLAWS throughout religion--not just the ones you perceive in the beliefs of others. Why don't you wake up to this fact: "you are not perfect, neither is your religion (especially as understood by you and its followers), so you have NO RIGHT TO JUDGE OTHERS." No compulsion, indeed!

Posted by: Eudaemon at April 3, 2006 04:48 PM

you have NO RIGHT TO JUDGE OTHERS
Posted by: Eudaemon at April 3, 2006 04:48 PM

Pray tell me what judgment did I give?

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at April 3, 2006 05:31 PM

What I am saying is that Islam should not proclaim to be truth and that Judaism/Christianity is false. If you believe that your religion is correct, you should at least acknowledge other people's right to believe as they wish. The Golden Rule seems to not apply in the case of Muslims--which is the double standard to which this thread is directed.

Additionally Islam should not be spread through violence--if you believe otherwise, then the statement is still directed at you. Provide a logical moral foundation for such a belief. If Allah truly was disgusted by infidels why does he allow them to prosper while Islamic countries remain in poverty? Have you not thought of how silly you seem when you blame all of mankind's ills on the rascally Jews and infidels? Earthquake machine? Are you serious? You've got to have a screw lose...

How about all of the good that eminates from Western and Jewish culture? Why would a just God allow the unbelievers to develop technology, knowledge, arts, etc. while Muslims do well to put food on the table? Is God unjust? Does he not care about his believers? Could it be that the West does well because it is not Muslim? Could it be that all of the good (and the bad) that comes out of the West is because of the freedom we have? Perhaps God rewards us for what we do with our freedom?

Posted by: Eudaemon at April 3, 2006 06:38 PM

Dear brother of the Umma Mohideen,

Assalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmathullah

I was afraid that perhaps I had gone too far with my questions and that you would not answer...but Insha-Allah , Allah (swt)has seen fit to provide succur and favour upon me...and you did not abandon your sister.

I know that you need time to reflect on the questions I posed...this is most important to me...so please take your time..do not let the infedel hurry you ....but please attempt to answer them.

I was telling Anwer about my emeetings with you... and Masha-Allah he sends his wishes and every success on more Koranic miracles, you have worked hard.

The one aspect I feel very emotional about is this. Do you think that I am being punished for such impure thoughts? Why should Anwer suffer if I am the guilty one? I cannot sleep when he coughs in pain and sometimes I cry myself to sleep. Do you think Allah sees this, it is I who should suffer? I try hard with dawa here in Pak and the UK when I go.

I know you may not have the answers, but I feel you are at a higher plane in your Islamic quest than I and your opinion may help my emotional state.

Note that I am not really looking for sympathy...but an islamic viewpoint may help.

Posted by: Naseem at April 3, 2006 06:46 PM

Dear sister Naseem,

Assalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmathullah.

I never heard that the moon generates its own light. Could you please give the reference? For the present, I offer the following:

From http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm we have:
===
Moon Statistics
Mean surface temperature (day) 107°C
Mean surface temperature (night) -153°C
Maximum surface temperature 123°C
Minimum surface temperature -233°C
===

In our homes we use fire to boil water. The moon has mean day surface temperature of 107 degrees Centigrade which is hotter than the boiling point of water. So, in that sense, the moon is indeed fiery!

The following http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=+Kahf+year&translator=2&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we have:
===
An-Nawwas b. Sam'an reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) made a mention of the Dajjal one day in the morning. He sometimes described him to be insignificant and sometimes described (his turmoil) as very significant rand we felt) as if he were in the cluster of the date-palm trees. When we went to him (to the Holy Prophet) in the evening and he read (the signs of fear) in our faces, he said: What is the matter with you? We said: Allah's Messenger, you made a mention of the Dajjal in the morning (sometimes describing him) to be insignificant and sometimes very important, until we began to think as if he were present in some (near) part of the cluster of the datpalm trees. Thereupon he said: I harbour fear in regard to you in so many other things besides the Dajjal. If he comes forth while I am among on, I shall contend with him on your behalf, but if he comes forth while I am not amongst you, a man must contend on his own behalf and Allah would take care of every Muslim on my behalf (and safeguard him against his evil). He (Dajjal) would be a young man with twisted, contracted hair, and a blind eye. I compare him to 'Abd-ul-'Uzza b. Qatan. He who amongst you would survive to see him should recite over him the opening verses of Sura Kahf (xviii.). He would appear on the way between Syria and Iraq and would spread mischief right and left. O servant of Allah! adhere (to the path of Truth). We said: Allah's Messenger, how long would he stay on the earth? He said.. For forty days, one day like a year and one day like a month and one day like a week and the rest of the days would be like your days. We said: Allah's Messenger, would one day's prayer suffice for the prayers of day equal to one year? Thereupon he said: No, but you must make an estimate of time (and then observe prayer). We said: Allah's Messenger, how quickly would he walk upon the earth? Thereupon he said: Like cloud driven by the wind. He would come to the people and invite them (to a wrong religion) and they would affirm their faith in him and respond to him. He would then give command to the sky and there would be rainfall upon the earth and it would grow crops. Then in the evening, their posturing animals would come to them with their humps very high and their udders full of milk and their flanks stretched. He would then come to another people and invite them. But they would reject him and he would go away from them and there would be drought for them and nothing would be lef t with them in the form of wealth. He would then walk through the waste, land and say to it: Bring forth your treasures, and the treasures would come out and collect (themselves) before him like the swarm of bees. He would then call a person brimming with youth and strike him with the sword and cut him into two pieces and (make these pieces lie at a distance which is generally) between the archer and his target. He would then call (that young man) and he will come forward laughing with his face gleaming (with happiness) and it would at this very time that Allah would send Christ, son of Mary, and he will descend at the white minaret in the eastern side of Damscus wearing two garments lightly dyed with saffron and placing his hands on the wings of two Angels. When he would lower his head, there would fall beads of perspiration from his head, and when he would raise it up, beads like pearls would scatter from it. Every non-believer who would smell the odour of his self would die and his breath would reach as far as he would be able to see. He would then search for him (Dajjal) until he would catch hold of him at the gate of Ludd and would kill him. Then a people whom Allah had protected would come to Jesus, son of Mary, and he would wipe their faces and would inform them of their ranks in Paradise and it would be under such conditions that Allah would reveal to Jesus these words: I have brought forth from amongst My servants such people against whom none would be able to fight; you take these people safely to Tur, and then Allah would send Gog and Magog and they would swarm down from every slope. The first of them would pass the lake of Tibering and drink out of it. And when the last of them would pass, he would say: There was once water there. Jesus and his companions would then be besieged here (at Tur, and they would be so much hard pressed) that the head of the ox would be dearer to them than one hundred dinirs and Allah's Apostle, Jesus, and his companions would supplicate Allah, Who would send to them insects (which would attack their necks) and in the morning they would perish like one single person. Allah's Apostle, Jesus, and his companions would then come down to the earth and they would not find in the earth as much space as a single span which is not filled with their putrefaction and stench. Allah's Apostle, Jesus, and his companions would then again beseech Allah, Who would send birds whose necks would be like those of bactrin camels and they would carry them and throw them where God would will. Then Allah would send rain which no house of clay or (the tent of) camels' hairs would keep out and it would wash away the earth until it could appear to be a mirror. Then the earth would be told to bring forth its fruit and restore its blessing and, as a result thereof, there would grow (such a big) pomegranate that a group of persons would be able to eat that, and seek shelter under its skin and milch cow would give so much milk that a whole party would be able to drink it. And the milch camel would give such (a large quantity of) milk that the whole tribe would be able to drink out of that and the milch sheep would give so much milk that the whole family would be able to drink out of that and at that time Allah would send a pleasant wind which would soothe (people) even under their armpits, and would take the life of every Muslim and only the wicked would survive who would commit adultery like asses and the Last Hour would come to them. (Book #041, Hadith #7015) (Sahih Muslim)
===

Now there is a hue and cry regarding global warming. When Dajjal appears the surface temperature during a day like a month would appear to be like that of the moon. Where is the infidel technology to survive such a temperature for 15 days in one go and survive?

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at April 3, 2006 07:05 PM

Dajjal? You must mean Muhammad...I know full well that the earth was not boiling when Muhammad walked the earth--yes, he lived in a desert, but it wasn't that hot.

Don't try to argue logic while quoting apocolyptic literature--from any faith. Hopefully there aren't Christians who will start quoting Revelation...

I find it humerous that you state that 107°C is hot--the boiling point for water, yes...but not that hot in the cosmic scheme of things. Most flames burn much hotter. By the way, how do you know how hot it is on the moon anyway? Could it be that the West observed it through rational thought and science?

Posted by: Eudaemon at April 3, 2006 07:44 PM

Naseem -

You earlier asked if Allah saw fit to punish you for questioning your faith by inflicting pain upon your husband. I find it very sad that you would think such a thing. I believe that you stated earlier that he almost died in the earthquake. Well, he did not die--while others did. Did the ones who perished (or their questioning wives) do something even more disturbing to deserve death? The fact is that bad things happen to good people--it has been that way for all time. Theologians have attempted to answer why for almost as long as religion has been around. The question, "if God is just, how can bad people be rewarded while good people receive torment?"

The Jews have had to ask this question for far longer and far more consistently than almost anyone else. The book of Job (the Muslim Ayyub) is probably the best testament for what the Jews perceive is the reason behind these trials. They believe that your faith is made stronger if held steadfastly through trying times and that there is indeed reward in the end if you maintain your faith.

Personally I feel that neither God not Satan sends the many awesome disasters that befall man. Science has told us many things about why such things occur. What is more for mankind to deal with is the constant trials that we bring upon ourselves. Why must people quarrel? Why must people commit wrongdoing when they know wrong from right? These are the true questions that are best answered through faith--unfortunately I feel that Islam causes more strife and turmoil today than any other source. Indeed, Muslims are told that it's good to suffer and good to die--must be a lot of good in the Muslim world then--so much that they like to share with others...I wish they wouldn't.

Posted by: Eudaemon at April 3, 2006 10:06 PM

Dearest brother of the Umma Mohideen,

Your sister says Assalamau-Laikumou & to all interested infedels,

Here is the reference to the moon being a fiery ball (i.e. a sun) that you asked for.

Tabari I:233 “I heard Ka'b the Rabbi tell a marvelous story about the sun and the moon. He said the sun and moon will be like two hamstrung oxen flung into hell.

“Ibn Abbas said: ‘You want me to tell you what I heard the Messenger say about the sun and moon and the beginning of creation and how things went with them.' We said, ‘We would.'”
“When the Messenger was asked about that, he replied, ‘When Allah was done with His creation and only Adam remained to be created,

He created two suns from the light of His Throne. His foreknowledge told Him that He would efface one and change it to a moon; so the moon is smaller in size than the sun.'”

“Muhammad continued, ‘If Allah had left THE TWO SUNS as He created them, night would not have been distinguishable from day. A fasting person would not know when he must fast. A woman would not know how to reckon the period of her impurity. Muslims would not know the time of the pilgrimage. Allah was too concerned with His slaves to do such a thing.”

Tabari I:234 “Allah thus sent Gabriel to drag his wing three times OVER THE FACE OF THE MOON, WHICH AT THE TIME WAS A SUN.

HE EFFACED ITS LUMINOSITY AND LEFT THE LIGHT IN IT. This is what Allah means: [in Qur'an 17:12] ‘We have blotted out the sign of the night, and We have made the sign of the day something to see by.' The blackness you can see as lines on the moon is a trace of the blotting.”

Mohideen is a well respected teacher, and by all means exchange dialogue ...but there is no need to be rude to the 1st muslim that I have come across who will accept Ahmadis as muslims ...one that has brought significant understanding of Islam to this infedel blog.

This blog is all the better for it ...a bit of respect please.

Posted by: Naseem at April 4, 2006 08:23 AM

Dear sister Naseem,

Assalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmathullah

Consider the following Verse 86 of Chapter 18 of the Holy Quran from http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=18&mac=
===
Yusuf Ali 86: Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."
Shakir 86: Until when he reached the place where the sun set, he found it going down into a black sea, and found by it a people. We said: O Zulqarnain! either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit.
Pickthal 86: Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness.
M. Khan 86: Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people. We (Allah) said (by inspiration): "O Dhul-Qarnain! Either you punish them, or treat them with kindness."
===

and

Verse 38 of Chapter 36 of the Holy Quran from http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=36&mac=
===
Yusuf Ali 38: And the sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him), the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing.
Shakir 38: And the sun runs on to a term appointed for it; that is the ordinance of the Mighty, the Knowing.
Pickthal 38: And the sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Wise.
M. Khan 38: And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term (appointed). That is the Decree of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing.
===

and the explanation of Verse 38 of Chapter 36 of the Holy Quran given by the following Tradition from http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=prostrates+return&translator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
===
Narrated Abu Dhar: The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: "And the sun Runs its fixed course For a term (decreed). that is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing." (36.38) (Book #54, Hadith #421) (Sahih Bukhari)
===

For an American living in San Fransisco the sun sets in the sea. However for an American living in Louisville, KY the sun sets on land. What? Sun sets in sea and also land??? The correct interpretation of Verse 86 of Chapter 18 of the Holy Quran is that Dhul Qarnain traveled west until he reached a sea shore. There was a spring of sea water, possibly a geyser from under the sea throwing water up.

Verse 38 of Chapter 36 of the Holy Quran and its explanation in the Tradition quoted above simply paraphrases the following:
===
The sun that rises from the east and sets in the west due to the rotation of the earth in its axis would reverse direction before the Day of Judgment. The rotation of the earth would be reversed; just before this reversal of the rotation of the earth, the permission to sun to continue its normal course would be denied. Because of this change in direction of rotation of the earth, the sun that used to rise in the east would rise in the west.
===

Does light travel in a straight line or along a curve? To a school child it travels in a straight line. To a theoretical physicist, as light gets bent by the black hole, it sometimes travels along a curve. Is it right to argue that the teacher in school is wrong? A teacher fashions his message in such a way that it would be understood by the listener. Same applies to God Almighty. The Verses and the Tradition quoted above were instantly understood by the Companions of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, when science was no where. Now that God Almighty has guided mankind to attain fine details about the universe, we interpret the above in the light of our enhanced knowledge. Light travels in a straight line for a kid, whereas it travels in a curve for the researcher.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at April 4, 2006 09:13 AM

Dear sister Naseem,

Assalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmathullah.

Thanks for giving the references. Please see “7. Consistency: Ever present test of authenticity,” in http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/ The contents of the above two Traditions do not seem to violate any information (very small indeed) that I know. The above two describe the events during the ‘Big Bang’ and to my humble mind beyond the pale of science.

I try to restrict the field of Tradition to the ones given in ALIM CD. They are: Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawood, Muwatta, Tirmidhi, Qudsi, and Fiqh-us-Sunnah. This is just to save my time and not search for a Tradition with one of the posters in a place that I do not have immediate access. That is why; I try to give a link to the quotes if there is a link. The link could be opened and my quote could be verified.

In the ALIM CD I performed a search on – sun moon – which returned 41 Traditions: 28 from Sahih Bukhari, 4 from Sahih Muslim, none from Abu Dawood, 4 from Muwatta, 1 Tirmidhi, none from Qudsi, and 4 from Fiqh-us-Sunnah. None of them refer to the process of creating the sun and the moon as given in the Traditions given by you. From among the 41, I would like to present the following 4 Traditions in two groups.

From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=eclipse+ibrahim+sun&translator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we have:
===
(1) Narrated Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba: "The sun eclipsed in the life-time of Allah's Apostle on the day when (his son) ibrahim died. So the people said that the sun had eclipsed because of the death of ibrahim. Allah's Apostle said, "The sun and the moon do not eclipse because of the death or life (i.e. birth) of some-one. When you see the eclipse pray and invoke Allah." (Book #18, Hadith #153) (Sahih Bukhari)
(2) Narrated Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba : On the day of ibrahim's death, the sun eclipsed and the people said that the eclipse was due to the death of ibrahim (the son of the Prophet). Allah's Apostle said, "The sun and the moon are two signs amongst the signs of Allah. They do not eclipse because of someone's death or life. So when you see them, invoke Allah and pray till the eclipse is clear." (Book #18, Hadith #168) (Sahih Bukhari)
(3) Narrated Abu Bakra: In the life-time of the Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) the sun eclipsed and he went out dragging his clothes till he reached the Mosque. The people gathered around him and he led them and offered two Rakat. When the sun (eclipse) cleared, he said, "The sun and the moon are two signs amongst the signs of Allah; they do not eclipse because of the death of someone, and so when an eclipse occurs, pray and invoke Allah till the eclipse is over." It happened that a son of the Prophet called ibrahim died on that day and the people were talking about that (saying that the eclipse was caused by his death). (Book #18, Hadith #170) (Sahih Bukhari)
===

The above three Traditions show that even during a day in which his son died, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, desired to guide his followers to the right path.

From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=sun+moon+folded&translator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
===
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "The sun and the moon will be folded up (deprived of their light) on the Day of Resurrection." (Book #54, Hadith #422) (Sahih Bukhari)
===

The above Tradition possibly refers to the reverse of the Big Bang.

Allah knows best.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at April 4, 2006 10:17 AM

he earth is flat
Posted by: Naseem at April 3, 2006 10:58 AM

How are the worshippers aligned just next to the Holy Kabaa? In a circle. How are they aligned in the Masjid in Medina? In a straight line.

In mathematics, we derive the direction of a tangent by a process of finding the limit of the direction of two points on the curve as their distance becomes zero. The curve between two points on a curve very close to each other is a straight line.

When there were no satellite pictures and when the moon and the sun could be seen as circles, for a human without any aid, the earth is flat. This is because, a human cannot see beyond 5 miles or so due to the curvature of the earth. 5 miles compared to 5000 miles is indeed very small. Earth is flat at short distances, and is a sphere at long distances.

Again it is the question of a teacher using simple language to teach the student; it is not a question of ignorance of the teacher. How does light travel: straight or curved?

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at April 4, 2006 10:56 AM

Again you try to posit how enlightened Muhammad was by demonstrating phenomenon through Western knowledge and Western science. Try not to mix the two because you really don't know what you are talking about. If Muhammad had truly been that great a teacher he could have explained things a little better--I find it curious that people all seemed to know what he was talking about at the time, but once science proved the ideas wrong--you simply changed the premise of your argument. You are completely illogical--don't mix science and religion, for the two don't go hand in hand.

I could go on and on about thermodynamics and quantum theory, but it is not for me to disprove Muhammad...it is my interest that his believers keep their idiocy and closed-mindedness to themselves. By the way, you have Christians who will drone on endlessly about how the Bible is right and science can prove it...and it all amounts to them WANTING to find religon factual. The only indisputable is observable reality--something that science is concerned with. If you want to go on thinking that Allah is behind it all, then fine--but don't think for an instance that lame-brain ideas posited by an ignorant mind 1,400 years ago make sense, because they don't.

I'm not saying all answers have been found in science, because they have not...there are plenty of things that scientists still fail to understand--however they, unlike thelogians, don't attempt to fill in the gaps with nonsense. Allah rubbed the moon with a celestial eraser and made it dim? Do you realize how stupid this sounds?

Posted by: Eudaemon at April 4, 2006 02:13 PM

Allah (SWT) will forgive our past sins when we convert, but is this done only once? For example if one converts...can he/she deconvert...perform a sin and then reconvert to have this sin removed?
Posted by: Naseem at April 3, 2006 10:58 AM

Let us consider two Verses of the Holy Quran and their implications. From http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=6&translator=2&mac= we have:
===
6.60: It is He who doth take your souls by night, and hath knowledge of all that ye have done by day: by day doth He raise you up again; that a term appointed be fulfilled; In the end unto Him will be your return; then will He show you the truth of all that ye did.
===
and from http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=39&translator=2&mac= we find:
===
39.42: It is Allah that takes the souls (of men) at death; and those that die not (He takes) during their sleep: those on whom He has passed the decree of death, He keeps back (from returning to life), but the rest He sends (to their bodies) for a term appointed verily in this are Signs for those who reflect.
===

Let us consider the case of Salman Rushdie of the ‘Satanic Verses’ fame. He was a born Muslim. Sometime later, he renounced his faith and authored ‘Satanic Verses’. The Iranian clerics passed a fatwa of death on him. After a few years of living the life of a fugitive, he embraced Islam. He expected the fatwa to be eradicated. However nothing of that sort happened. Possibly because he wanted the security offered by the authorities again, he renounced Islam. He is living the life of a fugitive now. Can he embrace Islam again? Surely! When he does so, would his sins be forgiven? Yes, definitely.

ALLAH SWT knew his leaving Islam the first time when he slept that night after leaving Islam. ALLAH SWT knew that he came back to Islam, and again left Islam on the respective nights.

What about the one who being a Muslim desires to commit a crime and for that purpose renounces Islam, commit the crime, and then immediately embrace Islam again? The answer is found in http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=68&translator=2&mac=
===
68.17: Verily We have tried them as We tried the People of the Garden, when they resolved to gather the fruits of the (garden) in the morning.
68.18: But made no reservation, ("If it be Allah.s Will").
68.19: Then there came on the (garden) a visitation from thy Lord, (which swept away) all around, while they were asleep.
68.20: So the (garden) became, by the morning, like a dark and desolate spot, (whose fruit had been gathered).
68.21: As the morning broke, they called out, one to another,-
68.22: "Go ye to your tilth (betimes) in the morning, if ye would gather the fruits."
68.23: So they departed, conversing in secret low tones, (saying)-
68.24: "Let not a single indigent person break in upon you into the (garden) this day."
68.25: And they opened the morning, strong in an (unjust) resolve.
68.26: But when they saw the (garden), they said: "We have surely lost our way:
68.27: "Indeed we are shut out (of the fruits of our labour)!"
68.28: Said one of them, more just (than the rest): "Did I not say to you, 'Why not glorify ((Allah))?'"
68.29: They said: "Glory to our Lord! Verily we have been doing wrong!"
68.30: Then they turned, one against another, in reproach.
68.31: They said: "Alas for us! We have indeed transgressed!
68.32: "It may be that our Lord will give us in exchange a better (garden) than this: for we do turn to Him (in repentance)!"
68.33: Such is the Punishment (in this life); but greater is the Punishment in the Hereafter,- if only they knew!
===

In the above Verses Allah SWT preempted the evil persons. Likewise Allah SWT might take the life of that wicked person who left Islam on the night before he commits the crime. In that case, that person loses Paradise and is put in Hell. If Allah SWT has sanctioned the crime, He might allow the person to commit the crime and take the life of the criminal before the criminal becomes a Muslim again. Well, Allah SWT might indeed allow that person to become a Muslim again after committing the crime. If that person manages to become a Muslim again all his past sins would of course be forgiven. In all the three cases above, Allah SWT has the power to sanction them. ALLAH is the ultimate and He does what He chooses.

However once the Khilafath is established, it is expected that the apostate would be immediately imprisoned and released only if he embraces Islam again. If he refuses to embrace Islam again, he should be killed. This is to avoid chaos in society.

There is no contradiction in the paragraphs above. One describes the power of Allah SWT and the next describes the obligation of the Caliph.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at April 4, 2006 03:17 PM

Brother of the Umma Mohideen,

Assalamau Laikum,

I want to thank you (unlike many of the ungrateful infedel) of the efforts that you have put in to try & answer my questions. You may well have taken much time and pleasure I hope to do your research. Brother Mohideen I am grateful for this and may Allah SWT make you a better muslim for it.

I must be honest though that unfortunately the answers themselves have not helped me much.

Many of the answers given do not satisfy me. I am no scientist, but for example, I think there is no real scientific evidence that the moon was ever a fiery ball (i.e. the moon was a sun as explained in Tabiri)...even at the big bang.
Can you see how I am so confused?

With respect to the sun setting in muddy waters you said "Dhul Qarnain traveled west until he reached a sea shore. There was a spring of sea water, possibly a geyser from under the sea throwing water up." ...and therefore he saw the sun set in muddy waters.

BUT THIS IS FROM OUR KORAN...our perfect book. I suppose what I am asking is "why did Allah not tell Mohd (saw) that the sun never sets?"...instead this observation has been included in as if the sun was *seen* to set & it was put in the Koran. Our Holy Koran is there to educate 1 billion+ people....do people REALLY belive that the sun sets...we know & you know that it doesn't.

Perhaps the real meaning to this is something different...maybe a lot more ABSTRACT but I am without the noor to see it.

Can you see how I am so confused?

My brother, daily I punish myself with doubt and recently since Anwer was ill I have prayed 5 times a DAY. Further I have promised to go to Hajj, but the muslim in Saudi will not let the Ahmadi go to Hajj.

Dearest brother, verily I am confused in mind, the muftis I talk to here know less than I.

My brother, be sure though that I will continue & find meaning but through abstraction...for looking through science does not help.

Allah give me strength to continue my abstract search & to continue dawa of our almost perfet religion.

Posted by: Naseem at April 4, 2006 04:10 PM

Mohideen said: "If that person manages to become a Muslim again all his past sins would of course be forgiven. In all the three cases above, Allah SWT has the power to sanction them. ALLAH is the ultimate and He does what He chooses."

So Allah decides if a person should die, but expects his followers to act in his stead. If He is, indeed, all powerful--why does he rely on people to carry out His laws for Him? Use logic my friend...

You want truth? Muhammad wrote a bunch of jibberish down, you believe that the jibberish was sent by God. Therefore, if I can disprove the existence of God, then it would prove that Muhammad was a delusional liar--ah but the quandry is I would be saying that Jesus was a liar too (which I have no reason to do since HIS followers do me no harm). Also, even when faced with proof, you would be blind to it and say that I am trying to trick you away from your faith.

Traditionally scientists have not even approached the issue of whether or not God exists--why? Because it is up to the person who poses a statement to defend it and to present evidence of it.

For instance, you say that the moon sets in a pool--science has observed that the sun does not set, but the earth turns making it appear that the sun is moving. So you attempt to show that Muhammad was right by saying, "well, it appears to set--that is what he meant." Whatever... Then you go on by saying that if there are two dots close togehter on a curved line then the line is straight--no it's not, it's still curved my friend. Even a moron takes it for granted that the Earth is curved--but when Allah said it was flat, he was just saying this for demonstration purposes.

I'm reminded of a Monty Python skit--I believe it was in the Holy Grail... Arthur was asked how it could be that coconuts were "found" in England. Arthur is forced to explain how by INVENTING a story--which is easily proved false. So instead of saying that the story is indeed silly, he has to compound the silliness of the argument by inventing further. This is what you are doing my friend--Muhammad came up with the silly proposition to begin with and left it up to you to try and explain it. Keep explaining my friend, it makes you look all the more foolish.

Posted by: Eudaemon at April 4, 2006 04:21 PM

if there are two dots close togehter on a curved line then the line is straight--no it's not, it's still curved my friend.
Posted by: Eudaemon at April 4, 2006 04:21 PM

Please see http://www.answers.com/tangent&r=67. For immediate reference, we quote:
===
tangent, in mathematics.
…For other curves and surfaces the tangent line at a given point P is defined as the limiting position, if such a limit exists, of a secant line through P and another point P′ on the curve or surface as P′ is allowed to approach P…
===

I said the same thing in my words. The attempt by you and others is already - 1400 years back - commented upon as below. From http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=9&translator=2&mac=
===
9.32: Fain would they extinguish Allah’s light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).
===

Islam is the true religion. Come to it and benefit.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at April 4, 2006 10:50 PM

In mathematics a curved line is straighter and straighter as two points along that line grow closer and closer--this is your argument? They are never straight my friend--being close to straight is like being almost pregnant--either you are or you aren't.

It is true that it is sometimes useful to approximate curves as straight lines in mathematics. The same goes for certain laws of physics--we approximate gravitational pull as zero at certain distances depending on mass--but it is never zero at any distance for any mass. And I think you are saying that it was perfectly OK for Muhammad to approximate when describing the earth...but Muhammad did not say, "the earth is round, but for the purpose of this argument we shall say it is flat"--he said that it is flat.

You can't see it, but you are TRYING TO FIND a reason that Muhammad said what he did, because you cannot accept that he could have been wrong. What you are, in fact, saying is this: "sure the earth is not flat, but to an observor who only sees a little piece of it, it appears to be." This may explain why he THOUGHT it was flat--but it does not prove that it is or that Muhammad was correct in saying it is. Just admit he was wrong or that he was misinterpreted or that his words were not written down correctly (that there is at least some form of error in your texts) and we'll move on.

As far as the second statement...it seems that you are saying that Allah said that some people would not believe truth even though it is perfect...but as I've stated before the only certainty in this world is objective reality--though philosophers may even dispute this. Besides, when it comes to religion, there is NO OBJECTIVE truth. This is because certain things are accepted on faith alone. This is why it is pointless for me to ask you to prove that God exists.

Look, I could say something like, "years ago people lived on Mars and that because it grew hot with global warming from centuries of burning fossil fuels, Allah saw fit to see that the two last survivors were given Earth, so they and all the animals of Mars rode a spaceship to Earth--but with the proposition that we should take care of the earth and not allow global warming to happen again." See that I'm simply twisting the Biblical story of the flood to modern sensibilities--some people who are gullible would probably accept it as fact. And I could claim that it is true and claim to be a prophet...But by merely telling others to disprove that it happened and by not accepting their arguments or evidence to the contrary, it does not mean that I am correct. Believe it or not, similar doomsday prophesy was told during the cold war about nuclear energy by a few charlatans.

There have been many charlatans throughout history--most, thank goodness, were not believed. But still others were convincing enough to be believed...

Do I think that morality is important--yes. Do I think that generosity and kindness and peace and love for all are wonderful ideals--absolutely. Am I a prophet for saying that they are--no. Do I think you should accept that others may have their reasons for not believing the Qur'an is perfect (nevermind that they may be happy with their own religion or not having a religion at all)--I'm sure you know my answer. You see, it does not bother me that you believe what you do. You could go on believing that the earth is flat for all I care. But Muslims should not attempt to alter my society or my way of life by taking away my freedom to believe or disbelieve (or treating me differently for doing so). Maybe along with my believing that the earth is not flat or that the moon is not a fiery ball or that the Jews did not create or spread Aids or that the Jews do not have an earthquake machine--I just might believe that Islam doesn't seem all that peaceful and that it doesn't seem all that divinely inspired.

Posted by: Eudaemon at April 5, 2006 02:19 AM

Assalamau-laikum all,

I have found this thread probably the most interesting in the 2 years I have been here. This has been brought about particularly by my Umma brother Mohideen in the mix.

Even though I am muslim, in the two years here I could NEVER bring about the deep type of Islamic viewpoint that my brother brings...so please Mohideen continue posting and thank you...may Allah SWT look upon you with much favour!

I know that you are true to our faith Mohideen and conservative...which is why I find it most interesting that questions raised by me were answered by you using (in the main) infedel developed science.

I compared your arguments to the excellent post provided by Eudaemon above. For ME the really telling thing was when he pointed out that "Muhammad did not say, "the earth is round, but for the purpose of this argument we shall say it is flat"--he said that IT IS FLAT.

My brother, Mohideen surely you will agree that the Koran is very decisive in every point, No where in it does it say in style or content "as an approximation to this assume that"

IT STATES THAT THIS IS SO AND THAT IS SO...END OF ARGUMENT...

SO.... PHEW .... HERE I GO ....POSSIBLY MAKING THE IMPORTANT STATEMENT IN MY LIFE (and perhaps condeming me to hellfire).

I THINK THAT SOME STATEMENTS OF THE KORAN ARE NOT TRUE.

This maybe because of interpetration on my part ....but even conservative muslims like and and the muftis say the same thing...so I don't know.....I just don't know....my head is spinning.

Brother Mohideen, ...let me say here & now that I AM STILL MUSLIM...and believe in ALLAH with all my might.....but I think it's OK to admit that the holy Koran is not perfect...that Mohd (saw) got a few things wrong.....I think admitting this infact makes me A BETTER MUSLIM.

The thing that I really fear (and still believe is that) once a muslim then Allah SWT incarinates you always as a muslim...and that because of my doubts I maybe condemned to hellfire for all eternity....

Allah SWT please forgive my forwarding and my big mouth!

Brother Mohideen I beg you to please still talk to me....and tell me more about punishments I may incur...

Posted by: Naseem at April 5, 2006 07:05 AM

Do I think you should accept that others may have their reasons for not believing the Qur'an is perfect (nevermind that they may be happy with their own religion or not having a religion at all)
Posted by: Eudaemon at April 5, 2006 02:19 AM

Here is the answer from the Holy Quran itself. From http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2&mac= we have:
===
Yusuf Ali 2.256: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
Shakir 2.256: There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
Pickthal 2.256: There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
M. Khan 2.256: There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghoot and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.
===

The right path is Islam. As regards my thinking that ‘the Holy Quran is perfect,’ please see “6. A test of our understanding of Islam,” in my blog http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at April 5, 2006 08:58 AM

Brother of the Umma, Mohideen,

I read "6" on your impressive blog. It said

"If any Muslim feels that there is some inconsistency between a part of the Holy Quran and another part, it simply shows that the understanding of that person with regard to Islam is lacking."

Agreed...

Such a person must devote as much time as possible to study Islam until he / she understands that the apparent inconsistency is resolved.

This is difficulty for me! No matter how much I study....I cannot get away from Koran inaccuracies.....they just won't go away. If something is round, it cannot be flat. I DON'T KNOW HOW to resolve this. Your help in this regard will be helpful.

You say "A point to make now is that if any feels there is inconsistency do not blame self or others, but attempt further study and that Doubts when cleared lead to knowledge".

Unfortunately more reading is leading to further doubts in my mind.

You say "There is no harm in getting doubts".

Wow...that's a relief.

Posted by: Naseem at April 5, 2006 10:55 AM

- Mohideen

I feel you need to understand a bit more about proper logical arguments, how they should be posed and "inherent" results.

When forming arguments there are two ways in which you can argue--you can either use deductive or inductive reasoning. In case you don't know what these are, allow me to explain:

In order to use the deductive method, you must start with axioms, or general statements regarded as fact. Then you use these statements for which to argue their results--if your axioms are true, then everything that follows can be argued to be true. This method can be used in philosophy to a great degree because of the nature of man being somewhat predictable--I mean we are people, so everyone must know what it's like to be a person, right? However, when used to explain nature and the world or universe that surrounds us, there is far too much that we don't understand to form a generally accepted fact.

For example, Aristotle devised a method of scientific investigation using deductive reasoning. He would usually start with knowledge already accepted as fact--by reviewing former research done before him. He would then introduce his own arguments and solutions based on these accepted truths. But, as is often in science, if former research was faulty--his arguments would be faulty as well. Aristotle's arrogance was compounded when he would attempt to refute others' claims by deducing that results were obsurd (reductio ad absurdum--reducing something to absurdity). However, often when an opponent would use this same kind of argument against him, it made him and his students angry.

The alternative to deductive reasoning is inductive reasoning. This starts with observations of nature. If an idea conflicts with what happens in nature, the idea must be changed or thrown out. It follows that as more and more observations are made then the resulting arguments based on them will have a better foundation and become generally accepted. This method has come to be known as the scientific method, and it has given rise to many simple, yet powerful statements about how nature works.

When you argue that a religion is correct--you begin with the premise that it is fact and then you attempt to support it with evidence. This can lead to horrendous falsities. Science was convinced that the earth was the center of the solar system for centuries--not only because religion told us so, but because people like Aristotle said it was so. Even when faced with evidence to the contrary--religious authorities refuted the validity of any other argument. The Catholic Church refused to acknowledge that Galileo could have been right, and declared him a heretic. This is a huge danger inherent in religion imposing its viewpoint on humanity or in religion having authority to enforce its own dogma. It fails to acknowledge that differing viewpoints may be correct (it lacks humility).

Deductive reasoning can be used very effectively to argue the existence of God--and I will concede the POSSIBILITY of the existence of God due to the numerous seemingly valid arguments presented. In fact, most scientists are not athiests, despite what many religious adherents or secular humanists think. And I refuse to think that Islam cannot be reformed since Christianity was once dominated by religious authority and, thereby, strongly enforced dogmatic viewpoints, while now Christianity allows a plethora of ideas to exist.

I also will not regard Islam as not having value or that Muslims lack the ability to create or to invent (though it is difficult to hold this view if you review just about any list of scientific discoveries or great inventions). I feel the greatest reason for Muslims being held back in this regard is the lack of proper education and the lack of an Islamic reformation--and this is not a result of colonialism, as much as Muslim figureheads would like their followers to believe. In fact, Muslims display a great deal of drive and commitment and the number of Muslim professionals exposes any sort of conclusion about any lack of capacity for them to learn as a complete falacy. However, for as long as democracies in the Middle East (Iraq included) revert to simply voting in religious despots who would enforce dogma in the same fashion as the Catholic Church prior to reformation, the trend for conservatives and liberals alike to say that Islam cannot support true freedom (academic freedom included) will continue. And yes, this could continue to hold back the Muslim world from contributing to the advancement of mankind.

Posted by: Eudaemon at April 5, 2006 04:37 PM

Also being a woman ...our's prophet's (pbuh) marriage to Aiesha at the age of 6 disturbs me greatly....was there a need for this? Many muslims I have spoken to lie and say she was 18 but the Hadith clearly talk about her playing with dolls. Allah forgive my need to question this.
Posted by: Naseem at April 3, 2006 10:58 AM

Dear sister Naseem,

Assalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmathullah.

Before I attempt to answer the above question, permit me to answer the following question:

How could Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, adopt a person as his son, get him married, and then after that son divorces his wife, marry her? How could a father marry his own daughter-in-law?

There are two issues involved in the above question:
1. Is adoption the same as begetting a child?
2. Can a father marry the divorced / widowed wife of his son?

The answer to the second question above is an emphatic no on the basis of 4:23 from http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=4&translator=2&mac=
===
4:23 Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful;-
===

See that there is no restriction regarding sex between the son and his ex-wife. Even if the son has not had any sex with his ex-wife, the father is forbidden to marry her. Please notice the contrast with regard to the daughter of an ex-wife.

Still Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, married the wife of his adopted son after she completed the waiting period. This is to establish without any shred of doubt that an adopted child is not the same as a biological child.

Now let us turn to the marriage between mother Aisha, Allah be pleased with her, and Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. He did infact marry her when she was 6 years old and consummated the marriage when she was 9 years old. Did he marry her of his own desire? No. It was preordained as from http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=true+twice+dream&translator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
===
Narrated 'Aisha: Allah's Apostle said (to me), "You have been shown to me twice in (my) dreams. A man was carrying you in a silken cloth and said to me, 'This is your wife.' I uncovered it; and behold, it was you. I said to myself, 'If this dream is from Allah, He will cause it to come true.' " (Book #62, Hadith #15) (Sahih Bukhari)
===

Why did he do that? Can this quote be a pointer? From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040716-11.html we have:
===
U.S. law enforcement has documented cases of Latvian girls trafficked into sexual slavery in Chicago, or Ukrainian girls trafficked in Los Angeles, and Maryland, or Thai, Korean, Malaysian and Vietnamese girls trafficked in Georgia, or and Mexican girls trafficked in California, New Jersey and here in Florida. Many of the victims are teenagers, some as young as 12 years old.
===

In a world where a teenage girl is forced into sex, what would be the plight of a teenage wife? After all everyone agrees that sex with one’s wife is legal. What happens if that wife is pre-pubescent? To give guidance to Muslims regarding such pre-pubescent wives, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, married mother Aisha, Allah be pleased with her, at the age of six and consummated the marriage when she reached puberty at the age of nine. The derived rules are:
1. No sex with a pre-pubescent wife.
2. As legal sex is permitted with wife or which the right hand possesses only, absolutely no sex with any pre-pubescent girl.
3. For the current world, no child sex at all.

Doesn’t Allah know that mother Aisha, Allah be pleased with her, would come of age when she becomes nine years old? Why can’t she be married then so that the waiting is not there? If such were the case, there would be no guidance regarding the pre-pubescent orphan girls without any relative who just cannot marry her like father, uncle, or brother. Remember that Islam never allows a girl to be a destitute whatever be the age. Thus, a pre-pubescent orphan girl could be married by a Muslim to give her shelter. Such a husband should wait her puberty to commence to have sex with her.

Alright, if we need a rule stating that no sex with a pre-pubescent girl even if she is a wife, why marry at the age of six? Why not eight? The answer is that it is a demonstration of the prophetic nature of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

It should be understood that a girl could reach puberty at any age. From http://youngest_mother.tripod.com/ we have:
===
… When her child was born by Caesarean section in May 1939, Medina made medical history, and is still the youngest known mother in the world.
… Doctor Lozada has conducted very detailed studies since the diagnostic of pregnancy which aroused much curiosity in the country; he took an x-ray of the child and her baby, established a diagnostic of the fetal situation, observed the state of functionality of the little mother who had begun menstruating at the age of 8 months. …
===

Consider the emotional state of the husband who cannot have sex with his wife as she is not yet ready biologically. It is better to keep this period of agony as small as possible. Here the Arabic language plays a part. In Arabic there are words for the singular, dual, and the plural. If Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, married mother Aisha, Allah be pleased with her, at the age of seven, the word used would correspond to the dual; if at the age of eight the word would represent the singular. The minimum number of years that mandates the use of the word for plural in Arabic is three. Thus, to a believer, this marriage at the age of six to a pre-pubescent girl, and the waiting of three years mandating the plural so that in future husbands of pre-pubescent girls wait for any number of years before having sex with their wives is indeed a demonstration of prophesy. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, has lived by his prophesy.

Allah knows best.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at April 5, 2006 04:39 PM

you are a conservative muslim
Posted by: Naseem at April 3, 2006 10:58 AM

Dear sister Naseem,

Assalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmathullah.

I believe I have attempted to answer all the questions raised by you at 10.58 am on April 3, 2006.

Kindly do not add any adjective to any Muslim. I am a Muslim; nothing more, nothing less Inshah Allah. Kindly permit me to repeat: do not splinter the Ummah by using adjectives like conservative, liberal, modern, Hanafi, Shafee, Maliki, Ahmadi etc. We are one Ummah and we are Muslims.

A number of personal works might keep me occupied for a number of days. Until then, may Allah SWT help you in your dawa.

Was Salaam

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at April 5, 2006 04:52 PM

Mohideen said: "U.S. law enforcement has documented cases of Latvian girls trafficked into sexual slavery in Chicago, or Ukrainian girls trafficked in Los Angeles, and Maryland, or Thai, Korean, Malaysian and Vietnamese girls trafficked in Georgia, or and Mexican girls trafficked in California, New Jersey and here in Florida. Many of the victims are teenagers, some as young as 12 years old."

If you don't mind my asking--what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Stay germain, please. Why do Muslims attempt to excuse bad behavior by demonstrating that it happens in the West--don't you think we consider it bad?

If you are trying to argue that Muhammad was being kind to the girl by marrying her and having sex with her when she was nine, you are crazy. Why couldn't she be adopted? Was she not still a child? Should she not still have been raised as one? And you go on to say that Muhammad was forced to in order to fulfill a silly prophesy? Why was she married to his adopted son anyway? Well--heck, I sort of like this whole prophet idea...I could probably have lots of prophesies that would make it all right to have loads of sex with as many people as I want and live as debauched and depraved as I want--oh yeah, except that I have morals and it would be WRONG.

Posted by: Eudaemon at April 5, 2006 06:22 PM

- Mohideen

Below is an entreaty that Sir Francis Bacon made to King James in 1620. Note that he is sincere in his admiration of God and that he believes it not a sin to seek knowledge through scientific inquiry--rather that, due to the infinite possibilities to better man's plot and to provide an unending progress and generosity to mankind, it is a duty for learned and intellectual people to inquire further about nature and of man's place in it. Far from an athiest or someone who is seeking to disprove the existence of God, Sir Francis Bacon argues perfectly why religion or any other authority ought to encourage free-thought. The full quote can be found here: http://www.constitution.org/bacon/instauration.html

For my own part at least, in obedience to the everlasting love of truth, I have committed myself to the uncertainties and difficulties and solitudes of the ways and, relying on the divine assistance, have upheld my mind both against the shocks and embattled ranks of opinion, and against my own private and inward hesitations and scruples, and against the fogs and clouds of nature, and the phantoms flitting about on every side, in the hope of providing at last for the present and future generations guidance more faithful and secure. Wherein if I have made any progress, the way has been opened to me by no other means than the true and legitimate humiliation of the human spirit. For all those who before me have applied themselves to the invention of arts have but cast a glance or two upon facts and examples and experience, and straightway proceeded, as if invention were nothing more than an exercise of thought, to invoke their own spirits to give them oracles. I, on the contrary, dwelling purely and constantly among the facts of nature, withdraw my intellect from them no further than may suffice to let the images and rays of natural objects meet in a point, as they do in the sense of vision; whence it follows that the strength and excellence of the wit has but little to do in the matter. And the same humility which I use in inventing I employ likewise in teaching. For I do not endeavor either by triumphs of confutation, or pleadings of antiquity, or assumption of authority, or even by the veil of obscurity, to invest these inventions of mine with any majesty; which might easily be done by one who sought to give luster to his own name rather than light to other men's minds. I have not sought (I say) nor do I seek either to force or ensnare men's judgments, but I lead them to things themselves and the concordances of things, that they may see for themselves what they have, what they can dispute, what they can add and contribute to the common stock. And for myself, if in anything I have been either too credulous or too little awake and attentive, or if I have fallen off by the way and left the inquiry incomplete, nevertheless I so present these things naked and open, that my errors can be marked and set aside before the mass of knowledge be further infected by them; and it will be easy also for others to continue and carry on my labors. And by these means I suppose that I have established forever a true and lawful marriage between the empirical and the rational faculty, the unkind and ill-starred divorce and separation of which has thrown into confusion all the affairs of the human family.

Wherefore, seeing that these things do not depend upon myself, at the outset of the work I most humbly and fervently pray to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, that remembering the sorrows of mankind and the pilgrimage of this our life wherein we wear out days few and evil, they will vouchsafe through my hands to endow the human family with new mercies. This likewise I humbly pray, that things human may not interfere with things divine, and that from the opening of the ways of sense and the increase of natural light there may arise in our minds no incredulity or darkness with regard to the divine mysteries, but rather that the understanding being thereby purified and purged of fancies and vanity, and yet not the less subject and entirely submissive to the divine oracles, may give to faith that which is faith's. Lastly, that knowledge being now discharged of that venom which the serpent infused into it, and which makes the mind of man to swell, we may not be wise above measure and sobriety, but cultivate truth in charity.

And now, having said my prayers, I turn to men, to whom I have certain salutary admonitions to offer and certain fair requests to make. My first admonition (which was also my prayer) is that men confine the sense within the limits of duty in respect of things divine: for the sense is like the sun, which reveals the face of earth, but seals and shuts up the face of heaven. My next, that in flying from this evil they fall not into the opposite error, which they will surely do if they think that the inquisition of nature is in any part interdicted or forbidden. For it was not that pure and uncorrupted natural knowledge whereby Adam gave names to the creatures according to their propriety, which, gave occasion to the fall. It was the ambitious and proud desire of moral knowledge to judge of good and evil, to the end that man may revolt from God and give laws to himself, which was the form and manner of the temptation. Whereas of the sciences which regard nature, the divine philosopher declares that "it is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but it is the glory of the King to find a thing out." Even as though the divine nature took pleasure in the innocent and kindly sport of children playing at hide-and-seek, and vouchsafed of his kindness and goodness to admit the human spirit for his playfellow at that game. Lastly, I would address one general admonition to all — that they consider what are the true ends of knowledge, and that they seek it not either for pleasure of the mind, or for contention, or for superiority to others, or for profit, or fame, or power, or any of these inferior things, but for the benefit and use of life, and that they perfect and govern it in charity. For it was from lust of power that the angels fell, from lust of knowledge that man fell; but of charity there can be no excess, neither did angel or man ever come in danger by it.

Posted by: Eudaemon at April 5, 2006 10:41 PM

It's funny to contrast the difference between how children excuse their wrongdoing, with how Muhammad did. Children will often say, "the devil made me do it." While Muhammad said, "God Almighty said to do it." Think about that for a minute...

Posted by: Eudaemon at April 6, 2006 12:21 PM

I'm guessing, because of the way arranged marriages typically work in backwards societies, that once the marriage took place between Aisha and Muhammad's adopted son--her parents would not take her back when his son divorced her (what grounds he doesn't provide). This is indicative of the "disgrace" that backwards societies apply to women who are "used goods." Her parents wouldn't take her back...essentially leaving her an orphan. But since she was 6 at the time--a bit young by civilized standards--she wasn't defiled Muhammad and saw her as therefore desirable as a mate (again, if she were deflowered I'm sure he would have been fine with her being destitute--another backwards viewpoint).

The problem I have with the scenario is this: if Muhammad was divining what was right and wrong, why was it beyond his comprehension that a reasonable solution would be to adopt her as a daughter or to tell her parents and all of the society at the time that their customes regarding marriage and women were bad and backward? If God were speaking to him, why didn't He suggest that Muhammad should teach them that the backwards ways were wrong, fundamentally? Mohideen, you say that there is a different standard that is applied today--why is this so? Is it because the standard that Muhammad applied was wrong? Are we wrong to regard girls who are 6 or 9 to be too young for marriage? Is it wrong to have arranged marriages--since women are often regarded as cattle (with their value assigned by how many cows they're worth) to become "property" of the man to do his bidding, etc.? If Muhammad was divining God's will why didn't God tell him that it is wrong for people to be treated differently or that slavery is wrong or that people of different ethnicities or faiths should be equal? Did God intend for peace to be elusive until only one voice was accepted--if so by what standard did he apply when he picked Muhammad, who obviously had his issues? How can society be expected to take Muhammad's words as truth--by what measure can we apply his words as actually coming from God when we have other people claiming or who have claimed to be prophets? How do you know what he said was right and how can you expect others to conform? Even if people believe in God and believe in standards of right and wrong, how do we know Muhammad was the only person to have received God's message in its entirety? How do we know that Muhammad wasn't biased or errant in anything he said? In effect, how do we know he was a prophet at all?

Like I've said before--religion has never been an Objective Truth, for there's no such thing. Things have to be accepted on faith alone and it's unreasonable to expect everyone to share your same view. I may watch a movie and think it's great--while others may find it aweful...wouldn't it be unreasonable to say that God said the movie is good so you must believe it is good? I feel that for the most part the concept of right and wrong are universal and that morals are conceived and received by all men from either a shared history or possibly from God. But to what degree we should expect that God has told us how to enforce these standards is debatable. Reason suggests that if man can learn to be good and learn to be bad that a sinner can reform himself--that there is almost no reason to end life where there remains the possibility for salvation or perfection of the human spirit, if such a thing is real. Reason suggests that people should be treated equally. Reason suggests that young girls should not be married or defiled. How can something that is regarded as truth be contrary to reason?

Posted by: Eudaemon at April 6, 2006 07:42 PM

- Mohideen

What do you seek to establish by showing that Islam is growing? Do you honestly think that it's doing so because it is attractive? Or could it possibly be that it's primarily due to the abnormally low birth rates in the West? If you want to actually show that the growth is by attractiveness--i.e. people are coming to the faith voluntarily, you'll have to do better than that.

If Islam is indeed the fastest growing religion, and it is sincerely winning the hearts and minds of people--then why is it that Muslims feel so threatened of outside thought and religious teaching? If Muslims are so convinced that their religion is true, why do they insist that it not be directly compared to other religion on equal grounds--let the best religion win?

I will tell you why--because this so-called global jihad or struggle against non-believers is not actually grounded in anything other than penis envy. Well, come on boys--let's drop trow and get this over with. In an actual contest you are afraid you will lose--so you've got to stack the deck in your favor. In many Muslim countries it is against the law to evangelize the Christian faith--why do you think this is? Can you find in your holy books where it says to outlaw Christian evangelism? It's because you feel threatened--you feel as though perhaps when directly compared, people might actually leave the Muslim faith out of acknowledgement that on ideals alone and on principles alone Christianity wins out. I'm not a Christian, but I recognize a superior set of ideals when I see it... There is no mistaking that Christianity has given rise to the greatest birth of invention and of knowledge and of wisdom the likes of which this earth and our humanity has not seen before. This is yet another source of Muslim envy toward the West. Well, since you are bound by religion from joining us in principle, you seek to destroy us by making us in your image. Well--I probably speak for many freedom loving people when I say--piss off and take your "truth" elsewhere...you see, we already have one.

Posted by: Eudaemon at April 7, 2006 02:26 AM

In these pages there was an assertion that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, prophesied nothing. If as you say, the number of baptisms is increasing, it is the effect of the following Tradition from http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=Medina+snake&translator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
===
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "Verily, Belief returns and goes back to Medina as a snake returns and goes back to its hole (when in danger)." (Book #30, Hadith #100) (Sahih Bukhari)
===

This is one of the approaches of the Day of Judgment. In the approach of the Day of Judgment, Islam would shrink and return to Medina and its environs. It is possible that the shrinking of Islam has started. Having said the above, we love to state the following Tradition also. This is found in http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=truth+hour+west&translator=2&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
===
It has been narrated by Sa'd b. Abu Waqqas that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: The people of the west will continue to triumphantly follow the truth until the hour is established. (Book #020, Hadith #4722) (Sahih Muslim)
===

That is, the west that seems to severely criticize Islam now, would embrace Islam when it recognizes the truth, and then they would not leave it until the Day of Judgment.

Allah knows best.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at April 7, 2006 12:13 PM

If in the Islamic faith, as in the Christian faith, apocryphal literature serves the same purpose, then it is generally regarded as a rallying point for which believers continue their faith and hope during times of persecution. I don't doubt that believers take apocryphal literature very seriously--as they should. But it should be tempered, because there are warmongers who would love to do their "duty" in ensuring that Biblical Armageddon actually comes to pass. This could be disastrous since truthfully no one knows when (or if) it will actually occur.

As I've said, there are Christians who believe that the final battle between good and evil will be between the Christians (good) and the Muslims (evil). It is a very small minority who feel this way, but the idea is out there. I feel this sets a dangerous stage for which to conduct international politics--for where is the foundation of trust. The vast majority of Americans don't feel this way, but if the trend for people to become more religious (on both Muslim and Christian sides) then the pendulum may sway even further to the right and peace and stability for all could be jeopardized. It would, in fact, become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Imagine the aweful feeling that mankind would feel if such a calamity were allowed to ensue, and such bloodshed and violence did not actually beckon Christ's return, but was for nothing. It is really pathetic that people look forward to such trying times because they feel that they would be rewarded...how selfish is that? Like the supposed martyrs who are not defenders but offenders, against peace and for continued violence and bloodshed. Why must religion be motivated by selfishness and fear? And people wonder why many have doubts?

Posted by: Eudaemon at April 7, 2006 12:54 PM