site-wide search

SomaliNet Forums: Archives

This section is online for reference only. No new content will be added. no deletion either...

Go to Current Forums ...with millions of posts

The Concept of Idol Worship

SomaliNet Forum (Archive): Islam (Religion): Islam (Current): The Concept of Idol Worship
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Wednesday, March 14, 2001 - 05:02 am
With all this Taliban BS you guys got me thinking about this. Don't you worship the Qur'an??? Isn't that a form of Idol worship? You don't just worship what it says, you worship the books themselves. I mean, let me ask you a question, is it OK if I toss my (my own copy - my property) Qur'an on the ground and urinate on it??? That wouldn't bother you guys would it, I mean it's just a book right??? Or do you consider the symbolism important?? And if you consider the symbolism imporant, don't you think other faiths have the right to consider symbolism important too??

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

ANON

Wednesday, March 14, 2001 - 06:27 am
when Jesus, ibrahim and all the prophets of Allah talked about destroying idols and they actually did destroy those idols their people used worship, they were not afraid that they will be killed or burned and the message was given to them will be destroyed; they knew It was Allah that their follows worshipped, not the prophets nor the message (the books). ;-)

the prophet muhammad himself destroyed----along with many idols people used to worship----the *images* people drew, the images of ibrahim. ;-)

the prophet muhamad also ordered people not to carve or draw any image or any symbol of him-----if people see anything like that------depicting of the prophet----he ordered it should be destroyed or burned. ;-)


if the prophets considered they and the books they preached were symbols or imageries of worship people needed to have as items of worship, they would have considered not to destroy what they are told to destroy--the idols people worshipped. ;-)-------or Allah Himself would have kept His books unburnable and His Prophets immortal so people could worship. all in all, in islam, Allah, the prophets and the believers value human life better than images or books.

jesus was the Word of Allah and the christians worship him and muhamad was said to be walking quran, but the muslim never worshipped him. I guess what I am saying is that it is not OK to burn or destroy the bible, towrat and the quran, but if people burn them, it is not the end of the world and it is not OK to kill the prophets of Allah, but if the people kill them, it is not the end of the world either, because it was and never was OK to worship the books and the prophets. ;-)

the prophets and the real believers rather save one human life than books and images--being destroyed or being burned. the message in the books (papers) will get old or get burned or get destroyed anyway, but the message survives forever if you burn them or destroy them; the human life will not survive forever----but the believers never worshipped the human life (the prophets) nor the books neither idols. they worshipped Allah Who LIVES-----FOREVER. ;-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

faaisa

Wednesday, March 14, 2001 - 10:22 am
Hi ALL,
I did not get the title. Why did you call it the concept of worship?
Is the Quran a symblo??
I will be back tommorow Insha Allah.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

ANON

Wednesday, March 14, 2001 - 10:52 am
"I did not get the title. Why did you call it the concept of worship?"

i think what mad mad is trying to say is that muslims worship the Quran-----but mad mac does not know that the muslims burned many the copies of the Quran also before! ;-).

when the final version of the Quran was completed, cusman sent a copy of it to each of the major cities of makka, damascus, kufa, basra and madina. the action of cusman to burn the other copies besides the final version, though obviously looked bad, was for the betterment and harmony of the whole community and was unanimously approved by the companions of the prophet. "Musab ibn Sad ibn Abi Waqqas said: "I saw the people assemble in large number at Uthman's burning of the prescribed copies (of the Quran), and they were all pleased with his action; not a one spoke out against him". Ali ibn Abu Talib, the cousin of the Prophet and the fourth successor to the Prophet commented: "If I were in command in place of Uthman, I would have done the same". if muslims worshipped the Quran, would they burn the papers or the leaflets it was written on? ;-)

"Is the Quran a symbol??"

yes, the Quran is a symbol, but we do not worship symbolism, ayats, signs; we worship Allah. ;-)

let me ask you this: which one of these two actions is the worst:------say if a lousy kufar tossess the copy of the Quran which he has in his possession on the ground or he urinates on it----------and if this lousy kufar kills a muslim(s)-----which he said he has done? ;-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Thursday, March 15, 2001 - 11:31 pm
As for your last question, that would depend on the circumstances of the killing. In my mind, killing is generally acceptable by individuals in furtherance of self-defence. By States in furtherance of protecting state interests (note not the same parameters). In my case (which I can see you are alluding to) it was both A. and B. I never killed prisoners nor did I kill anyone who was not actively engaged in combat operations against me. I do, however, concede that unfortunatley, the application of military force is sometimes a blunt instrument, hence collateral damage which is regretable, if unavoidable.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Thursday, March 15, 2001 - 11:37 pm
BTW
You never answered the question - how would you regard it if someone tossed his Qur'an (his priovately purchased copy, not yours) on the ground and urinated on it??

Here's my take on what the Taliban did. They don't respect other religions, they regard them with contempt, and this was a public way of telling the world they think all non-Muslims and their beliefs are worthy of their contempt. It was a public way to thumb their noses at everyone - to urinate on their faith if you will. And I think that is the source of the outrage. The world in general, and the Bhudist in particular, would have done better to ignore the whole thing as the reaction is what the Taliban wanted.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fg.

Friday, March 16, 2001 - 01:30 am
Mad Mac.

This obsession with the Taliban has to do with the budhist girl friend you have. I remember you telling us once she was budhist. Can't listen to her whinings about the Taliban can you?. I have this question: Do you subconciously feel guilty knowing that you might have killed someone whether it is collateral damage or not?. I know you guys invented phrases to humanize the killings and justify it in the eyes of the public.

Don't be too bias against the Taliban. I know it is hard to ignore with the chick complaining a lot about them everytime she looks at her budha in the bedroom somewhere. Tell her to get used to it. It is over no more Budhas standing in Afgahnistan although I am not too sure. She can go to china for god's sakes or anywhere else in Asia. There are thousands of them.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fisa

Friday, March 16, 2001 - 10:40 am
Assalau laicum,


You have not answer my question. But let me deal with your above


< Don't you worship the Qur'an??? Isn't that a form of Idol worship? >

No, we do not worship the Quran. We worship Allah subhana wata'aalaa.


<You don't just worship what it says, you worship the books themselves. I mean, let me ask you a question, is it OK if I toss my (my own copy - my property) Qur'an on the ground and urinate on it??? That wouldn't bother you guys would it, I mean it's just a book right??? Or do you consider the symbolism important?? And if you consider the symbolism imporant, don't you think other faiths have the right to consider symbolism important too?? >


Here we have a whole lot of confusion besides it comes out from very angry person.
The Quran is a book of guidance that from a muslim point of view comes from Allah. It is not just abook as you put it but a holly book. We muslims regard the Quran as the word of god, therefore respect it and handle it in certain ways. There are something that we can call they are Islamic sypmlos like Mosques, the Kacba ( in Makka)
It is not okey to mistreat the Quran. At least it is uncivilazed and unmannared act and I personally would not tolarate that to happen in front of me. Any person who does that in the presence of a Muslim must be looking for trauble and fight with him/her. It is up front anymousity towards Islam. Otherwise I cannot understand why a decent person should do that. A Muslim would not that kind of things to the Bible, eventhough, they beleive that the content of the Bible are no longer from God.

<Here's my take on what the Taliban did. They don't respect other religions, they regard them with contempt, and this was a public way of telling the world they think all non-Muslims and their beliefs are worthy of their contempt. It was a public way to thumb their noses at everyone - to urinate on their faith if you will. And I think that is the source of the outrage>


That is your interpretation as you already admitted it. On the contrary the Talabans did what their religion told them to do. ( may be there are some who disagrees their polical approches to the whole wordl. I was one of the poeple who thought in that line, however, I agree the Talabans should be left alone and the sanctions aginst them should be lifted)


. >>The world in general, and the Bhudist in particular, would have done better to ignore the whole thing as the reaction is what the Taliban wanted>

I do not think this is what Tlaban wanted. It is the other way around. It is the West who often look excuses for any Islamic movement.

IF THEY DO NOT CARE WHAT IS THE REASON FOR IMPOSING SACNTIONS ON TALABAN???


<let me ask you this: which one of these two actions is the worst:------say if a lousy kufar tossess the copy of the Quran which he has in his possession on the ground or he urinates on it----------and if this lousy kufar kills a muslim(s)-----which he said he has done? ;-) >

May be the one urinates the on the Quran has more enomosity than the one kill a Muslam. ( I think from reading the reply of the American guy you are reffering to him) I do not know why he killed a muslim and what his aim was. If it was to kil a Muslim becouse he hates I slam and Muslims then, I think, the enmity is the same but he acted upon his haters. But Allah knows what the situation was as well the intention of the Muslims who got killed by him.

( I am a lawyer so I will not say more than that)

NB I did not like the usage of ' loosy kufaar'' there is no need.

Salaams


FAAISA

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

HAAJI

Friday, March 16, 2001 - 01:04 pm
What is the difference between papers and people........quranic papers and quraanic memorizors? If it is not acceptable to burn or destory a quranic paper, it is not acceptable to burn or kill a quranic memorizor Muslim.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

TLG

Friday, March 16, 2001 - 07:55 pm
Hey everyone, this is an interesting article on this whole issue. Enjoy.


0Mar01 AFGHANISTAN: FROM MOSES TO THE TALIBAN.

By Crispin Sartwell.

He took the calf that they had made, burned it with fire, ground it to
powder, scattered it on the water, and made the Israelites drink it.
Moses said to Aaron, "What did this people do to you that you have
brought so great a sin upon them?" Exodus 32: 20-21

What the Taliban is doing to statues in Afghanistan appears to be
mindless destruction. But it is deeply rooted in a tradition we share
with them. The word "iconoclast" today indicates a person who attacks
widely accepted beliefs. But it originally meant
one who literally breaks idols. And the first iconoclast on record was
Moses, who, coming down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments to
find the Israelites worshiping a statue, broke the tablets and then the
idol itself.

Ever since, we have oscillated between idolatry and iconoclasm, two
impulses that share a belief that images
have power: power to bring you to the divine, or to mislead you into
worshiping false gods. Plato wanted to ban figurative art because he
believed it was deceptive. The early Christians destroyed images
of the Roman and Greek gods throughout the Roman Empire, and Christian
missionaries have done the same with images all over the world. The
Protestant Reformation of Luther and Calvin was in part a reaction
against the Catholic cult of Mary and the saints, and the Protestants
destroyed innumerable Catholic icons.

The Mosaic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - all of which
recognize the authority of the Old Testament and its prohibition of idol
worship, have each given birth to extreme moments of iconoclasm. Sects
of Judaism and Islam in particular have sometimes gone as far as Plato
and prohibited all representational arts.

Iconoclasm is inseparable from monotheism. God for the Mosaic religions
is conceived as pure spirit, and hence often as an entity of which there
can be no images. That is part of what distinguishes the Mosaic
religions from what monotheists call paganism and idolatry.

That is not to say that what the Taliban is doing is rational or
justified. Afghanistan, in losing its images of the Buddha and other
statues, is losing something that connects them and us to their history,
and is losing the work of centuries of creative genius. But we must also
acknowledge that the Taliban's interpretation of Islam is
directly connected to the mainstream of the tradition of Moses.

But the idolaters that the Taliban are attacking are not the worshipers
of the Golden Calf or even of the Buddha. Buddhism has been dead in
Afghanistan for a thousand years. The idols they're obliterating are
ours. We of the secular West have to some degree replaced religion with
art. Art for us is something holy that must be preserved: housed in
fortress-like buildings to which we make pilgrimages, preserved or
restored in perpetuity. Art has not always been thought of that way by
other cultures. Navajo sand paintings, as beautiful and difficult to
make as they are, are traditionally destroyed after the ceremonies for
which they are made.

Art for us is spiritual, eternal, transcendent. We have made of art a
cult, and the work of art is our idol. So the iconoclasts of the modern
era horrify us as much as the iconoclasts of the ancient world horrified
the pagans. It has seemed at times in the past few days that we are
moved more by the plight of the sculptures of Afghanistan than the
plight of the Afghan people, who are suffering from a drought and from
the oppression of the Taliban rulers themselves.

But the Taliban know very well how to horrify us: They know our
religion, and they know their own. They're both enacting a central
feature of theirs, and achieving maximum provocation by assaulting ours.

This leads to the sad destruction of beautiful things. But it also
testifies to the continuing power of images and the continuing power of
the great religious traditions. And give the Taliban this: Unlike Moses
with the Israelites, they're not, as far as we know, grinding the
statues to powder, scattering them on the water and making people
drink them.

Crispin Sartwell is the author of "The Art of Living: Aesthetics of
the Ordinary in World Spiritual Traditions."

WASHINGTON POST 10/03/2001

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Friday, March 16, 2001 - 08:22 pm
>But the Taliban know very well how to horrify us: They know our religion, and they know their own. They're both enacting a central feature of theirs, and achieving maximum provocation by assaulting ours.<


How true.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fg.

Friday, March 16, 2001 - 09:37 pm
TLG.

That was an interesting peace of info, thanks lady. I think Taliban has done some good service in showing the world that islam doesn't care about Icons and Idols and once given a chance it will destroy all. I also liked the fact that the writer mentiones how westernrs adore the arts to the level of worship. Look how they re-acted??. It is like their gods had been killed. Thanks again. At least we have a westerner who understands the view point of muslims to some degree.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous2

Saturday, March 17, 2001 - 08:36 am
TLG,
thanks walaal. I totally agree with FG and I like the excerpt anonymous took from the article. The Taliban is here to stay so boo hoo to the West and its supporters.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Galool

Saturday, March 17, 2001 - 09:05 am
TLG

Even Thou Brutus? Would you live in Afghanistan under Taliban rule today TLG? Now I know honesty is not a Beardo strong-point, but have a go anyway!

Also whatever happened to the bright girl I once "knew"? This has absolutely nothing to do with the West. It is not a Christian Church or a Michelangelo sketch the Kabul-kiboshites are destroying, it is a set of ancient AFGHAN monuments! Why do you Islamists often behave like petulant prats saying to their parent " See I'm gonna burn my own knickers now!" just to annoy Dad, dad- in this case being "the West".

I am amazed by the amount of respect you guys have for the West! You seem to think they OWN everything artistic, beautiful or creative.
How does this barbarity harm Germany, USA, Britain or Israel?
Can't wait for your responses.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Idea

Saturday, March 17, 2001 - 09:29 am
FG,

My child, your wish is somewhere in the net?!
salaam.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fg.

Saturday, March 17, 2001 - 11:41 am
loooool Idea!. Now I am your child eh?. This is crazy. You will pay for that. almost fell off the chair lol. Ehil xaraka di?. May be you wanted to say "Uncle FG" or something and mistyped the deal eh?.

Galool.

Quit quizzing around TLG. She supports an islamic cause doesn't mean she has to live in an especific location on earth. What do you mean would she live under Taliban rule?. That Taliban is repressive regime, women abusers, blah blah?. We can read the archives of the western media if we want to read about that.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Saturday, March 17, 2001 - 12:27 pm
Pepole who are on borrowed land might know the ancient history of their native country but not the true value of it. The root is still there, but the tree is gone, unable to sense the breeze from it's herritage. And the tree has to strike new roots into borrowed land where it has no history, no herritage, unable to sense the value of the old breeze in this new land....
Fanaticism has no roots in the real world and has no true values..... It can't sense any breeze, hence it has no idea of what it is destroying....

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Saturday, March 17, 2001 - 12:56 pm
Formerguest
Nope, my girlfriend doesn't complain about the Taliban. It was on CNN once when she was watching and at that time she commented that she thought the Taliban was stupid. Remember, not everyone on the earth is a religious fanatic.

What I do find interesting is how you catagorically conclude this is an Islamic act although the majority of ISlamic scholars disagreed. You are only too happy to disagree with these scholars and call them hypocrits because their position matches that of "the west". But when these same scholars conclude something that is anti-western then you're only too willing to cite them. This is well within the definition of hypocracy, coupled with the hypocracy of living in the West for material gain while at the same time decrying Western materialism. Saxib you are on a hypocritic role a magnificent proportions.

The accidental killing of women and children who simply got in the way is always regrettable and always leaves a scar. I don't know of any combat soldiers who don't in some way show the residue of war.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fg.

Saturday, March 17, 2001 - 02:25 pm
Whitegirl.

Don't you live on a borrowed land yourself??. This applies to everybody and to every country. Your values are not everyone's values although you don't understand that due to your background. Isn't everything western sacred for you and the rest of the world's values are nuisance and inferior?. That is why you consider people lower in status than you are if they differ. Spare US the hypocritic western values. What are your values compared to islam that you called fanaticism?. Idols have no values in islam. Doesn't need to sense any breeze coming from them. Well, if THEY HAD ANY BREEZE COMING FROM THEM. guess you will have to learn how to deal with people who don't give a hoot about your values if those values of yours differ theirs.


Mad Mac.

Later.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fg.

Saturday, March 17, 2001 - 02:48 pm
Mad.

When did you care about islamic scholars and their verdicts?. See who is the hypocrite here?. BTW, we don't consider everyone to be a scholar in islam. There are guys employed just to give the kind of empty rhetorics you are talking about. At least they saved part of muslims from possible complete condemnation from the islamophobes in the west. I guess they deserve credit themselves although we understand they have no proof whatsoever. Aren't you deviding muslims into two categories; Fanatics and moderates right now?. Count me in the fanatics.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Saturday, March 17, 2001 - 03:23 pm
fg, Why so upset? Don't take everything so personal, I only posted my thoughts, I didn't say
they had to be yours... May I suggest that you test your own values? Go to Afghanistan
and support your brothers in Islam, then come back and tell me I'm a hypocrite....

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Saturday, March 17, 2001 - 04:21 pm
Oh, fg, if it's true what you say, that idols have no value in islam, and that you don't worship idols, can you then explain this to me;
What is the kaaba and the Al-Hajar AL-Aswad (the black stone) in Mecca, and what do muslims do there...? ;-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fg.

Saturday, March 17, 2001 - 05:54 pm
Whitegirl.

"fg, Why so upset?"

I am not upset. It is the way I write.

"Don't take everything so personal,"

I would reverse the suggestion and tell you don't take things personal.

"I only posted my thoughts,"

So did I.

"I didn't say they had to be yours..."

So did I. I said mine is not yours and yours is not mine.

" May I suggest that you test your own values?"

It is only fair you do what you preach.

"Go to Afghanistan and support your brothers in Islam,"

Muslims are supportive of each other no matter what distance they have in between them. They have my support as long as they keep to the ettiquettes and teachings of islam and I won't support them if they go against the teachings of islam. There is no blind support in islam.


"then come back and tell me I'm a hypocrite.... "

I don't have to tell you, you admitted that yourself.

"Oh, fg, if it's true what you say, that idols have no value in islam, and that you don't worship idols, can you then explain this to me;"

Don't e fooled by what galool writes or someone else who is not a muslim. Muslims don't go there to worship the ka'ba or the black stone. They go there to perform pilgrimage and do certain rituals in following the foorsteps of prophet Abraham. Pre-islamic arabs themselves performed these rituals in a twisted and polytheistic way untill islam came to purify the rituals and made things the way they were started Abraham the father of both ARABS AND JEWS. So, the performance muslims do when they go there is one based on Monotheism and a prophetic path pioneered on order by Abraham.

"What is the kaaba and the Al-Hajar AL-Aswad (the black stone) in Mecca, and what do muslims do there...? ;-)

Visit this link to clear your confusion:

http://www.angelfire.com/ny/dawahpage/bstone.html

To read a complete and brief history about islam visit:

http://www.quraan.com/Raheeq/Default.asp


Also a brief history about the Ka'aba as a place of worship is here:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/kaaba.html

http://www.islamworld.net/call_of_ibrahim.html


I think that would be enough for now.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 12:30 am
Oh, thanks for enlighten me ;-)))
My ass! /8\ (to all the LADIES in here; sorry about that...my lousy viking herritage again...)
You didn't only post your thoughts, you directed them to me. Big difference I would say?
Now, if you're not upset, then why did you attack me with: "You consider people lower in status,
Spare US the hypocritic western values, Your values are not everyone's values although you don't understand that due to your background" This is a public area, open for everyone. Please don't make it my problem that you have a lack of self-control... Because I don't. ;-)
But after reading your long speech I now assume it is ok that we, the western hypocrites,
can feel free to destroy and pulverize the kaaba and the black stone any time then?
I mean, it's obvious that you guys don't need that stuff to worship Allah, do you? And it has
nothing whatsoever of ancient or let's say historical value to you guys? Just
like the Idols in Afghanistan..... Just trash, no value, right? Well, if it's only fair that
you do what you preach, then I really think you should go and help your brothers in Afghanistan you brave man! They sure could need more guys like you... ;-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 01:09 am
I divide Muslims into more categories than just moderate and fanatic. You kjnow, you can have a position on a given issue that is "anti-Western" and not be a fanatic. Indeed I have a number of them and so do many of my collegues. But it's one thing to argue with a given point, it's another to make it a knee-jerk reaction. I have yet to hear you decry the Taliban on any point, even though they are an anathema to most peoples of the world. And what I really can't fathom is if you are such a fanatic then why don't you pack your bags and go join them??? If they are the only righteous society around, why don't you and your family go live in this great righteous society - moreover why are you living in a blatantly kufaar society?? If you are going to live in the west then how can you possibly sit around and complain about all it stands for. At least you could move to a place where the views were more in line with your own. Right now it seems like you want to enjoy the fruits of western society while at the same time attacking the very institutions that provide you those benefits. Why aren't you living in Somalia and working with Al-Itihad??? Could it be because you are more interested in personal self-aggrandizement and are willing to expose your family to the evils of living among th kufaar in order to benefit personally in a material way????

Yeah WGN, tell him!!!!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fg.

Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 03:28 am
Whitegirl.

How are you this morning?. I see you freaked out or something thinking I am out of control. Well, this is how I write as I told you before don't read too much into it.

"Oh, thanks for enlighten me ;-)))

You are most welcome. And please read the link about the history of islam when you have time.

"to all the LADIES in here; sorry about that...my lousy viking herritage again...)

Good thing you apologized to the ladies, How about the guys?. Don't be sexist now only referring to the ladies. Men deserve some respect too.

"You didn't only post your thoughts, you directed them to me.'

Yes, it is part of an academic integrity to refer people to where they can get more than you could offer. Can't find glory in what isn't my work also.


"Now, if you're not upset, then why did you attack me "

I didn't attack you. I just pointed out what you wrote which seemed judgemental about muslims. You talk as if you set the rules of the world. Now, what does that tell you norwegian girl??.

"But after reading your long speech I now assume it is ok that we, the western hypocrites, can feel free to destroy and pulverize the kaaba and the black stone any time then? "

I am glad you understand we don't worship a stone or KA'BA. Secondly, You can try the pulverization if you can.


"I mean, it's obvious that you guys don't need that stuff to worship Allah, do you? "

Of course we worship Allah day in day out, every minute of our lives(depending on how pious the person is) without being there. In fact 80% of the islamic community live far away from that place and perform their daily islamic duties. Going to the Ka'ba is part of islam mundated upon every muslim once in his/her life-time if she/he can and has the means to go there.


"And it has nothing whatsoever of ancient or let's say historical value to you guys? Just like the Idols in Afghanistan..... Just trash, no value, right?'

Once again WGN, We have different mentality towards things. Don't you know that people around the world have different cultures and mentalities when it comes to norms?. They don't all view things the same way. Your approach to this issue is based on your culture and upbringing and mine is based on my faith which doesn't care about an Idol. It is worthless and has no values. You can't understand that of course. Isn't that why I am a little fanatic to you and uncivilized who has no place on this world as you said???. Or out of control unlike you eh?..


"I really think you should go and help your brothers in Afghanistan you brave man! They sure could need more guys like you... ;-)


Do you need to come to the united states to show that you have a common interest with them?. Or that you share their values???.

Have a nice day Whitegirl. I need to take some nap. You can throw your cheap shots at me anytime.

MAD MAC.

Don't be a fool here. I can't discuss with you about a muslim fellow and say he is bad or declare him a terrorist or call him names used by you guys. That would be unislamic. I might have differences with the Taliban based on islamic judgements as always among muslims have differences among them, but I don't give a dime about what you guys throw at them.

At the end of the day I am bound by the islamic rule of respect and feeling brotherhood to other muslims. I don't denounce a muslim fella just because you want me DECRY him. You can take all the good thoughts you had about me and shove it in to your socks for all I care if you wanted me decry Taliban. I can talk about the taliban with another muslim but not with you truthfully. If you found out some muslim who did that or does regularly, I don't.

I live here to take advantage of an opportunity that presented itself to me. Besides, the Land is the Land of god don't you forget that Soldier man.
I also contribute to the well-being of this country by being taxed to death. I guess you could thank me paying your little military salary upthere. Just remember me at the pay days.

As far as Al-Itihad is concerned, they are somali muslims who think can contribute to their society, If I find them to be more beneficial people whom I can work with, what is there to keep me from doing that?. You can't descriminate a fellow muslim just because somebody else says something about him. I am an independent minded person and don't accept what others say about others at face value. I check and verify things so that I don't step on somebody just because MAD MAC doesn't like them. The world ain't that way Irish MAN.

Time to sleep. And I don't aggrandize people. You are upset because I don't meet your criteria of a good person based on your values. What do you want me do? BEG YOU TO THINK ABOUT ME AS A GOOD MUSLIM and that I am not this and I am not that??. Have you heard what PATRICK HENRY SAID;


"GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH". I die honored and live honored never allowing myself to be humiliated and enslaved by a human being whose abilities I know about. Suit yourselves. Your comments will be dealt with so don't keep them to yourselves. Share.....

Okey guys Nabadeey.

Hey whitegirl,

IF YOU ARE NOT PISSED OFF TOO MUCH, CARE TO SHARE WITH ME WHAT DO YOU SAY IN YOUR LANGUAGE HAVE A NICE DAY???.

I was reading about how you treat LAPPS or SAMI people. Was very interesting. See ya.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 06:43 am
FG
So the way you discuss issues with Kufaar is different from how you discuss them with Muslims???? Now that's just over the top. You have blatantly admitted to deceipt and intellectual dishonesty. So, I gather if someone claims he is Muslim then regardless of all else you feel greater kinship to him than someone who does not claim to be Muslim but de facto shares more of your ideals?? That's fucked up!!! Fortunately most Muslims (and I associate with plenty) don't hold such narrow views and recognize that they can have friends and associates who are kufaar that are better friends and associates than many who call themselves Muslims.

The Taliban are scum - pure and simple. They're not good Muslims and they're not very good governors either. They're amoral slobs - and have bad taste in fashion to boot. If you can't say it, well I can.

Al-Itihad has much more validity but I fear the nut cases who think like you might come to dominate the organization and try to turn Somalia into a Taliban look-a-like state through force. That's just what the Somalis need, a bunch of backward thinkers who alienate the country from everyone who can help them.

I can't say what the long term fate of Islam is, but I can tell you this, it is not going to dominate the world political or economic scene in your lifetime or mine. And this narrow-minded version of Islam will only dominate Somalia over my dead body.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Idea

Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 06:50 am
FG,

I knew that would make you laugh <smile>. If you insist me calling you "uncle FG" guess i will grant you that. I will call you adeer FG since i call ANON abti ;-)

On a serious note, i have been observing your support for the Taliban(that is all good) but since i do believe in surat Al-kafiroun. I believe also in the freedom of someone's religion. I have my religion and you have yours. But once i feel that you are threatening my religion, then i am entitled to FIGHT for my faith. Why i think Taliban in some manner or another are using Religion as a Front! If you look in the History of Islam (after the period of the four rightly guided caliphates) muslims in some way or other have greatly used Islam or religion to get their political aims. I can give you so many examples if you don't believe me!

Furthermore, if we as muslims deny others practising their faith(whatever that might be) aren't we declaring war against so many nations, war that we as muslims can't handle(due to our weakness as being one). I don't think that is a rational point.

Lastly but not least, try not to get emotional when replying back. Just think of all points...i would say do cost-benefit analysis!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Idea

Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 06:54 am
Mad,

why do you give yourself the right to insult others? do they teach you that in the academy or what? Please, no name calling.

Mad, i wonder what you call Bush Jr?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 10:45 am
I might be a freak, but I never freak out.
A person who is showing me respect will get my respect. I am not saying that I disrespect you, but you're a man, and I am sure you can handle some nasty words, so stop whining about nothing, hehehe!
You muslims really are too sensitive. In what way did I judge the muslims in my first posting? Now, take a closer look and tell me if you can find the word muslim mentioned at all in there? No, I was talking about people, their herritage, the value of it, and fanaticism in general. Not one particular group. To make it clear what I said; Fanatics might see clearly to the tip of their nose, but not much further, and they don't
respect ANY values, not even human ones.... :O
To me the Taliban regime is nothing but a bunch of bandits. Now can you please tell me WHY you justify their actions? In my opinion you are a fanatic if you support the Talibans in Afghanistan. And especially if you not even have been there to see what it is you are defending. What is going on down there has nothing to do with Islam, unless the Quran says it's ok to kill
innocent women and children? Feel free to enlighten me again? In your own words this time, please?
And don't preach bull. I am sure all of you muslims would get very upset if the kaaba and the black stone were destroyed. And I don't have ANY common interests with the Americans.... hehehe! (that was actually quite amusing...) Some people
say Norwegians are "the Nordic Americans". I can't understand why?? What wrong have we done to deserve such an comparison? lol!
I don't believe in any sorts of idols myself but I still can see the value in protecting the ancient ones that are left on this earth. They ar part of our history.
You Somalis seem to be quite proud about the possibility that you might have part of your herritage in Egypt. Now take a look at this
MUSLIM country. They have alot of idols, and they do everything they can to preserve them. Because; they know the value of their ancient history and they also proudly allow the rest of the world take part in it. Now, this is quite interesting after all you said about muslims not
worshipping idols and because of that it's not of any importance to protect them.
You are also saying that the actions in Afghanistan are accepted among muslims. Or are you talking only on the behalf of Somali's??
It still doesn't make sense to me....
It is not a good idea to try to insult me with the Sami's. I was born in Samiland and have lived part of my life there. So feel free to ask
me any questions about the subject. ;-) No, what you should go for are the vikings. They were barbarians. Do you know what they did in Europe?
And THAT's my herritage... ;-) Norwegians today are peace-loving people, which proudly give away the Nobel Peace prize every year. Even to
muslims... ;-) So, you see, it is possible to learn from your own nasty behaviors...
Oh, and can I fart instead of shoot? A much more powerful ammunition.... You make me talk too much....
Ha en god dag! (have a good day) ;-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 11:17 am
Idea
Ahhh what do I call Bush jr? Well, I don't regularly address him. I mean other than at coffee hour of course. Moving on, if I were to address him I imagine I would call him sir. I met his father once (in Baledogle Somalia of all places) and I'm pretty sure I called him sir too. I still have a picture of us doing the grip and grin thing somewhere around here. Was there a point to this question?

I'm not really insulting FG, I'm simply keeping things in persepctive. That guy has called me amoral and a hypocrit so many times I can't keep count.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

TLG

Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 09:51 pm
Salaam ya'll,

Galool, what do we have now? "The outsider who mourns louder than the breaved"?
I'm supprised you could come up with all that from a single post I forwarded and didnt' even comment on, other than saying it is interesting.

Galool, I can live wherever I please considering that Allah has blessed me with intellect, good judgment and modest amount of wealth (thanks to Allah and to my family). And yes, including Afghanistan.

So "honesty is not a beardo strong"? I suppose it is Galool's strong point, eh?

It seems none of the ways we approach the West ever please you. We point out the hypocracies in the policies, u scream "anti Western sentiments", we give it a discription that fits it, u yell we are wrong. WE present a WESTERNER'S objective write up( that seems "sympathetic" to an "Islamic cause":O, you scream we worship that West and attribute anything good and glorious to it. Make up your mind Galool, coz i'm really getting confused now. And I thought "consistency was your middle name":O
It also seems you can't get over the fact that we live in the West and still lash out at its hypocritical approach to world issues. Well, all I can say to you is GET USED TO IT. We ain't about to apologise for our "luxuries" here. Infact, I can't help but relate to the situation of Prophet Musa peace be upon and Pharoah (A nod to JB and the network crew).Our Lives here is very much like that of Prophet Musa's early life in the house of Pharaoh. He was raised in the house of Pharoah(just like us). He Grow up their and despised what he saw. And hey, who knows, we might insha Allah deliver the Muslims just like Prophet Musa delivered the Israelites from their miserable conditions under the Egyptian rule.
If I were u, I wouldn't be worried about the Taliban. I would be worried about the new tidal wave of Islamist born and/or bread in the "dad" (keeping with your terminology). Coz they know the "dad's" ways and they know their own.

So Galool, I suggest you go back and read the Story of Prophet Musa. You might actually end up understanding Islamists like moi. A good book you might find this story in is "Story of the Prophets" by ibn Kathir.

BTW Galool, I saw the hopeless message you addressed to Nur. You know, I was FOOLED by your "believe in humanity", "decency", "good sense of judgment" diatribe. What you portrayed there was the epitome of ignorance. Now, a decent, humane person, with a good sense of judgment would apologise to Nur. What would u do, Galool?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Idea

Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 10:25 pm
Mad,

Okay, so when you address FG call him sir as well :-)

Whitegirl,
From where you got Somalis heritage says it came from Egypt? Was that from a book you read? or word of mouth from others? And have you seen Egyptians worshiping Idols(ie the statues of Luxor and Aswan) in part of their history? And, although i myself finding weird comments about the Taliban, from where did you get that they KILL innocent women and children? Do you have figures, pictures or just amusing yourself before you go to bed!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Monday, March 19, 2001 - 02:18 am
Idea, I got this from your own people, here on Somalinet; http://somalinet.com/forums_archives/3228/3689.html?SaturdayJuly2220000508pm But it's not a secret, I really thought you all had heard about it.
And I said POSSIBILITY. Please learn how to read a whole sentence.... Now, if you want to know more, search the net, I'm sure you can do it on your own without my help, you'll find alot of info about the subject. And I didn't say that Egyptians are worshipping idols today, but that they know how to take care of their herritage. And why do you think they built them then in the first place?? To have something nice to look at?? lol! Interesting....
About the Taliban regime, how much blood do you want to see?? Just search for "Taliban" and you will get it all in your face...; Be human, read this and sign:
http://www.petitiononline.com/taliban/petition.html Thanks!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Monday, March 19, 2001 - 02:53 am
TLG
You have just admitted to being a hypocrit in black and white. From hence forth, everytime you accuse "the West" of hypocracy I will remind you of your own.

Idea
Are you telling me that Formerguest in George Bush jr????? holy Cow, I didn't know the President was Muslim!!! Learn seomthing new every day.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fg.

Monday, March 19, 2001 - 03:46 am
Dearest Idea.

Call me anything that makes me feel I am Older. Don't wanna have Ideas lool. Awoowe would be the best, Uncle is also good. Pick one. I told you before sis, we can't denounce Taliban based on what others write about them. Our judgements haVE to be based on the truth and not upon mere judgements emminating from hostile people towards islam in general. Otherwise I know that no group or an individual is perfect. Taliban isn't that perfect but that was not the story here. I hope you understood my insistence.

Thanks again for the help in you know what favour. Let us hope this cryptic language of ours won't cause any fiasco lol.

Whitegirl.

Fire back anytime and anyway you like please, I can handle ten like you but no more=).

Thanks for the info about "Ha en god dag". So, I make you write more eh?. You said you don't know why???>?. The somali origins are in dispute largely because there are no written records about it. Some say we originate from Arabs and others say we originate from Pharoahs. If you travel through north Africa though, there are a lot of people that look like just somalis. Muritania, Egypt(a tribe called ASWANIS) look like exactly somalis, CHAD and Libya are two other countries that have somali like people in them Not to mention SUDAN. There is a strong culture similarity between ARABS and somalis but that is it. We don't look like ARABS obviously. Whatever it is, we shouldn't bother about our Identities. I for one don't care much beyond the somali IDENTITY. I know I am neither an ARAB nor PHARAOH.

About the Taliban ISSUE, now you going too far as to request from people to sign a petition???. Petition my shoes whitegirl. We don't petition against a muslim fella just because you self-righteous westerners don't like them. Your efforts are misguided albeit you might be thinking that you are doing something right for the suffering. Some western intellectuals have better Idea when they suggested that Taliban should not be Isolated to make them more accountable. Although that is a miscopception itself, I guess they understand better. How come I don't see you are not promoting a petition against United States for murdering silently in a genocidal proportion IRAQI CHILDREN AND WOMEN FOR ELEVEN YEARS EH???. You feminist freaks are always fooled by the islamic enemies that WOMEN ARE MISTREATED WOMEN ARE ABUSED BY ISLAM. Tell me in an honest Manner that you DON'T THINK ISLAM ABUSES WOMEN???. Tell me that Norwegian Girl?. you are full of it.

See who is the hypocrite here LADY WHITY?. talk to you later. And for your info, lots of white western women accept islam more than western MEN. guess WHY whitegirl?. Visit this website to read WESTERN WOMEN ACCEPTING ISLAM:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/newmuslims/

MAD.

Call me whatever you like soldier boy. Yea, it is over the top. I don't critisize a fellow muslim to please anyone's highness.

IDEA.

Care to teach me how to write unemotive?. The PHd you hold should serve something at least. Don't ya thinK so MADAM IDEA?.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Monday, March 19, 2001 - 04:04 am
Formerguest
So what you're saying is you can not have an honest frank exchange on any of the subjects that we've had here, in fact might well be lying outright, in order to avoid criticising fellow Muslims. This clearly lays bare the lies to all of your arguments heretofore as you now freely admit that you will always defend "Muslim" actions regardless of their flawed rationales or moral basis. Clearly any argument you make from this point on is invalid by your own admission. Can you please highlight for me the paragraph in the Qur'an that says Muslims should lie for other Muslims. I would like to see this in black and white for myself.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fg.

Monday, March 19, 2001 - 04:53 am
See MAD, How many times did Asad or I told you that not all muslims are perfect thus you can't make your conclusion about islam based on someone without double checking and verifying the source??. I can't approve of anything that is not approved by islam. This is concerning when you mentioned something that is unislamic and verifiable that was done by muslims you saw. Here what we have is different.

What we have here is you demanding from me to critisize a group of muslims. On what pretext do I do that?. See, I can't fit into your shoes and see the world always as you demand here from your own perspective. I never mind if you view what I write to be a lie or not. Lies don't satisfy instincts and one can tell whether what he/she reads is a lie or not. I say let what I write speak for itself.

Islamically, what we hear must be verified before judgement is made lest we harm anybody and later regret about what we did. We are accountable for what we do and say. And this goes for non-muslim and muslim.

"49.6 O you who believe! if an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done."

I can't just lash out at a group of muslims without seeing myself what they do that is evil based on islamic judgement okey, or hear it from islamic affliated and unbiased source. That condition even knocks out Husni Mubarak and Ghadafi. I don't give a hoot of what they say about anything. Let Alone a judgement based on your ever sacred secular western views. I am not descriminating against you or our new guest here WHITEGIRL. You don't wanna see my point, fine with me Irish-Man. It is not the first time you ruled me unauthentic lol. Our differences start from Allah down to the lowest level of norms. This is not to say we don't have anything in common. I actuallly respect you more than I respect some somali individuals I saw in here.

I am headed for school so leave your two cents down. I will attend to them later in the day inshallah. Don't feel too bad.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Qoonsade

Monday, March 19, 2001 - 05:15 am
It is beyond my understanding, why we want to discuss Kafir on issues regarding the Taliban's and their noble deeds. In fact, among other requirements of the testimony of the faith, it is prohibited to bow down or lower your head humbly to someone, nor ask someone to fulfill your needs, let alone idols. The only Allah is capable of fulfilling the needs of his creation. The Kafirs and the Muslims condemned the actions of Taliban, while ignoring the commands of allah. I will never accept the so called Islamic scholars, who deliberately belittled the shari'ah of Allah. the evidence lies in Sahih Al Muslim and anybody who tries to distort the sacred law will be rejected. It is obligatory upon Muslims to refrain from inflicting harms upon Taliban and other muslims who fallow the Din of Allah without alteration or omissions. May Allah give Taliban the strength to withstand against their enemies. On the other hand, Islam prohibits going into the dwellings of the nations that had been crashed by Allah when rejected to obey the commands of Allah. Unfortunately, we called them the tourist destination. Even when muslims are crossing or walking beside such places, they must walk fast humbly crying with fear and asking Allah to safe them from the calamities that he inflicted on those Daalimiin.


Wa Bilaahi Tawfiiq

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Monday, March 19, 2001 - 05:30 am
Formerguest
OK take a close look at this Surah, 49.6, which you just cited. It didn't say "if an evil doer comes to you with a report about a Muslim...". This is, in fact, a wise Surah. The intent is clear, rumor mongering and false accusations can cause great pain to innocents and should be avoided. I agree with that. But this applies to everyone - kufaar and Muslim alike. Islam does not (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here) state that Muslims should lie or believe lies or distortions about kufaar, in fact it says kufaar too must be treated justly and fairly. Yet you are saying there's two different standards by which you hold people accountable: a lax one for Muslims and a higher standard for Kufaar. There is no basis in the Qur'an for this and in fact there are strong arguments against it. If you criticize the Bush administration you must also be prepared to criticize the Taliban - or are you saying that Islam condones hypocracy?????

Qoonsade
Dude, I have to tell you I think you're out there. But I am curious about you position on living in Kufaar countries. Can you cite the Surah, as I would like to look it up for myself and ensure I have it in context. Mahadsannid.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

faaisa

Monday, March 19, 2001 - 10:30 am
Mad Mac,
You are right the Quran orders justice and fairness toward everyone.

I personally criticise both the Uk government as well as eny government that claims to be Islamic yet does not apply all the Islmaic shareca consistently.

But I think we cannot say much about Talaban as we do not have unbaised information.


See you later,

Faaisa

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

TLG

Monday, March 19, 2001 - 10:44 am
MadMac, whats up knight in shining armour? I've admitted to being many things before in "black and white". So you can remind me all you want. I thought we were friends and that I "like you deep down". What's the matter now? Don't worry, I have nothing against the Budhhas. After all, they can neither help or harm me. My uncle Galool just brings the worst in me sometimes. I suppose there is a limit to everything - including my patience threshold.
And yeah, I posted that in the wee hours of the night, after finishing a 15 page report. But, no regrets as we speak, except for a few spelling and grammer mistakes...hehehe

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Monday, March 19, 2001 - 11:20 am
fg, you know, you brag to much, little man ;-P So you're a big fan of Saddam too??
hehehhe, my-my, how surprised I am....
"Saddam claimed that after the massive air bombing by the UN force, he had talked
to God in his bunker 60 feet underground. I don't believe it: when you are 60 feet
underground, it is not God!" ;-)))
It makes me sad to see how you hide behind your religion instead of looking
beyond it and show some compassion and respect for the human rights and for your
own brothers and sisters who are suffering. I don't have any problems with that
even though I'm not a muslim, so why is it so hard for you?
I don't know if you have been too loose-tongued or what, but please read what
the Afghan muslim women themselves say about Taliban and Islam:
http://www.afghan-web.com/politics/talibanwomen.html
http://www2.rawa.org/ Please go and take a look at the photos too on this site.
Now; would you still say that this is just western hypocrisy? I guess the answer is yes...?
You would probably insist that I make this up too... ;-) Oh, BTW, it's alot more out there,
muslims against Taliban....
Did you forget what you wanted to tell me about the Sami's....? I am actually quite surprised
that you've heard of them at all.
Anyway; PEACE to you all. And don't forget the charity.....

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Monday, March 19, 2001 - 12:14 pm
Kabul hints at allowing newsmen to Baymiyan

KABUL, 3/19/2001 (Reuter) :: The Taliban movement said on Sunday it might soon let journalists inspect the rubble of two giant statues of the Buddha it has destroyed.

"Journalists may be allowed on Wednesday," Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil informed a news conference. Large numbers of journalists have been waiting for an opportunity to see the destroyed statues near the central town of Bamiyan, whose demolition earlier this month caused worldwide outrage.

The massive Buddhas, 53 metres and 38 metres high, were hewn out of a cliff face more than 1,500 years ago. "The statues had been left over from our ancestors as a wrong heritage. They were in clash with our beliefs," Muttawakil said. "We don''t want to hold you up much longer."

Muttawakil repeated the Taliban''s view that its destruction of all statues in Afghanistan was an internal issue and was not intended as an insult to Buddhism or other religions.

recognition sought: The Afghan foreign minister on Sunday accused the world community of isolating his government and demanded international recognition.

The minister, Wakil Ahmad Mutawakel, also dismissed worldwide protests over the destruction of ancient Buddhist statues, saying it was an internal matter based on religious beliefs.

The destruction of the statues, including two giant Buddha sculptures in the central city of Bamiyan this month, was an "internal religious issue" and not an insult to other religions, he told a news conference.

"These statues had been left over from great grandfathers as a wrong heritage," Mutawakel said. "They were in conflict with our beliefs."

Denying the demolition of the 1,500-year-old Bamiyan statues was a political move, Mutawakel said he was hopeful the Taliban''s actions would not weaken its case for diplomatic recognition.-Reuters The Taliban''s world

Reported by: Khalid Hasan

3/19/2001 (Dawn) :: THE destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas may finally persuade those that recognize the Taliban regime to question its distorted interpretation of the Sharia. Until now, the Islamic world with the exception of Iran (though for its own reasons) had said nothing critical of the Taliban''s extremism, or anything about their denial to women of their basic right to education, free movement and work.

Muslim governments chose instead to look away from the catastrophe that is Afghanistan under the Taliban. It has taken the savage destruction of two Buddhist landmarks to make the Islamic world come out, partially though, of its somnambulism. Meanwhile, the Lord Buddha, no doubt, has looked down on the destruction of his image with benign understanding, an enigmatic smile playing on his lips.

Ahmed Rashid in his superb book on the rise of the Taliban writes that after they captured the city of Mazar, they declared the tomb of its most beloved saint, Rabia Balkhi, out of bounds. Her story is both romantic and tragic. Born in the Middle Ages, she was the first woman of her time to compose love poetry in Persian. She died after her brother slashed her wrists as punishment for her love for a slave. As she lay dying, she wrote out her last poem in her own blood. For centuries, young Uzbek girls and boys had treated her tomb with the devotion appropriate to a saint, going there to pray for the fulfilment of their own romantic dreams. The Taliban did not raze her tomb to the ground. Perhaps one should be grateful for small mercies.

When the Taliban banned every form of entertainment, the Muslim states remained indifferent since it did not directly affect them. One recalls a time before the invention of the VCR when Pakistanis in large numbers used to make short trips to Kabul to watch Indian movies. That could have happened in another lifetime. In the ravaged city of Kabul, as it is today, there are no movies, no music, no television. All this and more has been declared against Islam as understood by the Taliban. One of the governing mullahs told Ahmed Rashid while describing to him the most suitable punishment for being gay, "Some say we should take these sinners to a high roof and throw them down, while others say we should dig a hole beside a wall, bury them, then push the wall down on them." This novel form of justice was once demonstrated in the presence of Mullah Muhammad Umar himself.

The same Islamic "scholar", when asked what the Afghans should do for entertainment now that the cinemas were closed, the TV was off the air and Radio Shariat was not exactly playing music, replied, "Of course, we realize that people need some entertainment but they can go to the parks and see the flowers, and from this they will learn about Islam." It is another matter that in the war-destroyed Afghanistan of the Mullahs there are no parks to go to, though it is reassuring to know that the Taliban do not consider flowers to be outside the pale of Islam.

It will be sobering to remind ourselves of some of the edicts and decrees relating to women and culture issued by the Taliban since 1994.

Women are not to step outside their place of residence and if they do, they should not look like those of their erstwhile sisters who used to parade themselves before men, wearing fashionable clothes and cosmetics "before the coming of Islam." One should note that the Taliban do not think Afghanistan was a Muslim country before they took power.

Women should not create an opportunity to attract the attention of men who "will not look at them with a good eye." A woman is responsible for coordinating her family. It is the husband, brother or father who has to provide that family with its necessary requirements. Women who have to step out for "education (which has been banned anyway), social needs and social services", should be covered from head to toe. If they are found wearing "fashionable, ornamental, tight and charming clothes to show themselves" they would be "cursed by the Islamic Sharia and should never expect to go to heaven." Having taken over God''s own functions and decided what will happen to these female fiends in the hereafter, the Taliban decree does not neglect the here and now by promising that such women would be "threatened, investigated and severely punished" and for good measure, their menfolk would be punished too.

Female patients are to go to female doctors, but if they have to be seen by a male doctor they must be accompanied by a close relative and during examination both the patient and the doctor should wear the "Islamic hijab." Male doctors are not to touch or see "other parts of female patients except for the affected part", nor are they allowed to enter the rooms or wards of female patients unless they have been specifically requested to do so. Male and female doctors are not to sit together or even converse. "If there is need for discussion, it should be done with hijab." Hospital staff must pray in mosques on time, while the religious police can go wherever they want, anytime they want and "nobody can prevent them."

No driver is allowed to pick up a woman who is wearing an Iranian-style burqa. If he does, he will be sent to jail and her husband will be punished as well. Women who are seen wearing "stimulating and attractive" clothes are not to be picked up from the street by drivers.

As for music, it cannot be played in shops, hotels, vehicles and public transport. If a music cassette is found in a shop, the shopkeeper will be jailed and his shop locked up. It may only be opened if five people are prepared to guarantee the offender''s future good conduct. Anyone found with a music cassette in his vehicle will lose both the cassette and the vehicle. He will also be imprisoned. One must wonder if Oliver Cromwell has returned to earth in another form.

The Taliban have a thing about hair. "To prevent beard shaving and its cutting", those found shaven or with a trimmed beard are to be arrested and jailed "until their beard gets bushy". Long-haired people are to be arrested and taken to the Religious Police where their hair will be shaved. The parting kick is that the "criminal has to pay the barber." The Taliban have no love for pigeons either. A December 1996 edict said: "After ten days, this should be monitored and the pigeons and any other playing birds should be killed." Card playing is illegal as is kite-flying. All kite shops in Afghanistan have been closed down. The Afghans used to fly kites during Naoroz, the Afghan new year. No more. The skies over Afghanistan are free of colour.

The December 1996 ruling on "idolatry" in Taliban English says, "In vehicles, shops, hotels, room and any other place, pictures/portraits should be abolished. The monitors should tear up all pictures in the above places." Is it not ironic that a government, the bulk of whose income is derived from the drugs trade, should jail and punish both addicts and suppliers?

Interest is officially banned. Kabul used to have a bazaar entirely devoted to the money trade. It was perhaps the only place in the world where the Pakistani rupee could be exchanged at a good rate. No longer. Afghan women used to go to the river to wash clothes. Not possible now. Any woman found washing clothes on the riverbank is to be picked up, taken home and her husband "severely punished." Singing and dancing are not allowed at weddings. Tailors may no longer measure women. In case you are a sorcerer. Afghanistan is not where you should go. Sorcery is forbidden. All books of sorcery have been ordered burnt and sorcerers kept in jail till they repent.

These are some of the things the Taliban have done to the living. The Bamiyan Buddhas were only stone

Footage shows Buddhas blast

3/19/2001 (BBC) ::

Footage shows Buddhas blast
Dramatic pictures of the Taleban''s destruction of ancient statues of Buddha in Afghanistan have been released.

Qatar''s Al-Jazeera satellite television channel showed footage of Taleban forces blowing up the smaller of two massive statues carved into a cliff in the central province of Bamiyan.


Despite an international outcry, the Taleban destroyed several Buddhist artefacts around the country, arguing that they were un-Islamic.

Bamiyan''s Buddhas were part of a rich cultural heritage dating back nearly 2,000 years and were considered among the finest examples of Greco-Indian art.
The Taleban blew up the statues using dynamite
Television pictures show a massive explosion...


Gaping hole

Television pictures showed a massive explosion which shook the ground, followed by plumes of dust and smoke.


...and then a hole where the statues once stood

Unidentified voices could be heard crying "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) and "Ma Sha''Allah" (Whatever God Wills).

As the smoke cleared, it was evident that where the giant Buddhas had once stood, there was now a gaping big hole.

Taleban officials scrambled up into the crevice where the 125-foot figure once stood and the camera panned around to show a panoramic view of snow-capped mountains and terraced plains around a river bed.

Ritual slaughter

It took the Taleban nearly two weeks to act on an edict to destroy the giant statues.

On Monday the authorities began the ritual slaughter of 100 cows to atone for the delay - an order passed last week by the Taleban''s reclusive supreme leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar.


The slaughtered meat will be distributed to the poor residents of Kabul

Taleban official
Twelve cows were sacrificed in the capital Kabul - the rest will be slaughtered around the country.

A Taleban official told journalists: "Based on the order, the slaughtered meat will be distributed to the poor residents of Kabul and other areas.

"This is an atonement for the delay in destroying the Buddhas."

Outcry

The destruction of the Buddhas came in for strong criticism, especially from its neighbours, including India and Pakistan.

Several Muslim countries condemned the move, saying the Taleban''s action was un-Islamic.

The Taleban also expelled the BBC correspondent in Kabul, Kate Clark, for broadcasting what it described as "biased" reports of the Bamiyan statues destruction.

Ms Clark said she believed the main reason for her expulsion was her filing of a report in which she said most Afghans opposed the statues'' demolition.




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

Slaughter follows statue destruction

Reported by: ITN

3/19/2001 :: It took Taleban soldiers nearly two weeks to destroy them after an order was issued by Omar declaring the statues idolatrous and against the tenets of Islam.

Butchers with machete-like knives have slaughtered 12 cows and distributed the meat to the poorest people in Kabul to atone for the delay in destroying two giant statues of Buddha in central Bamiyan.

The 12 cows were the first of 100 that were ordered killed throughout the country by the Taleban''s reclusive leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar.

He issued the slaughter order last weekend, saying the cows would be sacrificed because of the tardy demolition of a 170-foot and a 120-foot statues of Buddha carved from a cliff face in the third and fifth centuries.

It took Taleban soldiers nearly two weeks to destroy them after an order was issued by Omar declaring the statues idolatrous and against the tenets of Islam.

Shortly after sunrise, in the courtyard of the once grand presidential palace in the heart of Kabul, 20 men in blood-soaked shalwar kameezes, the traditional baggy pants and long shirts, put the meat into bags for distribution throughout the war-ruined city.

"We are doing this on the order of Mullah Omar because of the delay in the destruction of the statues," said Abdullah, a Taleban soldier who, like most Afghans uses only one name.

Abdullah was supervising the slaughter and meat distribution.

The remaining animals were to be slaughtered throughout the 95 per cent of Afghanistan that is controlled by the Taleban

The order to destroy the two towering statues as well as thousands of other priceless relics was issued after 400 clerics from across Afghanistan decided that would be in accordance with their interpretation of Islamic teachings.

The destruction order generated international outrage and pleas from around the world to save the statues.

After nearly two weeks of trying to destroy the mountain carvings with anti-aircraft weapons and rocket launchers, the Taleban transferred truckloads of explosives to Bamiyan.

The explosive charges were placed in holes bored into the statues. One international aid worker, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the explosives job was done professionally.


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

Taliban Sends Bush Letter, No Proposal on Bin Laden

Reported by: The Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON, 3/19/2001 :: The Taliban who rule Afghanistan delivered a letter for President George W. Bush on Monday but made no new proposals to meet the U.S. demand that they hand over Islamist militant Osama bin Laden.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the letter, delivered at the department by Taliban envoy Rahmatullah Hashemi, called for improved relations and continued dialogue between the Taliban and the United States.

"But it did not contain any specific proposals for addressing the international concerns about terrorism and other issues with the Taliban," Boucher added.

"We have not seen from the Taliban a proposal that would meet the requirements of the U.N. resolution to hand over Osama bin Laden to a country where he can be brought to justice," the spokesman said.

The United States has indicted bin Laden in connection with the bomb attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998.

The Saudi-born leader has been living in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban, and the U.N. Security Council has imposed sanctions as pressure for handing him over.

The United States does not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and it has forced the organization to close down its New York office. But it has not renounced contacts with the organization.

In an interview with the New York Times Friday, Rahmatullah said the Taliban blew up two ancient Buddha statues because of rage that a foreign delegation offered money for the Bamiyan statues rather than to help starving Afghans.

Boucher said he rejected the argument. "The real question is what are the Taliban doing for the Afghan people whom they claim to govern and it seems that they are doing very little beyond subjecting them to oppression," he added.

Rahmatullah had his talks at the State Department with the director of the desk responsible for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and the Afghanistan desk officer in the office of counter-terrorism, the spokesman said. Boucher said he did not know who signed the letter to Bush on behalf of the Taliban.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

TLG

Monday, March 19, 2001 - 12:29 pm
Hey Everyone,
Below is a reply to a survey which is being floated around the internet
criticising the Taliban regime (similar to the link posted by whitegirlnorway). I don't really know what my Islamic attitude towards the Talibn should be as I don't know much about the subject other than what I see in the media. I guess the only way to make an educated decission on the issue is to know both sides of the story.

take care all.


***
I am a Canadian-trained family physician. I recently returned from a
medical/fact finding mission to tour the hospitals and cities of
Jalalabad and Kabul in Afghanistan to get a first hand perspective of
the social and health care problems there. I stayed with an Ottawa,
Canada based NGO in Kabul who helped me tour the health care
facilities and cities. I personally witnessed the situation in the
hospitals and cities and conducted two clinics in Kabul.

Here is a summary of my observations.

1. There is an entire hospital dedicated to the complete care of
women in Kabul. It is called the Women's Gyne and Maternity Hospital
of Kabul. Another hospital, the Indira Gandhi Children's hospital
also takes care of women. It, like all hospitals in Afghanistan,
suffers from severe medication and supply shortages. I saw doctors in
emergency wards using their bare hands to stitch up wounds. Surgeons
at the children's hospital see 2-3 cases a day of young children with
bowel obstructions caused by severe intestinal worm infestations.
This is completely preventable through improved hygiene. Health care
is equally dismal for all Afghans - male AND female.

2. There is a high incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases (I saw
my first case of tetanus/"lock jaw" in Jalalabad).

3. Doctors (both male and female) are leaving Afghanistan in large
numbers
as the monthly salary of a doctor is only 6000 Afghan Rupees (about
$15CDN). Nurses make only 3000 rupees (about CDN$7.50) monthly while
janitors make only 2000 rupees.

4. Most Afghans cannot even afford to buy the prescriptions the
doctors write for them and their children. Many go out into the
street, holding their prescriptions and begging people to give them
money to buy the medications for their children.

5. The 400-bed children's hospital has a diesel powered heating
system which is operational, but they cannot afford to run it in
winter as fuel costs 15000 Afghan rupees (about CDN$30 per hour) to
run it. Temperatures can dip to -15 deg celsius or colder.

6. There are schools in Laghman province which teach women employable
skills such as sewing, and weaving. Other schools run by western NGOs
were
closed by the Taliban because they refused to segregate males/females
or
operate under the rules of Islam. There are many girl schools
operating
Afghanistan.

7. With regards to daily life, I saw countless women walking freely
in the
markets alone or with their children, unaccompanied by any male
escort. Many
were even wearing high heel shoes. None were being stoned or beaten.

8. I saw many women who were not wearing the burqa (head and body
covering with a net opening over the face) but were wearing colourful
headscarves that would also cover their mouths and upper body. They
were not beaten nor stoned.

9. I did not see any windows that were painted to prevent women from
being
seen. Afghan homes are not built the same as western homes. Almost
all Afghani homes are surrounded by a tall external mud/straw wall
which provides the ultimate privacy to homes and families. Afghans
are very private people and do not like others looking in on them,
especially women.

10. There is great poverty in Afghanistan and I saw many suffering
men, women and children. Families are selling their household
belongings (furniture, clothes, utensils, cooking pots) to help them
buy food for their families. Once they can't sell anything more, they
are forced to beg in the streets.

11. While there were many people forced to beg in Afghanistan, one
must remember that begging is not a problem restricted to
Afghanistan.

12. Kidnappings, rapes, prostitution, robberies, and murders
committed by
bandits and dacoits were rampant in Afghanistan in the years after
the Russians retreated. When the Taliban took control, all 41
brothels in Kabul were closed and the bandits fled to neighboring
countries for refuge (i.e.,Pakistan, Iran). Afghans now freely travel
even at night.

13. The Taliban have instituted strict Islamic shariah in
Afghanistan. They have closed cinemas, prohibited the photography in
any form of live people, banned gambling, prostitution, etc.
They "enforce" morality on heir people.

14.The UN confirms severe drought conditions for Afghanistan for the
next two years. Rivers that run turbines to generate electricity are
almost dried out. As a result, electricity is only available for 5-6
hours during the day.

15.The Afghan infrastructure is almost completely destroyed from war.
There are almost no jobs. Only now are some of the major roads
linking the major cities being repaired.


The Afghan people gave 1.8 million lives to gain their freedom to
their land and religion from the Russians. The suffering is indeed
great. The Taliban may not be the most perfect government around but
we must not ignore the needs of the Afghan people, particularly the
many widows and children.

Messages like the one below not only help to propogate false
information but can also hurt the innocent people it is trying to
help (e.g., through further UN sanctions and restrictions.)

I challenge everyone who has signed this list to go to Afghanistan
themselves, just as I did. See for yourself whether the allegations
in the message below are true or not. See the magnitude of the
poverty and the suffering which is partly being caused by messages
like the one below which is being conveniently propogated through the
internet. Try to open your mind to the "big picture" and only after
seeing the hard facts and evidence, deecide whether you should
support this petition.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Monday, March 19, 2001 - 12:36 pm
Backlash of faith shakes atheists


Russia's beleaguered atheists have formed a new society to campaign against the growing power of the Church in government and what they perceive as the 'threatening clericalisation' of society.
After 70 years of protection and promotion by the Soviet regime, atheism has become deeply unfashionable over the past decade amid a surge of enthusiasm for the Russian Orthodox faith.

Some traditional prejudices still remain. Muslims and Jews still have it hardest of all. The former are referred to as "blacks" and "bandits", and are the target of generalised hatered fuelled by the Chechen war. Jews are accused of conspiracy, money laundering and unspecified villainy. Someone, after all, has to play scapegoat.


This rediscovered public affection for religion is reflected in newly adopted lyrics to Russia's revived anthem, which describe the nation as a 'holy country' that is 'protected by God'. Atheists now see themselves as a repressed minority whose rights need to be protected.

City authorities recently refused to register the Moscow Society of Atheists as a legitimate body.

The group insists it is not motivated by a Marxist belief that religion is the opiate of the people or by a Bolshevik equation of religion with backwardness, but by concern at the unconstitutional privileges being handed to the Orthodox Church - discriminating also against other faiths. Russia's constitution provides for the equality of all religions before the law and the separation of Church and State; activists claim these statutes are being abused.

A founder of the organisation, Lev Levinson, called for action to stem the creeping incursion of the Orthodox Church into public institutions and to curb the growing number of religious bodies funded by the taxpayer. 'We are witnessing a wholesale attack on the secular state, with religious indoctrination appearing in every key sphere of life,' he said.

The organisation is dismayed that several regional governments have introduced instruction in the Orthodox faith in state secondary schools as part of the main curriculum, contravening the law on education.

'Moreover, what is happening in the army contravenes all legislation,' Levinson added. 'Military academies have employed priests to instruct recruits in Orthodox belief. Dozens of priests have been sent to Chechnya at the army's expense to agitate and propagandise the soldiers.'

The construction of the Church of Christ the Saviour in Moscow in 1997 - on the site of a church knocked down by the Bolsheviks to build a Lenin statue and tower - is another source of resentment. The atheists' organisation is gathering evidence to show that much of the $360 million to build it came from the taxpayer.

Activists also recount cases of discrimination against those who question the religious orthodoxy in the cultural sphere, including harassment of artists who have played on anti-religious themes in their work.

'It is only natural there has been a surge in interest in religion over the past decade, given the repression that went before,' Levinson said. 'But we are particularly concerned about the growing influence of the Russian Orthodox Church - which has become the de facto state religion - to the exclusion of all other convictions.'

After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks replaced religious traditions with communist substitutes. Babies could be Octobered instead of baptised, and given revolution-inspired names, such as Revolutsia, Lenina or Pravda. Now religious traditions have been re-embraced. Today, the new Orthodox Russia celebrates traditional Christmas, by the old Julian calendar. Tomorrow is a public holiday, even in those republics where Christians are in a minority.

Polls suggest 55 per cent of the population are Orthodox believers, about 3 per cent being regular church attenders, while 40 per cent are indifferent to religion or do not believe. About 5 per cent remain committed atheists.

Geraldine Fagan, Moscow representative of the Keston Institute, which monitors religious freedom in the former Soviet Union, said the atheists' campaign reflected widespread concerns about the power accumulated by the Orthodox Church.

'The Russian constitution says everyone has a right to express any religion or none, but there is a growing sense that the Orthodox Church has a free rein,' she said. 'Out of all of the belief systems, it is probably hardest to exist as an atheist today because this belief was so closely associated with the old order and has become discredited as a result. Atheists tend to be looked upon as strange relics of the Soviet Union.'

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Monday, March 19, 2001 - 01:38 pm
TLG, I want to say, after reading the interesting survey you posted here: To understand all this you have to know the landscape in Afghanistan. The country is full of mountains and valleys and they also have alot of different races living there. Visit one valley and meet one race, go to the next and say hello to another race. So it shouldn't be so difficult to understand that they have different traditions too... It is impossible (yet) for the Taliban to be everywhere in this country. The people and the life in one village can be completely isolated from the rest of the world. Partly because of the huge distances, the bad roads and the lack of transportation.... Now, what the Taliban do is to take "spot tests". They can without warning show up in a village, and you better be prepared when they come.... But most people aren't... And what do you think will happen next?? I will leave that to your imagination...
The fear for the Taliban is huge in this country, believe me.... But you are right, the only way to see both sides of the story is to go and visit the country. The only problem is that it is so damn dangerous. I was watching a program from Afghanistan made by an English journalist, sorry, but I don't remember his name... Anyway, he is married to an Afghan woman, he lived there for several years and had a special love for this country. So he couldn't resist the temptation to go back. Through the whole program you could see how they had to hide from the Taliban, how they had to sneak from place to place, how they had to watch every step they took, the fear in the people's eyes in every village they visited and the lack of women outdoors. It was like they
didn't excist. He had to realize with great sadness that he couldn't not go back once again
to the country he loves so much, it is far to dangerous. Now, would he lie? I don't think so?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Monday, March 19, 2001 - 02:06 pm
Oh, I forgot, I posted the link to the petition thing only to tease a little, I didn't mean to offend any of you, sorry if I did.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fg.

Monday, March 19, 2001 - 03:36 pm
Whitegirl.

I brag eh?. How did you find out I am a little man?. Taliban are here to stay like it or not. They are part of the global society with their attitude of telling others to kiss up to islam or mind their own bussiness. See, what you guys want from muslims is to accept intimidation through the psychological warfare of your ever biased media towards islam. I for one don't buy anything you guys say about anyone including people who oppose you for some reason or another. Too much of a hypocricy to not learn is inexcusable for me. I am at its home here in the USA and read about it everyday. I am not fooled.

Your obsession of Taliban is nothing but your inner feelings about islam which I guess is the spring point of getting involved in what you are involved. Don't overdo it though, because Taliban is here to stay for good. Oh God, I love these guys.

Later for you.

MAD.

Now see what else you demand!!!! That I don't critisize the US government?!. You remind me of your famous quote from khalil Gibran about hypocricy. I guess you have proven yourself to the masses. Anyway, I think you are okey that you view the chapter from the Quran sincere although it is always sincere without even your agreement with it. We have to verify informations and what we are told before we take any action. This has nothing to do with the Idol smashing the Taliban did because it is perfectly right that they have done so. Verifying things is a general character muslims are required to undertake when they are told anything about anybody.

Gotta run. And I can't believe you said I am here to antagonize people. Didn't know you couldn't take the heat. What happened to the all-time-smart dude who considered himself the authority on everything?. I guess times change.

Later.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Monday, March 19, 2001 - 10:49 pm
TLG
You want to get an unbiased feel, go there. Take a flight to Kabul and check it out for yourself. I mean for me personally, there are some things I don't need to try in order to believe the media reports about them: Leprosy, AIDS, Nuclear war, the Taliban. But if you feel that you really want the unvarnished look, well go get 'em kid. Remember to bring your Burqa - ya know, just in case.

Formerguest
I'm not an authority on everything, I'm an authority on everything geo-political. Keep it straight buddy. I'm not expert on medical science, or mathmatics, or nuclear fusion for example.

Nor did I say you can not criticize the US. I do all the time. What I said is you have to give equal air time. You've got to be even handed. Yu make a critique about US foreign policy. I counter with a critique about the adversary of the day; the Taliban. Now, for there to be an equal give and take we have to be playing by the same rules. If you have a point I consider valid (like the Afghanis have the right to self-determination, and if the Taliban is that choice so be it) then I concur with your point. I make the a valid point that the Taliban can not harbor people the US considers terrorists and not expect an adverse reaction. This is valid. You hem and haw about it, claiming there's no "proof" when everyone knows Bin Laden is a self-admitted supporter of terrorism. The Taliban want to play the blame game and harbor him fine. But don't act indignant when you get a negative response in the form of a cruise missile. Those are the rules of the game. You hit us and we're likely to hit back a whole lot harder.

As for the hypocracy quote, that was Gerald Hadley, not Khalil Gibran. Furthermore, you are in absolutely no position to babble about hypocracy see you are a self-admitted hypocrit and went so far as to try an intone that the Qur'an advocates hypocracy, although now you appear to be backing off that absurd stance.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Idea

Monday, March 19, 2001 - 11:44 pm
FG,

Okay, brother. But believe it or not. I am not a person that takes side that easily. I have to been really convinced which is not a easy task if you really know me. And if i am not convinced, i leave the issue all together. About the Taliban, maybe i felt sorry for a female journalist who is my neighbor...see me too i am lacking in the area of controlling your emotion. How silly of me, huh.


Whitegirl,
For your first part of ancient Egyptian. I am far more acknowldegeable than you in that area. From your lines, if there was a good point to debate about, we would have certainly debated till God knows when.
For your second part regarding Taliban, you can say all what you want and me likewise. At the end, you could be right or i could be right...or we both could be wrong...and possibility for a third option could a rise! Wonders do happen!

Mac,
Yeah, Bush Jr was born as a muslim, believe it or not. And what is this thing between you and khalil Gibran? Why do you like to cite him alot. Btw, he never belonged to the mystic school as you once claimed. He belonged to Romantic school of the early 1900s called the Apollo school.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 12:57 am
fg, how sweet, I didn't know you were in love?? Have you heard about the black widdow?
You better be careful, little man, especially since you live in America too.... ;-)
It would be nice to see an oppressed muslim man for once, eh?
You know, you don't have to buy anything from me, I don't sell my soul.... And yes, blind
men get fooled more than anyone else... heheh!
MM - you said the rest for me.... ;-)

Idea, regarding ancient Egypt; let the ones who can talk speak up then, because I really
want to hear what you have to say? As you say, it is ALREADY obvious to you that I don't have the knowledge...? So you can enlighten me? You've only said A so far, I'm waiting for B...?
Regarding Taliban; I would just use the same words as MM because it says it all; I don't need to try in order to believe the media reports....
Oh, and I do belive the muslim women, shouldn't you? I don't think any of us want to be in their shoes?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Idea

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 01:39 am
Whitegirl,

You have a deal. I am ready to teach you whatever you wanna know, if you are ready to payback.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 02:32 am
Idea, you said; have you seen Egyptians worshiping Idols(ie the statues of Luxor and Aswan) in part of their history... Well, what if I start with Amenhotep IV, or more correct: Akhnaton... Ring any bells? You're the expert, so what do you know about him?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 02:43 am
Idea
I like Khalil Gibran. I like his style of writing. I also like what he has to say. He was a Lebanese mystic (as defined by the Egnlish meaning o that term - meaning a philosopher of sorts. Not that he belonged to some sort of Mystic school)

I know you think everyone was born a Muslim. does that mean he IS a Muslim, which is what I said? then we are all Muslims. Not just born Muslims but that we are Muslims.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Idea

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 04:21 am
whitegirl,

Let me tell you two things: first,re-read my post correctly i never said that i have seen ancient egyptians worshipping idols. Secondly, akhnatoun, although some would disagree with me, i would rank him as a Muslim. He believed in One God. I even saw once a religious poem he wrote in one of my books. If i find it, I will post it for you.

Mad,

Bush or any other human being is born as a muslim. If you obeyed Allah and soley believed in that He is One, then you are a muslim. That is the first part of our Faith. There is no God but Allah. Anyway, i am not arguing with you about Bush or some one else, all i am saying pay attention to your language.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 05:25 am
Idea, well, I cut and paste YOUR words here...so I don't understand...?
Yes, he was probably the first monotheistic pharaoh. But the interesting thing is what he did, right?
Why was he almost whiped out from Egypt and the Egyptian history? Because he was a muslim? (anyway, what he was is not an important issue neither) But why aren't there many remains left? If you have a book about him you also know what happened to Amarna? He has recently been rediscovered and they have already found alot of interesting things about the guy...
But you don't want to talk about it? ok....

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 05:28 am
Hehehhe, is Bush too a muslim now...??? My-my, is he aware of it...???? lol!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 08:35 am
Understanding the Taliban Is a Crucial Task...By Aisha Geissinger

News from Afghanistan in the international media revolves around reportedbans on marbles, kite-flying and toilet paper, and the forcibleimposition of the beard and burqa. It seems that the vocabulary of theaverage Talib has shrunk to two words: haram (forbidden) and fardh(obligatory). Reports of draconian restrictions on women take centrestage, because of western audiences fascination with what lies behind theveil. Men responsible for enforcing public decency are said to beat womenin the street who show their faces or ankles. Most women are not allowedto work. They are forbidden to see male doctors, yet there are few femaledoctors available. Most girls schools have been closed, and the onlyeducation available is religious instruction for girls who have notreached puberty.

What are we to make of all this? Some Muslims agree with these policiesand publicly support the Taliban. Others violently disagree, advocateshaving the beard in order to demonstrate their disagreement, and arewilling to appear on television along with secular human rights andfeminist groups in order to denounce these policies. But most Muslimsmaintain an embarrassed silence, taking refuge behind the excuse that "wedont really know whats going on there." It might be more honest to saythat we dont want to know what is happening, much less deal with it.

To most Muslims, the Afghans are the heroic people who defeated the former Soviet Union despite overwhelming odds. The subsequent civil warin Afghanistan deeply disappointed most people and has led them to turntheir faces from the on-going conflict as much as possible. The majorityof Muslims worldwide cherish visions of a just Islamic state emergingsomewhere, if not in their own country. This hope sustains many people inthe face of what appear to be hopeless odds. To see the dream become anightmare, and the phrase "Islamic justice" used as a synonym fortyranny, is painful.

Finally, criticism of the Taliban, whether it comes from non-Muslims orMuslims, is often heavily overlaid with prejudices or politicalinterests. Muslims often show their partisan, class, ethnic and madhhabiinterests in their criticism, deriding the Taliban as "peasants","ignorant Pakhtun", or "Wahhabis". Muslim criticisms tell at best apartial tale: who does the ban on toilet paper primarily affect? Pity thepoor foreign correspondents who are forced to use a lota (water jug)! Ifany non-Muslim country banned toilet paper, environmental groups would beapplauding it for its ecologically progressive decision.

Western complicity in and responsibility for the Talibans excesses isusually ignored; if the economy is based on opium, what can anyone expectafter 22 years of war and upheaval, to say nothing of the recentimposition of economic sanctions? These criticisms of the Taliban areclearly a way of attacking Islamic movements in general and proving thatany attempt to actualise Islams socio-political dimensions in this age isdoomed to failurein fact, that nothing could be worse than a societybased on Islam. Other Afghan factions have been making political mileageout of such western media attacks, but in the long term all Muslims, in and outside of Afghanistan, will pay a high price for such coverage inyears to come. It is being used as a weapon against any Muslimself-assertion anywhere, even of the most peaceable and innocuous sort.

While the media deride the Taliban as mediaeval, in fact such groups arethoroughly modern and emerge as a result of the unsettled conditions ofthe modern world. Similar movements can be found in other countries andamong many of the worlds religions. American Christians who bomb abortionclinics, Hindus who demolished the Babri Masjid and have their eyes on anumber of other masajid throughout India, ultra-orthodox Jews who throw stones at women who walk through their neighbourhoods wearing trousers orshort sleeves, all have more in common with the Taliban than they (or theTaliban) realise. All such movements, despite their outward differences,are a reaction to the dramatic social, political and economic changeswhich have taken place in the last hundred and fifty years. The world isbeing swamped by lahw (vain pursuits), and much of it is beyond thecontrol of ordinary people. Many Muslims realise that their cultures arein retreat before the advance of the technologically advanced andaggressive global secular civilisation.

The modern world focuses primarily on material things. Development ismeasured by material indicators, not by intangible things such asGod-consciousness, brotherhood and sisterhood, or neighbourliness.Taliban-style movements also focus on the material, the tangible aspectsof faithrules and outward behaviour. Unlike beliefs, intentions and feelings, these can be controlled and imposed upon people. Talibanviolence against those who break the rules is an application of themodern view that state interference in the lives of individuals is theanswer to most social problems. An over-literal focus on individualQuranic ayaat and ahadith obscures the larger picture, and makes laws thecentre of attention while ethical conduct remains at best optional.

This focus on rules also ignores the prerequisites for establishing anIslamic system in the modern world. Since the 1975 drafting of CEDAW(Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women), the UNand various NGOs have been trying to discourage single-sex education andmedical care when possible. Muslims by and large have ignored this, withsome communities quibbling over whether and to what degree women shouldbe educated. As a result, there is still a marked shortage of womendoctors, nurses, other medical personnel, and educators in most Muslimcommunities, including Afghanistan.

Some women pursue degrees in medicine or education with the intention ofenhancing their marriageability rather than practising after graduation.Others prefer (or are compelled by circumstances) to work in the west.The twisted ideas that a married woman has no responsibility to the ummahas a whole, and that it is shameful if she has concerns beyond herimmediate family circle, are also alive and well. In addition, someMuslim women, even those who observe purdah, prefer to be seen by maledoctors because they do not have confidence in the competence of women.This is based partly on cultural beliefs in female inferiority, but alsoon the sad fact that female doctors are often restricted from receiving comparable training to men, and are often are not able to pursuespecialisations outside of obstetrics and gynaecology.

In these circumstances, the separation of medical and educationalfacilities for women and men becomes blatantly unjust. It harmsindividual women, infants and children, men, the family and the ummah asa whole. It is also profoundly destabilising: people who have the meansto leave such a society will do so in search of medical treatment,education and opportunity. Those who stay will tend to be suffocated, andtheir ability to deal with the challenges posed by the modern world willbe decreased.

The Taliban are having to deal with international condemnation andfinancial arm-twisting by donor countries. As a result, they have to gothrough the motions of improving their position on women. On March 8,they held a celebration of International Womens Day in Kabul for 700hand-picked women, formerly employed as medical workers. The Taliban haveforbidden the celebration of Nawruz (the pre-Islamic Persian new yearsday) as a bidah (innovation), but apparently International Womens Day,which commemorates a strike by American female garment workers, is acceptable. This is an indication of their helplessness in the face ofwestern condemnation because the womens problem wont go away by casting aveil over it, western solutions are being used as window-dressing. ThoseAfghans who might have proposed constructive and creative Islamicsolutions have been killed or driven into exile.

The situation in Afghanistan cannot continue as it is, and when thingsfall apart one wonders who will be there to pick up the pieces. Christian and secular aid organisations are eager to build on the disillusionmentof Afghans with Islam, and missionaries are actively converting Afghanrefugees to Christianity. Twenty years from now, what will be the resultof the Taliban experiment? A generation of embittered, violentlyanti-Islamic intellectuals, authors and artists? Will anyone dare to walkin the streets of Kabul wearing a beard or a burqa?

The Islamic movement needs to look honestly at the situation in Afghanistan (and places such as northern Iraq and Pakistan, whereTaliban-style ideas have following), consider the origins andconsequences of such groups, and develop responses which will solve theproblems that they create within an Islamic framework. Averting our facesfrom painful realities is an option we cannot afford, both because itbetrays the suffering of many in Afghanistan men and womenand because ofthe long-term consequences for the Ummah as a whole.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 09:07 am
Christianity (Bible)

"When the woman (Eve) saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband (Adam), who was with her, and he ate it...Then the man (Adam) and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, "Where are you?" He (Adam) answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." And he (God) said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" The man said, "The woman (Eve) you put here with me-she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it." Then the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." To the woman he (God) said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." To Adam he (God) said, "Because you listen to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life."

Genesis 3:6-17


Islam (Quran)

(God said):"O Adam! You and your wife dwell in the Garden, and enjoy (its good things) as you wish: but do not approach this tree, or you run into harm and transgression." "Then began Satan to whisper suggestions to them (Adam and Eve), bringing openly before their minds all their shame that was hidden from them (before): he (Satan) said: "Your Lord only forbade you this tree, lest you should become angels or such beings as live for ever." "And he (Satan) swore to them both, that he was their sincere adviser." "So by deceit he brought about their (Adam and Eve) fall: when they tasted of the tree, their shame became manifest to them, and they began to sew together the leaves of the Garden over their bodies. And their Lord called to them: "Did I not forbid you that tree, and tell you that Satan was an avowed enemy to you?" "They said: "Our Lord! We have wronged our own souls: if You do not forgive us and do not bestow upon us Your Mercy, we shall certainly be lost" Quran 7:19-23

Female Gender vs. Male Gender

"...if a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days...but if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks..."
Leviticus 12:2-5 "To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He wills. He bestows female children to whomever He wills and bestows male children to whomever He wills.

Quran 42:49
ž "He who is involved in bringing up daughters, and accords benevolent treatment towards them, they will be protection for him against Hell-Fire."
Prophet Mohammed

The Female Spiritual Essence

"I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare." "Look," says the Teacher, "this is what I have discovered: "Adding one thing to another to discover the scheme of things-while I was still searching but not finding- I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all."
Ecclesiastes 7:26-28 "And Allah sets forth, as an example to those who believe, the wife of Pharaoh: behold she said: 'O my Lord! build for me, in nearness to You, a mansion in the Garden, and save me from Pharaoh and his doings, and save me from those that do wrong," "And Mary the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into (her body) of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants)." Quran 66:11-2 "Heaven is at the feet of the mothers." Prophet Mohammed

Menses
"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening."
Leviticus 15:19-23
Ali asked the Prophet Mohammed if when a man and a woman make love then their clothes stick to them from the sweat of their bodies, or if when a woman has her period her clothes stick to her body, are the clothes considered unclean?
The Prophet replied: "No, the uncleanness is only in the semen and the blood."á

Prophet Mohammed

Sexual Relation During Her Menses

"Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period."
Leviticus 18:19 "They ask you concerning women's courses (period). Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: so keep away (of making love) from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean..."
Quran 2:222

A Woman's Right to Education
"let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law, and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for woman to speak in the church."
1Corinthians 14:34-35

Seeking knowledge is obligatory on every Muslim man and Muslim woman.
Prophet Mohammed

Right to Inheritance
"Say to the Israelites, 'If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter...'" Numbers 27:8

"From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large, -a determinate share."
Quran 4:7

Dressing Modesty / Head Covering
"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head...If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head"
1 Corrinthians 11:3-6

"I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God" 1 Timothy 2:9-10


"O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
Quran 33:59 ...they (believing women) should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women...or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex..." Quran 24:31

Polygamy
"After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him." 2 Samuel 5:13 "He (Solomon) had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines..." 1 Kings 11:3 "And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Genesis 4:19"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated: then it shall be, when he maketh..."
Deuteronomy 21:15 "if he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall her not diminish." Exodus 21:10


"If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one... to prevent you from doing injustice." Quran 4:3

Prohibition in Marriage
"Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living." Leviticus 18:18

"Prohibited to you (for marriage) are: -your mothers, daughters, sisters...and two sisters (the wife and her sister) in wedlock at one and the same time..."
Quran 4:23

Divorce
"...Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." Mark 10:11-12

"O Prophet! When you do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods, and count (accurately) their prescribed periods: and fear Allah your Lord..." Quran 65:1

The Divorcee & Widow
"...who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." Matthew 5:32á "'The woman he (the priest) marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people.'" Leviticus 21:13-4

"If any of you die and leave widows behind, they shall wait concerning themselves four months and ten days: when they have fulfilled their term, there is no blame on you (marrying widows) if they dispose of themselves in a just and reasonable manner..."
Quran 2:234

The Respect of Parents
"Then he (Jesus) went down to Nazareth with them (his parents) and was obedient to them..."
Luke 2:51 "For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death." Mark 7:10
"Each of you must respect his mother and father..." Leviticus 19:3

"He (God) has made me (Jesus) kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable."
Quran 19:32 "And We have enjoined on man (to be good) to his parents: in travail (pains of childbirth) upon travail his mother bore him, and in two years was his weaning: (hear the command), "Show gratitude to Me and to your parents: to Me is (your final) Goal."
Quran 31:14

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 10:04 am
American Journalists Set the Record Straight On Afghanistan

In a break with the status quo, a number of American journalists have
begun to speak about Afghanistan in an open and unbiased manner.

The journalists, most of whom have made extended visits to the country,
are refuting the misinformation that is regularly spread by the
international media. They include Mike Hoover, a producer for the CBS
television network, and
Cindy Law, a freelance female reporter who recently took a month-long
trip
to Afghanistan. Both are working on documentary films and gave
interviews
to the Voice of America's Pashto language service.

Hoover has been fascinated with Afghanistan for years and made frequent
visits there during the Jihad against the Soviets, described his dismay
when the factional fighting began in Kabul after the collapse of the
Communist regime. Then, when the Taliban took power and peace was
restored, the Western press quickly turned against Afghanistan and the smear
campaign against the Taliban started. Hoover started to find out more,
but, as he said:

"I could never find anything where the Taliban tell us what their
thoughts
are and what they are really doing. It was just other people talking
about
them without them ever speaking out. After talking to a couple of
people who
were over there and had exactly the opposite opinion of the Taliban, it
seemed to me that it might be good for CBS to go over there to see for
itself, to hear from Taliban about who they are and what they are
trying to do, and to observe whether their goals are implemented or are just
political talk."

The journalists says that before going to Afghanistan, he
half-suspected that the reports that permeate the Western media might be
true. But
those suspicions were forgotten upon his arrival on Afghan soil. The
first thing that he noticed and was surprised by was that there were no
weapons and no armed men. Hoover spent a month in the country, traveling
>from Kandahar to Kabul. He refuted the Western image of the Taliban as
being ignorant. He saw them as being fully aware of both Afghan and
world politics.

"When you speak to them on any subject, you realize how bright these
guys are. It was surprising....you would learn that the guy you were
talking to was only 26 years old when you thought you were talking to
someone with the wisdom of a fifty year-old. I was very impressed." Hoover
added. He said that all those that he met there during his trip,
whether young or old, were extremely happy about the security situation.
"People were happy that there was security, that there was no rocketing,
that there was safety, that you didn't have any worries about crime as
you did before."

When asked about the Taliban's harshness, he said, "On certain things,
the
Taliban are very strict.....I think it is fair. If you commit a crime,
you
will be punished for it. The punishment is, in my view, fair and
swift."
Hoover was surprised by the fact that there is no formality, no red
tape in Afghanistan-any one can see the ministers to hand in his petition
or idea, and it will be acted upon swiftly. He said that the ministers
that he saw didn't even look like ministers. They were dressed in the
same way as the average person, and some even wore old clothes and
well-worn shoes.

One thing that Hoover saw everywhere and was bothered by was the
poverty and
hardship, which has been compounded by UN sanctions. He deplored the
twisted
logic of the sanctions, saying: "They destroyed their own country
fighting the Soviets. They fought bravely. And now, instead of helping
them or at least leaving them alone to rebuild, the world is imposing
sanctions on them."

Hoover said that he hopes that other journalists and officials travel
to
Afghanistan with open minds to see the reality and analyze the
situation
themselves. People must not let themselves be deceived by biased
second-hand
information, he stated. If the truth was revealed, he said, then he is
certain that the sanctions will be dropped and that, instead of
confrontation with the Taliban, the world would help them.

Hoover's comments are echoed by Ms. Law, who said that she had heard
all sorts of things about Afghanistan, especially about the Taliban's
treatment of women, so she decided go to the country to see for herself.
Ms. Law spent more than a week in Kandahar and three weeks in Kabul,
speaking to women from all walks of life, including female doctors and
nurses. She said that while they had many concerns, the burqa (veil) was
not one of them.

"Their major concerns, I would have to say, were the sanctions and war.
All
Afghans pleaded for the United States and the United Nations to end the
sanctions and help rebuild their country. They also asked for medical,
food,
and financial aid." Afghan women told Law that their first need, after
economic assistance, is education for their children. In regards to
female education, Law said that she saw some school for girls in homes,
especially in Kandahar, and girls studying in mosques.

"Taliban officials assured Ms. Law that once the war is over, they
would turn their attention to the many issues facing the nation, including
women's education and employment. She said that she saw work already
beginning on some girl's schools in Kandahar. Scoffing at the
misconception held by many that Afghan women are prisoners in their homes,
Law
stated, "There are many women working in the hospitals and health care,
and they comprise most of the women that I talked to. And I saw women
walking around in the markets."

Law said that the world must realize that Afghanistan has been
devastated by
two decades of war, and that its infrastructure has been destroyed. She
added that the international concern about the plight of Afghan women
is to be appreciated, but "I think the best way to help the women of
Afghanistan
is to encourage the removal of sanctions. They are hurting the Afghan
people, especially the women. And more humanitarian aid should be
provided- medical,
economic, etc."

Other American media outlets are also challenging the propaganda
campaign
that is being waged against the Islamic Emirate. The San Jose
(California)
Mercury, a daily newspaper, published comments made by a female Muslim
student leader, Sara Azad, who said: "The fact is, women in
Afghanistan are now protected and their rights are guaranteed. Because no
right
comes before the right to life, and today they have that right."

Sara Azad added that she receives letters from her grandmother in Afghanistan, who writes that Afghan women have never felt safer than they do now.
---------------

Ways of the Almighty are infinite.

Where our own Muslims do not get tired of condemning Taleban, the picture
emerges from the efforts of those who are not Muslims!

Who really are acting as Muslims here? Muslims or non Muslims?

I always knew that Talebans are innocent and need no condemnation.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

faaisa

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 10:08 am
Mad_Mac

Salaams,

<I know you think everyone was born a Muslim. does that mean he IS a Muslim, which is what I said? then we are all Muslims. Not just born Muslims but that we are Muslims.>

We Muslims beleive that everyone is a Muslims born ( fitra). However, whether a person to remain a Muslim or not dpends on his/her upbringings-- parents and in the later life his or her wish to search the thruth. If for example that person was brought up as a muslim, it is up to him to learn his religion and practise it or to disregard it. As well if a person was brought up as a non-muslim, he should look for the thruth.


look here. This certainly pisses me off.
Read my commont under each of your pragraphs.


<So the way you discuss issues with Kufaar is different from how you discuss them with Muslims???? Now that's just over the top. You have blatantly admitted to deceipt and intellectual dishonesty.>

I personally do not see this dishonesty or deceit. I do/will do the samething. Simply, I share Muslims more than anyone else.
Of coures It depend how a muslim is practising in the faith. That is why we are called the Ummah.
So I have greater kindship with the Muslims in Indonesia and Maleysia.

I see your point that muslims and non-muslims can agree on certain things but that itself has its limits.

It is not narrow minded but it is one fundamental principle that islam established right from the beggining.

However, As you pointed out there are so-called muslims, and that answers that they can be good freinds with the anemy of Islam.


<The Taliban are scum - pure and simple. They're not good Muslims and they're not very good governors either. They're amoral slobs - and have bad taste in fashion to boot. If you can't say it, well I can. >


I am not sure what you based on your judgements. And how do you know they are not good Muslims???
I agree they have not proved themselves to be good governers. I think they need a better socio-politics that coincides with islam at the sametime giving them a better chance to rebuild their country.

< And this narrow-minded version of Islam will only dominate Somalia over my dead body. >

Interesting?? This is where we differ. We Muslims in the West try to follow the laws of the land But unfortunetly you ( the pple from the West) enforce their wishes upon others.
And what you just said and what the US do and say about the Tlaban is exactly like this. Unbeleavable!!!!!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Faaisa

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 10:19 am
Whitegirlnorway,

What is your point besides you identified yourself as a whitegirl. ???

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 10:25 am
The question is rather; Should I care to answer you or not....

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Faaisa

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 10:33 am
Well, if you come to a public place and wrote down your opinions besides addresing them in unfashionable way , at least you should be prepared that someone out there would ask your points.


And I found quite silly your reply'' the question is rather.....'

That is very childish. The question is what I want ask you.
Your wote down a whole lot about Tlalaban and Islam yet you are talking like six years old child.


Do you not know what you are talking about??? I wonder.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

New Deal

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 10:57 am
Salaam,

TLG

As I read the posts, I see that even posting the opinion of others would get others reaching certain conclusions from you. Patience sis, and more patience.

Galool,

How you do? I had the same question TLG had, how "you could come up with all that from a single post [She] forwarded and didnt' even comment on, other than saying it is interesting?" It beats me on how! Of course unless you already had a certain perception about TLG. Also it is possible you were simple wrong on that conclusion and kinda feel like not saying "I'm sorry TLG."

Others,

I hope those of you who present the argument "Go see it for yourself" see how that doesn't hold water. Am I right?

Bye all

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 10:57 am
Well, sorry if I disappointed you, but I don't live in an English-speaking country. And I can't see that any of the guy's here have had any problems with that, so why try to insult me in such a lousy way? You don't exactly act like an adult yourself now, huh? I think what bothers you most is what I say, not how I talk....
Well, that's your problem, so please don't make it mine. Anyway, nice to meet you all, guys.
Well, the last one here doesn't count....

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 11:14 am
Faisa
Look, "kinship" aside, you should be able to have an honest and open intellectual discussion with anyone regardless of their faith. What Formerguest did was admit that he has been lying (or at a minimum not completely honest) in his arguments. He admits that he believes some Muslims might have made mistakes in their governance but won't say so - he won't critique a fellow Muslim when talking to a kufaar. But he's only too happy to throw stones (some of them wholly founded on inaccurrate information in violation of the Surah cited) at kufaars everywhere and anywhere. In the English language this is called hypocracy, which you guys just LOVE to harp on. That was my point. He blatantly admits he's a hypocrit and then complains about western hypocracy.

As for my intervention in Somalia, that's a personal thing tied to my personal relationships there. If the Taliban would hand over Bin Laden they would be forgotten. There would be no sanctions and no one would care what happened there. But because they harbor him they have incurred the wrath. If you want to play with the big boys you've got to learn to deal with the consequences. If the Taliban (and the rest of the Muslims) want the sanctions lifted then I suggest you hand the scum-bag over.

Another point reference you overall post. You (and many of your colleagues) deliberately put Islam on a pedastal and claim it is great and all other forms of governance and life-styles are invalid, ignorant and / or Evil. Basically you've stated your superior and all others are inferior. When you do this, you have to expect a backlash. When you call others who have different faiths than yours evil and / or ignorant, of course a lot of people aren't going to like that. Now at the same time you claim you are tolerant of others, but what you really mean is you are contemptuous, but reluctantly agree others have the right to make their own decisions. There are of course endless exceptions to this rule. Well, if you act like an arrogant bastard except others to treat you and your system with disdain. In fact, expect some to see it as threatening. And what happens then?? Asad has gone as far as to say conflict is inevitable. Once you convince "the West" that this is what the Islamic movement is all about (and there is certainlly such a movement out there - a "fundamentalist" movement which actively seeks to engage the west with violence not for its policies but because of resentment at its power and what it stands for - its very kufaarism) then there is a violent reaction. And who has the greater capacity for violence??? So this "us against them" mentality is what is at the root of the problem. As long as the Islamic movements approach things with the idea that it's their way or the highway expect violent reaction to that - which is completely reasonable.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fg.

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 11:24 am
Whitegirl.

Without making conclusions about what people say here, try to understand it from their point of view and what they mean. I am after: "everyone is born in a state of islam". No where have you ever heard that before and I know that. But the fact is, since you are dealing with people from a different culture(muslims), you will always likely here something different. You would ask rather than slurr your tongue on the words or make fun of it like you have a better news than what they are telling you.

In islam, we are taught that everyone including you is born in a state of islam(SUBMISSION), pure and sinless, with the original instinct of belief in one God, untainted and uncorrupted. Allah tells us in the Quran that when we were in the state of spirits(souls) he gathered us to close a deal with us humans(to worship him alone and believe in him) or MAKE a covenant between him and all human beings so that they will have no excuse later to say that Allah didn't let them notify of his existence AND WHAT HE EXPECTED FROM THEM. And Allah says:

"7.172 When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants, and made them testify concerning themselves, (saying): "Am I not your Lord (Who cherishes and sustains you)?"- They said: "Yea! We do testify!"
(This), lest ye should say on the Day of Judgment: "Of this we were never mindful":

So, after one grows up, he/she picks up normally from the religion and norms of his parents. That is where the change starts unless one is born to islamic parents who enable him, if they teach of course, to retain the original instinct of believe in God. Otherwise, he is either a christian(with twisted beliefs). A jew( with disbelief) or a plain polytheist like an Atheist or budhist. I hope you understood at least a little.


There are too many black widow subjects. Which one do you mean???. And I don't fall in love. You said "you don't want be in the shoes of islamic women" without ever asking them if they wanted to be in your shoes. May be by asking, you would understand how muslim women view themselves without you imposing your misguided judgement upon them that they are mistreated or abused or whatever you were spoon fed about them.

Read anonymous's quotes, they might help.

As I said before, fire back anytime. Your opinions are welcome. And I am not bragging lol. This is the forums rule. People write some stuff and others comment about them. Simple and plain.


I read about Akhenaten's disent long ago. I was only interested in him when I heard he went against all the gods previously worshipped by his people. He changed(as they say) the state religion from the worship of many gods to one god???. I also saw the same stuff on a program in the history channel long time ago. Sounded like he was a monotheist although history that far is based on speculation. After 17 years of rule when he died they revived their own religion with many gods and tried to eliminate all the traces of what Akhenaten has done to get him off the history. They didn't fully succeed then. Apart from that brief history about him, I guess a mummy is a mummy and belongs to the fire or to the graves. Egyptology is a waste of time just like atheism is a waste of time. Have you seen how egyptologists talk for hours speculating he did that or did this?. Weirdos!. It reminds me the weakness of a lost soul.

MAD.

Good thing you humble yourself. You came a long way too far from your old-self. We learn as we grow older if we are smart though. Just because you went to the west point(I am thinking you are smart enough to have been there) doesn't mean you know about the world politic(just kidding). Man, how can one survive in this biased world without being conditioned??. Ever read about psychology stuff where they take rats and other animals in a laboratory to get those animals do especific things after classically conditioning them??. Television, radio, Movies are all used to lower or higher the status of people. Islam fares the poorest in the list of good candidates. Honestly, I wonder how you, being the gratuate student of the new world order, and the servant of the new emperial, you managed to have some positive views about islam. Congrats Mad. At least you show some independency from your masters. Hope you take in the near future the next big step towards accepting islam inshallah.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fg.

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 11:53 am
Mad.

I have seen your last message after I posted mine. Don't have time right now to point out some accusations you threw at me. Anyway, don't expect to enjoy the right of a muslim while you are not a muslim. About Bin Laden, first he is a better person than you are. Second, Taliban are bound by islamic rule that they can't betray a muslim and hand him over to a non-muslim. That is what they said when you demanded him be handed over to you. They wanted to prosecute him if he was found guilty in their own country but you didn't want to do that. You wanted him in the United States or a third country which is impossible. You guys can go to hell if you want. You lied when you said sanctions will be lifted if they hand him over. Fuming all over the place won't help you out so take it easy or go to hell whatever suits you most.

I will be back to deal with you later.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Idea

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 01:13 pm
lol@ FG

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 08:36 pm
Talking about childish.... :O

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 09:41 pm
Formerguest
I don't want Muslim rights, I expect to be treated as an equal. How would you like it (and maybe you've had this experience, I don't know) if someone said to you "look, your point of view doesn't count, you're just a nigger." That is a wholly unreasonable statement right? Well, you have made a new class of niggers. You call them kufaars. And basically their opinions don't count. You might condescend to talk to them, but certainly their points of view aren't valid. What I'm talking about here is basic intellectual equality. That's all.

I did not throw accusations at you. Everything I said you have freely admitted. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Youhave stated that you don't discuss things honestly with a kufaar. You will, either by ommission or commission be deceitful. You told me that!!! You won't criticize the Taliban on anything (and there's plenty to criticize) because they're Muslims and you MIGHT have some facts wrong. Well then, you shouldn't criticize Kufaar on anything either for the same reasons. If you apply seperate standards in your arguments then you are being a hypocrit, the very definition of hypocracy. All this you have stated, I didn't make it up.

You say I want the rights of Muslims - no I want the same rights as everyone. Being Muslims doesn't entitle you to special rights. Not even in the Qur'an. If anything, it hold Muslims to a higher standard.

As for Bin Laden, he's not a better person than anyone. He has sunk to the lowest of the low. You say the Taliban can't hand him over - fine. Then we'll continue to hassle them. That's the way the game is played. What do you expect us to do, allow him to continue to sponsor the killing of Americans and there be no response? That's not going to happen. Look at all the Muslims who died at the bombing of the embassy in Kenya? Their crime was walking down the street at the wrong moment. The US has nothing against Islam, This is an illusion on your part. There are lots of places with majority Muslim populations that have superb relations with the US and vice versa. The US could have good relations with the Taliban, but the Taliban need to stop being the harbinger of bad will in the region. They are allowing fighters in Kashmir to be trained in Afghanistan, they are providing sanctuary to Bin Laden, some of them have been captured fighting in Chechnya: They're developing the reputation as international trouble-makers. You say they are fighting for Islamic causes they believe in. I say fine, it's an anarchic world and they're entitled to do that. But don't then act surprised when there's an adverse reaction. If I were the Russian I would make sure that the opposition was armed to the teeth, I would provide the opposition with food, medicine, ammunition, low-tech weaponry (so it can't be turned against them later in life) so they could make the Talibans existence as miserable as possible. Lots of BM-21s to keep the heat on. Every now and then use Kabul to practice my precision bombing techniques (sort of like a live fire range). They lucky the Russiana find themselves so resource depleted or there would be hell to pay. Like I always said, you get in bed with the devil, sooner or later you're going to have to ••••.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 10:23 pm
Yes, fg is a very charming man indeed.... WGN, you've seen it all now, it wont get any
better so my advice to you is to leave this place. All these guys want is the best from both
worlds... They choose to live in the western world and yet they dare to criticize all the
values in our world. And on top of that they call us western hypocrites.... The muslim world
is good for muslims, so why stay in countries like the USA? They don't share any of your values
and wont give a damn about whether you live or die! Why stay in hell when you can get a free
ticket to heaven?
You are free to go any time, so why don't you...? Simply because YOU are the biggest
hypocrites among us! Go-go, go home to your muslim fellas! They share your values! Just let
go of the money and the good and secure life you have here in the west coz you don't need it!
All you need is faith in allah...Go share it whith your MUSLIM brothers and sisters. They
can guide you in the right direction, unlike us hypocrites here in the west. Here you are doomed
to fail! FACE IT!
Peace!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 11:39 pm
Anonymous. aren't you being a little too harsh now? You don't have to worry about me, this discussion is not serious to me at all. ;-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fg.

Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 03:34 am
Anonymous(Nice to meet you).

chuckle chuckle I am a charming man indeed loool, Anonymous, you guys don't get it. I am getting educated here for the best interest of muslims and so is every islamic minded person in the west. In the future, you will have to contend with people like us in islamic countries who understand and know better about you people. It all works fine. Besides, I take care of myself, work hard and make money to live. I also contribute to the economy of this country. I have plethora of american friends. Gave some of them the Quran, was invited to weddings but never been there etc etc. I wish I was married to an american woman too so in the future when I wage war against the USA They will find that their opponent is every way surrounded by American treats lol. Oh well, a muslim is there to make a non-muslim angrier and angrier. First by belief in the ONE GOD THEY REFUSED, SECOND by being a worthy and better opponent.

May be by reading this verse from Quran you will understand what a muslim is for. This is how Allah described muslims in earlier books of GOD when they were not corrupted:

"48.29.....and their similitude in the Gospel is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward. "


My goodness, what a pleasure in this life and a pleasure in the other if one keeps to his promises.


Whitegirl.

Despite my being a muslim, I have nothing against you personally. I kinda feel sad that you don't wanna write anymore to me. Anyway, if you have something to say, please do it. We could learn few things from each other.


MAD.

See, I am a loser if I defend myself and say to you that I didn't say this or that. Whatever you say to me is okey because what I said is up there written in black and white. Yes, you must have an equal rights to everybody but there is a common bond between muslims and solid brotherhood. That doesn't mean if a muslim committs crime against anyone he will be forgiven. Obsolutely not. mUSLIMS ARE PUNISHED FOR DOING THAT. IN FACT, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO KILL ANYONE be him a muslim or not without a just cause. Islam has nothing to do with throwing bombs into places or terrorizing people. If Osama would have been found guilty of killing those people he would be punished but you guys refused to take your proofs to court where it is guaranteed that his rights will not be violated. You can blame no body. As far as sanctions go, well, you would just silently murder and kill innocent people without ever harming your targets. A classic case in example is Iraq. Sadam is vivid and more lively than he was before ten yeas ago. Who bore the brunt of the sanctions, Kids, Older people, Women. You guys are ever twisted in your actions.


Anyway, don't over-kill yourself. I know you work for the Us government and all that. You are also a soldier which proves you are a patriot. I can understand your cries of foul about muslims. Well, at least you have some positive attitude.

How about I call you SAXIB today lol. Take it easy, I don't want you get infections that makes you hate islam.


Later to all WHITEGIRL, ANONYMOUS(THE NEW FAN), AND MY FRIEND MAD(as long as he behaves). See you all.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 04:38 am
fg, oh yes, there is alot I want to say to you, and I was actually having fun here... I am always open to other people's opinions and I would never curse you just because you have a different opinion than mine.
But I don't want to bother people (make them a little angry now and then is ok). You know, this discussion is not so important to me that I have to change personality to please people. We'll see... I might respond If you say something real crazy in here little man. I will keep an eye on you, so BEHAVE ;-) And have fun!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 11:45 am
FG
I don't hate Muslims. I realize, better than most of my compatriots, that true Islam is not a threat to America and that true Muslims can be friends and colleagues of the first order. I have fought side by side with Muslims, trusted them with my life, even when fighting other Muslims. One of my best friends is a seriously practicing Muslim (he's also Somali). I consider some of your positions, particularly the one that advocates hypocracy as a personal policy, to be un-Islamic. I'll bet you can not cite a Surah to support it. You should, in your analysis, treat all parties equal. I maintain it's a serious intellectual mistake when discussing with others that you hold one set of judgement for one group and another for another. When you are talking individuals that is supported by the Qur'an. When you are talking nation-states it is not.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fg.

Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 03:21 pm
Whitegirl.

You can ask what you like in here. I might NOT know the answer or give you a satisfying one, but someone else will do if I don't. It is also fine with me that you say what you wanted to say to me. You said:" you are waiting for me to say something crazy", Something crazy like what lol??. There are lots of ways to have fun without saying crazy stuff. Accept my apologies if I intimidated you in some ways before. My worries is about me causing others to dislike islam which is more important than winning or loosing an argument. Have fun and stay out of trouble.


Mad.

Don't know waht to say to you soldier man. Read your Quran from A-Z and hopefully you will understand alot about muslims and islam. I will correct you if you say the wrong comment but that will be it. I think you are better than some antagonist non-muslim somalis here. I have some homework to do right now. Talk to you later.

Anonymous.

It was funny you said I am charming. I view myself the dictator here and I have the right to be due to certain issues. But otherwise I am not too fun by admission in this net.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 08:06 pm
Rain sent after Buddhas smashed: Taliban

ISLAMABAD, 3/21/2001 (AFP) :: The smashing of two giant Buddha statues in Afghanistan pleased Allah, who as a result, sent rains to the drought-hit country, reports yesterday quoted Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar as saying.

Widespread rains broke a four-year drought in Afghanistan last week while the radical Islamic Taliban were destroying the world-famous Bamiyan Buddhas, cut into a cliff 1400 years ago. The Taliban also destroyed all other statues in the country. Mullah Omar told three Pakistani Islamic scholars who visited him at his headquarters in Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan, that Allah deprived the Muslim nation of rains because of the delay the Taliban took in destroying the statues, Islamabad''s Urdu-language newspaper, Ausaf, reported.

The comments came as the US accused the Taliban of inaccurate and self-serving reasoning to justify its destruction of the Buddhas.

The New York Times quoted a Taliban envoy as saying the militia had moved on the statues after a team of foreign envoys offered money to repair the sculptures.


Taleban ban Persian New Year

3/21/2001 (BBC) :: The Taleban authorities in Afghanistan have banned celebrations of the traditional New Year, or Nowruz, and warned that people who do celebrate it will be branded infidels. Many people across West Asia mark the day, which coincides with the spring equinox on Wednesday.

But the Minister for Fostering Virtue and Suppressing Vice, Mohammad Salim Haqqani, said celebrating Nowruz was linked to non-believers, and good Muslims should hate it.

Nowruz has its roots in Zoroastrianism - the ancient religion of pre-Islamic Persia.

Earlier this month, the Taleban attracted international criticism for destroying two huge statues of Buddha.

Afghanistan has a large Persian-speaking minority, and Nowruz was part of the official calendar until the Taleban took Kabul in 1996.

AAR Note: The media''s grasp of Afghan history and culture is amazing. For several thousands of years the people of Afghanistan celebrated Nowroz. We are not sure if some in the Western media know that all the peoples of Afghanistan, not just those who speak Dari-Farsi, have celebrated Nowruz for thousands of years until the Taliban banned it five years ago, including the real Afghan Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and others. Nowruz is not a Shia-based tradition. Many other people from the Mid-East to South-Central Asia also celebrate Nowruz, including Sunni countries in the region.


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

Afghan envoy explains destruction of statues

Reported by: Amir Mateen

WASHINGTON, 3/21/2001 (Jang Group) :: US State Department confirmed about receiving Taliban''s letter for President Bush but said "it did not contain any specific proposals for addressing the international concerns about terrorism and other issues. Spokesman Richard Boucher on Monday that working-level State Department officials met with Taliban envoy Said Ramatullah Hashemi the same day.

"The meetings don''t imply any recognition of the Taliban. We don''t recogniSe any government in Afghanistan," Boucher said. The US officials informed the Taliban representative of the US positions on Afghan-related issues such as terrorism, narcotics, the peace process, humanitarian assistance and human rights, Boucher said. He met with the Director of the Pakistan-Afghanistan-Bangladesh desk, and the actual Afghanistan desk officer for the Office of Counter-Terrorism. Boucher said Rahmatullah presented a letter addressed to President Bush calling for improved relations and continued dialogue.

Explaining reasons for receiving the envoy at the Department, Boucher said: "We meet with Taliban officials to discuss issues involving Afghanistan that are of great concern to the United States. During these meetings, we inform the Taliban precisely where we stand and what they have to do to meet our concerns. We have stressed in particular to Rahmatullah the importance of Taliban''s compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1333 and to the international community''s concerns, including handing over indicted terrorist Osama bin Laden to a country where he can be brought to justice, and closing the terrorist camps.

The meeting with Rahmatullah was construed in US media as a fresh initiative to resolve the Afghanistan imbroglio. In an interview to New York Times, Rahmatullah, said he was here to find a way out of the impasse surrounding Osama bin Laden. Rahmatullah Hashmi also has his addresses scheduled at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Atlantic Council of the United States and the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies next week.

Rehmatullahs arrival amidst international outrage over the destruction of Bamiyan statues has triggered some interest. Rahmmatuulah, who is just 24, would not disclose details of a possible new proposal for a way out of the standoff over bin Laden either. We need a signal from Washington first, he was quoted in The New York Times as saying.

Quoting Pakistani reports, however, the Times wrote that one option might be turning bin Laden over to a special tribunal, perhaps in The Hague, for trial by a panel of Islamic judges. Again, Boucher denied the impression, saying the proposal never came up in discussions. When asked if Pakistan had anything to do with this proposal, Boucher said the US did not get any proposal so I don''t really have any reaction to hypotheticals.

Rahmatullah explained in detail Talibans reasons for destroying the statues, saying the Islamic government made its decision in a rage after a foreign delegation offered money to preserve the ancient works while a million Afghans faced starvation.

However, State Department rejected the explanation, terming them as inaccurate and quite self-serving. Boucher said the ongoing major assistance from Western donors had been provided to displaced and impoverished Afghans for years. I think the real question is what are the Taliban doing for the Afghan people, whom they claim to govern, and it seems that they are doing very little beyond subjecting them to repression., he said.

Rahmatullah''s visit and the wide hearing he is getting have provoked criticism in Congress, particularly from supporters of India. State Department officials explained that he was given an American visa because he falls below the rank of the highest officials in the Taliban government, who are barred from travelling under an embargo. "When your children are dying in front of you, then you don''t care about a piece of art," he said to NY Times Barabara Crossette.

The report says that Rahmatullah is in the United States on a mission to improve ties and ease the Taliban''s isolation. He confirmed that the main focus of the visit was to find a way out of the impasse surrounding Osama bin Laden. Rahmatullah expressed no remorse over the demolition of the two giant Buddhas. Rahmatullah gave for the first time here the Taliban''s version of events: how a council of religious scholars ordered the statues destroyed in a fit of indignation. The destruction, according to his account, was prompted last month when a visiting delegation of mostly European envoys and a representative of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation offered money to protect the giant standing Buddhas at Bamiyan, where the Taliban was engaged in fighting an opposition alliance.

At the time the foreign delegation visited, United Nations relief officials were warning that a long drought and a harsh winter were confronting up to a million Afghans with starvation. Rahmatullah said that when the visitors offered money to repair and maintain the statues, the Taliban''s mullahs were outraged. "The scholars told them that instead of spending money on statues, why didn''t they help our children who are dying of malnutrition? They rejected that, saying, `This money is only for statues."

"The scholars were so angry," he continued. They said, "if you are destroying our future with economic sanctions, you can''t care about our herita" And so they decided that these statues must be destroyed." The Taliban''s Supreme Court confirmed the edict. "If we had wanted to destroy those statues, we could have done it three years ago," Rahmatullah said. "So why didn''t we? In our religion, if anything is harmless, we just leave it. If money is going to statues while children are dying of malnutrition next door, then that makes it harmful, and we destroy it." "What do you expect from a country when you just ostracise them and isolate them and send in cruise missiles and their children are dying?" he said, referring to the sanctions and American attacks against bin Laden''s base in Afghanistan after the bombing of two American embassies in Africa in 1998. "You don''t recognise their government," Rahmatullah added. "It is a kind of resentment that is growing in Afghanistan."

At the same time, he said the Taliban would not destroy statues actually being worshiped, and would not touch the Hindu temples still left in Afghanistan. The Clinton administration had rejected an Afghan trial, international monitoring of bin Laden whom Rahmatullah described as a nobody the Americans made into a hero or exile in another Muslim country.

Rahmatullah maintained the fiercely independent attitude of the Taliban, who have demonstrated repeatedly to the United Nations that they will co-operate with the world only on their own terms. "They want to change our policies through economic sanctions," he said of the United States and other nations that pushed an embargo through the Security Council. "That does not work. For us, our ideology is first, then the economy. To try to change our ideology with economic sanctions is ridiculous."

Rahmatullah grew up in a refugee camp near Quetta and was educated in a Madrassah. He learned to speak almost flawless English in a class for refugees. It is his first trip to the United States. He told the Times that he liked Americans more than he expected because he found them more open-minded than Europeans.

He has been speaking at universities on the West Coast. Rahmatullah said the Taliban were in fairly desperate need of agricultural help to supply farmers who once planted opium and to teach them to grow other crops. The United Nations narcotics control program has told the Taliban it has no money for seeds, and drug-control officials wonder if the new ban on poppy cultivation can be sustained.

Rahmatullah said the Taliban were making strides in health and education with very little foreign help. He said medical or nursing schools for men and women had now opened in Kabul, Kandahar, Jalalabad, Herat and Mazaar-i-Sharif.

A curriculum for the first seven years of general schooling had been prepared, he said, combining religious and secular subjects in separate schools for boys and girls. Rahmatullah and his wife, Jamila, another former refugee, have just had their first child, a daughter. They named her Soriya., he said. Barbara asked him if he would want her to go to school? "Of course," he said. "She will not be a good mother if she is not educated." Japan offers $1.86 mil. for Afghanistan''s refugees

Reported by: Kyodo

TOKYO, 3/21/2001 :: Japan decided Wednesday to offer $1.86 million in emergency grants to international organizations to help provide relief to Afghans who have fled their homes due to the prolonged civil war and natural disasters, the Foreign Ministry said.

The money will be provided to groups such as the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the International Committee of the Red Cross, which have issued appeals to the international community to help Afghanistan''s refugees and internally displaced persons.

Conditions at refugee camps in Afghanistan and in neighboring Pakistan, where many refugees have fled to, are said to be deteriorating due to the severe cold which started late last year as well as the lack of food and materials, with some deaths reported, the ministry said.

Afghanistan has been experiencing civil conflict since the 1979 coup and suffering from major droughts in recent years, according to the ministry.

U.N. officials have said more than 600,000 Afghan refugees have fled to Pakistan in the last four months of 2000 alone, while at least 150,000 people are displaced in the country.

In addition to the grant, Japan has also decided to give the World Food Program 538 million yen to purchase flour for the Afghan refugees and displaced persons.


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

US rejects Taliban''s justification for destroying statues

Reported by: South Nexus

WASHINGTON, 3/21/2001 :: The US has dismissed as "self-serving" and "inaccurate" Taliban''s reasoning to justify destruction of ancient Buddha statues in Afghanistan.

"These (justifications) are inaccurate and quite self-serving," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said reacting to the Taliban special envoy Sayed Rahmatullah''s statement that the militia acted in anger when a UNESCO team instead of offering aid for the starving Afghans offered money to save the statues.

Boucher said the ongoing assistance from western donors had been provided to displaced and improvised Afghans for years.

Rahmatullah on Monday, presented a letter addressed to US President George W Bush calling for improved relations and continued dialogue between the two countries.

"The letter did not contain any specific proposals for addressing international concerns about terrorism and other issues with Taliban," Boucher said.

"We have stressed in particular to Rahmatullah the importance of Taliban''s compliance with UN Security Council resolutions and to the international community''s concerns, including handing over indicted terrorist Osama bin Laden to a country where he can be brought to justice, and closing the terrorist camps," Boucher said.


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

Japan planning to invite Taliban leaders to Tokyo

Reported by: Kyodo

TOKYO, 3/21/2001 :: Japan is planning to invite Afghanistan''s ruling Taliban authorities to Tokyo next month to discuss their destruction of two Buddha statues in Bamyan Province, Foreign Minister Yohei Kono indicated Wednesday.

''''I think they will come to Japan for the talks,'''' Kono told a press conference, adding the world must closely monitor moves in Afghanistan in the wake of the statue demolition that drew international attention and outrage.

The Japanese government has urged the Taliban to cease the destruction through various channels, including letters that Kono sent to his counterparts in Islamic countries of the Gulf region, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, asking them to mediate dialogue between Japan and Taliban leaders.

Kono explained that Japan''s three-member parliamentary delegation to Afghanistan reported upon its return that the Taliban spent about three hours listening to what they had to say while allocating only one hour each to other visiting parties.

''''This may hold meaning in our continued efforts to deal with (the Taliban authorities)...The Afghan issue is a very difficult one,'''' the foreign minister said, reiterating his regret over the destruction that was completed last week of the two enormous statues carved into a cliff face.

Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar issued an edict Feb. 26 ordering the destruction of all statues in Afghanistan on the grounds that they are offensive to Islam

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

visitor

Friday, March 23, 2001 - 05:54 am
Whitegirl.

Moro!

How Sami people is doing there, in Norway?Things seems bad for them nowdays both in Sweden and here in Finland too.

I wish you all the best and the rest of Samland people to survive for the coming generations. Anyway if you are sami as you are identified your self, I guess you have more to worry about than TALIBAN.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Friday, March 23, 2001 - 06:47 am
US wheat for Afghanistan arrives at Pakistani port

Karachi, Pakistan, 3/22/2001 (AFP) :: A United States ship carrying 30,000 metric tonnes of wheat for drought-hit Afghanistan arrived at the Pakistani port of Karachi on Thursday.

"This is not the first nor the last help for Afghan people, more will come in future," US Ambassador to Pakistan William B. Milam told reporters.

Another 16,000 metric tonnes from the US are due next month and more will come later to complete the total of 75,000 tonnes for the whole year. Last year the US sent 40,000 meteric tonnes of wheat for Afghanistan.

"We have sympathy with drought hit Afghan people for whom US was the single largest donor last year," the ambssador said.

The assistance belies the allegations that the US is unfriendly toward Afghanistan and its people, he said.

Washington and the Afghan ruling Taliban are at loggerheads over the militia''s refusal to hand over alleged terrorist Osama bin Laden for trial over the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in East Africa.


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

Taliban Open Afghan Museum, Statues Gone

Reported by: Jack Redden and Sayed Salahuddin

KABUL, 3/22/2001 (Reuter) :: Afghanistan''s Taliban rulers threw open the doors to the National Museum in Kabul on Thursday to prove they had carried out their vow to destroy all the statues that were once at the heart of the collection.

Reporters were allowed to tour the museum for an hour.

Inside the dark and largely destroyed building that once housed the country''s finest archaeological collection, there was no sign of anything that could violate the Taliban ban on the ''''un-Islamic'''' practice of portraying animate objects.

A blank space against a dusty wall was all that remained at the spot where a life-size statue from the country''s Buddhist period of 1,500 years ago had stood when the museum was opened for 24 hours last August.

One room held a wooden screen that showed small birds -- the nearest thing spotted to a violation of the Taliban''s ban. But the head of each bird had been carefully chiseled away.

OTHER BUDDHIST RELICS RETAINED

``If it doesn''t touch our religion we will keep it,'''' the head of the museum, Ahmad Yar, told reporters. ``We have good pieces from the era of the Buddhists but not statues.''''

Guides from the government opened rooms with a few Islamic artifacts and shone lanterns -- there is no electricity -- among rooms full of ancient pottery shards stored in the basement.

One shelf was marked ``figurines'''' from Balkh, the ancient city Alexander the Great conquered, but there was no sign of any. A table near the entrance had been covered with wooden bowls in anticipation of the visit, a guide said.

Museum staff said about 40 statutes had been destroyed following Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar''s order last month to eradicate what the movement considers pagan idols.

All had been smashed inside the closed museum but there was no trace of the rubble.

``There is no one person,'''' Yar said when asked who had carried out the destruction. ``When there is an edict responsible people come here and do the job. There is no question.''''

The Taliban agreed to open the museum after refusing permission for journalists to visit Bamiyan, where the hardline Islamic movement has destroyed two colossal Buddhas -- the most famous ancient treasures in Afghanistan.

The edict to destroy the statues has triggered outrage around the world. Some are angered at the attack on the rich heritage of a country that sat astride Asia''s Silk Route, others at the focus on destroying statues that date from the pre-Islamic era when Afghanistan was a center of Buddhist study and pilgrimage.

``STILL A RICH AND ISLAMIC MUSEUM''''

``It is still a rich and Islamic museum,'''' said Yar, sounding slightly defensive as he emphasized that he was out of Afghanistan in the period after Omar''s edict when the destruction is supposed to have taken place.

Taliban officials denied a report by a group of Pakistan-based ambassadors representing the UN cultural agency UNESCO that the attack on the statues was already underway in the two months before the edict.

The Taliban destruction followed years of damage to the museum in earlier phases of Afghanistan''s 21 years of war.

The second floor of the building, built in the 1960s, has been completely shattered. A gaping rocket hole tore open one of the few rooms with a roof.

Yar said only 30,000 of the 100,000 artifacts recorded by the museum over the years still exist, with most either looted or destroyed. The museum once held a priceless collection of coins, many dating from the kingdoms ruled by the successors of Alexander the Great -- whose faces on coins would violate the Taliban edict.

Most of the surviving treasures are not in the museum''s cluttered basement, but the museum director would not say where they have been stored. ``We have kept it somewhere to save it,'''' was all he said.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Friday, March 23, 2001 - 06:57 am
Are these knuckleheads now saying that ANY human representation is idolatry? God damn there dumber than I thought!!! Faces on coins???? What a bunch of dipshits. And these people have followers in Afghanistan. The countrys collective IQ must be somewhere around 90.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Friday, March 23, 2001 - 06:59 am
I meant "they're" as in a contraction of they are are. Brain fart.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

faaisa

Friday, March 23, 2001 - 08:06 am
I agree what you described is hypocracy But that is not what we mean( I mean) I meant I speak differently to a practisisng Muslim and a non-muslim. Non-muslims can be my freinds and they are indeed but we cannot talk the Muslim afairs as we would not see them eye in eye. Your accusation that we love hypcocracy. I think you just want to see us that way. I said ( above) I critisise for example the Uk gover and the Saudi.

<If the Taliban (and the rest of the Muslims) want the sanctions lifted then I suggest you hand the scum-bag over. >

I can live with your accusation atht we muslims are linked with Bin Ladan ( though, you have not said it directly)
But lets us be fair and discuss the matter as two ordinary poeple( me not defending him and you not preaccupied with the nation that he is a terrorist)

Okey, I undestood you are an American soldier who fought in Somalia( I read that from somewhere, I think you said that)
Okey, when I first wrote under this thread, somebody asked me who is worst a gaal( non-mulsim0) who killed a muslim and says so, and someone who urinates on the Quran.
My reply about that was that the person killed a muslim may did so under different circumatances( something like that) but the one urinated on the Quran must have difenetly bad intention. The point I want make here is that I a Somali and a muslim do/ would not automatically say yes, the guy is bad and hates Islam. I need to know the thruth, right? I need to hear from your side as well. Okey, why should not we say samething about Bin Ladan?? we do not know the thruth. We have never seen anywhere that he admitted or claimed to be behind the killings of the empassy. Why do we have to be bound to beleaive in what the Amarican secret Agency have to say?? They can be wrong. I read somewhere where they claimed he ( bin Ladan) was behind the war between Ceydiid and the Americans. Do you think that is true??
I think we got to be fair and not let our prejudices rules us.


<Another point reference you overall post. You (and many of your colleagues) deliberately put Islam on a pedastal and claim it is great and all other forms of governance and life-styles are invalid, ignorant and / or Evil. Basically you've stated your superior and all others are inferior.>

I do not know where you saw my posts. I do not remember me claiming to be superior to anyone whether that person is a Muslimor not. I only wrote here couple of times. and you can re-read my post. I do not know who Asad is. I am a lady( faaisa is a female name)
You are right I should expect backlash if I say that but I did not.You must misunderstood me.
I do not know who you are talking to?? do you think me and you had an argument??

I explained a couple of Islamic points and that does not mean I claimed to be superior, though, I would anytime agrue that Islam is the right path.

<Without making conclusions about what people say here, try to understand it from their point of view and what they mean. >
When did I do that ??? I thought we could have a discussion.

I do not ALAWAYS understand what the poeple mean unless they explain what they mean. is that a plrolem???

Whitegirlnorway,

I did not have a problem with how you said it and English is my second language too. of course I have a problem with what you said that msut be clear to you otherwise I would not bother to ask you your point.
I could not get any of your points I could only read that you were describing a scene ete. and I have to ask you but it is up to you to rpely or not. I am not representative of Talaban but I do read and reply when I come accros anythng about that. I do not take sides but I do not like media intakes either. You do not need to get angry about that or leave the net. Do you not expect any questions??/ and if you expected me to say dear Whitegirl etc, I do not do that in a discussion but I do not insult poeple eather. you thinking I insulted you it must be when I said your childish way of answring. THIS IS A DISCUSSION FORUM I CAN ASK YOU YOUR POINTS. AND IF YOU ANSWER LIKE THAT YOU WILL GET YOUR ANSWER. YOU ARE NOT YOUR MUM'S HOME. TAKE THE HEAT.

and do you have to tell us your race??/ Sometimes I ask the names or whether someone is A muslim or Somali but I would not go to a Norwegian net and nickname myself blackgirl.

Salaams.

To my fellow Muslims,

Assalamu alaicum,

I could get who is a sister or who is a brother. I think it is good to meet you. I would love to hear from you if any of you live in London. I am in London. I am preparing myself to become a lawyer, I gradueted last year. I would love to stay get in touch with you. I only come to net occotianally as I do not have computer at home.


the non- muslims you are welcome too. I am not so judgemental as you alraedy asserted, indeed most of my freinds are non-muslims. I am fair person.


Sallaamsxxxxx

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fais

Friday, March 23, 2001 - 09:35 am
MM,

you are talking about yourself for believing what you believe. Didn't you say hear voices from God telling you to go to Somalia

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

.............................

Friday, March 23, 2001 - 09:40 am
Is Mad Mac A Hypocrite or Not?

It is to inform you of the type of hypocrite Mad Mac is or is not. I will present the factors that cause honest people to be hypocritical at times.

Maybe you are worse than a hypocrite is; I will give examples of non-hypocrites that have less integrity than certain types of hypocrites do. For these people, I will explain how their lack of integrity has given them a distorted perception of reality. Regardless, if you are searching for understanding about hypocrisy, you have come to the right place.

Before I can clearly communicate my ideas to you, we must go through the painstaking process of eliminating any ambiguity that could arise from the terminology that I will be using. I have even had to coin a couple of terms myself in order to convey my ideas precisely, and concisely. I have also provided a mathematical formula and a matrix to add additional aid in precisely communicate the relationship of the terms discussed. We will start with the word hypocrite. There are a couple of meanings for this word, and it is necessary to state which one we will be using in this article.

***********************************************************************

WEBSTER'S NEW UNIVERSAL UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY

***********************************************************************

hypocrite:

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

***********************************************************************

For this article we must go deeper than the above definitions in order to see internal hypocrisy. The above definitions do not clearly acknowledge the hypocrisy that often comes without public declaration, and is within the self. Therefore, we will define a hypocrite in the following way:

hypocrite: a person whose actions contradict their stated or internal beliefs. (Or visa versa)


The degree of hypocrisy one possesses is equal to the absolute value of the difference between their beliefs and actions. Of course, it is not possible to actually measure these variables, but this formula does represent the relationship of these variables.

It is my theory that humans have a natural tendency to keep their hypocrisy at zero. Therefore, they have a desire to keep their beliefs and actions equal.

If Beliefs = Actions, then Hypocrisy = Zero
Or
If Beleifs = X, Actions = X, then X - X = 0 = Hypocrisy

Furthermore, I believe that when hypocrisy equals anything other than zero, an anxiety will exist inside the individual. These imbalances can linger for years in honest objective people and only seconds for bias rationalizers. Why is this? It is due to one's honesty and objectivity when evaluating their initial internal feeling following a hypocritical imbalance. Everyone wants their hypocrisy to equal zero. Some do it by changing their beliefs so that they are equal to their actions. However, I say you should change your actions so that they equal your beliefs. Beliefs should be arrived at objectively, and should be a relatively independent variable.



Types of Non-Hypocrites

From my observation I have classified non-hypocrites into two categories:

Tautological Rationalizers are not hypocrites because their beliefs and perceptions of reality conform to support their own desires and imperfections. They can not be hypocrites because their beliefs and perceptions of reality are rationalizations for their actions and are without objectivity. When a state of hypocrisy arises, tautological rationalizers conform their beliefs around their actions to eliminate contradiction, rather than conforming their actions around their beliefs.

Devoted Believers' actions never contradict their beliefs. They are completely devoted to what they believe. Their beliefs and perceptions of reality are not rationalizations for their own actions. Their beliefs and perceptions of reality are the result of either objective logic, blind faith or a combination of the two. Regardless of the source of their beliefs, their beliefs and actions are without contradiction.



Types of Hypocrites

I am going to break hypocrites down into two levels, External and Internal. Within these levels I will classify 4 types of hypocrites based on the consistency between their stated and internal beliefs:


Lonnie Lee Best's Hypocrisy Matrix

+
Honest
Dishonest

External
Stated beliefs contradict actions. Stated beliefs are consistent with Internal actual beliefs.
Stated beliefs contradict actions. Stated beliefs are NOT consistent with Internal actual beliefs.

Internal
Internal actual beliefs contradict actions. Internal actual beliefs, if stated, are stated honestly.
Internal actual beliefs contradict actions. Internal actual beliefs are NOT consistent with stated beliefs.


External

Honest External hypocrites: Their stated beliefs contradict their actions. However, their stated beliefs are consistent with their actual internal beliefs. Therefore they are also honest internal hypocrites. They have strong convictions but do not always follow through. Causes for this type of hypocrisy will be discussed later.

Dishonest External hypocrites: Their stated beliefs contradict their actions and their stated beliefs are not consistent with their actual beliefs. They often have weak convictions, and it is possible for them to be non-hypocritical on an internal level.

Internal

Honest internal hypocrites: Their internal beliefs contradict their actions. Their internal beliefs remain constant despite their contradicting actions. They are honest with themselves, and strive not to conform their beliefs around their own desires, actions, or imperfections.

Dishonest internal hypocrites: stated beliefs are consistent with actions but actual internal beliefs are not. They are often people pleasers with weak convictions.

Now that we have covered the terminology I will be using, I now pose a very interesting question.

What causes one to be an honest hypocrite?

So far, I have narrowed it down to three general factors:

1. Uncertainty of Beliefs: If you are not 100% certain in what you believe, then your actions are not likely to be consistent with your beliefs 100% of the time. A conservative interpreter of reality is seldom 100% certain about anything. This uncertainty can cause one to be hypocritical at times.

2. Carnal Desires: These are inherent human desires that often cause one to act on what the flesh desires, rather than what one believes to be the right action.

3. The difficulty level of the belief system: If one's belief standards of right and wrong are higher than what is humanly possible, then their actions are obviously not going to be consistent with their beliefs.

Now that we know the major factors that contribute to hypocrisy, what should we do? Should we create a belief system that is not too difficult, so our actions will always be consistent with our beliefs? Should we create a belief system that takes into account carnal desire, so that we have no hypocrisy? I think not. That sounds like something a Tautological Rationalizer would do. One's priority should be on Truth.

How should one go about obtaining a belief system?

One should do their best to objectively perceive Reality for what it is.
One should do their best to objectively perceive Truth for what it is.
One should do their best to objectively perceive Morality for what it is.


Once you obtain a belief system in this manner, your perception of reality will be as close to actual reality as you can make it. If your beliefs are humanly impossible after this evaluation, then you will have to settle for being an honest hypocrite!

Now don't get me wrong, you should do everything humanly possible to keep the hypocrisy to a bare minimum. Conform your actions to your beliefs the best you can, but never conform you beliefs to justify your actions, unless you have objectively found flaws in your beliefs.

I leave you with the following:

It is best not to be hypocritical, but I would rather be an honest hypocrite than a person who tries to make truth conform around his or her own desires and imperfections. In other words, I would rather be an honest hypocrite than lie about my imperfections. That is the Hard Core Truth.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

..............................

Friday, March 23, 2001 - 09:44 am
Is Mad Mac an Animal?

It is true that humans differ from other animals in terms of intelligence. However, from a biological perspective, humans are classified as animals! Why does this bother people, and why do people take great measures to prove that they are not animals? If you think about it, it is only a classification system anyway. It is a biological classification system designed to classify any living organism it encounters into groups according to the organism's characteristics. Therefore, biologically we are members of the Animalia Kingdom; we are animals (see definition 1 later in this document). Biblically, the word animal was used in a way that made distinctions between humans and other organisms (see definition 2).
**********************************************
Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary:
animal:
1. any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animal like nutrition modes.
2. any such living thing other than a human being.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Faaisa

Friday, March 23, 2001 - 10:01 am
To ..........,

Is Mad_mac an ethiest? even if he claims to be that, I think we have no right to call an animal to a fellow humangbeing. In Islam the term we call non-muslims are called kafir. It is ungartefulness to their creator. then we have the poeple that we call ehlul kitab( christians and Jews) so If I were you I would avoid saying that to him.

I understand we all fall into the animal catogary but not the way you mean it.

If I misunderstood you please forvive me i have no intention to disagree with you.

Sallaams


NB Faaisa and Fais are two different people I am a woman, fais is a male name

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Friday, March 23, 2001 - 10:57 am
If he is not an animal, he has the brain of an animal.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Friday, March 23, 2001 - 11:16 am
Faaisa, Use some respect and you will get respect.... It's impossible for me to tell you my point. You either understand it or you don't.... I am an easy going person most of
the time, and I often prefer to use humour instead of harsh words to underline
a point or to show that I disagree. That's MY way of talking... FG and other people in here had
no problems with that, I talked to him my way and he replied his way. And I prefer to believe
that I did make him smile now and then, at least I hope so.... Because I like a good laugh now
and then, even when I discuss. And I can also handle harsh words when I am IN a discussion,
let's say that I often ask for it... And it is as expected. But when you, as an outsider, just
jump on me and attack me personally without having any good reason to do so, well, then it is a different story.... Anyway, I can't and don't want to change my personality to please all people.
But now you're in a discussion with me, feel free to insult me! But don't say I talk like a
6 year old again unless you want to end up acting like one yourself. :O
Since you get back to the question about race I now think I know the real reason why you
attacked me in an insulting way...
And about me using my race in my nick; To be honest, I can't see the point in asking, because
that's not the topic here. I could have asked you why you use to a's in yours, but then
again, your nick shouldn't be the interesting part here, but what you say. But you are so eager
on this that I will answer you. To tell you the truth; I have answered that question earlier.
Scroll up and see if you can find it... You should know if you have read my postings. I do
understand that they didn't make sense to you, but give it another try. You see, I hate to
repeat myself.... ;-) And about you using the nick blackgirl in a Norwegian forums, hehe,
sorry, but that name was taken a long time ago.. ;-) They use all sorts of black this and
black that... Like BlackPearl, BlackBeauty etc... Go see for yourself. Ahhh, which reminds
me, you do have a BlackBeauty here on Somalinet... Now, why don't you go and ask her why she is using BLACK in her nick?? Or is it just an obvious right for dark skinned people?
I think this should be a good enough answer for you, or do you want me to be even more spesific
here? Let me know. So why not show me the same respect you show your black sista? Is it THAT
annoying for you to be reminded that I am white?
Hm, I was in the middle of a discussion (?) with a person who challenged me when I got so harshly
interrupted here ;-)... and then that person did a spectacular disappearing act... So now
I'm not sure if I should continue or not.... I wanted to talk about Egyptian idols and
worshipping, because the headline says; "The concept of Idol Worship" and I assume that Taliban and Afghan idols don't
have to be the only issue here?? And regarding the Taliban, I really appreciate what the brave
journalists are doing, and I do respect their jobs, so yes, I have to say that I am glad we have
the media to enlighten us.... But I do not say that I believe in everything I read and hear, I
have a critical side too... :O
By the way; Thanks for your reply to me, I actually appreciated it.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Friday, March 23, 2001 - 11:26 am
Eh Faaisa, sorry, I just found out that if you want to know what answer I gave about my nick you have to search in another board... I thought it was this but it wasn't... These guys talk too much... ;-))) Anyway, it can't be very interesting to you??

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Friday, March 23, 2001 - 11:39 am
visitor, Perkele!! What is a Finn doing here??
lol! No, I'm not a Sami, I never said I was, and yes, we are all doing fine here, and no, we do not have your problems here in Norway, well except for some gunfighting about the land on "Finnmarksvidda", but then again it doesn't count because the Sami's just kill each other, not Norwegians...lol! It's real Texas up there from time to time...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Galool

Friday, March 23, 2001 - 12:57 pm
FG

C'mon show your deep-seated uncle-Tomism which all intellectual Islamists suffer from. So you think MM is somehow more "Muslim-friendly" than me and PG et al eh? What you really mean to say is you are flattered to be valued by a whitey, even a lowly soldier(sorry Mad)so much that he/she argues with you.

Your problem, and that of the Islamic intelligentsia is that they use the dominant race/religion as their frame of reference. You think it is OK if an outsider says something about your version of Islam but not so if a fellow "Muslim" does the same. You are accepting the superiority of these guys, albeit in a convoluted Freudian manner. That is why you so value the "coversion" of any white Christian - I never saw you talking about a Cameroonian who just became a Muslim although of course they are much more common occurence than the odd CIA trainee who joins the "faith" in order to keep an eye on you guys. I remember when the Satanic Verses affair was at its height(by the way anybody got a copy? I never managed to find it)and people were being killed in Pakistan and other places, an acquaintance of mine who is a beardo saying to me " we wouldn't be so angry if he was not a Muslim!" or something to that effect.

So go on, destroy your history and mine, jump up and down like an excited baboon about Chechnya (who ever heard of the place ten years ago?)and chop-off the limbs of my malnourished masses, all in an attempt to attract the attention of Uncle Westy-Whitey. How sad and undignified.

Visitor

Is that you Ahitaf? Did it get too cold for you in the "Finland" section? Welcome to the discussion, you middle-class Finnish Racist Bigot Take a seat and you will be educated about Life beyond the shade of the skin. And by the way, we will beat the life out of you in the world-qualifiers here in England - Litmannen or not! (Of course if you are not Ahitaf you will not know what I am talking about, so go and eat your Ice-dried sausages! Is there such a thing I wonder?)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Friday, March 23, 2001 - 01:18 pm
Galool, I had the same thought about the Finn here, strange, huh...? :O

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Galool

Friday, March 23, 2001 - 03:15 pm
WGN

I saw your gallant defence of the Somalis in the Finland folder few months ago! You are one brave Viking! Sad that Ahitaf is so narrow-minded don't you think? He is an intelligent guy with a degree of sense of humour. All the others there had an IQ of a half-baked Donut.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fg.

Friday, March 23, 2001 - 05:20 pm
Galool.

I am proverbed with a grandise phrase when you said I appreciate the flattery of a whitey lol. It is your motto to be so saucy and rustic when you say something about people. You are unpleasantly coarse and rough to the touch lol. I see the antagonist phrase got to you. Good thing!. I wanted whitegirl express herself rather than insinuate and look what I am being accused of?. Well, I can't be nonchalant all the time. So is mad. Looks like the guy doesn't change a nano space so why frett about endlessly I thought. He has the Quran and can read on.

I don't think islam needs my defence. You and Pg and the rest of the holier-than-thou crew who saw the Quran know its value. But pride and satan took you to the wrong direction. It reminds me a good saying: "Clear truths that their own evidence forces us to admit, or common experience makes it impudence to deny" By Locke.

Anyway, Odey, I have too much to do these days and may be got wiser not to be involved in continous arguments that bear no fruit. I will say something when I can or I am addressed.

As to the rest of your salty comments about muslims, I say ismarji.


Whitegirl.

Yes, I sometimes laughed at what you said. However, a good habit is to not try to please human beings in general. You don't usually get back the response you expect somehow which might make you feel a little fully unpaid. And by that, I don't mean we should mistreat people but our aims should be centered on merits. I think you are nice. I have no bad feelings about what you said. I tried to correct what was wrong according to what I know from islam. But that was it. If I disappear, know that I left with good heart and without ill feelings.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

faaisa

Saturday, March 24, 2001 - 03:25 am
Whitegirl,

Icertainly do have respect and you cannot question that to defend your sensitivity. My first question is fairly English language that expected from a critic( I am not your emenay but critic to what you wrote), but it was you response that was childish( '' the questiobn would be do I have to answer) I am not your friend what do you expect from me. adn later all I can read was your complaint.
I am not recist and if you know me in realy life that would not come into your mind.
As me asking you about your nick, I was testing your abilty to reply which you again failed.

Btw sorry about that but try to have a bit resistance. ppl like me do not talk soft.
freindship now and then,
I am not back,
see you guys

Faaisa

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Saturday, March 24, 2001 - 04:34 am
Heheh, Faaisa, now YOU don't make much sense here... You can't just say A but not B... So tell me, in what way did I fail in my reply regarding my nick, hmm? lol!
Don't misjudge my sensitivity here, like I said, you could be the one ending up acting like a 6 year old.... :O
I can see that you still want to keep some boundaries here...
But for your information; "people like me" don't always talk soft neither.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Saturday, March 24, 2001 - 04:46 am
Galool, heheh, my-my, it was perhaps a galant defence but not very
elegant though.... :O I was in a Norwegian board discussing why it was so
difficult for Somalis to get a job in Norway when I discovered what was
going on in the Finnish forums. They have approx. 1,5% foreigners in
Finland and they can't handle a handful of Somalis?? Poor people! lol!
He is intelligent, but ignorant. It is easy to learn but sometimes far more
difficult to understand what you learn...
Ask any Scandinavian about a Finn and the first 3 things that comes to their
minds are: Vodka, knives and fighting... Then perhaps Nokia. Have you heard
that some scientists claim that cell phones might cause damage to your brain...? :O
So now you know what happened to the braincells to the rest of them....
And now I he is after me because I didn't reply to his last posting.
But like I said, I just hate to repeat myself... :O

fg, I have some words for you too...later...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

faaisa

Saturday, March 24, 2001 - 05:26 am
Whitegirl,
you are the one sensitive here. I read you complianing athers of not being nice to you ( sis/bro fg) and then all the muslims here. what do you want my dear lady... a glass of milkshake or chocolate... there you go whatever you like.
and you want me say that you are correc???

I cannot say '' A but not B'' what is that??/ I do not understand that.

Okey, here deal Dear wHITEGIRL, WHATEVER YOU SAID IS JUST A AND NOT B.

stop sensitivity madam.


Mad_mac,

I expected some backlashes from you. and still you have not answer my first question why did you call the thread ,, the concept of idol worship'' this is just a question. do not take it personal but want know your answer. I raed all your posts here and fairly quoted from you and gave you some answers. If you did not like that you should not take me unfair person.


salaams

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Saturday, March 24, 2001 - 06:07 am
Faaisa, do I see the 6 year old here now? I have NEVER said anything about ANYONE else
not being nice to me, now where do you get all this from?? Have I ever said to fg that
he wasn't nice to me?? LOL, this is getting funny.... OK, since you know, please show me
where?? HE might think that it was ment for HIM or all of them, and not you, but that is not
the same as saying that I told him so. And what has that got to do with you all being muslims??
Did I say "guys, you are not nice to me because you are muslims"?? LOL! Give me a break
sister! What do YOU want with all this? What is YOUR point here?
You know, to justify an insult you need a little dash of contents... You only have 1 stone
in your hand here and you keep throwing the same stone over and over again... I have not had the
pleasure to see you post 1 message with contents yet...
Let me tell you the meaning of a discussion; I post my opinion, you post yours, and if you
disagree with me you tell me WHY, then if I reply again you have a DISCUSSION about a subject.
It is not enough just to tell people you disagree, you can of course, but then you don't
have a DISCUSSION.
But it's ok, I can see now why you can't say B, because you simply don't UNDERSTAND....
Do I have to remind you that you said so yourself? ;-)))
So, I assume we don't have a discussion here then, little girl? Fine with me, because nicknames are really not an interesting subject anyway.....
Post something related to the headline of this board and you might get a reply if it makes sense.

Peace!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

faaisa

Saturday, March 24, 2001 - 06:48 am
Whitegirl,

You are really sensitive. Move on my dear freind.
no bad feelings towards you. Okey.

I will avoid you next time. let us grow up.

Bye I love you

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Saturday, March 24, 2001 - 12:07 pm
Faisa
I haven't been on the net in a while and a lot is posted here right now. I need a little more time. Friday nights is Salsa night, so I sleep in on Saturdays and sometimes don't post much. But I will respond. I liked your write ups.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Saturday, March 24, 2001 - 12:19 pm
Faisa- are you sure you are new? You sound very much like someone who used to come here a while back but disapeared all of a sudden? If you are that person, let us know. WE missed her.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Sunday, March 25, 2001 - 10:55 pm
Allright Abai, this was my point. It seems to me that while everyone was rushing to judgement talking about idol worship, not taking into consideration the nuances of what that means in Bhudist terms, they ignored Islams own habits that resemlbe a form of idol worship. To wit:
When you go to Mecca what do you throw stones at? An engraved representation of the devil. Is that not idol worship in reverse? And what is the Kaba? Is that not worshipped in a sense? And what of the Qur'an? Do you not worship the book itself, not just it's content. Of course no one thinks the paper and ink are Allah, but they suddenly place the book in a revered status, hence washing before touching it, handling it with reverence, etc. These are all forms of idol worship as they all are giving innanimate objects a spiratual value - even if only symbolic (which is all the statues are - symbolic). Do you see my point?

As for throwing you in bed with the others, I apologize. You are correct. I assumed you held their views before you annunciated such - unfair on my part.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Shaf Warabe

Sunday, March 25, 2001 - 11:51 pm
Mad One, Mac
Man what is wrong with you? You do not know what the word worship means? is it that you are not familiar with the act, worshiping? You sound real stupid when when you accuse people that they worship Quran or Kabbah. Let us see you difine the act, worshiping!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Waalane

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 12:00 am
Mad
Taliban have every right to do what they want to do with the statues. After the Berlin wall came down, all those statues of Marx, Lenon, etc., were removed. Historically all faiths have done what they had to do. No one was held against. However, it said that a Muslim deligation of Ulemas, not politicians, were sent to justify the statues, this is in line with a Hadith of our Prophet, PBUH, that in the last days, some called Ulemas of His Ummah would to try to justify the keeping of idols.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 02:41 am
MM,
I asked the question about the kaaba and the Al-Hajar AL-Aswad (the black stone) earlier on
this board. I got a reply from fg, scroll up and read what he said.

They touch a stone while they pray to Allah and then walk 7 times around the kaaba. But still
they say it is not the same as worshipping Idols. The stone is just a stone... But why is
it there then, if they don't need it? Yes, it is there because the Quran tells the story
about prophet Abraham and the stone.... So, it IS an important part of the seremony after all.
Hence it has a spiritual value, like it or not. A seremony that is linked to a stone and a
kaaba...and where they pray to allah...worhsipping their God using "items" but not idols..and it
is not even symbolic... What then??
What if these two "items" (is that a better word than idols?) were removed, how would they then
perform the seremony? Hm? Can anyone answer this question? Because they all insist that they
will not get upset at all if the stone and kaaba were removed, nooooo-noooooo, why on earth would
they get upset, it's just a stone and a shed...
But that's being hypocritic guys, because you know it would be crushing for you, no matter if they are idols or not! Just admit it!

Waalane, It is more important for Taliban right now to destroy ancient idols only to tease Big Brother USA rather than to show the world that they don't worship idols... They are using all the dirty tricks they can come up with....

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 03:31 am
Shaf Warabe
Worship: 1) The reverent love and allegiance accorded to a diety. 2) A set of religious forms, as ceremonies or prayers accorded a deity or sacred object. 3) Ardent humble devotion.

Now, understand what I'm saying here. The statues are used to represent something. A being (ostensibly a deity - or a human form of a deity - Budha) to whom the prayers are directed. That doesn't mean the worshipper is worshipping the statues. I'm pretty sure that most people now realize that the stones are innanimate. The "items" to borrow a phrase, are also innanimate and used to represent something - namely Satan. In both cases what we are talking about here are representations, stand-ins for what can not be seen or touched.

Back to WGN question, if I went to Mecca with a jack hammer and some explosives (and a large security detachment) would you object if I blew the Kaba and the three devil things to pieces?? Or would you say, hey they're just pieces of rock?? I would be willing to wager that Muslims would take offense to such an action. That's my point. You are suing the Kaba as a representation - an idol. 2,000 years ago some people were stupid enough to believe that the idol itself was sacred, not what it might have represented. Today people know better. The problem is that some Muslims are so dogmatic and literal in every aspect of their interpretation of the Qur'an - except when they apply it to their own practices. Then they're only uptight about sex. If you stand back and look at this from a neutral standpoint (and since I'm neither budhist nor muslim that's easy for me to do) it seems clear that we're looking at similar examples.

Lastly, WGN is right. This was the Talibans way of poking the world in the eye. A sort of •••• You directed at the world at large, and Western liberalism in particular.

When we cut away the veneer, they are going out of their way by harboring someone like Bin Laden and generally supporting spurious movements (like the Chechnyans and the nut cases in Kashmir). As long as they work against US interests the US is going to work against theirs. This makes eminent sense to me - I don't know about you guys. And since the US has the biggest set of Cojones out there, well you see where that leads. If the Taliban don't want to deal with US sponsored sanctions and cruise missile attacks then they should get back in their box. Those are the rules of the game and they're clear to all the players. It goes back to Murphys Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 05:10 am
Brahminists Support Zionist Attack on Afghanistan

As a result of the Zionist-Brahminist conspiracy, the once-trusted allies of Pan-Islamism and the West who together fought the Soviet Union, are now at each other's throats ! The Zionist agent, Bill Clinton, launched rocket attacks on Afghanistan in order to save his skin in the Monica Lewinsky affair. The fanatic Brahminists of course support this course of action !

SRINAGAR: Two senior BJP legislators of Jammu and Kashmir today welcomed the U.S. missile attack on terrorist facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan saying the "bold decision is a first major effort to deal with Islamic terrorism." In a joint statement issued here, the legislators, Choudhary Piara Singh and Ashok Kumar Khajuria, said it is good for India which has suffered due to terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and north east for over a decade when the world has today realised disastrous effects of terrorism, reports PTI. "While attacks on terrorist bases in Afghanistan is a welcome step, Islamic terrorism cannot be rooted out without dealing with Pakistan which is the fountain-head of terrorism", they said. The said Pakistan should be declared as terrorist state as the U.S. sub-committee of republicans which has provided ample evidence in the past of Pakistan's involvement of promoting Islamic terrorism.


However, the West is making a big mistake by supporting the Kautilyan Indian Union. Nuclear-tipped Indian ICBMs are aimed at prominent western cities, and the Indian Union is one of the most anti-Western states in the world. It is collaborating with Russia to dominate over Asia and hence the rest of the world. The code-word used during the Indian nuclear tests of Pokharan-II say it all: `The White House has Collapsed'. This is ample warning to the Westerners as to who their real enemy is. Israeli foreign policy should not be the determinant of Western foreign policy.


" ... [ The ] Hindus forced the Muslims also to shout `Jai Jagannath'. A gruesome episode in the afternoon brings out the depth of animosity against the Muslims. A young Muslim, enraged by the destruction of his property said he would take revenge. Upon this the crowd seized him, showered blows on him and tried to force him to shout `Jai Jagannath'. Staying firm, the youth refused even if that meant death. To this someone in the crowd responded that he may indeed be done away with. Wood from broken shops were collected. a pyre prepared in the middle of the road, petrol sprinkled on the pyre as well as the youth, and he was set alight with ruthless efficiency. What is remarkable is that there was no resistance form any Hindu. The wails of the Muslim inhabitants of the area were drowned in the celebration of the incident by the Hindus. Thereafter, the riots took a new turn - from looting and arson to murder and physical attacks. Upto now incidents of killing had been sporadic; they now became frequent and organised on a large scale.

By the afternoon the flames of Gita Mandir and Raipur had spread through the whole town - labour as well as upper class areas. The mob violence that was let loose did not spare even the Sabarmati Ashram, when in the evening a relatively small crowd of about fifty people went to the Ashram to attack Imam Manzil, the house of 70-year old Gulam Rasoon Qureishi, and Ashram inmate since 1921. For him, it should be noted, this was not the first attack by communalists. In 1939 he had been assaulted by Muslim Leaguers. But this time as the ashramites stood together against the crowd, no serious damage was done to Imam Manzil. However, the house of Qureshi's two sons one of whose Hindu wife still practices the Hindu religion, was set aflame burning both the Quran and the Ramayana."

MARWAL (PULWAMA), MAY 8: A shroud of fear has enveloped the village. The houses are all bolted from inside, even the windows are shut. Women do not venture out alone even during the day. It wasn't so until a few days ago, when two men from the nearby Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) camp barged into the house of Abdul Rehman Dar and raped his 40-year-old housewife.

The Dar household is still to recover from the shock. His wife, a Bengali, had come to Kashmir eight years ago as the bride of Abdul Rehman, who works as a labourer. ``I had never imagined this will be my fate here,'' she says. The villagers who have assembled in front of her house are restless. She asks them to keep quiet. ``Let me talk. I want to tell my pathetic story. Somebody will definitely listen to me,'' her voice is choked with pain and anger.

``We had just finished our dinner when there was a knock at the door. As soon as my husband opened the door, two men in uniform came in. They told us there were 50 men around the house and that they have come to search for arms. One of them had a big gun (rifle) while another had a smaller one (pistol). They pointed their guns at my husband and daughter and asked them to be silent. Then they asked me to take them to other rooms. As I came out of the room they locked it. I was shivering with fear. There was some rice and a few boxes with clothes and other household things in the store room. I was opening a box when one of them pounced on me. The other caught hold of my hands. I tried to cry for help but he put his hand on my mouth,'' she says. The women sitting around her too are in tears.

The two men, according to Abdul Rehman's wife, were from the nearby ITBP camp. Villagers say that the ITBP men had gone into the house at around 8.45 pm and came out only after 10.30 pm. ``I heard everything but could not muster courage to come out. I feared they will open fire,'' says Abdul Ahad Dar, whose home is few metres away from Rehman's house. He claimed that he even saw two ITBP men running away. Abdul Rehman is in complete shock. ``I have lost everything. I feel like killing myself because I could not save the honour of my wife,'' he says.

The villagers who went to the camp to complain say that they were roughed up by the ITBP men. ``Around 30 villagers accompanied by the numberdar GhulamMohammad and a local policeman Nizam-ud-din Shah took the victim along andrushed to the camp but they beat us with riffle butts injuring ten of us. There was nobody ready to listen to us. Even the officer abused us,'' says Riyaz Ahmad, a villager who lost a tooth after being hit by a rifle. The police has registered a case (FIR 104/2000). But villagers say the is pressure on them to withdraw the complaint. They say a local Congress leader, Mohammad Anwar Bhat, had come to them with money. ``He even threatened that the force will make our lives miserable if we don't agree to them,'' says Dar.

Inspector M S Bhandari who is in charge of the ITBP camp claims that he was suffering from fever on the fateful day and has no idea as to what happened. ``It is shameful and inhuman and the culprits should be punished,'' he says. He said he was willing to organise a parade of the 40 men posted at the camp so that the culprits could be identified.

The Mughal-Muslims who liberated Puranic India from Brahmanic tyranny referred to pre-Islamic India as `jahaliyat' or barbarianism. That this view is grounded in fact is confirmed by perhaps the most disgusting aspect of Hinduism: cow-worship. So total is the devotion of Hindus to this bovine animal that they worship the cow as a goddess and consider its urine and dung so sacred that these products are consumed as ayurvedic medicine. Thus the most authoritative treatise on Ayurveda, by Susruta, lists the following recipes involving cow-urine [1] -

"Gomutra, Cow's urine:
ingredient of a mixture, antidote for obesity,
ingredient of a mixture, purgative,
ingredient of a plaster, eliminates vermin from ulcer,
ingredient of a liquid medicine, for controlling vayu disorders,
ingredient of a wine, or taken alone specific for abdominal dropsy and many other uses."



Indeed, all forms of excreta of the cow are worshipped and accorded the highest sanctity [2] -


" The 5 products of the cow, milk, curds, ghee, urine and dung are all used in purificatory ceremonies, and cow-dung is `worshipped as an emblem of the discus of Vishnu, as is the yellow pigment of the cow'."

In this it is not the Hindus who are fault, but the religion of Hinduism. For this reverence is prescribed in the `holy' Hindu texts. The most authoritative law-book of Hinduism, and which must be unquestioningly be accepted by all Hindus, is the Manu-Smrti. This and countless other Hindu scriptures prescribe that the drinking of cow-urine and dung are holy acts [3] -


Manu.XI.166 : ":OTo swallow) the five products of the cow (pankagavya) is the atonement for stealing eatables of various kinds, a vehicle, a bed, a seat, flowers, roots, or fruit."
Manu.XI.213 : ":OSubsisting on) the urine of cows, cowdung, milk, sour milk, clarified butter, and a decoction of Kusa-grass, and fasting during one (day and) night, (that is) called a Samtapana Krikkhra.


For this reason, during the Second World War, American soldiers were given the following advice [4] -


"American servicemen in Calcutta were instructed that if a traffic situation arose in which the driver had a choice of striking a cow or a human, hit the human and proceed without stopping to a police station."

Indeed, M.K Gandhi (Mahatma Gandhi) wrote that [5],


"Cow-protection is an article of faith in Hinduism. Apart from its religious sanctity, it is an ennobling creed."

Indeed, he regarded this the most important feature of Hinduism -


"If someone were to ask me what the most important outward manifestation of Hinduism was, I would suggest that it was the idea of cow-protection [6] ... No one who does not believe in cow-protection can possibly be a Hindu [7]."


Bin Laden plans Restoration of Mughalstan

Bin Laden played a major role in the liberation of Afghanistan, fighting against the Communist Soviet invaders. The economic collapse triggered by the severe defeat the mujahideen inflicted upon the Soviets, with the support of the West, led to the break-up of the Soviet Union. The mujahideen are thus responsible for saving the Free World from tyranny and oppression. Subsequently, Bin Laden and his Pan-Islamist mujahideen have fought for the oppressed and downtrodden Muslims all across the world, playing a major role in Bosnia, fighting once again on the side of the West against the genocidal Serbian Milosevich regime and later liberating Chechenya from Russian tyranny. Now, this freedom fighter has decided to support the oppressed Mughal-Muslims of South Asia by restoring the historic Mughalstan.

The world's most wanted terrorist trains his guns on India and gives a dangerous edge to militancy in Kashmir. Security forces scramble to meet the new threat.

By Jason Burke in Islamabad and Harinder Baweja

Head west out of Amritsar and keep going. The drive may not be very comfortable but at least finding the route is straightforward. It'll take you a few hours to Lahore and then it is a fast three-hour run along the new motorway to Islamabad. Go on up to Peshawar, the bustling and violent Pakistani frontier town, through the Khyber Pass, across the border into Afghanistan and then, keeping the Kabul river on your right, drive for another three hours. After a 100 more miles and a dozen checkposts you'll be threading a way through the bazaars of Jalalabad. Turn left at the main intersection and aim for the dusty hills on the southern horizon. Cross a bridge and drive up to the two Taliban tanks dug in on the crest of the ridge.

PROFILE OF TERROR

» Son of a construction millionaire, Osama Bin Laden's commitment to the spread of Islam dates back to the late '70s when he came into contact with cadre of Muslim Brotherhood while studying civil engineering at King Abdul Aziz University in Saudi Arabia.
» After his graduation, he set up the Islamic Salvation Foundation in Saudi Arabia through which he initially funded the Afghan mujahideen and later became a key player in their fight against the Soviets.
» His nationality was revoked by the Saudi authorities on February 2, 1994, under US pressure. He took refuge in Afghanistan in May 1996 and funded the Taliban's successful takeover of Kabul.
» Key suspect in the August 1998 bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 people. Now the most wanted international terrorist, the US has a $5 million prize on his head. Awash with funds he has strong links with many Islamic fundamentalist groups.
If you're sensible, you'll stop here. If you are not then keep going along a straight flat road with lines of tall cypress-like trees on either side. After about five miles you'll see the overgrown orchards and dilapidated huts of Farmihadda, once a Soviet-style collective farm and now the place where Osama Bin Laden -- the world's most wanted terrorist -- has built his new home. It is from here that Bin Laden is believed to have issued his threat of September 16, which appeared in Jang, the mass circulated Urdu daily published from Pakistan. Calling for an all out jehad against India for the first time, Bin Laden declared: "India and America are now our biggest enemies ... all mujahideen groups in Pakistan should come together now to target India ... we are always ready to help the Kashmiri mujahideen."

Even before the chilling statement came from Farmihadda -- where Bin Laden has established a new communications, training and logistics centre -- senior Indian officials had been concerned that a dangerous nexus may be building up between Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Saudi terrorist. During the Kargil war, there were rumours that Bin Laden's fighters were among those pouring fire down from the heights of Tololing and Batalik. One Indian intelligence report claimed that Bin Laden's personal bodyguards were at the forefront, helping keep the supply routes open. And also that the Stinger missiles used to bring down two Indian aircraft may have come from his armoury. Now a senior official in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) says, "We don't need to hear from Farmihadda to know that a lethal cocktail is being brewed. We already knew. The coming together of the ISI, Bin Laden and his hosts, the Taliban, is serious." Their worst fears are, in fact, coming true. India appears to have become a target of the man the Americans, and now ironically the Russians too, see as their single biggest security problem since the end of the Cold War.

OSAMA'S ELVES
Harkat-ul-Mujahideen: Better known as Harkat-ul-Ansar till it was banned by the US after it abducted foreign tourists in Kashmir. Its cadre is trained in camps around Khost in Afghanistan, built by Bin Laden. A potent group in the Valley, 80 per cent of its ranks comprise foreign mercenaries. Bin Laden has sent them messages of encouragement.
Lashkar-e-Toiba: Nearly 90 per cent of its well-trained and heavily armed militants are foreigners, mostly from PoK and Afghanistan. The group is said to be behind the recent attacks on army camps in Kupwara. Currently the ISI's favourite, it claims to have links with Bin Laden.
Hizb-ul-Mujahideen: Once the dreaded militant organisation and a predominantly Kashmiri outfit, it has now been put under the direct charge of the Lashkar-e-Toiba.
Bin Laden's sudden declaration of jehad against India is not being viewed as an emotional outburst. It was delivered at a point when India and the US are adding a new dimension to their relationship through cooperation on counter-terrorism. Bin Laden's statement came shortly before Ambassador Michael Sheehan, coordinator in the US Department for Counter-terrorism, held senior-level talks in Delhi. Sheehan came to Delhi as a follow-up to the visit of two senior mea officials to the US a fortnight ago to discuss the new threat emanating from Afghanistan. Says a US diplomat: "We were enthused by India's willingness in the US to discuss measures that we could cooperate on." Among the issues discussed were swapping of intelligence and, significantly, joint training exercises to combat terrorism. This may have upset the arch terrorist.

Bin Laden's threat also has a direct co-relation to India's new Afghan policy. India had always supported the former regime headed by Burhanuddin Rabbani and Ahmed Shah Masood and of late it has been extremely vocal in its criticism of the Taliban. At a press briefing recently, External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh had even gone to the extent of stating that India would no longer "supinely" accept what was happening in Afghanistan but pursue a "proactive" policy. There were indications that India, along with possibly Russia and Iran, had supported Masood and Rabbani in their spirited fight-back against the Taliban's summer offensive to dislodge them from the Panjsher Valley. The Taliban and Bin Laden are furious over the reversals and believe that India had a hand in it.

The revenge for the Kargil debacle is believed to be another major reason. Pakistan and the so-called mujahideen, many of them Afghan mercenaries, are still smarting under the humiliating retreat. Post-Kargil, the ISI has already upgraded its proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir. The militants coming in are better trained, equipped with deadlier arms and strike in much larger groups than ever before. The majority of the militants sneaking in are said to be non-Kashmiris who now dominate organised terrorism in the Valley. Many are believed to be battle-hardened Afghan mercenaries who may have links with Bin Laden. So concerned has been the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the country's external intelligence agency, over the growing threat posed by Islamic fundamentalists, including Bin Laden, that it recently revised its six-year-old doctrine on threat perception. The analysis of Indian intelligence agencies shows:

A large number of Arab mujahideen involved in Afghanistan have found it difficult to return to their own countries and consequently a nucleus of pan-Islamic mercenary forces has come into existence. Their presence and acts of terror are increasingly becoming evident in Jammu and Kashmir, apart from other trouble-spots in the world.
Bin Laden is proving to be a rallying point for militants operating in India and his photographs are reported to have been found in the possession of slain militants in Kashmir.
There is a growing nexus between Islamic fundamentalists and the criminal fringe elements in various countries. They include the underworld dons of Mumbai, the smugglers of Nepal and the drug mafia in Pakistan.
Large quantities of sophisticated arms and explosives which have entered the country are yet to be recovered. With reports of their dispersal to various cities, the threat is said to be serious.
The list of the suspected targets of militant groups is growing: It is not just in Jammu and Kashmir but also in Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat where the communal cauldron can be stirred.
COUNTERING THE THREAT

Security forces are gearing up to meet the militant menace
» Army and RAW are investing Rs 200 crore in electronic surveillance technology to stem the flow of armed militants. It includes sophisticated cameras and direction finders.
» The army is importing mine-sweepers and anti-mine vehicles to counter improvised explosive devices used extensively by militants.
» 2,000 militants -- mostly foreign mercenaries -- are said to have entered Kashmir in the past four months. Two additional brigades are being deployed in the porous Kupwara and Baramulla sectors.
» The army, which had been entirely pulled out of counter-insurgency operations in the state during the Kargil war, is once again returning to its former role. Three brigades are again being deployed in the Valley.
» The BSF too is adding to its armoury, acquiring Karl Gustav rocket launchers and automatic grenade launchers -- so far present only in the army's inventory -- for pounding militants in built-up areas.
» For Jammu region (mainly militant-infested Doda) the plan is to beef up the village-defence committees network. The police is acquiring 10,000 self-loading rifles and 1,500 wireless sets for these committees.
That Bin Laden is lethal as a foe has never been in doubt. It is just over a year since two massive blasts demolished the American embassies in Dar-es-Salaam and Nairobi. The bombs killed more than 200 people, injured 5,000 and catapulted Bin Laden into the front rank of global criminals. The retaliatory US missile strikes on his suspected hideouts established him as a hero of sorts among millions of Muslims. Now Bin Laden's dark eyes stare out of posters displayed proudly in thousands of Pakistani and Afghan shops and tea kiosks.

Son of a Saudi construction millionaire, Bin Laden, 45, became a key player in the jehad against the Soviet-occupation of Afghanistan in the '80s. The former civil engineer-turned militant not only organised the flow of funds, munitions and men to the mujahideen groups and built a number of training camps and depots, but was also in the thick of action.

In the early '90s he was in Sudan fomenting violence. By 1994 he was stripped of his Saudi citizenship for dissident political activities against the royal family. He came to Afghanistan in May 1996 with about 100 followers and is believed to have funded the campaign that led the Taliban successfully into Kabul. Bin Laden's relationship with the Taliban -- a key strength -- remains good. Many of the militia's senior commanders are old comrades. He saved their lives, they saved his. On Fridays -- after prayers -- he goes fishing with Mullah Omar, the reclusive, one-eyed cleric who is the spiritual leader of the Taliban and a good friend. Bin Laden is also a devout Muslim and is said to be prepared to make extreme sacrifices to achieve his aims.

Today, apart from money -- the cia estimates his funds total almost $350 million (Rs 1,505 crore) -- Bin Laden has a network of contacts in key Islamic fundamentalist groups across the globe. Says a senior Indian intelligence officer: "He continues to stay in constant touch with important Islamic militant organisations like the Islamic Jehad in Palestine and the National Islamic Front in Sudan." In the subcontinent he is suspected to have strong links with two militant groups -- the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and the Lashkar-e-Toiba -- that have been at the centre of militant activity in Kashmir. Many of these militants are believed to be trained in Khost in Afghanistan in camps that are run by Bin Laden in collaboration with the Taliban.

The years of jehad have prepared him well for his present life. Bin Laden's domestic arrangements are modest. Farmihadda is a dilapidated collection of outhouses, barns, sheds and residential blocks with debris-filled canals on two sides. The living quarters are sparsely furnished. Bin Laden shuns even rugs and carpets, preferring to squat on the floor or on a small stool. His daily life reflects the rigours of his surroundings. He gets up at dawn to pray and then studies the Koran or other Islamic texts until a light breakfast of dates, yoghurt, flat Afghan bread and black tea. Until recently, he followed a tough physical-training regime, with a daily ride and exercises, but now a bad back -- possibly a result of shrapnel wound sustained while fighting the Russians -- has made anything strenuous impossible. He now uses a cane to walk.

Married with three wives and 13 children who, like him, divide their time between Farmihadda and his home in a disused barrack at the airport near the southern desert city of Kandahar -- the headquarters of the Taliban -- security concerns seem to dominate his life. He travels constantly and rarely spends two nights at the same place. Roads in Afghanistan are appalling and a 200-mile journey can take days. Bin Laden frequently drives for a while in one convoy and then walks or rides for a distance before switching to a second set of vehicles. His satellite phones are often carried in a third convoy. Instead of using them personally -- he believes that the Americans tracked signals from his phone to pinpoint his location for their missiles last year -- Bin Laden usually dictates his message to an aide who relays it over telephone from a separate location.

There have been two reviews of his security in the last 10 months -- both prompted by fears of betrayal. Soon after the US attack, he sacked almost two-thirds of his 200-strong bodyguards. Many of those who survived the first purge were Afghans, former comrades from his days with the mujahideen. But recently most of them were fired too and Bin Laden now relies on a select group of mainly Arab fighters to protect him. And his eldest son, Mohammed, who is believed to be around 16.

Bin Laden's organisation is now known as the "International Islamic Front for Jehad against Jews and Crusaders" and is effectively an umbrella group for all the terrorists currently holed up in Afghanistan. Experts believe that in the absence of the means to genuinely control a vast web of inter-linked terrorist cells, Bin Laden's strategy may be to create the leadership and motivation that might galvanise individual, independent units into action. If they then claim to be part of Bin Laden's organisation it's good for him. More publicity means more recruits. The major input that Bin Laden may make to Kashmir militancy is through funding fundamentalist groups operating in Pakistan, which in turn patronise militant outfits in the Valley.

The role of Pakistan in all this is unclear. There is a strong body of Bin Laden supporters among the army and the intelligence services and also, obviously, among the increasingly powerful clergy. However, there are also many moderate politicians who realise that Pakistan cannot jeopardise its relationship with the US, and the continuing drip-feed of IMF and World Bank loans, by overtly obstructing their efforts to capture the man. Caught in the middle, as ever, is Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif who is trying to tread a careful path among domestic opinion, political lobbies and the demands of the West.

In Kashmir, Bin Laden's jehad call has received a mixed response. Wary of offending the US, the All-Party Hurriyat Conference is downplaying any links its supporters have with Bin Laden. "What can Laden do for us when he himself is in hiding?" asks Hurriyat chairman Syed Ali Shah Geelani. Adds senior leader Professor Abdul Ghani: "Kashmiris don't need Ladens. We can sustain the struggle on our own. It is a bogey raised by India to win the US support on Kashmir." There may be some element of truth in that. Also a certain amount of hype by the ruling BJP to keep security at the forefront since the Kargil war has been a major factor in the parliamentary elections. But there is no doubting the threat Bin Laden poses. Especially in Kashmir where there is growing disenchantment with the Farooq Abdullah Government. Says state police chief Gurbachan Jagat: "Kashmir is now the theatre to whip up the Pan-Islamic fervour that Laden is funding."

Bin Laden's jehad may revive the ideological basis of Kashmiri militancy that had been on the wane. The Indian government is beefing up security measures, including bringing the army back into the counter-offensive grid. Security experts expect Pakistan to soon make Kashmir a flashpoint again, especially with reports that over 2,000 well-trained militants have sneaked into the Valley in the past three months. India just cannot afford to ignore the threat from the world's most infamous terrorist holed up in Farmihadda, Jalalabad.



In this, Bin Laden's plan for the establishment of a Mughalstan is indirectly in support of the Dalits, Assamese, Dravidians, Mizos and other suppressed nationalities of South Asia. For, the establishment of a Mughalstan necessarily implies the dismemberment of the Indian Union - the Brahminist Empire, which in turn implies the automatic establishment of Dalitstan, Dravidistan, Mizoland, Nagaland and Rajputstan.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 05:21 am
MM,

Let's say if the Muslims worship Allah's words(the laws in the Qur'an), the non Muslim Americans worship the founding father's words(the laws in the US Constitution--The Federalist Papers)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 05:44 am
Behold! We pointed the site, to Abraham, of the (Sacred) House, (saying): "Associate not anything (in worship) with Me; and sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or stand up, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer) --22:26

The kaba is located in the holiest of cities, Makkah, in present day Saudi Arabia. It is the place where Hajar took her son, Ismail (pbuh), and the place where Prophet Abraham(pbuh) and his son Prophet Ismail(pbuh) built the first house of worship. This sacred house, the kaba, has an important meaning for those who understand wisdom.

First, we must understand that the house itself is only a building. It is only stone, and it must be kept like any other house. Even before the Prophet Muhammad began preaching Islam to the Makkans, they had a tribe that was responsible for the house. They were the custodians of the sacred house. This noble tribe, the Quraish, was responsible for the upkeep of the house, but they abused that honored privilege. They exploited the house for capital gain. They became wealthy and powerful by housing 360 idols within the walls of the kaba.

Even before they heard the call of Islam, they knew that Abraham(pbuh), who worshipped the one God, built this house, but they closed their hearts to this memory. The allure of this material world (dunya) has the ability to blind us. Thus, the Quraish were blinded to the unity of God by the material gain of the house. They lost the meaning behind the house. They remembered the physical structure, but they forgot the symbolic meaning.

That symbolic meaning contained in that small, cube-shaped house is a symbol of Unity. It is a single house built for the worship of a single God. A single house was built for a single Ummah (nation or community). When we make the Hajj or pilgrimage to this sacred house, we circumambulate it. We all circle it in the same direction praying to the same Creator. We become unified in our cause, in our direction, in our prayers, and in our way of life. The stone itself is insignificant. There is no magic power in the stone. We must comprehend the symbol of Unity that the stone represents.

Arabia, at the time of our Prophet’s life, prior to his receiving revelations, was a beautiful example. It was a beautiful example of disunity. The tribes fought against each other. Some tribes would band together with other tribes only to fight against some other tribe. They were constantly in competition for material superiority. There are now 56 Muslim countries in the world, not including the places where Muslims are the minority. We have seen wars where Muslims fought against Muslims, brother against brother. Why?

Just like the pagan tribes of Arabia did over 1400 years ago, our Muslims brothers have forgotten the house. They have abandoned it. They didn’t abandon it physically. They abandoned the symbol. They closed the door on Allah’s house and locked it. We, as a collective community, have ignored the symbol and message that Allah has given us in the house. Allah tells us that the world is a Masjid. Allah has also instructed us to worship the Lord of this house. What kind of house is it? It is a house of prayer? What do we call that type of house? We call it a Masjid. Our brothers and sisters have chosen to worship this world instead of worshipping the Lord of this world or of this house.

Does this mean that all of us are going to hell? No, Allah will still judge us individually. Collectively, however, we are already IN hell. Think about the anguish that we would cause the Messenger of Allah if he could see us today. Think about how sick he would be to see brothers and sisters slaughtered in Kosova while we sit by idly. Think about how he would be moved to tears to see our brothers and sisters in Africa fighting in civil war after civil war. Think how ashamed he would be to see his own tribe in Arabia misusing the sacred house. Think how saddened he would be to see 56 Muslim countries and no Islamic Khilafa.

Now think about why we are in the chaotic state we are in today. Think about how Muslims leaders go to western powers for help. Muslim leaders steal small insignificant pieces of earth from each other and from their people. Worst of all are the Muslim individuals who do not rise up against this tyranny.

Why is it so easy for millions of Muslims from all over the world to go on Hajj together, but it is so hard for them to stay united when they go home? Allah has designed a practical solution to the problems listed above. The solution is unification through the kaba. Once we understand the symbol, we will understand our unity. The message of the Qur’an is one of Unity: unity of God, unity of religion, unity of nations, and unity of humanity. In order to put this message into practice, we must be unified.

Remember We made the House a place of assembly for people and a place of safety; and take ye the Station of Abraham as a place of prayer; and We covenanted with Abraham and Ismail, that they should sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer). --2:125

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 05:56 am
Did you know the Kaa'bah was reconstructed as recently as close to four years ago?

Did you know that the Kaa'bah has been subjected to danger by natural disasters like flooding, as well as human attacks?

If you didn’t keep reading. You’ll find some rarely heard of information discussed below and discover facts about the Kaa'bah many are unaware of.

KAA'BAH: THE HOUSE OF ALLAH.


Kaa'bah: It's Size and History!
The small, cubed building known as the Kaa'bah may not rival skyscrapers in height or mansions in width, but its impact on history and human beings is unmatched. The Kaa'bah is the building towards which Muslims face five times a day, everyday, in prayer. This has been the case since the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) over 1400 years ago.

The Size of the Kaba:

The current height of the Kaa'bah is 39 feet, 6 inches and total
size comes to 627 square feet.

The inside room of the Kaa'bah is 13X9 meters.

The Kaa'bah’s walls are one meter wide. The floor inside is 2.2 meters higher than the place where people perform Tawaaf.

The ceiling and roof are two levels made out of wood. They were reconstructed with teak which is capped with stainless steel.

The walls are all made of stone. The stones inside are unpolished, while the ones outside are polished.


This small building has been constructed and reconstructed by Prophets Adam, Ibrahim, Ismail and Muhammad (peace be upon them all). No other building has had this honor. Yet, not very much is known about the details of this small but significant building.


The other names of the Kaa'bah Literally, Kaa'bah in Arabic means a high place with respect and prestige. The word Kaa'bah may also be derivative of a word meaning a cube. Some of these other names include:

Bait ul Ateeq-which means, according to one meaning, the earliest and ancient. According to the second meaning, it means independent and liberating. Both meanings could be taken

Bayt ul Haram-the honorable house

The Kaba has been reconstructed up to 12 times Scholars and historians say that the Kaba has been reconstructed between five to 12 times. The very first construction of the Kaba was done by Prophet Adam. Allah says in the Qur'ân that this was the first house that was built for humanity to worship Allah. After this, Prophet Ibrahim and Ismail rebuilt the Kaba. The measurements of the Kaa'bah's Ibrahimic foundation are as follows:

-the eastern wall was 48 feet and 6 inches

-the Hateem side wall was 33 feet

-the side between the black stone and the Yemeni corner was 30 feet

-the Western side was 46.5 feet



Following this, there were several constructions before the Prophet Muhammad’s time. Reconstruction of Kaa'bah by Quraish Prophet Muhammad participated in one of its reconstructions before he became a Prophet. After a flash flood, the Kaba was damaged and its walls cracked. It needed rebuilding. This responsibility was divided among the Quraish’s four tribes. Prophet Muhammad helped with this reconstruction. Once the walls were erected, it was time to place the Black Stone, (theHajar ul Aswad) on the eastern wall of the Kaba. Arguments erupted about who would have the honor of putting the Black Stone in its place. A fight was about to break out over the issue, when Abu Umayyah, Makkah’s oldest man, proposed that the first man to enter the gate of the mosque the following morning would decide the matter. That man was the Prophet. The Makkans were ecstatic. "This is the trustworthy one (Al-Ameen)," they shouted in a chorus. "This is Muhammad". He came to them and they asked him to decide on the matter. He agreed. Prophet Muhammad proposed a solution that all agreed to-putting the Black Stone on a cloak, the elders of each of the clans held on to one edge of the cloak and carried the stone to its place. The Prophet then picked up the stone and placed it on the wall of the Kaa'bah. Since the tribe of Quraish did not have sufficient funds, this reconstruction did not include the entire foundation of the Kaba as built by Prophet Ibrahim. This is the first time the Kaba acquired the cubical shape it has now unlike the rectangle shape which it had earlier.

The portion of the Kaa'bah left out is called Hateem now. Construction After the Prophet’s Time-Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr The Syrian army destroyed the Kaa'bah in Muharram 64 (Hijri date) and before the next Hajj Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr, may Allah be pleased with him, reconstructed the Kaa'bah from the ground up.

Ibn az-Zubayr wanted to make the Kaba how the Prophet Muhammad wanted it, on the foundation of the Prophet Ibrahim. Ibn az-Zubayr said, "I heard Aa'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) say, 'The Prophet said: "If your people had not quite recently abandoned the Ignorance (Unbelief), and if I had sufficient provisions to rebuild it [the Kaba], I would have added five cubits to it from the Hijr. Also, I would make two doors; one for people to enter therein and the other to exit." (Bukhaaree).

Ibn az-Zubayr said, "Today, I can afford to do it and I do not fear the people. Ibn az-Zubayr built the Kaba on Prophet Ibrahim’s foundation. He put the roof on three pillars with the wood of Aoud (a perfumed wood with aroma which is traditionally burned to get a good smell out of it in Arabia).In his construction he put two doors, one facing the east the other facing the west, as the Prophet wanted but did not do in his lifetime. He rebuilt the Kaa'bah on the Prophet Ibrahim’s foundation, which meant that the Hateem area was included. The Hateem is the area adjacent to the Kaa'bah enclosed by a low semi-circular wall.

Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr also made the following additions and modifications:

-put a small window close to the roof of the Kaba to allow for light.

-moved the door of the Kaba to ground level and added a second door to the Kaa'bah.

-added nine cubits to the height of the Kaa'bah, making it twenty cubits high.

-its walls were two cubits wide.

-reduced the pillars inside the House to three instead of six as were earlier built by Quraish.

For reconstruction, ibn az-Zubayr put up four pillars around Kaba and hung cloth over them until the building was completed. People began to do Tawaf around these pillars at all times, so Tawaf of the Kaa'bah was never abandoned,even during reconstruction.

During Abdul Malik bin Marwan’s time
In 74 Hijri (or 693 according to the Gregorian calendar), Al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf al-Thaqafi, the known tyrant of that time, with the approval of Umayyad KHALIFAH Abdul Malik bin Marwan, demolished what Ibn az-Zubayr had added to it from the older foundation of Prophet Ibrahim, restore its old structure as the Quraish had it. Some of the changes he made were the following:

-he rebuilt it in the smaller shape which is found today

-took out the Hateem

-walled up the western door (whose signs are still visible today) and left the rest as it was pulled down the wall in the Hateem area.

-removed the wooden ladder Ibn az-Zubayr had put inside the Kaba.

-reduced the door's height by five cubits

When Abdul Malik bin Marwan came for Umra and heard the Hadith that it was wish of Prophet for the Kaa'bah to be constructed the way Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr had built it, he regretted his actions.

Imam Malik's advice to the KHALIFAH Harun al Rasheed Abbasi Khalifa Harun al Rasheed wanted to rebuild the Kaa'bah the way the Prophet Muhammad wanted and the way Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr built it. But when he consulted Imam Malik, the Imam asked the KHALIFAH to change his mind because constant demolition and rebuilding is not respectful and would become a toy in the hands of kings. Each one would want to demolish and rebuild the Kaa'bah.Based on this advice, Harun al Rasheed did not reconstruct the Kaba. The structure remained in the same construction for 966 years, with minor repairs here and there.

Reconstruction during Sultan Murad Khan’s time
In the year 1039 Hijri, because of heavy rain, flood and hail, two of the Kaabah’s walls fell down. The flood during which this occurred took place on the 19th of Shaban 1039 Hijri which continued constantly, so the water in the Kaba became almost close to half of its walls, about 10 feet from the ground level. On Thursday the 20th of Shaban 1039 Hijri, the eastern and western walls fell down. When flood receded on Friday the 21st of Shaban, the cleanup started. Again, a curtain, the way Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr established on 4 pillars, was put up, and the reconstruction started on the 26th of Ramadan. The rest of the walls except for the one near the Black Stone, were demolished. By the 2nd of Zul-Hijjah 1040 the construction was taking place under the guidance of Sultan Murad Khan, the Ottoman Khalifa. From the point of the Black stone and below, the current construction is the same as that done by Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr. The construction which was done under the auspices of Murad Khan was exactly the one done at the time of Abdul Malik ibn Marwan which is the way the Quraysh had built it before Prophethood.On Rajab 28-1377, One historian counted the total stones of the Kaba and they were 1,614. These stones are of different shapes. But the stones which are inside the outer wall which is visible are not counted in there.

Reconstruction of the Kaba In 1996
A major reconstruction of the Kaba took place between May 1996 and October 1996. This was after a period of about 400 years (since Sultan Murad Khan’s time). During this reconstruction the only original thing left from the Kaa'bah are the stones. All other material has been replaced including the ceiling and the roof and its wood.

What is inside the Kaba?

-there are two pillars inside (others report 3 pillars)

-there is a table on the side to put items like perfume

-there are two lantern-type lamps hanging from the ceiling

-the space can accommodate about 50 people

-there are no electric lights inside

-the walls and floors are of marble

-there are no windows inside

-there is only one door

-the upper inside walls of the Kaba were covered with some kind of curtain with the Kalimah written on it

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 06:06 am
Here are some quotations from Non-Muslim writers over the past few centuries -

T.W. Rhys Davids, Nineteenth century Professor:
There is every reason to believe that the Pitakas [sacred books containing the legends of Buddha] now extant in Ceylon are substantially identical with the books of the southern canon, as settled at the Council of Patna about the year 250 B.C. As no work would have been received into the Canon which were not then believer to be very old, the Pitakas may be approximately placed in the forth century B.C. and parts of them possibly reach back very nearly, if not quite to the time of Gautama (Buddha) himself.


Samuel Beal, Nineteenth century:
We know that the Fo-pen-hing was translated into Chinese from Sanskrit (the ancient language of Hindstan) so early as the eleventh year of the reign of Wing-ping (Ming-ti) of the Hans Dynasty, ie., 69 or 70 A.D. We may, therefore, safely suppose that the original work was in circulation in India for sometime previous to this date. These points of agreement with the Gospel narrative
arouse curiosity and require explanation. If we could prove that they [the legends of Buddha] were unknown in the East for some centuries after Christ, the explanation would be very easy. But all the evidence we have goes to prove the contrary....


Ernest de Bunsen, Nineteenth century:
With the remarkable exception of the death of Jesus on the cross and of the doctrine of atonement by vicarious suffering, which is absolutely excluded by Buddhism, the most ancient of the Buddhisitic records known to us contain statements about the life and doctrines of Gautama Buddha which correspond in a remarkable manner and impossibly by mere chance with the traditions recorded in the Gospels about the life and doctrines of Jesus Christ...


Max Muller, Nineteenth century Professor:
Between the language of Buddha and his disciples, and the language between Christ and his apostles, there are strange coincidences. When some of the Buddhist legends and parables sound as if taken from the New Testament, though we know that many of them existed before the beginning of the Christian era.


Kenneth Scott Latourette, Twentieth century:
Approximately five centuries older than Christianity, by the time of the birth of Christ, Buddhism had already spread through out much of India and Ceylon and had penetrated into Central Asia and China.


M. LAbbe Huc, Nineteenth century:
The miraculous birth of Buddha, his life and instructions, contain a great number of the moral and dogmatic truths professes in Christianity.


T.W. Doane, Nineteenth century:
...nothing now remains for the honest man to do but acknowledge the truth, which is that the history of Jesus of Nazareth, as related in the books of the New Testament maybe a copy of that of Buddha, with a mixture of mythology borrowed from other nations.


Both Buddha and Jesus were baptized in the presence of the spirit of GOD.


Both went to their temples at the age of twelve, where they are said to have astonished all with their wisdom.


Both supposedly fasted in solitude for a long time: Buddha for 47 days and Jesus for 40. At the conclusion of their fasts they both wandered to a fig tree.


Both were about the same age when the began their public ministry: When he [Buddha] went again to the garden he saw a monk who was calm, tranquil, self-possessed, serene, and dignified. The prince determined to become such a monk, was led to make the great denunciation. At the time he was 29 years of age....Jesus when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age... Luke 3:23


Both were tempted by the devil at the beginning of their ministry: To Buddha, he said: Go not forth to adopt a religious life but return to your kingdom, and in seven days you shall become emperor of the world, riding over the four continents. To Jesus he said: All these [kingdoms of the world] I will give
you, if you fall down and worship me. Matt 4:9 Buddha answered the devil: Get away from me Jesus responded ...begone Satan! Matt 4:10.


Both experienced the supernatural after the devil left: For Buddha: The skies rained flowers, and delicious odors prevailed in the air. For Jesus ..angels came and ministered to him. Matt 4:11.


The multitudes required a sign from both in order that they might believe.


Both strove to establish a kingdom of heaven on earth.
Buddha represented himself as a mere link in a long chain of enlightened teachers. Jesus said: Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. Matt 5:17.


According to the Somadeva (a Buddhist holy book), a Buddhist ascetic's eye once offended him, so he plucked it our and cast it away. Jesus said 'If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away;...' Matt 5:29.


Buddha taught that the motive of all our actions should be pity of love of our neighbor. Jesus taught: ...love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.... Matt 5:4.


Buddha said: Hide your good deeds and confess before the world the sins you have committed. Jesus said: Beware of practicing your piety before men to be seen by them;...Matt 6:1 and Therefore confess your sins one to another and pray one for another, that you may be healed... James 5:16.


Both are said to have known the thoughts of others: By directing his mind to the thoughts of others, [Buddha] can know the thoughts of all beings. But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said: Why do you think evil in our hearts? Matt 9:4.


Both were itinerant preachers with a close group of trustees within a larger group of disciples.


Both demanded that their disciples renounce all worldly possessions.


Both sent their disciples on missionary assignments: The number of disciples rapidly increased and Gautama sent forth his monks on missionary tours hither and thither, bidding them wander everywhere, preaching the doctrine, and teaching men to order their lives with self -restraint, simplicity, and charity. And Jesus called to him twelve apostle and began to send them out two by two....So they went out and preached that men should repent. Mark 6:7,


Both had a disciple who walked on water: To convert skeptical villagers, Buddha showed them his disciple walking across a river without sinking. He said: Come So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus but when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out: Lord save me! Matt 14:29-30. 21.

One day Ananda, the disciple of Buddha, after a long walk in the country, meets with Matangi, a woman of the low caste of the Kandalas, near a well, and asks her for some water. She tells him what she is, and that she must not come near him. But he replies: My sister, I ask not for your caste of your family, I ask only for a draught of water. She afterwards became a disciple of Buddha. There came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus said to her give me a drink. For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food. The Samaritan woman said to him: How is it that you a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria? For Jews
have no dealings with Samaritans. John 4:7-9


Both men received similar receptions: The people swept a pathway, the gods strewed flowers on the pathway and branches of the coral trees, the men bore branches of all manner of trees and the Bodhisattva Sumedha spread his garments in the mire, and men and gods shouted All hail. And they brought the colt to Jesus mad threw their garments on it, and he sat on it. And many spread
their garments on the road and others spread leafy branches which they has cut from the fields. Mark 11:7 -8.


When Buddha died: The coverings of [his] body unrolled themselves and the lid of his coffin was opened by supernatural powers. When Jesus dies: And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the LORD descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat upon it. Matt 28:2


In the year 217 B.C. Buddhist missionaries were imprisoned for preaching; but and angel, genie or spirit came and opened the prison door, and liberated them. They arrested the apostles and put them in the common prison. But at night an angel of the LORD opened the prison doors and brought them out. Acts 5:18-19.

Both men's disciples are said to have been miracle workers.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 06:07 am
MALCOLM X FROM DARKNESS TO LIGHT


Born in poverty and obscurity on May 19, 1925, in Omaha, Nebraska, Malcolm Little, the fourth child of Earl and Louise Little, rose to become one of the most dynamic Black Nationalist leaders of his time. Having felt the sting of racism and been denied opportunity from his earliest years, from most, if not all, of the existing institutions of the day. Without the possibility, the hope, of upward mobility. With less than a ninth grade education, a life of crime was practically inevitable for young Malcolm.

After his arrest and subsequent incarceration, Malcolm began reading a variety of literature made available to the prison by a rich philanthropist. Religion, race and world history were his favorite subjects. He also had time enough to review his old lifestyle. He began receiving letters from various family members. Two of his brothers, Philbert and Reginald, began writing him about a religious leader named Elijah Muhammad. At first he thought it was a scam to get his prison sentence cut short. But Malcolm began listening to his younger brother Reginald, who explained about his new faith. And Malcolm became fascinated with the doctrine taught by Elijah Muhammad. Soon after he embraced the "Lost found Nation of Islam", based in Chicago and headed by Elijah Muhammad. Malcolm received his "X" symbolizing his unknown African tribal name. It was also a candidate's first step into the "Nation".

From the time of his release from prison, in 1952, until he left the "Black Muslims", (as the followers of Elijah Muhammad were called in those days), Malcolm X became not only the organization's most articulate spokesman, but one of its architects and most ardent supporters. Malcolm's only concern was to change the condition of his people, long victimized by social injustice and institutionalized racism. His approach to this state of affairs was to focus attention on them, by reminding the powers of his day of their responsibility for those conditions. He stressed the importance of not perpetuating such conditions because of self-hate, ignorance, and substance abuse.

After falling out with Elijah Muhammad in 1963 and leaving the Nation of Islam, Malcolm undertook the journey that every person of the Islamic Faith must fulfill as a religious obligation. The Hajj or pilgrimage to the city of Mecca, Saudi Arabia. These two events culminated in a complete turnaround in Malcolm's views on both his religion and his approach to the problems of racism and oppression of blacks in America.

While performing the pilgrimage rites at the first house of worship built for the worship of the one God, Malcolm saw something he had only heard about, or dreamed of before: the true equality of man, as believers of all colors, and all social levels, stood as one worship...the one God. Understanding the message of Islam as taught by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Malcolm now saw that the problems facing man were usually the direct result of the rejection of those beliefs and practices commanded by God from the earliest times. He also understood that all men could live together as one when they accepted the belief that the best of men are those who sincerely worship God and maintain the duties God has placed on men regarding their interaction and their relationship with one another.

In his own words, as told to Alex Haley, Malcolm wrote "Never have I witnessed such sincere hospitality and such overwhelming spirit of true brotherhood as is practiced by people of all colors and races here in this Ancient Holy Land, the home of Abraham and all the other Prophets of Holy scriptures. For the past week I have been truly speechless and spellbound by the graciousness I see displayed all around me by people of all colors. I have been blessed to visit the Holy City of Mecca .... " There were tens of thousands of pilgrims, from all over the world. They were of all colors, from blue eyed blonds to black skinned Africans. But we were all practicing in the same ritual, displaying a spirit of unity and brotherhood that my experiences in America had led me to believe never could exist between the white and the non-white.

"America needs to understand Islam, because this is the one religion that erases from it's society the race problem. Throughout my travels in the Muslim world, I have met, talked to, even eaten with people who in America would have been considered "white", but the "white" attitude had been removed from their minds by the religion of Islam. I have never before seen such sincere and true brotherhood, practiced by all colors together, irrespective of their color".

"You may be shocked by these words coming from me. But on this pilgrimage, what I have seen and experienced has forced me to re- arrange much of the thought patterns previously held, and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions. Despite my firm convictions, I have always been a man who tries to face facts, and to accept the reality of life as new experience and new knowledge unfolds. I have always kept an open mind, a flexibility that must go hand in hand with every form of the intelligent search for truth.

"I could see from this, that perhaps if white Americans could accept the oneness of God, then perhaps, too, they could accept in reality the oneness of man—and cease to measure, and hinder, and harm others in terms of their ``differences" in color."

What better testament could there be to the unifying power of Islam. The faith of over one billion people, comprising one fifth of the human race. This was the only faith Malcolm believed, one that could rid the world of the evils of racism. A faith that rejects the ideas of inherent racial or nationalistic superiority. A faith that acknowledges the nobility of all men as their birthright. This was the only religion whose message was powerful, yet subtle, enough to capture the heart of this man possessed of an indomitable spirit, of resolute convictions and of faith in the Almighty Creator of the Universe. The change of his name from Malcolm X to El-Hajj Mâlik El-Shabazz symbolized his final stop on the journey from the darkness of erroneous beliefs to the truth and the light of Islam. The entire Muslim community would like to invite every one to the light of faith, reason and humanity. To the light of Islam.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 06:09 am
THIS IS THE TRUTH


Dear Brother in Humanity,
There is no compulsion for a person to accept the Truth, but it is certainly a shame upon the Human Intellect when a man is not even interested in finding out what is the Truth!

There are so many Sects, Cults, Religions, Philosophies, and Movements all around the world and all of which claim to be on right way or the only true path to God. How can one determine which one is correct, or infact all are correct? So one must decided that the method by which the answer can be found is to clear away the Superficial differences in the teachings of the various claimants to the Ultimate Truth, and identify the central Object of Worship to which they call, directly, or indirectly, false religions all have in common one basis concept with regards to God, They either claim that all
men are gods or specific men were God or the nature is God or that God is a figment of man's imagination, But my Brother Man is a unique creature. God establishes man as his representative or deputy to govern over all the creature in the world. He is endowed with the faculty of reason, which differentiates him from all other ANIMALS.

Islam teaches that our CREATOR has given human beings the faculty of reason. Therefore, it is incumbent upon them to reason things out objectively and systematically for themselves to ponder, to question and to reflect.

Nobody should press you to make a hasty decision to accept any of the teachings of Islam, for Islam teaches that human beings should be given the freedom to choose, even when a person is faced with the Truth, there is no compulsion upon him to embrace it.

But before you begin to form an opinion about Islam, ask yourself whether your existing knowledge about it is thorough enough. Ask yourself whether that knowledge has been obtained through third party sources who themselves have probably been exposed to only random glimpses of Islamic writings and have yet to reason out on Islam objectively and systematically themselves.

Is it fair enough that one should form an opinion about the taste of a particular dish just by a mere hearsay from others who may themselves have not necessarily tasted the dish yet?

Similarly you should find out for yourself about Islam from reliable sources and not only taste it, but rather digest it very well before you form an opinion of it. That would be an intellectual approach to the Truth.

In making your next move to the Truth, Islam continually reassures you that your rights to freedom of choice and freedom to use that God-given faculty of thought and reason will be respected, for everyone has that individual will. No one else can take away that will and force you to submit to the will of our CREATOR, you have to find out and make that decision yourself.

May your intellectual journey towards the Truth be a pleasant one.

May god's peace, blessing and Mercy be on you. Aameen.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

faaisa

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 09:18 am
Mad_mac,
Salaams,

I will reply may be tommorow. I find the page quite strange. I cannot read evrything.
About the apology same goes to you. There was no problem.

Anynmous,
While back I did not even know about Somalinet. I was extremely busy with my Degree. I wrote on Somlainet couple of times on the general page. '' muslim woamn harrased'' something like that I remeber only Mad_mac. I talked with him about xadiis etc.
I think here I say something under which surah do you like etc.
Hope that answers your queastion and I hope you will miss me too. Hwo is that preson you are missing and why I sound like her.
Salaamsxxx

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 10:15 am
MM, if you went to Mecca they wouldn't let you in
unless you are a muslim... But I would really like to see you do that, hehehe! Of course they would take offence... I wonder why non of the muslims here have the guts to answer that simple question?? Oh, well, I guess we answered it for them??
Now, back to the idol worship...I try to read what anonymous have to say, but I have to admit that his/hers posts are so long that I always fall asleep before I reach the end...heheh!
It is interesting to know the story behind the black stone and the Kaaba, but I cant see the
interest in knowing the measurements of the Kaaba?
But what is interesting is that the Kaaba has been the home for 365 idols,
it housed one idol for each day of the year... They threw out the idols and now they worship the empty house instead... eh, no, to be correct, the house of Allah... ;-))
I can't see that worship of the stone in Kaaba is any different from the worship of a stone
of Ganesh in Hindu Temple? Christians worship cross, hindus have their idols and muslims worship
the black stone as a SYMBOL of God... AND, when muslims pray, they always do it faced towards
the Kaaba in Mecca....Why is that??
Then Taliban...
To me Mohammed Omar is just a bandit, screaming for attention from the western world,
hiding an even bigger bandit, Bin Laden, from the Americans, which makes him believe that he is in charge here. No more, no less... Get a grip on Big Brother and you paralyze the rest of the western world... Yeah, right....
News from Pakistan;
KARACHI, March 22: A US ship carrying 30,000 tons of wheat for the Afghans arrived at Port Qasim here on Thursday. The shipment was handed over to the representative of the World Food Programme in Kabul , Girard Van Dijik, by US Ambassador William B. Milam at a ceremony. The ambassador said: "The US will continue to support the people of Afghanistan in their dire need for food and other humanitarian assistance. The US was doing its best and will continue to do its best to feed and take care of Afghan citizens in Afghanistan and help the government of Pakistan take care of additional refugees".
So please don't say it is the Americans fault that people in Afghanistan are starving now,
they are actually doing the oposite, feeding them.... And I strongly support the Americans! :O

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 10:34 am
fg, I asked this question in another board here, but I haven't received a reply yet, so maybe you could give me an answer? Is it obligated for muslim women to wear hijab? If so, what does the Quran say and where is it written? I have been asking so many muslims that question, and some say yes and others no. What is correct?
I know it is not related to the topic here, but I really want to know. :)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 11:01 am
[at-Taubah 9:28] O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.

[al-Baqarah 2:43] Establish worship, pay the poor-due, and bow your heads with those who bow (in worship).

[al-Baqarah 2:125] And when We made the House (at Makka) a resort for mankind and sanctuary, (saying): Take as your place of worship the place where Abraham stood (to pray). And We imposed a duty upon Abraham and Ishmael, (saying): Purify My house for those who go around and those who meditate therein and those who bow down and prostrate themselves (in worship).

[al-Baqarah 2:149] And whencesoever thou comest forth (for prayer, O Muhammad) turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship. Lo! it is the Truth from thy Lord. Allah is not unaware of what ye do.

[al-Baqarah 2:238] Be guardians of your prayers, and of the midmost prayer, and stand up with devotion to Allah.

[al-Baqarah 2:125] And when We made the House (at Makka) a resort for mankind and sanctuary, (saying): Take as your place of worship the place where Abraham stood (to pray). And We imposed a duty upon Abraham and Ishmael, (saying): Purify My house for those who go around and those who meditate therein and those who bow down and prostrate themselves (in worship).

[al-Baqarah 2:126] And when Abraham prayed: My Lord! Make this a region of security and bestow upon its people fruits, such of them as believe in Allah and the Last Day, He answered: As for him who disbelieveth, I shall leave him in contentment for a while, then I shall compel him to the doom of Fire - a hapless journey's end!

[al-Baqarah 2:127] And when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House, (Abraham prayed): Our Lord! Accept from us (this duty). Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Hearer, the Knower.

[al-Baqarah 2:191] And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

When Allah's Apostle came to Mecca, he refused to enter the Ka'ba with idols in it. He ordered (idols to be taken out). So they were taken out. The people took out the pictures of Abraham and Ishmael holding Azlams in their hands. Allah's Apostle said, "May Allah curse these people. By Allah, both Abraham and Ishmael never did the game of chance with Azlams." Then he entered the Ka'ba and said Takbir at its corners but did not offer the prayer in it.


Volume 2, Book 26, Number 672:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:

When Allah's Apostle and his companions came to Mecca, the pagans circulated the news that a group of people were coming to them and they had been weakened by the Fever of Yathrib (Medina). So the Prophet ordered his companions to do Ramal in the first three rounds of Tawaf of the Ka'ba and to walk between the two corners (The Black Stone and Yemenite corner). The Prophet did not order them to do Ramal in all the rounds of Tawaf out of pity for them.


Volume 2, Book 26, Number 673:
Narrated Salim that his father said:

I saw Allah's Apostle arriving at Mecca; he kissed the Black Stone Corner first while doing Tawaf and did ramal in the first three rounds of the seven rounds (of Tawaf).


Volume 2, Book 26, Number 674:
Narrated Abdullah bin Umar :

The Prophet did Ramal in (first) three rounds (of Tawaf), and walked in the remaining four, in Hajj and Umra.


Volume 2, Book 26, Number 675:
Narrated Zaid bin Aslam from his father who said:

"Umar bin Al-Khattab addressed the Corner (Black Stone) saying, 'By Allah! I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit nor harm. Had I not seen the Prophet touching (and kissing) you, I would never have touched (and kissed) you.' Then he kissed it and said, 'There is no reason for us to do Ramal (in Tawaf) except that we wanted to show off before the pagans, and now Allah has destroyed them.' 'Umar added, '(Nevertheless), the Prophet did that and we do not want to leave it (i.e. Ramal).'


Volume 2, Book 26, Number 676:
Narrated Nafi':

Ibn 'Umar. said, "I have never missed the touching of these two stones of Ka'ba (the Black Stone and the Yemenite Corner) both in the presence and the absence of crowds, since I saw the Prophet touching them." I asked Nafi': "Did Ibn 'Umar use to walk between the two Corners?" Nafi' replied, "He used to walk in order that it might be easy for him to touch it (the Corner Stone)."


Volume 2, Book 26, Number 677:
Narrated Ibn Abbas.:

In his Last Hajj the Prophet performed Tawaf of the Ka'ba riding a camel and pointed a bent-headed stick towards the Corner (Black Stone).


Volume 2, Book 26, Number 678:
Narrated Salim bin 'Abdullah that his father said:

"I have not seen the Prophet touching except the two Yemenite Corners (i.e. the ones facing Yemen)."


Volume 2, Book 26, Number 679:
Narrated Zaid bin Aslam that his father said:

"I saw 'Umar bin Al-Khattab kissing the Black Stone and he then said, (to it) 'Had I not seen Allah's Apostle kissing you, (stone) I would not have kissed you.' "


Volume 2, Book 26, Number 680:
Narrated Az-Zubair bin 'Arabi:

A man asked Ibn 'Umar about the touching of the Black Stone. Ibn 'Umar said, "I saw Allah's Apostle touching and kissing it." The questioner said, "But if there were a throng (much rush) round the Ka'ba and the people overpowered me, (what would I do?)" He replied angrily, "Stay in Yemen (as that man was from Yemen). I saw Allah's Apostle touching and kissing it."


Volume 2, Book 26, Number 681:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:

The Prophet performed Tawaf of the Ka'ba while riding a camel, and whenever he came in front of the Corner, he pointed towards it (with something).


Volume 2, Book 26, Number 682:
Narrated Ibn Abbas

The Prophet performed Tawaf of the Ka'ba riding a camel, and every time he came in front of the Corner (having the Black Stone), he pointed towards it with something he had with him and said Takbir.


Volume 2, Book 26, Number 683:
Narrated 'Urwa:

'Aisha said, "The first thing the Prophet did on reaching Mecca, was the ablution and then he performed Tawaf of the Ka'ba and that was not 'Umra (alone), (but Hajj-al-Qiran). 'Urwa added: Later Abu Bakr and 'Umar did the same in their Hajj." And I performed the Hajj with my father Az-Zubair, and the first thing he did was Tawaf of the Ka'ba. Later I saw the Muhajirin (Emigrants) and the Ansar doing the same. My mother (Asma') told me that she, her sister ('Aisha), Az-Zubair and such and such persons assumed Ihram for 'Umra, and after they passed their hands over the Black Stone Corner (of the Ka'ba) they finished the Ihram. (i.e. After doing Tawaf of the Ka'ba and Sa'i between Safa-Marwa.


Volume 2, Book 26, Number 684:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar :

When Allah's Apostle performed Tawaf of the Ka'ba for Hajj or 'Umra, he used to do Ramal during the first three rounds, and in the last four rounds he used to walk; then after the Tawaf he used to offer two Rakat and then performed Tawaf between Safa and Marwa.


Volume 2, Book 26, Number 685:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

When the Prophet performed the Tawaf of the Ka'ba, he did Ramal during the first three rounds and in the last four rounds he used to walk and while doing Tawaf between Safa and Marwa, he used to run in the midst of the rain water passage.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 11:12 am
Destruction Of Hindu Temples By Muslims - Part I
Tejo Mahalaya, a hindu temple-palace which is now known as the Taj Mahal is just one example of Islamic barbarianism as shown by me in the previous week's article-- Taj Mahal - A Hindu Temple Palace. Hundreds and thousands of monuments and buildings all over the world have been converted to mosques and other Islamic buildings. India, as I had mentioned earlier, has suffered the most amount of destruction by these devilish fiends.

The evidence of destruction of thousands of Hindu temples can be primarily found from two different sources:


Literary Evidence from the work of renowned Islamic historians
Epigraphic Evidence from the inscriptions on numerous Mosques all over India.

In this article, I will deal with only the literary evidence. A separate article will be devoted to the epigraphic evidence.

This article is just one of the series of articles that I will be publishing regarding the plunder and conversion of Hindu temples to mosques. Hundereds of Muslim historians have glorified the deeds of their Muslim heroes all over India. I will just cite a fraction of the literary evidence available in these series of articles. This by no means is an exhaustive list! To learn more about this please read both the volumes of book, Hindu Temples: What Happened To Them?, authored by Sita Ram Goel and many others.

We have elaborate literary evidence from the Islamic sources which glorify the crimes committed by the muslims in India. Crimes such as desecration of the Hindu idols, looting of the temples, killing devotees and raping have been well documented by the Muslim historians themselves. They have done so because according to them these muslim rulers by doing such deeds were following the tenets of Islam and sunnah of the prophet Mohammed. This brings me back to my original point which I have made in my earlier articles: Islam not only justifies rape, murder, plunder and destruction, but in fact, it was originated to attract followers with such inclination. To know more about this read my previous article, Excessive Kindness Of Islam.

The literary evidence stated below is in chronological order with reference to the time at which a particular work was written.

Name Of The Book: Hindustan Islami Ahad mein (India under Islamic Rule)
Name Of The Historian: Maulana Abdul Hai.
About The Author: He is a highly respected scholar and taken as an authority on Islamic history. Because of his scholarship and his services to Islam, Maulana Abdul Hai was appointed as the Rector of the Darul Nadwa Ullum Nadwatal-Ulama. He continued in that post till his death in February 1923.


The following section is taken from the chapter Hindustan ki Masjidein (The mosques of India) of the above mentioned book. Here we can see a brief description of few important mosques in India and how each one of them was built upon plundered Hindu temples.


Qawwat al-Islam Mosque at Delhi: "According to my findings the first mosque of Delhi is Qubbat al-Islam or Quwwat al_Islam which, Qutubud-Din Aibak constructed in H. 587 after demolishing the hindu temple built by Prithvi Raj and leaving certain parts of the temple outside the mosque proper; and when he returned from Ghazni in H. 592 he started building, under orders from Shihabud -Din Ghori, a huge mosque of inimitable red stones, and certain parts of the temple were included in the mosque..."


The Mosque at Jaunpur: "This was built by Sultan Ibrahim Sharqi with chiselled stones. Originally it was a Hindu temple after demolishing which he constructed the mosque. It is known as the Atala Masjid.."


The Mosque at Qanauj: "It is well known that this mosque was built on the foundations of some Hindu temple that stood here. The mosque was built by Ibrahim Sharqi in H. 809 as is recorded in Gharbat Nigar"


Jami Masjid at Etwah: "This mosque stands on the bank of the Jamuna at Etawah. There was a Hindu temple at this place, on the site of which this mosque was constructed.."


Babri Masjid at Ayodhya: "This mosque was constructed by Babar at Ayodhya which Hindus call the birth place of Ramchandraji... Sita had a temple here in which she lived and cooked for her husband. On that very site Babar constructed this mosque in H.963 "


Mosque at Benaras: "Mosque of Benares was built by Alamgir Aurangzeb on the site of Bisheshwar Temple. That temple was very tall and held as holy among Hindus. On this very site and with those very stones he constructed a lofty mosque, and its ancient stones were rearranged after being embedded in the walls of the mosque. It is one of the renowned mosques of Hindustan."


Mosque at Mathura: "Alamgir Aurangzeb built a mosque at Mathura. This mosque was built on site of the Govind Dev Temple which was very strong and beautiful as well as exquisite.."


Name Of The Book: Futuhu'l-Buldan
Name Of The Historian: Ahmed bin Yahya bin Jabir
About The Author: This author is also known as al- Biladhuri. He lived at the court of Khalifa Al- Mutawakkal (AD 847-861) and died in AD 893. His history is one of the major Arab chronicles.
The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About:

Ibn Samurah (AD 653)
Siestan (Iran)
"On reaching Dawar, he surrounded the enemy in the mountain of Zur, where there was a famous Hindu temple." "...Their idol of Zur was of gold, and its eyes were two rubies. The zealous Musalmans cut off its hands and plucked out its eyes, and then remarked to the Marzaban how powerless was his idol..."


Qutaibah bin Muslim al-Bahili (AD 705-715)
Samarkand (Farghana)
"Other authorities say that Kutaibah granted peace for 700,000 dirhams and entertainment for the Moslems for three days. The terms of surrender included also the houses of the idols and the fire temples. The idols were thrown out, plundered of their ornaments and burned..."


Mohammed bin Qasim (AD 712-715)
Debal (Sindh)
"...The town was thus taken by assault, and the carnage endured for three days. The governor of the town, appointed by Dahir, fled and the priests of the temple were massacred. Muhammad marked a place for the Musalmans to dwell in, built a mosque, and left 4,000 Musalmans to garrison the place..."
"...'Ambissa son of Ishak Az Zabbi, the governor of Sindh, in the Khilafat of Mu'tasim billah knocked down the upper part of the minaret of the temple and converted it into a prison..."

Multan (Punjab)
"...He then crossed the Biyas, and went towards Multan...Muhammad destroyed the water-course; upon which the inhabitants, oppressed with thirst, surrendered at discretion. He massacred the men capable of bearing arms, but the children were taken captive, as well as ministers of the temple, to the number of 6,000. The Musalmans found there much gold in a chamber ten cubits long by eight broad..."


Hasham bin 'Amru al-Taghlabi
Khandahar (Maharashtra)
"He then went to Khandahar in boats and conquered it. He destroyed the Budd (idol) there, and built in its place a mosque."

Name Of The Book: Tarikh-i-Tabari
Name Of The Historian: Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Jarir at-Tabari
About The Author: This author is considered to be the foremost historian of Islam. The above mentioned book written by him is regarded as the mother of histories.
The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About:


Qutaibah bin Muslim al-Bahili (AD 705-715)
Beykund (Khurasan)
"The ultimate capture of Beykund (in AD 706) rewarded him with an incalculable booty; even more than had hitherto fallen into the hands of the Mohammedans by the conquest of the entire province of Khorassaun; and the unfortunate merchants of the town, having been absent on a trading excursion while their country was assailed by the enemy, and finding their habitations desolate on their return contributed further to enrich the invaders, by the ransom which they paid for the recovery of their wives and children. The oranments alone, of which these women had been plundered, being melted down, produce, in gold, 150,000 meskals; of a dram and a half each. Among the articles of the booty, is also described an image of gold, of 50,000 meskals, of which the eyes were two pearls, the exquisite beauty and magnitude of which excited the surprise and admiration of Kateibah. They were transmitted by him, with a fifth of the spoil to Hejauje, together with a request that he might be permitted to distribute, to the troops, the arms which had been found in the palace in great profusion."

Samarkand (Farghana)
"A breach was, however, at last effected in the walls of the city in AD 712 by the warlike machines of Kateibah; and some of the most daring of its defenders having fallen by the skill of his archers, the besieged demanded a cessation of arms to the following day, when they promised to capitulate. The request was acceded to the Kateibah; and a treaty was the next day accordingly concluded between him and the prince of Samarkand, by which the latter engaged for the annual payment of ten million of dhirems, and a supply of three thousand slaves; of whom it was particularly stipulated, that none should either be in a state of infancy, or ineffective from old age and debility. He further contracted that the ministers of his religion should be expelled from their temples and their idols destroyed and burnt; that Kateibah should be allowed to establish a mosque in the place of the principal temple...."
"...Kateibah accordingly set set fire to the whole collection with his own hands; it was soon consumed to ashes, and 50,000 meskals of gold and silver, collected from the nails which had been used in the workmanship of the images."


Yaqub bin Laith (AD 870-871)
Balkh and Kabul (Afghanistan)
"He took Bamian, which he probably reached by way of Herat, and then marched on Balkh where he ruined (the temple) Naushad. On his way back from Balkh he attacked Kabul..."
"Starting from Panjhir, the place he is known to have visited, he must have passed through the capital city of the Hindu Sahis to rob the sacred temple -- the reputed place of coronation of the Sahi rulers -- of its sculptural wealth..."
"The exact details of the spoil collected from Kabul valley are lacking. The Tarikh [-i-Sistan] records 50 idols of gold and silver and Mas'udi mentions elephants. The wonder excited in Baghdad by baghdad by elephants and pagan idols forwarded to the Caliph by Ya'qub also speaks for their high value."

Name Of The Book: Tarikhu'l-Hind
Name Of The Historian: Abu Rihan Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Biruni al-Khwarizmi.
About The Author: This author spent 40 years in India during the reign of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (AD 997 - 1030). His history treats of the literature and learning of the Hindus at the commencement of the 11th century.
The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About:


Jalam ibn Shaiban (9th century AD)
Multan (Punjab)
"A famous idol of theirs was that of Multan, dedicated to the sun, and therefore called Aditya. It was of wood and covered with red Cordovan leather; in its two eyes were two red rubies. It is said to have been made in the last Kritayuga .....When Muhammad Ibn Alkasim Ibn Almunaibh conquered Multan, he inquired how the town had become so very flourishing and so many treasures had there been accumulated, and then he found out that this idol was the cause, for there came pilgrims from all sides to visit it. Therefore he thought it best to have the idol where it was, but he hung a piece of cow's flesh on its neck by way of mockery. On the same place a mosque was built. When the Karmatians occupied Multan, Jalam Ibn Shaiban, the usurper, broke the idol into pieces and killed its priests..."


Sultan Mahmud of Gazni (AD 997-1030)
Thanesar (Haryana)
"The city of Taneshar is highly venerated by Hindus. The idol of that place is called Cakrasvamin, i.e. the owner of the cakra, a weapon which we have already described. It is of bronze, and is nearly the size of a man. It is now lying in the hippodrome in Ghazna, together with the Lord of Somnath, which is a representation of the penis of the Mahadeva, called Linga."

Somnath (Gujrat)
"The linga he raised was the stone of Somnath, for soma means the moon and natan means master, so that the whole word means master of the moon. The image was destroyed by the Prince Mahmud, may God be merciful to him! --AH 416. He ordered the upper part to be broken and the remainder to be transported to his residence, Ghaznin, with all its coverings and trappings of gold, jewels, and embroided garments. Part of it has been thrown into the hippodrome of the town, together with Cakrasvamin , an idol of bronze, that had been brought from Taneshar. Another part of the idol from Somnath lies before the door of the mosque of Ghaznin, on which people rub their feet to clean them from dirt and wet."

Name Of The Book: Kitabu'l-Yamini
Name Of The Historian: Abu Nasr Muhammad ibn Muhammad al Jabbaru'l-Utbi.
About The Author: This author's work comprises the whole of the reign of Subuktigin and that of Sultan Mahmud down to the year AD 1020.
The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About:


Amir Sbuktigin Of Ghazni
Lamghan (Afghanistan)
"The Amir marched out towards Lamghan, which is a city celebrated for its great strength and abounding wealth. He conquered it and set fire to the places in its vicinity which were inhabited by infidels, and demolishing idol temples, he established Islam in them. He marched and captured other cities and killed the polluted wretches, destroying the idolaters and gratifying the Musulmans."


Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (AD 997-1030)
Narain (Rajasthan)
"The Sultan again resolved on an expedition to Hind, and marched towards Narain, urging his horses and moving over ground, hard and soft, until he came to the middle of Hind, where he reduced chiefs, who, up to that time obeyed no master, overturned their idols, put to the sword the vagabonds of that country, and with delay and circumspection proceeded to accomplish his design..."

Nardin (Punjab)
"After the Sultan had purified Hind from idolatry, and raised mosques therein, he determined to invade the capital of Hind to punish those who kept idols and would not acknowledge the unity of God...He marched with a large army in the year AH 404 (AD 1013) during a dark night..."
"A stone was found there in the temple of the great Budda on which an inscription was written purporting that the temple had been founded 50,000 years ago. The Sultan was surprised at the ignorance of these people, because those who believe in the true faith represent that only seven hundred years have elapsed since the creation of the world, and the signs of resurrection are even now approaching . The Sultan asked his wise men the meaning of this inscription and they all concurred in saying that it was false, and no faith was to be put in the evidence of a stone."

Thanesar (Haryana)
"The chief of Tanesar was...obstinate in his infidelity and denial of God. So the Sultan marched against him with his valiant warriors, for the purpose of planting the standards of Islam and extirpating idolatry.."
"The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously, that the stream was discoloured, not withstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it...The victory gained by God's grace, who has established Islam for ever as the best religions, notwithstanding that idolaters revolt against it...Praise be to God, the protector of the world, for the honour he bestows upon Islam and Musulmans."

Mathura (Uttar Pradesh)
"The Sultan then departed from the environs of the city, in which was a temple of the Hindus. The name of this place was Mahartul Hind... On both sides of the city there were a thousand houses, to which idol temples were attached, all strengthened from top to bottom by rivets of iron, and all made of masonry work..."
"In the middle of the city there was a temple larger and firmer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted. The Sultan thus wrote respecting it: --'If any should wish to construct a building equal to this, he would not be able to do it without expending an 100,000,000 red dinars, and it would occupy 200 years even though the most experience and able workmen were employed'... The Sultan gave orders that all temples should be burnt with naptha and fire, and levelled with the ground."

Kanauj (Uttar Pradesh)
"In Kanauj there were nearly 10,000 temples, which the idolaters falsely and absurdly represented to have been founded by their ancestors two or three hundred thousand years ago...Many of the inhabitants of the place fled and were scattered abroad like so many wretched widows and orphans, from the fear which oppressed them, in consequence of witnessing the fate of their deaf and dumb idols. Many of them thus effected their escape, and those who did not fly were put to death."

The following is a continuation of last week's article, Destruction Of Hindu Temples By Muslims - Part I. In this article you will once again notice the Muslim Historians glorify the crimes committed by the Muslims in India. As stated and proved in my previous articles the glorification of such crimes has been recorded because the Koran promotes and supports such criminal acts.

The following is a presentation of the literary evidence available to us. This evidence stated below is in chronological order with reference to the time at which a particular work was written.

Name Of The Book: Diwan-i-Salman
Name Of The Historian: Khawajah Masud bin Sa'd bin Salman
About The Author: Khawajah Masud bin Sa'd bin Salman was a poet. He wrote poems in praise of the Ghaznavid Sultans- Masu'd, Ibrahim and Bahram Shah. He died sometime between AD 1126 and 1131.
The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About:


Sultan Abu'l Muzaffar Ibrahim (AD 1059-1099)
"As power and the strength of a lion was bestowed upon Ibrahim by the Almighty, he made over to him the well-populated country of Hindustan and gave him 40,000 valiant horsemen to take the country, in which there were more than 1000 rais...The army of the king destroyed at one time a thousand temples of idols, which had each been built for more than a thousand years. How can I describe the victories of the King..."

Jalandhar (Punjab)
"The narrative of any battles eclipses the stories of Rustam and Isfandiyar...By morning meal, not one soldier, not one Brahmin remained unkilled or uncaptured. Their heads were levelled with the ground with falming fire..Thou has secured the victory to the country and to religion, for amongst the Hindus this achievement will be remembered till the day of resurrection."

Malwa (Madhya Pradesh)
"..On this journey, the army detsroyed a thousand idol-temples and thy elephants trampled over more than a hundred strongholds. Thou didst march thy army to Ujjan; .. The lip of infidelity became dry through fear of thee, the eye of plural-worship became blind.."

Name Of The Book: Chach-Namah
Name Of The Historian: Mohammed Al bin Hamid bin Abu Bakr Kufi
About The Author: The Persian history was translated from arabic by the above mentioned author in the time of Nasiruddin Qabacha, a slave of Mohammed Ghori.
The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About:


Mohammed bin Qasim (AD 712-715)
Siwistan and Sisam (Sindh)
Mohammed bin Qasem wrote to al-Hajjaj, the governor of Iraq:
"The forts of Siwistan and Sism have been already taken. The nephew of Dahir, his warriors and principla officers have been despatched, and infidels converted to Islam or destroyed. Instead of idol temples, mosques and other places of worship have been built, pulpits have been erected, the Khutba is read, the call to prayers is raised so that devotions are performed at sacred hours."

Multan (Punjab)
.."Mohammed Qasem arose and with his counsellors, guards and attendants, went to the temple. He saw there an idol made of gold. and its two eye were bright red rubies. "..Muhammed Qasem ordered the idol to be taken up. Two hundred and thirty "mans" of gold were brought to the treasury together with the gems and pearls and treasures which were obtained from the plunder of Multan. "

Name Of The Book: Jamiu'l-Hikayat
Name Of The Historian: Maulana Nuruddin Muhammed `Ufi
About The Author: The author was born in or near the city of Bukhara in Transoxiana. He came to India and lived in Delhi for some time in the reign of Shamsu'd-Din Iltutmish (AD 1210-1236)
The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About:

Amru bin Laith (AD 879-900)
Sakawand (Afghanistan)
"It is related that Amru Lais conferred the governorship of Zabulistan on Fardaghan and sent him there at the head of four thousand horses. There was a large Hindu place of worship in that country, which was called Sakawand and people used to come on pilgrimage from the most remote parts of Hindustan to the idols of that place. When Fardaghan arrived in Zabulistan he led his army against it, took the temple, broke the idols in pieces and overthrew the idolators..."

Name Of The Book: Taju'l-Ma'sir
Name Of The Historian: Sadru'd-Din Muhammed Hasan Nizamii
About The Author: The author was born at Nishapur in Khurusan. He had to leave his ancestral place because of the Mongol invasion. He came to India and started writing his history in AD 1205.
The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About:


Sultan Muhammed Ghuri (AD 1175-1206)
Ajmer (Rajasthan)
"He destroyed the pillars and foundations of the idol temples and built in their stead mosques and colleges, and the precepts of Islam, and the customs of the law were divulged and established..."

Kuhram and Samana (Punjab)
"The Government of the fort of Kohram and Samana were made over by the Sultan to Kutuu-din..He purged by his sword the land of Hind from the filth of infidelity and vice, and freed it from the thorn of God-plurality, and the impurity of idol-worship and by his royal vigour and intrepidity, left not one temple standing..."

Meerut (Uttar Pradesh)
"Kutub-d din marched from Kohran and when he arrived at Meerut which is one of the celebrated forts of the country of Hind, for the strength of its foundations and superstructure, and its ditch, which was as broad as the ocean and fathomless- an army joined him, sent by the dependent chiefs of the country. The fort was captured, and a Kotwal was appointed to take up his station in the fort, and all the idol temples were converted into mosques."

Delhi
"He then marched and encamped under the fort of Delhi...The city and its vicinity were freed from idols and idol-worhips, and in the sanctuaries of the images of the Gods, nosques were raised by the worshippers of one God. Kutub-d din built the Jami Masjid at Delhi and adorned it with stones and gold obtained from the temples which had been demolished by the elephants, and covered it with inscriptions in Toghra, containing the divine commands."

Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh)
"From that place (Asni) the royal armi proceeded towards Benares which is the center of the country of Hind and here they destroyed nearly 1000 temples, and raised mosques on their foundations and the knowledge of the law became promulgated, and the foundations of religion were established.."

Aligarh (Uttar Pradesh)
"There was a certain tribe in the neighbourhood of Kol which had..occasioned much trouble..Three bastions were raised as high as heaven with their heads, and their carcases became the food of beasts of prey. That tract was freed from idols and idol-worship and the foundation of infidelity were destroyed"..

Bayana (Rajasthan)
"When Kutub-d din heard of Sultan's march from Ghazna, he was much rejoiced and advanced as far as Hansi to meet him.. In the year AH 592 (AD 1196), they marched towards Thangar, and the center of idolatry and perdition became the abode of glory and splendour.."

Kalinjar (Uttar Pradesh)
"In the year AH 599 (Ad 1202), Kutub-d din proceeded to the investment Kalinjar, on which expedition he was accompanied by the Sahib-Kiran, Shamsu-d din Altmash... The temples were converted into mosques and abodes of goodness, and the ejaculations of bead counters and voices of summoners to prayer ascended to high heaven, and the very name of idolatry was annihilated.."


Sultan Shamsu'd-Din Iltutmish (AD 1210-1236)
Delhi
"The Sultan then returned from Jalor to Delhi..and after his arrival 'not a vestige or name remained of idol temples which had raised their heads on high; and the light of faith shone out from the darkness of infidelity..and the moon of religion and the state became resplendent from the heaven of prosperity and glory."

Name Of The Book: Kamilu't-Tawarikh
Name Of The Historian: Ibn Asir
About The Author: The author was born in AD 1160 in the Jazirat ibn Umar, an island on the Tigris above Mosul.
The Muslim Rulers he Wrote About:


Khalifa Al-Mahdi (AD 775-785)
Barada (Gujrat)
"In the year 159 (AD 776) Al Mahdi sent an army by sea under Abdul Malik bin Shahabu'l Musamma'i to India..They proceeded on their way and at length disembarked at Barada. When they reached the place they laid siege on it..The town was reduced to extremities and God prevailed over it in the same year. The people were forbidden to worship the Budd, which the Muhammadans burned."

Name Of The Book: Tarikh-i-Jahan-Kusha
Name Of The Historian: Alaud-Din Malik ibn Bahaud-Din Muhammed Juwaini
About The Author: The author was born a native of Juwain in Khurasan near Nishapur. He was the Halaku during the Mongol campaign against the Ismai'lians and was later appointed the governor of Baghdad. He fell from grace and was imprisoned at Hamadan.
The Muslim Rulers he Wrote About:


Sultan Jalalud-Din Mankbarni (AD 1222-1231)
Debal (Sindh)
"The Sultan then went towards Dewal and darbela and Jaisi... The Sultan raised Masjid at Dewal, on the spot where an idol temple stood."

Name Of The Book: Mifathu'l-Futuh
Name Of The Historian: Amir Khusru
About The Author: The author, Amir Khusru was born at Delhi in 1253. His father occupied high positions in the reigns of Sultan Shamsu'd Din Iltutmish (AD 1210-1236) and his successors. Reputed to be the dearest disciple of Shykh Nizamuddin Auliya, he became the lick-spittle of whoever came out victorious in the contest for the throne at Delhi. He became the court poet of Balban's successor, Sultan Kaiqbad.
The Muslim Rulers he wrote About:


Sultan Jajalu'd-Din Khalji (AD 1290-1296)
Jhain (Rajasthan)
"The Sultan reached Jhain in the afternoon of the third day and stayed in the palace of the Raya..he greatly enjoyed his stay for some time. Coming out, ho took a round of gardens and temples. The idols he saw amazed him .. Next day he got those idols of gold smashed with stones. The pillars of wood were burnt down by his order... A cry rose from the temples as if a second Mahmud has taken birth. Two idols were made of brass, one of which weighed nearly thousand "mans".He got both of them broken, and the pieces were distributed among his people so that they may throw them at the door of Masjid on their return to Delhi."


Sultan Alaud-Din Khilji (AD 1296-1316)
Vidisha (Madhya Pradesh)
"When he advanced from the capital of Karra, the Hindus, in alarm, descended into the earth like ants. He departed towards the garden of Behar to dye that soil with blood as red as tulip. He cleared the road road to Ujjain of vile wretches, and created consternation in Bhilsan. When he affected his conquests in that country, hew drew out of the river the idols which had been conceled in it.

Devagiri (Maharshtra)
"But see the mercy with which he regarded the broken-hearted, for, after seizing the rai, he set him free again. He destroyed the temples of the idolaters, and erected pulpits and arches for mosques. "


This is Part III of the series of articles on destruction of Hindu Temples by Muslims.

Here too, I shall continue to provide the vast amount of literary evidence available to us. This evidence is taken directly from the books written by Muslim Historians themselves who glorify the horrific deeds of their Islamic heroes.

Name Of The Book: Nuh Siphir
Name of the Historian: Amir Khusru
About the Author: The above mentioned book is the fourth historical mathnavi which Amir Khusru wrote when he was 67 years old. It celebrates the reign of Sultan Mubarak Shah Khalji.
The Muslim Rulers he wrote About:


Sultan Mubarak Shah Khalji (AD 1315-1320)
Warrangal (Andhra Pradesh)
"They pursued the enemy to the gates and set everything on fire. They burnt down all those gardens and groves. That paradise of idol-worshippers became like hell. The fire-worshippers of "Bud" were in alarm and flocked round their idols.."

Name of the Book: Siyaru'l-Auliya
Name of the Historian: Sayyed Muhammed bin Mubarak bin Muhammed
About the Author: He was the grandson of an Iranian merchant who traded between Kirman in Iran and Lahore. The family travelled to Delhi after Shykh Farid's death and became devoted to Shykh Nizamu'd-din Auliya.
The Muslim Rulers he wrote About:


Shykh Mu'in al-Din Chisti Ajmer (AD 1236)
Ajmer (Rajasthan)
"..Because of his Sword, instead of idols and temples in the land of unbelief now there are mosques, mihrab amd mimbar. In the land where there were the sayings of the idol-worshippers, there is the sound of 'Allahu Akbar'...The descendants of those who were converted to Islam in this land will live until Day of Judgement; so too will those who bring others into the fold of Islam by the sword of Islam. Until the Day of Judgement these converts will be in debt of Shaykh al-Islam Mu'in al-din Hasam Sijzi..."

Name of the Book: Masalik'ul Absar fi Mamalik'ul Amsar
Name of the Historian: Shihabu'd-Din 'Abu'l Abbas Ahmed bin Yahya.
About the Author: He was born in AD 1301. He was educated in Damascus and Cairo. He is considered to be a great man scholar of his time and author of many books. He occupied high positions in Syria and Egypt.
The Muslim Rulers he wrote About:


Sultan Muhammed bin Tughlaq (AD 1325-1351)
"The Sultan is not slack in Jihad. He never lets go of his spear or bridle in pursuing jihad by land and sea routes. This is his main occupation which engages his eyes and ears. Five temples have been destroyed and the images and idols of "Budd" have been broken, and the lands have been freed from those who were not included in the daru'l Islam that is, those who had refused to become zimmis. Thereafter he got mosques and places of worship erected, and music replaced by call to prayers to Allah... The Sultan who is ruling at present has achieved that which had not been achieved so far by any king. He has achieved victory, supremacy, conquest of countries, destruction of the infidels, and exposure of magicians. He has destroyed idols by which the people of Hindustan were deceived in vain..."

Name of the Book: Rehala of Ibn Battuta
Name of the Historian: Shykh Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Lawatt at-Tanji al-Maruf be Ibn Battuta.
About the Author: He belonged to an Arab family which was settled in Spain since AD 1312. His grandfather and father enjoyed the reputation of scholars and theologians. He himself was a great scholar who travelled extensively and over many lands. He came to India in 1325 and visited many places. He was very fond of sampling Hindu girls from different parts of India. They were presented to him by the Sultan Mohammed bin-Tughlaq with whom Ibn Battuta came in close contact. He also married Muslim women wherever he stayed and divorced them before his departure.


His Travel description:
(Delhi)
"Near the eastern gate of the mosque, lie two very big idols of copper connected together by stones. Every one who comes in and goes out of the mosque treads over them. On the site of this mosque was a bud Khana that is an idol-house. After the conquest of Delhi, it was turned into a mosque..."

Name of the Book: Tarikh-i-Firuz
Name of the Historian: Shams Siraj Alif
About the Author: The author became a courtier of Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq and undertook to complete the aforementioned history of Barani who had stopped at the sixth year of Firuz Shah's reign.
The Muslim Rulers he wrote About:

Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq (AD 1351-1388)
Puri (Orissa)
"The Sultan left Banarasi with the intention of pursuing the Rani of Jajnagar, who had fled to an island in the river...News was then brought that in the jangal were seven elephants, and one old shoe-elephant, which was very fierce. The Sultan resolved upon endeavouring to capture these elephants before continuing the pursuit of the Rai... After the hunt was over, the Sultan directed his attention to the Rai of Jajnagar, and entering the palace where he dwelt he found many fine buildings. It is reported that inside the Rai's fort, there was a stone idol which the infidels called Jagannath, and to which they paid their devotions. Sultan Firoz, in emulation of Mahmud Subuktign, having rooted up the idol, carried it away to Delhi where he placed it in an ignominious position."


Nagarkot Kangra(Himachal Pradesh)
"..Sultan Muhammed Shah bin Tughlaq and Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq were sovereigns especially chosen by Almighty from among the faithful, and in their whole course of their reigns, wherever they took an idol temple they broke and destroyed it.."
Delhi
"A report was brought to the Sultan that there was in Delhi an old Brahmin who persisted in publicly performing the worship of idols in his house; and that people of the city, both Musalmans and Hindus, used to resort to his house to worhsip the idol. the Brahmin had constructed a wooden tablet which was covered within and without with paintings of demons and other objects..An order was accordingly given that the Brahmin, with his tablet, should be brought into the presence of the Sultan at Firozabad. the judges and doctors and elders and lawyers were summoned, and the case of the Brahaman was submitted for their opinion. Their reply was that the provisions of the Law were clear: the Brahmin must either become a Musalman or be burned. The true faith was declared to the Brahmin, and the right course pointed out, but he refused to accept it. Orders were given for raising a pile of faggots before the door of the darbar (court). The Brahmin was tied hand and foot and cast into it ; the tablet was thrown on top and the pile was lighted. The writer of this book was present at the darbar and witnessed the execution. The tablet of the Brahmin was lighted in two places, at his head and at his feet; the wood was dry and the fire first reached his feet, and drew him a cry, but the flames quickly enveloped his head and consumed him. Behold the Sultan's strict adherence to law and rectitude, how he would not deviate in the least from its decrees !"

Here Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq glorifies his own criminal acts in Bharat as sanctioned by the "holy" Koran.
Name of the Book: Futuhat-i-Firuz Shahi
Name of the Historian: Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq
About the Author: Sultan had got the eight chapters of his work inscribed on eight slabs of stone which were fixed on eight sides of the octagonal dome of a building near the Jami Masjid at Firuzabad.


Prayers of Temple-destroyers in this Book
"The next matter which by God's help I accomplished, was the repetition of names and titles of former sovereigns which had been omitted from the prayers of Sabbaths and Feasts. The names of those sovereigns of Islam, under whose happy fortune and favour infidel countries had been conquered, whose banners had waved over many a land, under whom idol-temples had been demolished, and mosques and pulpits built and exalted..."

Delhi and Evirons
"The Hindus and idol-worshippers had agreed to pay the money for toleration (zar-i zimmiya) and had consented to the poll-tax(jiziya) in return for which they and their families enjoyed security. These people now erected new idol-temples in the city and the enviorns in opposition to the law of the Prophet which declares that such temples are not to be tolerated. Under divine guidance I destroyed these edifices and I killed those leaders of infidelity who seduced others into error, and the lower orders I subjected to stripes and chastisement, until this abuse was entirely abolshed. the following is an instance: In the viallge of Maluh, there is a tank which they call kund (tank). Here they had built idol-temples and on certain days the Hindus were accustomed to proceed thither on horseback, and wearing arms. their women and children also went out in palankins and carts. Then they assembled in thousands and performed idol-worship....when intelligence of this came to my ears my religious feelings propmted me at once to put a stop to this scandal and offence to the religion of Islam. On the day of the assembly I wnet there in person and I ordered that the leaders of these people and the promoters of this abominations should be put to death. I destroyed their idol-temples and instead thereof raised mosques."

Gohana (Haryana)
"Some Hindus had erected a new idol-temple in the village of Kohana and the idolators used to assemble there and perform their idolatrous rites. These people were seized and brought before me. I ordered that the perverse conduct of the leaders of this wickedness should be publicly proclaimed, and that they should be put to death before the gate of the palace. I also ordered that the infidel books, the idols and the vessels used in their worship, which had been taken with idols, should all be publicly burnt. The others were restrained by threats and punishments, as a warning to all men, that no zimmi could follow such wicked practices in a Muslaman country."

Name of the Book: Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi
Name of the Historian: Yahya Ammad bin Abdullah Sirhindi
About the Author: The author lived in the reign of Sultan Muizu'd-Din Abu'l Fath Mubarak Shah (AD 1421-1434) of the Sayyid dynasty which ruled at Delhi from AD 1414-1451.
The Muslim Rulers he wrote About:


Sultan Shamsu'd-Din Iltutmish (AD 1210-1236)
Vidisha and Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh)
"In AH 631 he invaded Malwah, and after supressing the rebels of that place, he destroyed that idol-temple which had existed there for the past three hundred years. Next he turned towards Ujjain and conquered it, and after demolishing the idol-temple of Mahakal, he uprooted the statue of Bikramajit together with all other statues and images which were placed on pedestals, and brought them to the capital where they were laid before the Jami Masjid for being trodden under foot by the people

Name of the Book: Tarikh-i-Muhammadi
Name of the Historian: Muhammed Bihamad Khani
About the Author: The author was the son of the governor of Irich in Bundelkhand. He was a soldier who participated in several wars. His history covers a long period - from Prophet Mohammed to AD 1438-39
The Muslim Rulers he wrote About:


Sultan Ghiyasu'd-Din Tughlaq Shah II (AD 1388-89)
Kalpi (Uttar Pradesh)
"In the meanwhile Delhi received news of the defeat of the armies of Islam which were with Malikzada Mahmud bin Firuz Khan...This Malikzada reached the bank of the Yamuna via Shahpur and renamed Kalpi which was the abode and center of the infidels and the wicked, as Muhammadabad, after the name of Prophet Muhammed. He got mosques erected for the worship of Allah in places occupied by temples, and made that city his capital. "


Sultan Nasiru'd-Din Mahmud Shah Tughlaq (AD 1389-1412)
Prayag and Kara (Uttar Pradesh)
"The Sultan moved with the armies of Islam towards Prayag and Arail with the aim of destroying the infidels, and he laid waste both those places. The vast crowd which had collected at Prayag for worshipping false gods was made captive. The inhabitants of Kara were freed from the mischief of rebels on account of this aid from King and the name of this king of Islam became famous by this reason."

Another Moghul ruler by the name of Babur who was in love with a young boy named Baburi glorifies his lecherously Islamic deeds in the Babur-Nama

Name of the Book: Babur-Nama Name of the Author: Zahiru'd-Din Muhammed Babur About the Author: The author of this book was the founder of Mughal dynasty in India who proclaimed himself a Padshah (Ruler) after his victory in the First Battle of Panipat (AD 1526), and a Ghazi (killer of kafirs) after the defeat of Rana Sanga in the Battle of Khanwa (AD 1528) While presenting himself as an indefatigable warrior and drug-addict he does not hide the cruelties he committed on the defeated people, particularly his fondness for building towers of the heads of those he captured as prisoners of war or killed in battle. He is very liberal in citing appropriate verses from the Quran on the eve of the battle with Rana Sanga. In order to ensure his victory, he makes a covenant with Allah by breaking the vessels containing wine as also the cups for drinking it, swearing at the same time that "he would break the idols of the idol-worshippers in a similar manner". In the Fath-Nama (prayer for victory) composed for him by Shykh Zain, Allah is described as "destroyers of idols from their foundations" The language he uses for his Hindu adversaries is typically Islamic.

Zahirud-Din Muhammed Babur Padshah Ghazi (AD 1526-1530)
Chanderi (Madhya Pradesh)
"In AH 934 (AD 1528), I attacked Chanderi and, by the grace of Allah, captured it in a few hours..We got the infidels slaughtered and the place which had been a daru'l-harb for years, was made into daru'l-Islam."

Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh)
"Next day, at the time of the noon prayer, we went out for seeing those places in Gwalior which we had not seen yet..Going out of the Hathipole Gate of the fort, we arrived at a place called Urwa.. Urwa is not a bad place It is an enclosed space. Its biggest blemish is its statues. I ordered that they should be destroyed..."


Part IV of the series of articles on this subject will contain the Epigraphic evidence which is available to us. There are inscriptions on present day Mosques in India which clearly state that the Muslims have converted the existing Hindu temples into Mosques.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fg.

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 11:19 am
Whitegirl.

Hijab is mandatory upon muslim women. Those somalis who said "no" to you are lazy muslims who don't know what their Quran teaches. A muslim woman should cover herself from head to toe except the face and the hands or both included( according to different scholars).


Here are the Quranic verses:

"33:59 O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks(veils) all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" Translation from Muhsin Khan and Halili.

“and do not display yourselves like that of the times of ignorance, and perform As Salaah(prayer), and give Zakaah(charity) and obey Allaah and His Messenger”[33:33]


“… and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands……” [al-Noor 24:31].


Read these links:

The virtues of Hijab.

http://www.islamworld.net/hijabvirtue.html

Suppression or Liberation?.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/womeninislam/whatishijab.html

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 12:01 pm
Hi fg! Thanks! :) But can this not be discussed? I mean, the verse says; That will be BETTER, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. Doesn't that sentence say that you do have a choice? What if you don't want to be better, or let's say a respectable woman?? Anyway, I went to the links you gave me and I read all of it.
Maybe I should convert just to get rid of all the slobbering men around..? Hehehhe!
Hm, it can be smart in some ways, but I would say that it is incovenient most of the time...? The hijab is just IN THE WAY.... especially when you work... Can a muslim woman remove her hijab when she is at work?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Galool

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 12:16 pm
WGN

Don't you believe a word of it! There is nothing Islamic about the veil. The concept of covering-up women is universal one and is a represenation of my gender's insecure fears about female sexuality. That basic fear was taken to ridiculous proportions by the Persians. The original word for the veil is Chador which is a Farsi word. Noble pre-Islamic Arab families covered their women and the Prophet simply continued that practise. Many scholars believe that the hijab was intended ONLY for the Prophet's women.

Even today, almost all Arabs, no matter their faith as well as sub-continental Asians of all faiths force their women to cover-up.

Nothing to do with faith. Islamists justify the Hijab and Burqu' on the Fitna concept. This basically says that if women flaunt their bodies, men will be tempted to molest them and that will create Fitnah(Anarchy, violence, feuds etc)

This self-serving concept simply excuses men of all responsibility for their actions. It basically tells them that controlling their desires and their trouser zips isn't really upto them but upto women! So if a woman shows some cleavage and you go and rape her, it HER fault! She was asking for it!

Sick thought if you ask me.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 01:04 pm
Galool, thanks to you too! :-) At the bottom line I agree with you. I am just trying to
understand how they think, and why they practice and interpret the words in the Quran in so many
different ways. And I really don't have enough knowledge about the Quran to contradict what is
written for muslims to follow. I have to be told and then I can throw som questions back.
But you seem to have knowledge about the Quran, so it's good to hear 2 sides of the story, but
may I ask what happened to you?? :O Maybe the hijab was only for the prophet's women, I am willing to believe so, let me say only because it right now sounds logical to me, but can it be proven?
Regarding the Fitnah concept, I think that if it justifies the man to interpret it the way he
wants then it has nothing to do with Islam! And yes, then it is sick! Uhm, sorry about my bad
English here...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

ANONYMOUS

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 01:55 pm
Galool - you should have shown up at Understanding Islam: Walaal Ma denbibaa sub-folder. Boy! Did she smoke or didn't she smoke?

WGN - What do you mean hijab "gets in the way". Talk to TLG. She is a Science student who does all the laboratory work required in a science program and also works in a laboratory setting WEARING HIJAB!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

PragmaticGal

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 03:59 pm
ANONYMOUS,

<WGN - What do you mean hijab "gets in the way". Talk to TLG. She is a Science student who does all the laboratory work required in a science program and also works in a laboratory setting WEARING HIJAB! >

IN NORTH AMERICA!

I gathered she doesn't cover her face, as required in Iran and Afghanistan (and maybe Saudi Arabia?). Trust me (from personal experience), it's practically impossible to carry out all that laboratory work in a science program if you are wearing the Hijab required by Iranian, Afghani, and Saudi mullahs: It's hard to see, hard to watch your step, hard to move, and just plain time-consuming. But maybe it's different for TLG: maybe she wears the highly controversial (but convenient) scarf, that fails to even cover her "bosom" adequately?

And I bet TLG treks from lab to classroom and from classroom to home without a male escort (who must be husband, brother, or father) which is required according to the Shariah of most countries that bill themselves as "Pure and Authentic" Muslim states.

And I bet she work and learns in an inappropriate, integrated setting where men and women are in close quarters, whether they want to or not. How Islamic is that?

The fact that she's studying, working and learning in a Western country just goes to show that the paradise of female glory that's to be found in proper Muslim countries is all hogwash. In just every country that professes to follow the Shariah, she would be living drastically different.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

PragmaticGal

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 04:23 pm
WhitegirlNorway,

Don't get fooled by FG's translation of the Qur'anic ayat, he's twisting words to his own interpretation.

"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (33:59)

This is the same ayah that FG prefers to be translated as,

"O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks(veils) all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" Translation from Muhsin Khan and Halili.

Most translations (Yusuf Ali's, Shakir's, Pickthal's) say to wrap an outer garment around you when you go outside, but they don't say ALL OVER your body. It's funny that FG found the ONLY translation that adds that revealing point...

The thing is, in non-Muslim countries, most Muslim women wear a "scarf" that covers their head, and a long-sleeved ordinary garment to cover the rest of their body. Few wear the traditional Arabic Jilbaad, usually a black garment that covers from "head to toe" as FG put it, but there's no clear Qur'anic ruling to do so. It's all a matter of interpretation: some Muslims scholars will say that only the Jilbaab is adequate, some will say even the face must be covered, some will say the hair should be covered, some will even suggest that you dress "modestly" according to whichever society you happen to live in. Some argue that the point of the above ayah was so that the Muslim women not be "annoyed", ie bothered, and so they are better off dressing as the natives so as not to attract ridicule/abuse.

FG wants to dismiss all other views but his as "lazy" and ignorant of the Qur'an. Well, FG, I'd like clear, unambigous ayat that say women should be covered from "head to toe"...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

PragmaticGal

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 04:42 pm
MadMac:

To address your original point, I think Muslims do revere the Qur'an and Ka'ba in a way that can be INTERPRETED by others as extremely worshipful, but to them it is not. But it's the same with other faiths: Ask an "idol-worshipper" if he/she actually thinks the idol is a diety, and they will say NO. It's just a focus for worship and praise, just like the Ka'ba is a focus for prayer and pilgrimage. The "idol-worshipper" knows that what he's worshipping is not actually his god, but merely a receptacle and focus for worship. Only the extremely naive believe that idols are actual beings in themselves, but somehow Muslims seem to think that idol-worshippers think their idols really are God. Ask a Hindu, and he'll say that he KNOWS the statue of Shiva is not really Shiva but merely representative of Her. Of course he'll be offended if you destroy it, but he won't think you killed Shiva!

As for Buddhists, most I know seem more concerned about the fate of the Afghani people then about the statues. One Buddhist told me she doesn't mind the destruction of those statues as long as it draws public attention to the suffering of Afghani men, women and children. I agree with her fully on this point. But I still think it's a pity, because an important phase in controlling people is to destroy and mutate their past so that they think the present order of things always was.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fg.

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 04:58 pm
lool, you guys are funny.

Norwegiangirl,

So, you are here to critisize as well?. Let us see how far you can get. You like to ask and when you are told something you like to pick on it hmmm, well, that is nice of you lady Nordic. Don't waste my time arguing because I am not in the mood for that lately.

Galool is not a muslim and what he says doesn't count as truth about islam nor Pg. However, if it suits your desire to test the waters about islamic teaching, And say something about it to disprove, you are welcome. And The verse 33:59 starts with an order to the prophet of islam pbuh before the reason and justifications are given. The prophet was told to tell(and say) to his wives and the believing women i.e islamic women, to cover themselves. That is what counts. The subsequent verses also clearly tell women to not display any of their beauties to men who are marriable to them. If you said you read the links, you would understand why. Be careful about joining the exclusive club of Galool and Co, you will loose your innocence.


PG.

Does personal experience mean you used to wear Hijab before you became the saint of atheism lol?. Or it is the usual I-know-all-about-islam attitude you and Galool or other disbelievers display to dupe the uninformed like Whitegirl?. Oh well, didn't the disbeleivers always claim they knew better than believers?.

"Surely they(disbelievers) who are guilty used to laugh at those who believe. And when they passed by them, they winked at one another. And when they returned to their own followers(other disbelievers) they returned exulting. And whenever they saw them(muslims), they would say, "Behold! These are the people truly astray!" . Yet they were not sent as guardians over them. 83:29-33.


I guess the Quran says it all. Isn't that why you all scream when it is used and call it names lol?.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 06:19 pm
Like the physical order of the universe, the social structure of mankind is also hierarchical, that is, broadest at the base and narrowest at the top. This is the reason that an organization is not possible without observing this principle. Thus, a nation of several million people is governed by a government of twenty to thirty members, who are themselves headed by one person called the Prime Minister, President, Dictator or King. This truth was represented by the conduct of Alexander, the Great, who believed in a universal monarchy. Taumburlain, the Conqueror, stated it eloquently: "As there is one God, so this earth can support only one King."

What are the connotations of this statement? It means that humans are endowed with a psychological peculiarity, which may be described as Dominance Urge; it goads people individually, and collectively to dominate others. One can see this urge in operation during political elections when competing candidates use all methods at their disposal to gain power; the concepts of morality, munificence and mercy are shouted at top voice, but are usually rooted in mischief, mordacity and malevolence. The urge of dominance admits only one conduct which leads to victory. Hence, might is right, and the idea of "right as might" acts just as a deceptive joke to appease conscience.

In fact, urge of dominance is a peculiarity of all animates and expresses itself through antagonism. Take, chickens, for example. Chicken "A" pecks chicken "B" simply to express its physical superiority and chicken "B" does it to chicken "C" for the same reason. Not only that, if C becomes stronger, it may turn on B to establish itself as the powerful.

Without urge of Dominance, nobody will try to rise to the top, create law and order and compete with others. However, urge of dominance also has its bleak side which occasionally clouds its effulgence as can be observed in the destruction of Indian temples. Even great countries have suffered a similar fate at the hands of foreign predators. England was subjected to plunder, persecution and perdition by the Vikings for over 250 years. Subjugation of nations by outlandish raiders through sword and fire is for establishing their dominance.

Urge of dominance has an unusual aspect; it does not always die with its possessor. When a mundane ruler breathes his last, this urge may die with him but in people, known as prophets, it proves to be immortal. A prophet commands people from his grave what to do and what not to do; he succeeds in doing so through the body of laws which he claims to be of divine origin, and leaves behind. Those who follow them qualify for heaven, and those who defy them go to hell. These laws are, in fact, a product of the prophetic mind purporting to impress his power on the minds of his followers through a system of reward and punishment, no matter how imaginary. The Islamic Law devised 1400 years ago is an example in point. Pakistan was created half a century ago to practise this law but people are still awaiting its introduction. The reason is simple: it is not workable. In fact, Pakistan follows the Common Law of England, which is totally averse to the Muslim traditions The Islamic Law is the legacy of Muhammad, requiring his followers to acknowledge his supremacy through obedience to his legal code. It cannot be of Divine origin becauce this universe and all that breathes is kept in order by the principle of change which demands constant adjustment. Allah does not seem to realise that humans live in a changing world and do not need static law, devised fourteen centuries ago. After giving man free will, which enables him to make laws to suit his changing circumstances, He could not have interferred with him by forcing him to observe the archaic laws which have no relevance to his problems.

>From the above discussion, one concludes that prophethood is the highest expression of dominance urge. Since it is the prophetic dominance-urge which caused havoc to the Hindu temples and culture, it is appropriate to delve deeper into its make-up and purpose:

A prophet is a person who claims that he is the vicar or lieutenant of God on earth. He stresses that he carries the message of the Almighty who is the Creator of this universe and anxious to make man righteous by waging war against evil. The prophet insists that God does not communicate with anyone directly but through him. Since he is the divine medium, whosoever wants to approach the Creator must do so through his agency or perish. Yet the prophet declares that praise (worship) belongs to God; he himself is His humble servant, and does what is told by the Lord.

In fact, prophethood is a stratagem to project one's self as God in the guise of humanity. By asserting himself to be the agent of God, the prophet asserts his own righteousness by awarding himself a certificate of behavioural excellence irrespective of what he really is; the presumption is that God shall not appoint someone His agent, who has a second-rate character. A part of this stratagem is the assertion that the prophet has no axe to grind in it; whatever he does, he undertakes to obey the Lord. This impersonal approach is a sharp psychological weapon to convince people of the prophetic mission.

Once we look into the nature of prophetic claim, its righteousness soon loses its radiance. If God is the Creator, and He is so anxious for man to go straight, He would have surely designed human nature in such a way that he could not err. The God who depends on the good-will of a man, who calls himself a "prophet" cannot be more than a play-thing, and does not have the power to check the prophet from twisting His Word if he so wishes. This is a logical conclusion; if God cannot stop other people from doing what they want to do, how can he coerce the wilful actions of a prophet, who is obviously a clever and determined man. The God who is dependent on a man, has a lower stature than him. This is the real purpose of prophethood; a prophet is a man who aspires to be acknowledged as God indirectly because it is much easier to proclaim one's prophethood than Godhead.

Frankly speaking, one ought to say that the device of prophethood is not suited to spreading the truth by its very nature; making the prophet an absolute medium of Divine instructions, limits the Godly purpose; one man, no matter how clever, could not reach the whole world. It is especially true in terms of medieval ages. Acquainting mankind with the Divine Will would have been far more effective if the Lord had created them with a mechanism to receive His messages directly. Since He has not done so, He obviously needs no prophets, who are the cause of srocial strife, mutual hatred and wars. As man is endowed with intelligence and free will, he is quite capable of steering his own ship of life. It amounts to self-contradiction on part of God to coerce the intelligence and free will of man by sending messengers. In fact, the mere concept of prophethood has an air of ridiculing God.

Of course, a prophet declares that praise (worship) belongs to God, and he himself appears to be praising and worshipping Him. This is, in fact, mockery of Godhead for two reasons: firstly, worship is the worst type of flattery, and it is well known that a lover of sycophancy has a dwarfed, devious and detestable personality because it seeks to destroy the dignity, decorum and distinctiveness of others by forcing them to demean, degrade and debase themselves. A person with a flattened ego is like a bird with trimmed wings which loses the ability to fly higher. The purpcse of life is to elevate ego with moral splendour, a superb will and sense of personal greatness, which come from being upright and serving the cause of fellow-beings, and not by crying, creeping and crawling before an imaginary God, whose arrogance knows no bounds.

The second reason is more profound but crafty. In fact, it is a piece of psychological chicanery:

The truth as we know is that the concrete attracts and holds attention far more easily than the abstract. This is the reason that modern methods of teaching make use of toys, pictures, drawings/ etc., instead of relying on mere verbal instructions, which are less effective for being abstruse and thus usually beyond the reach of imagination. The concrete objects serve as visual aids to comprehend facts and the reality behind them. This is the philosophy of idol worship. All devotees know that a statute is just a stone, a piece of wood or a lump of clay, but their shapes help impart understanding ot the meaning of reality. It is a symbolical representation of the truth. Though there is no mention of idol-worship or temples in the Rgveda, I am inclined to think that the origin of organised idolatory lies in India. The reason is, the Vedic people believed that there is a power of divine origin behind every natural phenomenon such as lightning, cloud, fire, wind, etc. That power, they referred to as god or goddess, and adored it. These physical phenomena did have visibility: lightning could be seen, thunder could be heard, wind could be felt. They were glimpses of the gods and goddesses lurking behind these natural processes. Eventually, it led to the creation of idols representing the respective deities, whereas the priest knew the truth, the ordinary worshipper accorded gadly status to the idol itself. As every idol identified a particular natural phenomenon, it did not represent the totality of Divine Power individually. Though worshippers were particularly enthusiastic about the greatness of the statues they worshipped, they did not revile the idols of other devotees because of their belief that they, too, were divine for representing natural forces. This is what created pantheism, i.e., the doctrine that identifies God with the universe, leading to the worship of all gods. Oneness of Gad became ascendant, almost every nation followed the model of an Indian temple which housed all the gods. Thus jealousy among the gods did not exist, and if it did, lacked the force to engender sectarian animosity and carnage. In fact, the co-existence of idols prompted the attitude of "live and let live."

The device of prophethood is very similar to the idols as far as they act as the symbols or visual aids to recognise the divine power or deity concealed behind them, and eventually worshipping the idols themselves and not the deity concerned. When a person claims to be a prophet, he projects himself as the shadow, and God as the Reality, but as he possesses an immense dominance-urge, he is extremely anxious to reverse the order of priority, that is, people should think of the shadow as the Reality and of Reality as the shadow. This inverse ratio of relationship is the real goal of prophethood. The difference between idolatory is:

a. people worship statues through ignorance, b. alternatively they know them to be mere visual aids, having no divinity in themselves.

I ought to add that hypocrisy is no part of idolatory because it is brought about by ignorance or the fact that a statue is just a visual aid. On the contrary, prophethood lacks sincerity because it is the goal of a prophet to be treated as God without taking off his mantle of humanity. It is done by exaggerating the wonders of the prophet to such an extent that he begins to look the reality and God recedes into the background as shadow. This reversal in terms of power and reverence imitates the principle and practice of idolatory whereby people take the idol for the Reality and forget all about the Reality itself. Since Islam is an offshoot of Judaism, it may be helpful to illustrate the issue with reference to Moses, the founder of the Jewish nation and its philosophy.

It was Moses who brought out of Egypt, the Jews who had been subjected to cruelty and hard labour for over four centuries. They had lost their moral dignity and intellectual capacity through an incessant pressure of torment, tyranny and torture. The long servitude had made them submissive, and receptive to suggestion. Moses, who had been brought up in Egypt as a prince, was not only endowed with high capabilities but also had a tremendous urge of dominance. With these qualities went his stupendous love for his people whom he wanted to make into a great nation. This extraordinary man had the ability to turn his own ambition and national dignity into a harmonious whole.

As the Jewish history shows, he projected himself as the model of behaviour by declaring himself as the law-giver. But he did not say that the laws were invented by him. Following the old Semitic tradition, he announced that he had been appointed as the Vicar (prophet) by God, who had revealed His will through the laws which must be obeyed to escape the Divine condemnation. He knew that the nationhood of the Jews, who were no more than a rabble at that time, could not be affected without giving them a common measure of identity. So he declared:

1. Yahwe is the God of Israel (the Jews) who are his chosen and blessed people. 2. To make Godhead of Yahwe as the foundation- stone of the Jewish nationhood, he assured them that the Lord would not forsake them (Deuteronomy 4: 31) provided they kept his law. The first commandment says:

"You shall have no other gods before me."

The Bible goes even further to declare that the extreme love is to be reserved for God:

"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." (Deuteronomy 6: 5).

To make sure that this divine order is taken seriously, Deuteronomy 5: 9 spells out in no uncertain terms that the Jewish God is a jealous God, who visists the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them who hate Him i.e. worship someone other than Yahwe. With a view to inculcating this message still further into the Jewish heart, Exodus 22: 20 declares:

"He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed."

( As a footnote to this discussion, I may add that despite all the Jewish assertion of monotheism i.e. Oneness of God, the Bible acknowledges polytheism, that is, there is more than one God: )

"Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." (Exodus 22: 28)

Here, I seem to be contradicting myself because Moses attaches supernatural authority and reverence to God and not himself. This is the sophistication of the doctrine of revelation or prophethood. The concept of God is abstract and therefore cannot be easily comprehended by the masses who need a visual aid for proper understanding. Once people nave confirrned their faith in God, the prophet, who is His sole medium of approach, projects himself as the Symbol of Divinity the same way as an idol acts as the representation of God. The stratagem lies in the fact that prophet looks uninterested in the divine honour, yet he bestows so much sanctity on himself that he begins to look God's superior, and people actually adore him instead of God, who ranks as a euphemism. Thus, in fact, it is prophet who is jealous of idols and everything else which may be adored. Therefore, he wants to see no other idol except his own and insists on their destruction.

1. First, he presented the concept of the Lord God. 2. However, before doing this he assured people that he did not want the apostolic dignity, and was acting as Prophet under duress to escape the wrath of God (Exodus 4: 10-14).

3. Then he proceeded to exert his superiority over God:

As the story goes, worship of the molten calf by the Jews kindled Yahwe's jealousy. He appears in divine glory and intends to consume the children of Israel with his boiling wrath, his gives Moses a chance to establish his superiority over God. He tells Yahwe impolitely that He is about to do a wicked thing against his own people and shames Him by asserting what the Egyptians would say if He destroyed them. After all, Yahwe had gone out of the way to secure the release of the Jews from Egypt. Moses commands the Lord to refrain from this evil and repent. (Exodus 32: 12-14). What an event it becomes: God surrenders to man! Yet the Jews claim that their faith is monotheistic.

I must add that this is not the only occasion when Moses, the Prophet, humiliates God in front of every one. In an episode of similar nature when the Jews denigrate the Promised Land, and want to return to Egypt, Yahwe's indignation reaches boiling point and He threatens to kill them all. Moses steps in and skames God publicly. He yields to Moses as usual ( Numbers 1 4: 11 - 20 ).

In conjunction with the above events, one should also remember the following episode described in chapter 32 of Exodus:

As Moses took longer to return from God, his people contributed golden earrings to make a molten calf to worship it. God tells Moses to rush back to his people who have corrupted themselves. As he came near the camp, he found them dancing round the calf. Moses' anger knew no bounds; he burnt the calf in the fire, and ground it to powder, which he dissolved in water and made the children of Israel drink.

Had Moses left the molten calf to stand, it would have become a symbol of divinity, and eventually the Divine. He could not accept this situation because he had assumed the status as the sole Medium of God.

This Semitic tradition was enthusiastically followed by the Prophet Muhammad, who repeatedly claimed that Islam was not a new faith but the same religion as promulgated by Adam, Noah, Ibrahim, Moses and Jesus. He called himself the last exponent of this faith. He hated idols and advocated their destruction because he himself wanted to be treated as an idol to be worshipped. It seems a crazy theory but it happens to be the truth. To understand it, one must bear in mind that Allah was originally an idol of the Kaaba where it was worshipped by the Quresh, clan of the Prophet. I shall demonstrate later, Muhammad was inspired to idolise himself by Allah-worship. He destroyed all statues of Kaaba including that of Allah, yet he raised Allah to the status of God who is the Almighty, the Creator and the Omnipotent. He did so to replace Allah's statue with himself as the symbol Gf divinity. He knew that it is the symbol of divinity i.e., the idol, which eventually comes to be worshipped as God.

Now I may provide evidence in support of my claim:

1. Following the Mosaic model, first he claimed that Allah, the Islamic God had forced him into accepting prophethood ( Sahih Muslim: 301) . Having narrated this episode in my took: "Islam The Arab National Movement, " I need not repeat it here. 2. In the beginning, to impress upon people that he had no axe to grind in the matter, he asserted:

"There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger." This is the basic belief of Islam and is called Shahadah. Until he gained a large following which guaranteed him suzerainty, he projected himself as a mortal who was entrusted with the duty of Allah's message. See for yourself:

a. The Koran calls the Prophet a servant. ( The Cow: 20 ). b. He does not know the Unseen. ( Cattle: 50 )

c. He does not have the power to perform miracles. ( Thunder: 5 )

d. "... say, Glory be to my Lord! Am I aught but a mortal, a messenger." (The Night Journey: 95)

e. "... I have only been commanded to serve God, and not to associate aught with Him. To Him I call, and to Him I turn. " ( Thunder. 3 5 )

f. The Prophet being a mortal, is equally subject to Allah's reward and punishment:

"If He will, He will have mercy on you ( Muhammad ), or if He will, He will chastise you." (The Night Journey: 55)

g. The Prophet is warned by Allah: "Set not up with Allah another God, or you wilt be cast into Gehenna ( Hell ), reproached and condemned. " ( The Night Journey: 40 )

So far the Prophet has claimed that he is just a human who has been forced by Allah to convey His message to the people. He desperately needs this approach to convince people that he is simply discharging his duty. Thus it is easier for the masses to listen to him and believe him, but when he becomes powerful enough and can stand on his own, he discards this style and expresses himself as an integral part of Allah:

h. It is no longer enough to obey God only: " Obey God and the Messenger ( Muhammad ) . ( The House of Imram: 25 ) i. "Obey God and the Messenger: haply so you will find mercy." ( The House of Imram: 125 )

j. "Whoso obeys God and His Messenger, He will admit him to gardens...." (Women: 15 )

k. As the Prophet gets stronger, he becomes a co-sovereign with Allah because whatever they do, they do it together, and people are not left with any choice but to obey the decision:

"It is not for any believer, man or woman, when God and His Messenger have decreed a matter, to have the choice in the affair. Whosoever, disobeys God and His Messenger, has gone astray into clear error." (The Confederates: 35)

Gradually, the Prophet, who was once a mortal and Allah's servant, and then an equal partner in Godhead, now raises himself to the status of real God, and Allah himself becomes Muhammad's devotee. It sounds blasphemous, but this is how the Koranic truth is. Here is the authority:

"God and His angels pray peace to the Prophet, O believers, do you also bless him, and pray him peace." (The Confederates: 55)

Praying peace is the highest form of worship. It is very much like the devotional movement within Hinduism known as Bhagti which came into being during second or third century A.D. The Bhagti attitude has been inspired by the Bhagavadgita though Ramayana and Puranas have also contributed towards it. Bhagti means the intense emotional attachment and love of a devotee to his personal God. Though a Hindu can choose any of his gods as the centre of his devotion, it has been particularly developed around Vishnu represented by his two earthly incarnations, namely, Rama and Krishna.

The Hindu worship includes the recitation of God's name, singing of hymns in his praise, undertaking pilgrimages to the places associated with him, adoring him in shrines, private meetings and temples as well as through charitable acts.

The Muslims, especially of the Indian sub-continent have adopted the same attitude towards the Prophet: they have developed a highly emotional cult known as "Ishq-e-Rasool" i.e. the intense love of Muhammad. This devotion is so great that a priest, politician or "pioneer" can easily mislead the Muslims in the name of Muhammad and make them do anything, no matter, how irrational. The Muslims hold that a priest, politician or "pioneer" can easily mislead the Muslims in the name of Muhammad and make them do anything, no matter, how irrational. The Muslims hold exclusive meetings to recite the name of Muhammad for hours, sing his praises endlessly, visit the holy places and even recite his name in the regular daily prayers.

It is amazing that when the Hindus pray to their gods with the aid of their statues, which are symbolic representations of the Reality, they are dubbed as idolators, but when the Muslims resort to similar practices, they become monotheists! In fact, they carry the magic of this riddle even further. In Hinduism, it is inevitably man who worships God, but in Islam, both angels and Allah worship Muhammad by praying peace to him!

Islam is essentially the cult of Muhammad-worship, yet it is called the True Religian of God, instead of being termed as Muhammadanism. How did the Prophet create such a large band of followers, who worship kim but claim to prostrate before God?

One can find the answer to this enigma by considering the following facts:

1. He destroyed the statue of Allah which was housed in the Kaaba: it was considered the most sacred idol of the Arabs because people took it for the real God owing to ignorance and tradition. As long as the statue of Allah existed, nobody could take the place of Allah because His statue was His divine symbol. It had to be demolished by someone to present himself as the divine symbol of Allah. Muhammad did that by projecting himself as the sole representative of Allah on earth, and like other idols came to be treated as the real God. He chose Allah because it represented his tribe and was considered the most sacred and powerful.

2. To further his cause, the Praphet claimed that he was sent into this world as mercy i.e. love for mankind:

"We have not sent you, except as mercy unto all beings." (The Prophets: 100)

By projecting himself as love, he helped himself to become the centre of love of his followers. There are several hadiths which ardently advocate for the love of Muhammad. For example:

"No person attains faith, till I am dearer to him than the persons of his household, his wealth and the whole of mankind." (Muslim, Vol. 1: 70)

3. To be obeyed to the dot, he claimed that he was the divine model of behaviour and must be copied by all his followers:

"You (believers) have a good example in God's Messenger for whosoever hopes for God and the Last Day." (The Confederates: 20)

It is clearly stated herein that whoever wants to go to paradise ( "hopes for God and the Last Day" ) must imitate the behaviour-pattern of the Prophet. This is what Sunnah is; all Muslims want to live as Muhammad did, even to the minor details such as eating, drinking, walking, talking, sleeping, dressing, etc. In fact, the Prophet has come to control the psyche of his followers. 4. Intercessory power of the Prophet is the master stroke of his divinity. Though I have given its fuller account in the Second Volume, 6th issue of "Liberty," I may briefly state here the Koranic attitude for the benefit of readers; it repeatedly states that on the Last Day, it is exclusively for Allah to decide whether a person will go to heaven or hell.

To suit Muhammad's purpose, as in several other important affairs, the Koran changes its tone and eventually states:

"On that Day no intercession availeth except (that of) him unto whom the Beneficient (God) hath given leave and whose He accepleth." (TA HA: 109)

This point is well explained by the following Hadith (Sahih Muslim: Vol. 4: 5655) "I will be the first intercessor and the first person whose intercession will be accepted (by Allah).

It means that the Prophet has the power to force Allah to do whatever he wills. He will send his followers to paradise even if they are murderers, rapists, thieves and liars but shall specify hell for all non-believers even if they have been highly righteous. The Koran states:

"Truly this is the word of a noble Messenger having power, with the Lord of the Throne secure, obeyed, moreover trusty." (The Darkening: 15-20)

The Muslims interpret it to mean that on the Day of Judgement, the Prophet will share the Throne of Justice with Al lah and sit on His right-hand side. His recommendations will be binding on God. This is what they sincerely believe is meant by "obeyed, moreover trusty." Now, one can see that Allah is no more than a figure of speech because the Prophet has taken over the destiny of humankind. In "Islam, The Arab National Movement,'' I have shown that Allah is a factotum of Muhammad because He does what He is told by the latter. For example, the change of Kibla, the vital issue, is decided by Allah to please Muhammad. Again, it is an Islamic law that if a Muslim has more than one wife, he must treat them all equally but God gave dispensation to the Prophet to suspend any of his wives as he thought fit. One should also bear in mind that the Islamic law lays down that a Muslim cannot have more than four wives at the same time, but the Prophet had at least nine wives simultaneously. He was obviously above Allah's laws. It is universally accepted that law is equally binding on the law-giver. Unless Muhammad believed himself to be Allah's superior, he could not defy His law. It shows the intensity of the Prophetic dominance-urge.

Now, it is obvious that the Prophet did not disapprove of idolatory but hated other idols because he wanted to substitute himself for them. In short, he himself aspired to be worshipped to the total exclusion of all other idols.

However, the Prophet realised that there are other people who have a tremendous ego and want to be remembered as spiritual heroes and adored accordingly. So he allowed the creation of a pantheon under his own divine shadow, which means that whoever believed in these lesser deities, automatically followed him. One learns about these minor divinities in Hadith no. 145 of the Sahih Muslims: they are members of the household of the Prophet, namely Ali (Fatima, Hassan and Hussain) as well as Abu Bakr, Umar Usman and several others who served him well to make his mission a success.

I think that I have said enough about the nature of Islamic attitude towards idolatory: it is really not iconoclastic i.e. anti-idol, but idolatrous as long as it is only the Prophet Muhammad, his close relations and associates, who are adored under his spiritual hegemony.

The heading of this article is "Idolatory, Islam and India." I have so far discussed the relationship of Islam and idolatory but have not touched upon the Islamic attitude towards India, especially in terms of idol-worship.

As students of history know, the Muslims have always done their worst to destroy the pre-Islamic period of every country where they have been able to spread their tentacles. Even Arabia, the cradle of Islam, is no exception to this rule. It is not easy to trace its pre-Islamic history. However, certain facts can be discovered from the Hadith (sayings and practices of the Prophet) and scholarly writings found in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Having studied these sources of information, I come to the conclusion that the Prophet Muhammad had developed an unfavourable attitude towards India. It is because he was a national leader, par excellence. His patriotic zeal required of him to destroy the glory of Egypt, Iran, Byzantine and India. The last i.e. India, posed a special problem. Why?

It is because India constituted a real threat to the dreams of Muhammad, who was highly enthused by the love of his people, the Arabs, and wanted to make a great nation of them. He also knew that Moses, before him, had created a magnificent nation of Jews who should perpetuate his name. So the national dream of Muhammad sought to deify himself through the efforts of a great Arab nation to fight for his glory, which should also prove the pivot of Arab nationalism. Having told this story in my book: "Islam, The Arab National Movement," I need not repeat it here but must explain, why India stood in the way of the apostolic designs of Muhammad. The reason was that the Arabian way of life and religion were deeply influenced by the Indian culture and religious attitudes. To make the position clear, I must add that as the Indian sub-continent is dominated by the Islamic way of life today, so was the Arabian peninsular under the Hindu influence at the time of the Prophet's advent. Unless he could successfully strike at the roots of Hinduism, he could not make himself adorable. In a nutshell, he had to destroy the Hindu idols to erect his own.

Is there evidence for this point of view? Of course, there is. Let us start with the following hadith:

Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-As reported: "Allah's Messenger (may peace be on him) saw me wearing two clothes dyed in saffron, whereupon he said: These are the clothes (usually worn by) the non- believers, so do not wear them." (Sahih Muslim: 5173)

The next hadith no. 5175 reports this event in a more heated manner:

Seeing Abdullah b. Amr attired in two clothes which had been dyed in saffron, the Prophet said, "Has your mother ordered you to do so?" Abdullah replied: "I will wash them." The Prophet replied: "Burn them."

The Hadith no. 5177 adds that the Prophet forbade reciting the Koran when one wore gold and clothes dyed in saffron! To understand the built-in prophelic hatred of Hinduism in particular, and India at large, one must realise that colour of the Hindu or Om flag is saffron, which is also called Bhagwa, Gerva and Kesariya. The Om flag also represents the rising sun which not only alludes to the saffron colour but also to the internationally ascendant might of the then India. I have discussed these historical facts in my book: "The Wonders of the Rgveda." Saffron was, in fact, the national colour of India because the Hindu heroes, seers, sages and monks wore clothes dyed in saffron. Moreover, it implied the Hindu tradition of valour, elegance and commitment to noble causes as laid down by the Scriptures: some hymns of the Atharva Veda openly refer to the saffron colour. Therefore, it is not just traditional but also a part of the Hindu religious piety, purity and probity.

>From the above quoted hadiths, it is evident that not only the Arab divines but also ordinary people wore yellowish clothes under the Indian influence which the Prophet hated to such an extent that he advocated burning of satfron dresses and forbade the recitation of the Koran when one wore such garments.

One should bear in mind that the Prophet wanted to create a distinct Arab nation dedicated to spreading his greatness. This is the reason that he told his followers to dye their hair and beards red (henna) so that they should look different from the Jews; to wean them from the Hindu tradition, he prescribed green colour for his followers.

The Koran has stated almost all its major tenets ambiguously i.e. relationship between Allah and Prophet, free will and predestination and so on. It equally applies to the Idea of creation and procreation. In this context, one can see the influence of the Gita on the Koran, which states:

"God originates creation, then brings it back again, and unto him you shall be returned." (The Greeks: 10)

The Druzes of Lebanon, a sect of Islam, practise the Hindu doctrine of Samsara ardently even today. This is a continuation of the pre-Islamic tradition which is a remnant of the Hindu influence on the Arab culture. The Prophet practically obliterated the pre-Islamic history of his people, which makes cultural assessment of Arabia a very hard task, indeed. Yet the modern scholarship has discovered certain religious facts about this country which confirm that it would have been impossible to establish Muhammadanism without destroying Hinduism in Arabia and elsewhere.

The truth is that the Arabs were not only statue-worshippers but their idolatory was founded on the Hindu principle of triad, also known as Trimurti. Since the Prophet wanted to plant his own image in people's mind, it was not possible without aupplanting the Hindu idols, which had considerable appeal owing to their visual effect and the legendary magic, built-up over a period of many centuries. I am certainly not forging history, the hadith (Prophet's sayings and record of his actions) provides cogent evidence to this effect:

"Jabir b. Samura reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I recognise the stone in Mecca which used to pay me salutations before my advent as a Prophet and I recognise that even now. (Sahih Muslim: 5654)

The hadith confirms three facts: 1. Though the Muslims assert that Muhammad was a prophet even before the creation of Adam, this statement demonstrates that it is not so, and is borne out by "before my advent as a Prophet." Again, it is historically known that he claimed to have received his first revelation when he was forty. It is.at this point of life that the Prophet started preaching Islam. Obviously, it could not have been his religion earlier. If it were, he would have started disseminating its fundamentals from his cradle. What was then his religion previously? This hadith also answers this question:

2. "Stone in Mecca" cannot be anything but the Black Stone (Hajr-E-Aswad) at Kaaba, the main temple of Mecca, which also housed many other statues. The words: "used to pay me salutations" clearly show that the Prophet Muhammad was a fairly regular visitor to the temple before becoming the founder of Islam. I hardly need say why people go to the temples.

The Black Stone, as I shall discuss shortly, is an unshaped idol which still adorns the Kaaba and forms a prominent part of the Islamic rituals. The Prophet claims that this statue used to salute him. Since salutation is a form of worship, Muhammad was inspired by idolatory at Kaaba to be worshipped like an idol. Therefore, it was necessary for him to replace other idols with his own person to perpetuate Muhammadanism. He picked on Hinduisnn because it was the source of the Arab idolatory. Am I making it up? Not at all. Here is the evidence drawn from the most reliable source i.e. Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Though there is no mention of idolatory in the Rgveda, the principle of triad or trimurti is clearly stated therein:

"I laud the seven-rayed, the triple-headed Agni all perfect...." (R.V.1: CXLVI: 1)

Triad or Trimurti is the fundamental principle of Hinduism. It means three-in-one i.e., the reality has three faces yet in essence it is one. For example, the most sacred Sanskrit word: ''Om" represents the triad of Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva as well as the Hindu belief in three universes, and so on. Description of the god Agni as having three faces is the basis of the three-headed Shiva, who has been depicted as such on some seals found in the Indus Valley. It should be borne in mind that Shiva is a Vedic god, known as Rudra. He has been mentioned so often in the Rgveda that it is hard to call him a minor deity. Though there is no mention of image- worship in the Rgveda, the Shivite traditions represent the tampered form of the Vedic doctrines the same way as non- violence has become the basic principle of the modern Hinduism though the Vedas and Gita prescribe fighting for a righteous cause and declare it the greatest honour for a true Hindu. Dasa and Dasyus, the epithets of contempt, were invented for these dissenters, who were every bit as Aryan as anyone else. It shows that the Rgveda is older than the Indus Valley Civilisation, and this fact is also supported by the archaelogical excavations which have taken place in the areas close to Rawalpindi (Pakistan) during recent years. It demonstrates the antiquity of the Indian civilisation. The idolatrous principle associated with the three-faced Shiva became a fundamental doctrine of the Arab religion and culture as triad in the same way as it is known in India the triad of Vishnu-Brahma and Shiva. One has only to look at the Arab history to realise this fact:

Despite their lofty claims of antiquity, the word "Arabs" does not appear in historical sources until the middle of the First millenium B.C. The Arabian peninsula had received cultural inspiration from the Indus Valley many centuries earlier, but its religious influence increased dramatically when changes took place in the Greco-Roman trade routes to India during the first century B.C. The southern Arabia i.e. Yemen had experienced the Indian faith for a long time, but then its cultural effect shifted northward to the Hejaz, land of the Prophet Muhammad.

In the south Arabian kingdom, the principle of Triad or Trimurti was practised extensively. For example, they had a triad of astral deities representing the moon god, the sun goddess and the Venus god. The chief deity of this triad was the moon god, who protected the principal cities. However, it ought to be mentioned that the god EL, the Allah of Mecca was not well known in the south. A triad of gods was also found in Palmyra; it consisted of Bel, Yarhibol, a solar deity, and Aglibol; a lunar deity. Belshamini (Lord of the Heavens) also stood in a triadic relationship with the god Malakbel and Aglibol.

This triadic principle travelled from the south to Mecca. The Koran itself describes the three daughters of Allah, namely, ar-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat. It is worth mentioning that al- Lat in Palmyra was equated with the Greek goddess of Athena; al-Uzza was a goddess of the Nabataeans whereas Manat (Fate) was associated with Ihe Greek Nemesis at Palmyra.

It is absolutely misleading to say that Islam is free from idolatory. They have an idol in the central Islamic shrine of Kaaba which marks the climax of hajj because the faithful have to kiss it individually. This is the Black Stone known as Hajr-E-Aswad, and according to Ibn al-Kalbi, is a continuation of the Square Stone which was central to the cult of al-Lat at at-Taif. Suidas, a Greek compiler of encyclopaedia of C.A.D 1000 states that the Dhu-Shara at Petra had a similar Black Stone on a gold base.

The Muslims say that when Allah expelled Adam from paradise, He gave Adam the Black Stone which is now built into the eastern wall of the Kaaba and consists of three large pieces and some fragments, surrounded by a stone ring and held together by a silver band. It was carried away by members of the Qarmatian sects in 930. However, the above evidence shows that the other Arab temples had similar black stones; God would not have given Adam that many black stones to carry. What was then, the reality behind a black stone in the Arab culture?

"A principal sacred object in Arabian religion was the stone, either a rock outcropping or a large boulder, often a rectangular or black basaltic stone without representative sculptural details." Such stones were considered suitable material of worship to form part of the house of a god i.e. temple. This is the reason that the Christian writers of Byzantine during the 5th and 6th centuries called such a stone Baetyl, which is derived from Bet'EI (House of the god).

Shape or no shape, a stone which is an object of worship, is an idol. Moses forbade images of any kind but Muhammad allowed to continue the worship of the Black Stone in the Kaaba to make it the most sacred shrine of Islam for national reasons. The idea was, if Arabia, lost its political dignity, even then the Muslim nations must bow before it. God lives everywhere in the world but the genius af Muhammad seems to have permanently housed Him in Mecca for the benefit of his own people, the Arabs.

One should also realise that an annual pilgrimage was a principle celebration of the pre-Islamic Arabs. All tribes having the sarne god were required to gather at his sanctuary and go around the baetyl in a cermonial procession. The Prophet also retained this pre-Islamic rite to benefit his nation financially. What relationship can have this pagan ceremony with the true God?

The faithful usually forget that the Prophet was the founder of the Arab Empire; it could not be built without structuring a really strong nation which could batter, blast and bewilder the powers of the time such as Iran and Byzantine. As other nations sought strength from their gods through crying, cringing and crawling, the Prophet wanted his people to sigh, solicit and supplicate him for inspiration, might and victory. For this reason, he aspired to become an idol himself, the object of adoration and worship. Adroitly, he projected Allah as the God but became the driving force behind Him on the Indian principle, which holds that there is a deity behind every physical pehnomenon. However, he could achieve this ambition by destroying other idols only. As long as they existed, his chances of becoming the object of worship were minimal. Since India was the home of idolatory, the Muslim warriors made this land the target of their ambitions.

Human culture is not based on uniformity but multiety. It is because man is endowed with free will. Without free choice humans cease to be human. Therefore, Allah, if He is the real God, cannot order murder of those who do not believe in him. In the case af India, it is even more absurd because the Hindus had developed the concept of Prajapati, the Lord of Creatures; He was more monotheistic than the Arabian Allah whose divinity is shared by the Prophet, his descendants and companions. His oneness is theoretical only. Therefore, the Muslims had no quarrel with India on account of a Universal God. Their dispute centred around Muhammad who declared that faith without believing in him along with Allah, was useless.

The true God is the champion of virtue, but the God, who sanctions murder, rape, arson, slavery to make people acknowledge Him, falls far short of the standard of righteousness. He is not only extremely selfish but also impotent; if He is the Almighty Creator, He could have surely created a believing and obedient man. Again, what kind of God is He whose own satisfaction depends upon man's acknowledgement? When man accepts Allah, He feels glad but when he rejects Allah, He becomes sad. This concept of Godhead is nothing but the gross contempt of Allah. The Muslims must realise that they do not adore Allah but deplore Him.

Finally, religion is the search for peace of mind and moral perfection. Making innocent children orphans, and turning happily married women into widows, cannot be the command of God. Seeking suzerainty over other people for usurping their freedom is no part of righteousness, but the religion that the Prophet Muhammad invented, expressly sought dominance over non-believers. The Koran repeatedly says:

"He (Allah) it is who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religions, however much the idolators may dislike." (Repentance: 33)

To establish a pe-manent excuse for fighting non- believers, the Prophet abrogated all other religions by declaring them, as false (Sahih Muslim, chapter: LXXI) and then announced a permanent state of war against them until they were completely uprooted (Sahih Muslim no. 31, 32 and 33). The whole purpose of acquiring dominance through carnage is that the Prophet should have the largest following. (Sahih Muslim no. 381) This search for followers to satisfy the Prophetic urge of dominance brought the Muslims to India, the home of polytheism.

A serious search for the roots of polytheism not only leads to India but also to the Indian glory whose radiance has been tarnished by the dark clouds of history for a very long time, indeed. I am not trying to be a misguided patriot who treats fiction as a fact to mollify the painful national scars inflicted by the caprices of history but a sober student of this subject, who is satisfied with establishing the truth irrespective of its palatability.

The Hindu aversion to writing, especially the reluctance to keeping historical records, is the main cause of the Hindus lacking pride in their traditions; it has heavily contributed to the lowering of national aspirations and standards of honour. However, the truth cannot be held back indefinitely. It is like the sunlight which eventually breaks through the barriers of a dark eclipse. Until some fifty years ago, we were told that the Hindus had been so primitive in their ways that they never left the Indian soil. Thanks to the modern technical advancement, which revealed that the Hindus held a political sway over the Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Java, Bali, Borneo, Champa (Annam), Cambodia, Burma, Siam and Indo-China. The political hegemony of India over these lands extended for about a 1000 years, while her cultural influence over all the Far Eastern countries survives even today.

Yet, it is only a part of the Indian glory. This picture becomes more vivid when we study the European civilisation with reference to paganism. Then, one can see that once European countries were dominated by the Vedic culture, which is a peculiarity of India, and clearly shows that the Aryans were the people of Indian origin, and not the other way round, as we have been led to believe by historians. If this were not true, one could not find the Europeans observing Asvamedha i.e., the horse-sacrifice, closely associated with the Vedas. On a 5,000 year old Harappan seal, we find an ithyphallic figure seated in a yogic position, which is the prototype of Shiva, also known as Pasupati, Lord of Beasts. We also notice this figure (Shiva as Pasupati) on the interior of the cauldron, which is in the Danish National Museum, Copenhagen, and belongs to the 2nd century. Shiva, a Vedic god, would not have reached the Western lands without the Hindus themselves. That the Europeans took their polytheistic faith from India is proved by the triadic principle of representing godhead as discussed earlier. Having dealt with this issue fully in my unpublished work, "The Wonders of The Rgveda," I need not go into detail here hut ought to point out that even today there are thirty images of a three-headed god extant on the European Continent. That is the mighty Shiva of India.

By comparing the Greek mythology with that of India, we realise that Zeus, the Chief God of Greece, is none other than Indra, the Chief God of India. There is abundant evidence which demonstrates that the Greco-Roman polytheism is firmly rooted in the Indian doctrine of idol- worship. The Christian writers refer to it as paganism or heathenism.

As Islam challenged idolatory in India, Christianity declared war on it in the West. However, the two tales have different endings. Christianity succeeded in smashing idolatory in the West, and whatever persists in the Roman Catholic Church is just a shadow of the original but it has survived in India despite persistent persecution at the hands of the foreign predators and has risen once again with a vigour, virility and vivacity unknown to any religious movement. On the contrary, Islam has ceased to have any relevance with the Koranic principles; it has become a slogan of the power- seekers, and this fact is fully vouched for by the recent histories of Palcistan and Afghanistan.

Why do these monotheistic religions i.e., Islam and Christianity seek destruction of idolatory?

Firstly, both these religions are dictatorial in essence, and violently oppose the principle of People's Power. They both claim that the government belongs to God and must be run by the theocrats i .e., the clergy and the Mullah. Idea of the Oneness of God is appealing and logical but presenting God as a power-maniac, is the gross insult to Him. To start with, presentation of monotheism through the exclusive- agency of a prophet is a big joke, indeed. No matter, what the prophet calls himself, he is an equal partner in Godhead right from the outset; for example, belief in Allah alone is totally useless unless Muhammad is also included in it. If God is absolute and Almighty, then believing in the Prophet is a glaring proof of Shirk or polytheism. Not only that, a prophet always bestows divinity on the members of his family, and thus creates a pantheon. Just look at the Sayyads of the Indian sub-continent, who are believed to possess intercessory powers for their Muslim followers. What applies to the Muslims, is equally true of the Christians. The Popes became infallible despite the fact that many of them wer just mundane rulers, and had mistresses and illegitimate children. The Christ rose to become the Son of God, and many Christians believe that He was God-incarnate.

Why do these so-called monotheists oppose polytheism? It is because monotheism serves the purpose of dominance-urge by concentrating power in one person. It is the representation of human jealousy for personal worship and glory. On the contrary, polytheism advocates belief in many gods, who happen to be equally sacred. This doctrine distributes power from person to people. This is the reason that the Vedic society calls for electing a king if he fails to govern according to the dharma, or leaves no issue to follow him.

More sins have been perpetrated to please God than to suppressing Devil. Destruction of the Indian idols was partly an exercise of the Muslim invaders to satisfy their lust for power and wealth. This is what brought Mahmud Ghaznavi to India repeatedly. Though his raids were abominable, yet I am reluctant to praise my Hindu ancestors who defied the Vedic Principle of Power and became the devotees of Ahimsa, an utterly non-Hindu doctrine. I find it hard to bear this most painful disgrace but accept the fact that it is the destiny of a sparrow to be humbled by a falcon. One ought to know that Falcon, being a Vedic bird, is a symbol of the Ksatriya qualities. The Hindus brought misery on themselves by acting as sparrows. The nation which loses its hawkish virtue is bound to be molested, mutilated and murdered by the Messengers of perdition such as Mahmud Ghaznavi, Juna Khan and Feroz Shah Tughlaq.

The Christians acted likewise against polytheism in the West. They closed down pagan temples and confiscated their property. Constantine discouraged pagan sacrifices; Constaus went even further to forbid them on pain of death. Constantius ordered the closing of all pagan temples and rituals. Those who disobeyed, perished at his command. However, these Byzantinian Emperors were succeeded by Flavius Claudius Julianus, who was born in 332. He was not only a competent administrator and soldier but also a philosopher. He ridiculed the basic tenets of monotheism and justified use of idols in worship. He thought of the deities of polytheism as impersonal forces and did not believe in their anthropomorphic forms. He preferred to be called the priest of polytheism instead of an emperor. He was able to reverse the tide of Christianity, at least during his reign, by withdrawing state subsidies from the Church and closing to the Christians, chairs of rhetoric, philosophy, and literature in the universities. He insisted that these subjects should be taught by the pagans only. He went even further: he permitted demolition of the Christian Churches, which had been built on the lands seized from the pagan shrines. He ordered reconstruction of the pagan temples and imposed levies on the Christians to make full reparations for the damage that had been caused to the pagan institutions during preceding reigns of the Christian emperors. His orders provoked riots but he stood firm, and succeeded.

Here is an example for the Hindus to follow. Polytheism represents the Hindu ethos. They shall not be able to live honourably without sticking to their basic way of life, especially when it harms nobody. Though I am not an idolator, I support the human right to worship as one thinks fit.

Dominance urge is the biggest predator of human rights. Though I have said enough to explain it, yet its description is not complete. It has another aspect; human psychology is polar like physical objects, which have negative and positive sides. As humans are naturally kind and curt, sagacious and stupid, they are also dominant and submissive. Thus, dominance and submissiveness are the opposite poles of human disposition. They both have their virtues, but when dominance has no purpose except enjoyment of power at the expense of people's honour, safety and freedom, then it becomes the worst evil that there can be. On the other hand, submission without fighting the dominance-seeker or aggressor is even greater vice because it makes the dominant or aggressor a lot more daring, devilish and destructive. A wolf without pugnacity is just a lamb - only fit for the dining table. The nation which loses nerve to defend its honour, becomes a football to be played with by every Tom, Dick and Harry. By making Ahimsa i.e, non-violence the uay of life, Hindus have made themselves a tempting target for any aggressor. This is not a religious virtue but a sign of profanity and a shameful exercise to enshrine a most despicable vice as a splendid virtue. Gods do not want cowards for devotees; they bless the Vedic patriots who fight with a sense of honour.

Finally, as a footnote to the above discussion, I may add that this thesis agitated my mind for a long time but I resisted the temptation of putting it on paper because I did not want to open up the old wounds. After reading works of some patriotic Hindu scholars, I realised my mistake; their cuts have not healed but become deeper. Though it is painful, it is a sign of renaissance - a new life, because it is only the senseless who forget the humiliation of 1000 years; the lively seek rejuvination through honourable conduct based on determination and the will to succeed.

Though my views are totally different, I salute the Indian writers who have written on this subject. Among them is the intellectual giant, Sri Ram Swarup, whose piety forbids him to pass judgement on the atrocious conduct of the foreign iconoclasts. Sri Sita Ram Goel is another scholar whose patriotic protests echo through the flourish of his pen and desperately seek the restoration of Hindu ascendancy. Sri G. M. Jagtiani, the Maratha mystic, is a Vedic preacher, whose writings are expressive of deep grief, which seeks relief through an immortal national glory. Sri A. Ghosh of Texas, is the Kshatriya stalwart who wonders what happened to the cutting edge of his ancestral sword. He will do anything to revive the martial character of his people.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Abdu

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 08:21 pm
Congratulation mr Annonymous, what a thesis? Every Somali should read it, as I recommended my students (history) to read and understand this gem.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Monday, March 26, 2001 - 08:40 pm
Formerguest
If Galool and Pragmatic Girls critiques about Islam are not valid, then your about other faiths are not valid as well. Being a Muslim doesn't give your logic train special standing, in fact the inverse is true. You are blinded by faith and therefore your arguments tend to be porous and weak.

Worse yet you failed to counter Pragmatic Girls points. Her translation is the same one I have from Yusuf Ali. She is citing a specific Surah to support her point. You don't like the position taken, so you ignore it. I think she has a valid point. In the event, EVERYTHING in the Qur'an is voluntary - you told me that yourself. The Qur'an is a set of guidlines, which the faithful can choose to subscribe to or not. The degree to which they subscribe is judged by Allah - not you or anyone else on earth.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 03:32 am
fg, I'm not here to criticize you. It is not my intention to pick on what you say, but to
try to understand it. Now, to do that I have to ask you questions...right?
You said that you believed we could learn something from each other and you told me to feel
free to ask you any questions. Which I did. It shouldn't be so difficult for you to give me an
honest answer, so why didn't you? Regarding to both PG and MM it is now obvious that you said only half the truth, so why try to fool me when I'm asking you a serious question? As you know I don't have much knowledge about the subject, so please don't try to take advantage of it, ok? Hehhe! And I would very much like to hear other opinions as well. So thanks to PG and MM. You know, there is a big difference between
"they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad)" and "draw their cloaks(veils) all over
their bodies". The word here is also "should", not "must". So is the answer then that women are free to choose if they want to wear hijab or not? I think so? And that they don't have to cover the whole body like they do in Afghanistan?
PG, the things you said about working with your body covered is so true..ehehhe... I've seen it myself, and that's why I asked if they could remove the hijab when they work...
MM said; "The Qur'an is a set of guidlines, which the faithful can choose to subscribe to or not. The degree to which they subscribe is judged by Allah - not you or anyone else on earth". I'm asking you fg, is this true or not?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 03:37 am
Oh, a question to PG and Galool; you both seem to know alot about the Quran. Were you former believers, if yes, why don't you believe in what's written in the Quran any more?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Abdu

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 03:59 am
PG, if what you wrote about the Muslims not admitting to being idol worshippers like those you mentioned is the truth, what about the atheists too? Do the atheists also deny being the worshippers of some motif as deity?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 04:05 am
Reduced To Rubble

Reported by: CBS

KABUL, Afghanistan, 3/26/2001 :: For the first time since blasting apart the towering statues, Taliban soldiers on Monday showed foreigners the remains of two Buddhas carved into the mountainside in the 3rd and 5th centuries.

Spent artillery shells, lined up like sentries, stood at the base of the mountain alcove where the tallest statue once soared 170 feet. The Buddha''s outline and piles of rubble were all that remained.

A narrow stairwell carved into the sandstone mountain wound its way up the side of the other, 120-foot Buddha. The stairs led to dusty rooms, their walls decorated with empty niches where smaller statues once stood.

In the long history of Afghanistan, the Taliban will go down as the Islamic iconoclasts who inflicted cultural destruction that exceeded the onslaught of even infamous conquerors like Genghis Khan.

Using artillery and explosives, the Islamic movement that is determined to destroy all images of animate objects on grounds they are pagan idols took 20 days to turn two gigantic statues of the Buddha at Bamiyan into rubble.

The Buddhas, Afghanistan''s most famous historic treasures, were nearly 2,000 years old.

Far from being ashamed of an act that drew worldwide condemnation, the Taliban arranged a plane to take reporters to the valley of Bamiyan on Monday to show that they had carried out their vow to obliterate the pre-Islamic monuments.

It was a brutal end for monuments that had survived nearly 13 centuries of Islamic rule with only minor damage - and an end to a scene that appeared on Afghan postage stamps, its calendars and every photo book.

"Bamiyan is a small town lying at the very heart of the Hindu Kush in a beautiful valley containing one of man''s most remarkable achievements - the Colossal Buddhas of Bamiyan," wrote a guide book published before Afghanistan plunged into its two decades of war that led to the Taliban taking power.

The author of the study, Nancy Dupree, has spent most of her life helping Afghanistan and this year joined in the outrage over the destruction of the country''s heritage. Many smaller statues unearthed at Bamiyan had been moved to the National Museum in Kabul, which the Taliban opened to journalists last Thursday to show none survived.

But the giant Buddhas were the most famous, the centerpiece of a spectacular scene across the fertile valley from what was once the citadel guarding the region.

While they had always astounded visitors, the sight was nothing compared to the era when this was a center of Buddhism. In the second century, Kanishka became king of the Kushan federation and built a rich empire stretching from the Ganges Valley to the Gobi Desert.

To the west, the Roman Empire was at its height. To the east the Han dynasty ruled China. To the south lay the riches of India. In the middle, Kanishka''s empire sat astride the trade routes, with Silk Route caravans passing over the Hindu Kush mountains through Bamiyan.

It was in the glorious era inaugurated by Kanishka, who was a patron of Buddhism, that the colossal statues were carved into cliffs overlooking Bamiyan. The smaller of the statues, towering 125 feet, may date from the third century, the giant statue that rose 175 feet a bit later.

At the time the valley resonated with Buddhist activity. The statues were painted and yellow-robed monks lived in the caves that dot the cliff face. Stupas and monasteries were scattered across the landscape.

Witnesses said on Monday the Taliban had methodically obliterated the paintings devout Buddhist monks had made in the caves.

The Buddhist kingdom was resilient. Huns from Central Asia swept over Afghanistan in the fifth century, initially destroying Buddhist sites. But a subsequent Hun ruler of Bamiyan became a Buddhist and led a revival that produced some of the most famous art to emerge from the valley - all anathema to the Taliban.

The valley submitted to early Islamic invaders in the eighth century, but quickly reverted to the old religion. That drew another Islamic invasion a century later, ending forever the Buddhist religion in Afghanistan.

The valley, still profiting from trade, continued to thrive under Islam. But prosperity ended abruptly - and permanently - in 1221. Genghis Khan''s armies, having already destroyed much of Central Asia, stormed into the valley.

The resistance from the citadel in Bamiyan was so strong - they killed the conqueror''s favorite grandson - that he set out to kill every living thing when he triumphed. To this day, the site of the citadel is known as Shahr-I-Gholghola, the city of noise, because of the shouts of the victims.

But, although he is said to have defaced the large Buddha, the giant statues survived. Countless visitors, gunmen and individual iconoclasts inflicted pockmarks and graffiti over the centuries, but the damage was relatively minor.

In 1998 that changed. The Taliban captured Bamiyan and within a year the head of the smaller statue had been destroyed. Assurances from the Taliban founder Mullah Mohammad Omar that he would protect Afghan heritage failed to allay fears.

Then at the end of last month, Omar issued a decree calling for the destruction of all statues. With the minister of defense overseeing the operation, holes were bored into the statues and filled with explosives.

To shouts of Allahu Akbar, God is Greatest, the Taliban totally destroyed with modern explosives the Afghan heritage that had survived centuries of previous invaders.


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

Taliban takes journalists to Bamyan

Reported by: Kyodo

ISLAMABAD, 3/26/2001 :: A group of international journalists flew to Bamyan on Monday morning aboard a chartered Afghan Ariana airliner to visit the site of two giant Buddha statues that were destroyed March 14 by Afghanistan''s ruling Taliban militia, the Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) reported.

AIP quoted an Afghan airline official as saying that a group of 20 journalists who had been trying to reach Bamyan for several days had charted the aircraft for $3,000.

The plane left Kabul''s Khwaja Rawash Airport at 10:20 a.m. and was scheduled to land at Bamyan airport 45 minutes later, AIP said.

The Taliban had reportedly twice canceled scheduled trips by journalists to Bamyan, where the two giant Buddha statues were destroyed under an edict issued Feb. 26 by Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar.

The edict called for the destruction of all statues in Afghanistan on the grounds that they were offensive to Islam.

Last Wednesday, the Taliban Foreign Ministry told the journalists that the ministry had not yet received clearance from top Taliban officials for their trip to Bamyan, which is located 100 kilometers northwest of Kabul.

A ministry spokesman said opposition forces had launched an attack on the Bamyan front on Tuesday, making the region hazardous for travel.

The two Bamyan Buddha statues, which stood 53 meters and 38 meters tall, respectively, were erected before the region came under the influence of Islam. Prior to its destruction, the 53-meter statue was the world''s tallest Buddha.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 04:10 am
BREAKING NEWS! Deity Found! Deity Found!


Finally! The God of Atheism Revealed!


"I am the Great Invisible Pink Fluctuation. A long time ago, before time itself, I fluctuated in the void and...Bang! The whole universe came into existence. Come and revere my awesomeness! Bow low and give praise to me so that I may roll the quantum dice for you."

"As you know, inside the Planck length and the Planck duration you have this space-time foam where the quantum fluctuations from matter to non-matter really have very little meaning, mathematically speaking. You have a Higgs field tunneling into a quantum fluctuation through the energy barrier in a false-vacuum state, and you get this bubble of broken symmetry that by negative pressure expands exponentially, and in a couple of microseconds you can have something go from next to nothing to the size and mass of the observable present universe." -(Myron Kriegman, modern physicist, giving praise to the great IPF. Glory!)






LET US NOW COME TOGETHER

Its been a long search. For thousands of years the human race has searched for the truth, and now, it is the atheists who finally found it. With the discovery of Quantum mechanics in the 1920's and the works of scientists such as David Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Friedrich Hund, Arnold Sommerfeld, Harold Puthoff and many others, along with the great fervency of apostles such as Quentin Smith and Dan Barker, humanity has finally discovered the answer to it all: The Great Invisible Pink Fluctuation (or, IPF). Our universe began to exist, but it was not because of any "god," it was because of pure science and natural law. It was a fluctuation in the void- it was the IPF- the cause for all existence and the ultimate, objective reason, and purpose for humanity. The answers have arrived at last, and we are here to give them to you. On this website lies that which humanity after so many thousands of years has finally discovered: the great truth of all reality, the answer to our very existence. We wish you well on your spiritual journey. Oh, friend how I envy you. Such wonders await! Now, go, my friend. Go and find the answers....

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 04:13 am
TWO CHALLENGES! TWO CHECKS!

MAKE A TON OF MONEY NOW!



$550,000 CHALLENGE! NO JOKE

We, The Ministry of Reason will pay the sum of US$550,000 (Five hundred and fifty thousand dollars) to any person or persons who can demonstrate under scientific observation that matter can spontaneously arise from nothingness. Such demonstration must take place under the following rules and limitations.

1. The applicant must state in advance terms and conditions upon which the demonstration will take place and all terms must be agreeable with The Ministry of Reason. The applicant is fully responsible for all incurred costs of and related to transportation and lodging. The Ministry of Reason is not responsible for any expenses applicants incur in pursuit of this challenge.

2. The demonstration will be fully public, open to anyone. The Ministry of Reason will be assured to their satisfaction that the expirement is valid and does not violate any of the conditions herein.

3. This must be a real demonstration! A live, real event of spontaneous existence ex-nihlo within a vacuum without any intrusion or outside cause beyond that system must take place so that empirical proof can be obtained. Temporary matter is invalid. Any matter that spontaneously causes (or effects) itself must remain in existence as part of the universe. (What this means is that any matter that arises from the void must remain. We will not accept a claim like "Oh, did you see it? It was there for a microsecond then vanished!":O Virtual matter is invalid (for one thing, virtual particles dont last very long.) Only real, measureable, observable matter will be accepted! (that should be obvious). The mass that arises must be new mass that did not previously exist. The existence that arises must be new existence that adds to the matter and energy of the universe. We require proof of spontanous existence that remains once it exists (just like the universe remains to exists now). Lectures, theories, scientific speculation, paperwork, philosophical "reasoning," hearsay, freethinking dogmatic rhetorics, and related mumbo-jumbo infested speculative flimflam are unacceptable and will be thrown out without the objective, demonstrable, eventful, observable, repeatable proof that true verifiable science demands. (See: scientific method) We dont want to hear a spew of freethought tripe. We want to see the proof. Its time to quit talking about your "rational science" and start bringing it to the table, else admit your blind faith and be done with it.

4. The payment of money is contingent upon whether or not the offer by the James Randi Educational Foundation* is still unclaimed at the time of pursuant to this agreement.

5. To collect the money, the individual must repeat this demonstration on behalf of The Ministry of Reason to the James Randi Educational Foundation according to his terms. (For, anyone to demonstrate the act of bringing something from nothing is a tremendous supernatural event, greater than all miracles and myths combined- one which we think Mr. Randi would surely qualify.). Upon acceptance and successful compliance to JREF, payment from James Randi will then be collected by us (The Ministry of Reason), and then we will pay the successful applicant in full amount the sum of US$550,000. Failure to comply and succeed with JREF will result in full negation of payment. This is a real offer.

Want a Different Challenge?

Well, here is another chance to earn real money from Dr. Kent Hovind. What, did you think that James Randi's idea is original? Sorry. Not a chance. This challenge from Dr. Hovind has been unanswered for almost 10 years. Randi's challenge has only been around since 1996, most likely copied from Dr. Hovind. You think creationism is hogwash? You think you have the backing of scientific proof with evolution? We shall soon see whether you can put forth facts or just more meaningless, unproven, evolutionary religious dogma.

Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
formerly $10,000, offered since 1990


I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.



Observed phenomena:

Most thinking people will agree that--
1. A highly ordered universe exists.
2. At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.
3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.

Known options:

Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being--
1. The universe was created by God.
2. The universe always existed.
3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).

People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.


How to collect the $250,000:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options":O is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.

If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:

1. The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
2. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
3. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
4. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.


My suggestion:
Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.

* NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolition). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed form space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).


Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 offer

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 04:20 am
Not another (yawn) ‘ape-man’
26 March, 2001

The news media are abuzz with the latest evolutionary claim about Kenyanthropus platyops, a new claimed ‘human ancestor’. Associated with the discovery was Meave Leakey, daughter of Richard and grand-daughter of Mary and Louis, continuing the family tradition. Predictably, many Christians are, occasionally with anxiety, looking to ministries like AiG for an answer.

The flat-faced, small-toothed fossil creature, which was discovered about two years ago, is ‘dated’ at about 3.6 million years ago in the evolutionary scheme of things. The specimen, KNM-WT 40000, found west of Lake Turkana in East Africa, consists of fragments of a skull, including a fairly well-preserved, though distorted, cranium.

We don’t like to give ‘knee-jerk’ responses until there has been time to digest the reports in great detail. We hope to have a detailed report on this page in a few weeks. In the meantime, here are some points to keep in mind.

Over the decades, one supposed ‘ape-man’ after another has been presented to the public with great confidence as being ancestral to humans–only to quietly drop off the family tree later.
Each time, humanists have been gloating, some Christians have been panicking, and the media buzzing.

Each time, subsequent events have shown that there was no cause for any of the above.
This ‘dropping off the tree’ usually happens because new information, based on careful analysis by trained anatomists, gradually accumulates to the point where the original claim can no longer be sustained.

Mostly, the hype and glamour associated with the initial discovery has slowed down the willingness of the paleo-anthropological establishment to accept this new information.

The pattern has repeatedly been that no ancestors are abandoned until a new candidate group has been found. It would appear to be a psychological necessity to have at least some group to point to as ‘links’.

Up until now, we have been told that the australopithecines (best recognized by most people through the famous ‘Lucy’ specimen) were, without a doubt, man’s ancestor. For one thing, we are told over and over that they walked upright in the human manner.

This is despite the fact that careful anatomical analysis by specialists, themselves evolutionists, has shown that they walked distinctly differently from humans. And CAT scans of the skulls showing their organ-of-balance anatomy prove beyond doubt that they did NOT walk anything at all like humans. Lucy’s wrists have even revealed the ‘locking’ mechanism of knucklewalkers, totally overlooked until recently.

Kenyanthropus had a brain the size of a chimpanzee’s1. Its name means ‘man of Kenya’, but should really be Kenyapithecus, ‘ape of Kenya’, based on the evidence. It would not surprise if in due course (probably only after another candidate is found) it were renamed to the latter.

The following quotes indicate that the find is as much an embarrassment to traditional evolutionary theories than something for evolutionists to get excited about.

‘Leakey says the discovery has raised more questions than it has answered’2

‘If you think of a family tree with a trunk, we’re talking about two trunks, if they’re right.’ 2

Fred Spoor, of the University College of London’s deparment of anatomy, who is actually a co-author of the Nature paper describing the Kenyanthropus find, is quoted as saying that the discovery means it is now impossible to know with any certainty who our earliest ancestor is. He said by telephone from London, ‘If we don’t have to bet on it, then it is likely it is neither Kenyanthropus or Australopithecus.’ 2

In summary, one more extinct type of ape has been found in East Africa.

If it were not for the driving pressure of evolutionary belief, there would be no reason to see it as ancestral to humans. Significantly, the claim that it is a human ancestor can only be true if all the previous claims ‘pushed’ by textbooks, etc around the world about Lucy’s kinds being ancestors are actually false, as it is markedly different from Lucy.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 04:24 am
http://www.msnbc.com/news/547607.asp#BODY

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v410/n6827/full/410419a0_fs.html

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

http://www.unbelief.com/

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 04:54 am
Finally! The God(Deity) of Atheism Revealed! the Great Invisible Pink Fluctuation. IPF sightings confirmed!

A true testimony from a dedicated follower describing the joy of knowing that IPF and the wonders of atheism. Included is a detailed and objective observation of Maco-Quantum mechanics. A Factual Account of the IPF and Macro Quantum Activity. We get a lot of feedback here at the Secular Church. Sometimes, we receive powerful claims of IPF sightings. This highly rational atheist has sent us a very non-ad-hominem account of his objective observations that we felt was truly brilliant. We shall call him "Mike":

"Oh Great and Glorious IPF! If only I had known what purpose and meaning your grand invisible pink splendor could bring to my life. In fact, tonight I am going to go to the top of my building with my brand new telescope that you have so graciously bestowed upon me with just one swift roll of the quantum dice and watch in awe of the brilliant radiance of the results of you awesome uncertain fluctuatingness that you reveal in our universe so marvelously. Oh, I stand in awe of the billions of universes popping off even as my brainwaves are fluctuating and popping off more universes while in contemplation of your grand uncertain fluctuatingness of which is the only thing anyone can truly be certain of! Hallelujah to the IPF! Bow down in adoration at his awesome uncertain invisible pinkness, worship him in the beauty of his fluctuatingness! Now I realize why pink is everyone's favorite color. I love you IPF."

http://www.unbelief.com/

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 04:59 am
Atheist Statement of Faith

Introduction:

Like all systems of faith, there is great diversity among atheists as to exactly what they believe. For example, if you had two Buddhists in a room, there is a good chance that they will have different beliefs. One may adhere to more fundamental Therevada Buddhism, the other may follow Mahayana Buddhism. One may believe in the existence of Baddisatvahs and the other may deny them. However, we can say that despite the differences in beliefs, there does exist a commonality between them: a world view composed of fundamental suppositions that constitutes positive faith in those suppositions. Like all systems of faith, there is no one "set of doctrines" that will cover everyone. Even within the realm of Christianity, there are great differences in beliefs. Jehovah Witnesses deny the deity of Christ and the hypostatic union. Mormonism denies the supremacy of Christ and differ with eschatological hermeneutics. Huge doctrinal differences remain with scores of other religious groups who are labeled "Christian". Yet at the same time, they share a commonality, namely, a general belief in the Bible and of some form of salvation through Christ.

Like all religions, atheism is no different. There is a commonality within atheism that is composed of certain positive assertions. The tenets following are not negative beliefs. A negative belief would be for example, "I dont believe in flying temporal sentient polymer-based purple jellies" Some atheists call this a default position; namely a position of negative belief by default. A positive belief, on the other hand, would be "I believe that temporal purple jellies exist" in contrast to "I dont believe in temporal purple jellies." Atheist like to claim they have no positive beliefs; however this is false. Below is a list of positive assertions you will need to make before you can become an atheist. Again, we need to stress, not all atheists will believe in all of these, but all atheists will certainly believe in some of them (and many probably believe all of them). So, with no further ado....

Nontheist Doctrinal Statement of Faith

Comprised Cannon of Positive Declarations of Epistemological Esoteric Catechisms of the Quantum-Age Secular Nontheist

The beliefs colored in red with an asterisk (*) next to them are REQUIRED BELIEFS that ALL ATHEISTS must have. (I am still looking for an atheist who does not believe in a red tenet marked with an (*) asterisk )

I. *I believe the universe does not need a creator (*required. -whether you call this creator a pink unicorn or a purple jelly or God...it is irrelevant. The identity of the creator is not the issue. We can reword this tenet to state "I believe that no supernatural cause for the universe exists" Again, we are not concerned with supernatural identity here- the greater philosophical question of origin and the possibility of miracles is all that matters, and this is a positive affirmation the atheist must make admitted or not- see article)

II. I believe the five senses are all that's needed to learn truth even though to make that statement requires knowledge above the five senses. I believe there are no absolutes even though to claim "absolutes do not exist" is an absolute statement.

III. I believe a priori against the possibility of miracles. No matter where science points, it is impossible to point to a supernatural cause because I wont accept it no matter what. Any explanation for something, no matter how radical and extreme, no matter how fantastic and absurd, if it does not imply theism, it is and will always be more rational. The supernatural has been ruled out before science even begins.


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

*(Items IV-VI, though not required individually, are required as a group possibility. The atheist must be open to one or more of these possibilities. If the atheist claims to deny the possibility of all three of them, that atheist by default is a theist)

IV. I believe in the feasibility of the universe popping into existence from absolute nothingness (ex-nihilo) despite the philosophical absurdity of such a notion and total lack of any evidence that something can come from nothing.

V. I believe in the feasibility that the universe does not need a cause- if the universe needs a cause like everything else does, then I would have to be a theist (or at minimum a supernaturalist), and I dont want that...therefore, I must believe in that which is inconsistent with the rest of the universe; namely that everything else needs a cause *except* the universe. I have made an exceptional exception, and I have no evidence of that exception, let alone any exceptional evidence.

VI. I believe in the feasibility of the universe being eternal despite no evidence that matter is eternal and despite the philosophical contradiction of an infinite amount of finite events in the past.


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

VII. I believe it is possible to have an effect without a cause, in spite of no direct scientific evidence (virtual particles are not proven to be causeless...not even close- you need belief to maintain that assumption- and I mean serious belief.)

VIII. I believe in the feasibility that a quantum flux in an absolute (classical) vacuum could have happened and caused (or effected) the whole universe into existence even though I have no idea how nor is there any evidence to support this claim. (remember that ALL experimentation done in vacuums are quantum vacuums and not classical ones)

IX. I believe in the feasibility that the law of causality can be broken without any supernatural intervention, despite anything even resembling proof. (again, virtual particles do not constitute proof against the law of causality. Believing against causality requires great faith, since all verifiable science confirms it)

X. I believe that ultimately and objectively that I, as a human being, have no more value than a 180 pound bag of mostly water or an random heap of 5.12 X 10^28 atoms strewn together in conglomerated mass of proteinous excrement in a gelatinous hydrogen-oxygen base of oozing purulent ossification. Any value I ascribe to my life or to others is purely subjective or determined by my society, which is ultimately subjective as well.

XI. *I believe that the above beliefs are rational despite scientific evidence while simultaneously, objectively and with flamboyant convicting authority, declare theism (especially xians) to be irrational and bereft of reason (*required)

XII. I believe that an objective moral law can exist without an objective moral law giver (again, the identity of this lawgiver is irrelevant in this tenet). I believe that the human conscience and qualities such as compassion, sacrifice, and humility (including the "golden rule":O could have evolved out of the unguided chaos of Darwinism in a constant, unchanging state of "survival of the fittest." For obvious reasons, I know that I can never prove this belief, which is why it is a belief.

XIII. I believe that something is "wrong" because society calls it wrong, or it interferes with someone else's aspirations. And since WWII Germany declared genocide to be "right" and the Jews were interfering with Hitlers aspirations, my definition of morality does not and cannot exclude Hitler's actions as absolutely wrong. I want it...I wish it could be wrong for all time, - I wish I could objectively state that what Hitler did was wrong and will always be wrong, but without God, I am completely unable to make that claim. My view of morality necessarily must leave room for slavery and genocide that could someday be "right and proper."

XIV. I believe the total sum of energy in the universe is zero, though for obvious reasons, I have no possible way to prove it.

XV: I believe that not only is the total energy of the universe zero, but that this means the same as "nothing." I believe that the entire universe is merely "re-arranged nothing," which means that perhaps, ultimately, I might not even exist since I, too, am nothing. (Is there a Zen Buddhist in the house? Amazing faith.)

XVI. I believe in the feasibility that the whole universe is on borrowed energy, and at any time may have to "pay it back" to the void. (the void doesn't take too well to bad credit you know.)

XVII. *I believe in advanced alien life (*required - as sure as an atheist could point to a Christian and say "that person believes in Christ", I could point to an atheist and declare, "that person believes in advanced aliens" see: Carl Sagan)

XVIII. *I believe that those aliens are benevolent (*required)

XIX. I need to believe in those benevolent aliens because it gives me a sense of hope for humanity.

XX. I need that sense of hope because its too depressing not to have at least *some* hope and since I have rejected God, those benevolent aliens are all I got. (not required, but still highly recommended)

XXI. I believe that the most complex structure known to man in the entire universe, the human brain, is the ultimate result of random, hapless, unguided, total chance.

XXII. almost * I believe in an objective, totally unproven "cosmic law" that states "Wherever conditions for life exist, life will somehow manage to squirm itself out." (thought not required, this tenet is strongly suggested)

XXIII. Despite being totally bereft of empirical evidence and contradictory to scientific mathematical computations (see: Hoyle), I really need to believe in this "cosmic law" (as stated in XXII above), otherwise those advanced benevolent aliens might not exist, making me depressed and feeling empty inside.

XXIV. I will try my best to actually believe that I have no beliefs despite my need to embrace certain tenets to be an atheist.

XXV. I will deny to my atheistic peers and to myself that I have any beliefs whatsoever, even though I know deep down that I do. It is important that I look "cool" in front of other atheists and look superior in front of theists (not required)

XXVI. (a) I believe that there is nothing supernatural in the universe even though the proposition that the universe could have spontaneously caused itself cannot be verified by any natural laws (hence the definition of "supernatural":O.

XXVI. (b) I believe in the proposition that the universe could have spontaneously caused itself. I still dont believe in the supernatural, either (so neeah!, neeah!)

XXVII. almost * No matter what a theist says, (especially a 'xian'), I will declare him to be wrong. Even if the theist says "1 + 1 = 2", I will do everything I can to somehow prove him wrong, because xians make me extremely mad, and nothing they say can possibly be right. (very, very highly recommended. Almost all atheists adhere to this one.)

There are many more beliefs atheists have, but we can safely say that if you believe in these, you can be a true member of the IPF Secular Church.



So, what are you waiting for? Make that leap of faith and join the "rational minds" that make up the religion of atheism. Come with us, friend, and let us proclaim the great wonders of the IPF. Together.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

XIRSI

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 05:36 am
WGN, MAD MAC, GALOOL, PG,

LOOKS LIKE THE ANONYMOUS (BE HE OR SHE) IS MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO GET YOUR POINT, PURPOSE, ARGUMENT ACROSS. IT SEEMS TO ME YOU(WGN, MAD MAC, GALOOL, PG) HAVE A DIFFICULT TASK AT HAND OR DIFFICULT WORK TO GET THE PEOPLE HERE FALL FOR YOUR SPREE. LOOKS LIKE YOUR EFFORTS, ATTEMPTS, ENDEAVORS TO SWAY, INFLUENCE, AFFECT, PERSUADE, MANIPULATE, PLANT DOUBT, WIN OVER PEOPLE HERE BY YOUR CANT IS WASTED. AFTER LOOKING AT WHAT THE ANONYMOUS POSTED, I FEEL FOR YOU.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

TLG

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 07:06 am
Asalaamu alaikum all,

PG, What do we have now? A big non-Muslim, "independent" woman, who dared to disblieve in Allah addresses a small "oppressed" muslim girl in the third person, perhaps indicating her insignificance. I ain't mad though, for I never claimed significance.

Sorry to disappoint you, but my cloths meet the requirements of hijab. My not implementing some Islamic requirements have to do with the fact that I was born in a non-muslim country and brought up in a household where majority of the members were/are not Islamically inclined. And as long as i'm under their care, i'll have to play by their rules. I'm not a perfect Muslim but I work with what I have and i'll never stop improving myself as long as Allah gives me another second to breath.
And btw, don't obfuscate the Mahram issue. You know very well when it does/does not apply. Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but the sharia requirements of a mahram don't include my trekings from lab to class or class to home.

Now let's correct some of your and Galool's misconceptions on the requirements of the hijab. Although minor differences exist among scholars on the requirments of the hijab, the majority of them agree that it is COMPUSARY FOR ALL BELEIVING WOMEN AND NOT ONLY the wive's of the prophet (peace be upn him) as Galool claimed.

When the enemies of Islam failed in convincing muslim women that the hijab oppresses them, they switched gears into ranting that it is not really required or that it was meant only for the wives of the prophet(peace be upon him). They gained support from some pseudo-scholars who are trying to reconcile their whims and desires with Islam. Others who borrow anything and everything from the west and who try to re-interpret the Quranic verses to please the Westerners also joined the bandwagon. Amongst them are the "modernists". If their claims of who the hijab is required for holds water, why is it then that the women during the time of the prophet (peace be upon him), or the time of his companions or those that followed them wore hijab? Moreover, why is that majority of muslims wear hijab today? Additionally, do this "modern" pseudo-scholars claim that they understand these verses better than the sahaba (who the prophet (SAW) explained the Quran to) and those that followed them? Or majority of the scholars of mainstream Islam today?
The sharia injunctions of the hijab is even well known among orientalists. I guess the fact that MAJORITY OF YOUNG MUSLIM GIRLS IN THE WEST opt for hijab despite all this abhorrent dissuadings and even at the dissent of their family members shows how successful this morons are!

Here are the requirments of hijab:

1. The the Extent of Covering:
The dress worn in public must cover the entire body except what has been specifically excluded, based upon the following proofs:

Allah says in the Quran:
"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts (from sin) and not show of their adornment except only that which is apparent, and draw their veils all over their Juyubihina (i.e their body, necks and bosoms) and not reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women (i.e., their sisters in Islam), or their female slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants free of physical desires, or small children who have no sense of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah altogether, O you Believers, in order that you may attain success.[An-Nur, 24:31]"

There is no confusion as to the meaning of this Ayah among the classical and contemporary Scholars of mainstream Islam. The arabic word zeenah in the aayah above, literally means "adornment", and includes both (a) that which Allah has adorned, i.e., the woman's natural and/or physical beauty, and (b) that with which they adorn themselves, i.e., jewelry, eye shadow, attractive clothing, heena (hand dye), etc.

Soorat An-Nur spells out specifically the commands concerning the fact that a woman's natural beauty and her adornments are to be concealed from strangers except by (1) What may show due to accidental or uncontrollable factors such as the blowing of the wind, etc., and (2) What has been exempted.

Allah also says in the Quran:

O Prophet, Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their outer garments about themselves (when they go out). That is better so that they may be recognised and not molested. And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [Al-Ahzaab, 33:59].

Now lets see how the this Ayah was applied during the prophet's (peace be upon him) time, the time of his companions and those that followed them.

Abu Dawood narrates that `Aishah (RAA) said: "Asmaa' the daughter of Abu Bakr (RAA) came to see the Messenger of Allah (SAAWS) wearing a thin dress; so Allah's Messenger (SAAWS) turned away from her and said: O Asmaa', once a woman reaches the age of menstruation, no part of her body should be seen but this-and he pointed to his face and hands.

The word khumur (pl. of khimar) refers to a cloth which covers the head (including the ears), hair, neck and bosom. The esteemed mufaasir (Quranic interpreter) Al-Qurtubi explains: "Women in the past used to cover their heads with the khimar, throwing its ends over their backs. This left the neck and the upper part of the chest bare, in the manner of the Christians. Then Allah commanded them to cover those parts with the khimar."

Allah states further in this aayah:

...And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornments The women in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) wore anklets which could be employed to attract attention by stamping their feet, thereby making the anklets tinkle. This practice is not only forbidden by Allah, but moreover, shows that the legs and ankles are to be covered as well.

The aayah of Soorat An-Nur also lists in detail those with whom a woman is permitted to be more at ease. Furthermore, the ayah from Soorat Al-Ahzab orders Muslim women to draw their outer garments about themselves when they go out.

Abu Dawood related that `Aishah (RAA) said: "After this Aayah was revealed the women of the Ansar appeared like crows." (because of the color and shape of the cloaks they wore).

Hence, an outer garment or cloak must be worn by a Muslim woman whenever she goes out in public or if she is in the presence of strangers within her own home or the home of a close relative.

2. Thickness
The garment should be thick and opaque so as not to display the skin color and form of the body beneath it. Delicate or transparent clothing does not constitute a proper covering. The Sahabah were very stern on this and regarded scanty clothing in public as an indicator of a woman's lack of belief. Al-Qurtubi reports a narration from `Aishah (RAA) that some women
from Banu Tamim came to see her wearing transparent clothing. `Aishah said to them: "If you are are believing women, these are not the clothes of believing women." He also reports that a bride came to see her wearing a sheer, transparent khimaar, whereupon `Aishah (RAA) said: "A woman who wears such clothing does not believe in Soorat An-Nur."

3. Looseness
The clothing must hang loosely enough and not be so tight-fitting as to show the shape and size of the woman's body. The reason for wearing a garment which is wide and loose fitting is that the function of Muslim women's clothing is to eliminate the lure and beauty of her body from the eye of the beholder. Skin-tight body suits, etc. may conceal the skin color, yet they display the size and shape of the limbs and body. The following hadeeth proves this point clearly:
Usamah ibn Zaid said: Allah's Messenger (SAAWS) gave me a gift of thick Coptic cloth he had recieved as a gift from Dahiah Al-Kalbi, and so I gave it to my wife. Thereafter the Prophet (SAAWS) asked me: Why didn't you wear the Coptic cloth? I replied: I gave it to my wife. the Prophet (SAAWS) then said: Tell her to wear a thick gown under it (the Coptic garment) for I fear that it may describe the size of her limbs. [Narrated by Ahmad, Al-Bayhaqi, and Al-Haakim]


4. Color, Appearance and Demeanor
A garment which is intended to conceal a woman and her beauty from public view cannot be a thing which enhances her beauty. Therefore, the garment cannot contain bright colors, bold designs or shiny and reflective material that draws attention to the wearer.

5.Difference from Men's Clothing
The clothing of a Muslim woman must not resemble the clothing of men. The following two hadeeth help to explain this. Abu Hurayrah (RAA) said: Allah's Messenger (SAAWS) cursed the man who wears women's clothes and the woman who wears men's clothes. [Abu Dawood and Ibn Majah-Saheeh]
`Abdullah ibn `Umar (RAA) said he heard Allah's Messenger (SAAWS) say: The man who resembles a woman and the woman who resembles a man is not of us (i.e., not of the believers). [Ahmad and At-Tabarani-Saheeh]
Additionally, Abu Dawood relates a narration from Umm Salamah (RAA) which shows that the Prophet (SAAWS) forbade women to bundle their Khumoor on their heads in such a way as to resemble the turban of a man.

6.No Vain or Ostentatious Dressing
The woman's dress must not be an expression of ostentation, vanity or as a status symbol by being excessively showy or expensive, nor must it be excessively tattered so as to gain admiration and fame for being humble. Ibn `Umar (RAA) reported that Allah's Messenger (SAAWS) said: Whoever dresses for ostentation in this world, Allah will dress that person in a dress of humiliation on the Day of Resurrection, and then set it on fire. [Abu Dawood]

AS for the niqab (or the face veil)it is Between Mustahab (Recommendable) and Wajib (Mandatory).

And FYI, we don't go by what Iran, Afghanistan or Saudia say is Islam. We go by what is in the Quran and what is from the authentic narrations from the (Prophet peace be upon him).

Take care all.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

TLG

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 07:52 am
Hey everyone, here is a clarification for the Mahram issue.

Al-Bukhari recorded that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
"It is not allowed for a woman to travel a day and night's distance except with a mahram."

Al-Bukhari and Muslim also recorded from ibn Abbas that he heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) say:
"A man cannot be alone with a woman unless in the presence of a mahram of hers. And a woman does not travel except along with a mahram." A man said, "O Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) my wife has left to make the Hajj and I have enlisted for such and such expedition." He said, "Go and make Hajj with your wife."


The mahram issue is only in regards to travelling for a distance of more than a day and a night (i.e more than 24 hour period).

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Nour

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 07:54 am
Anonymous

The articles are interesting. Where did you get them. Can you please give me the link?

I liked rule #3 for $550,000 CHALLENGE offer.

"We will not accept a claim like "Oh, did you see it? It was there for a microsecond then vanished!" Virtual matter is invalid (for one thing, virtual particles dont last very long.) Only real, measureable, observable matter will be accepted! (that should be obvious). The mass that arises must be new mass that did not previously exist. The existence that arises must be new existence that adds to the matter and energy of the universe. We require proof of spontanous existence that remains once it exists (just like the universe remains to exists now). Lectures, theories, scientific speculation, paperwork, philosophical "reasoning," hearsay, freethinking dogmatic rhetorics, and related mumbo-jumbo infested speculative flimflam are unacceptable and will be thrown out without the objective, demonstrable, eventful, observable, repeatable proof that true verifiable science demands. (See: scientific method) We dont want to hear a spew of freethought tripe. We want to see the proof. Its time to quit talking about your "rational science" and start bringing it to the table, else admit your blind faith and be done with it.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 08:53 am
Here is where i got the articles. http://www.unbelief.com/secchurch/challenge.htm

Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 Offer

Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word "evolution" as used in science textbooks.

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
Microevolution- Variations within kinds. Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer's expense.
Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching.

This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as "descent with modification":O is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth "after their kind" in Genesis 1.

Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly here on my web site. Here are some answers to some commonly asked questions.

The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good.
The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don't want answers (so far this has been the typical response to the offer). I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forwarded to them and they will respond. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are.
Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time. For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent plant. Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, or more vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved. The key is that no new genetic information has been added. Even a new "species" is not proof for evolution as the offer calls for. See the conditions of the $250,000 offer on the web site.
Some have insisted on a precise definition of the word "kind". The Bible defines "kind" as those that are able to "bring forth" or reproduce. Those animals that were originally able to reproduce were of the same kind. There may be diversity now, 6000 years later, that could cause some varieties of the original kind to not be able to reproduce now. For example, I understand that rabbits from Alaska cannot breed with rabbits from Florida yet they are still the same kind of animal. It is obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same "kind" of animal (they are currently classed as different "species" yet are inter-fertile-- hmmm, what is the precise definition of "species"?) where a dog and a fish are not. While there may be some blurry areas that would be worthy of research in defining the original kinds, rather than muddy the issue with these type questions it would be wise to focus on the obvious cases like the dog/fish comparison. These are obviously different "kinds" of animals. So, for the sake of clarity, prove the dog and the fish evolved from a common ancestor.

The honest scientist would be wise to admit that no evidence exists that could begin to prove the dog and the fish have a common ancestor. He may believe that they are related but that is not science and that is my point in the offer. Some believe this type of evolution happens but it should not be presented to innocent students as a "fact". Further, it certainly is not evidence that the other four definitions of evolution have occurred.

The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples.
Anonymous letters will be ignored.
Rather than simply sending in scientific evidence for evolution, some have wasted lots of their time and mine sending letters demanding to know who is on the committee, what bank account the money is in, asking Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like "is", etc. When I do not respond the way they want me to they post notices on their web sites claiming that I owe them the money or that the offer is a sham! It is obvious they are using the Red Herring tactic to draw attention away from the fact that they have no evidence to support the religion of evolution. I tell everyone who inquires, if you have some evidence, send it in, don't beat around the bush. Give us the best you have on the first try to save time, please.

Many have offered evidence of microevolution and assumed that the other 5 meanings of the word are somehow magically connected. They don't seem to realize that they are blinded to the obvious. Treat the $250,000 offer as a lawyer would treat a 'who-done-it' case. It is your job to prove that what is being taught to our kids as fact (all six meanings of the word evolution above), is indeed a fact. If this cannot be done then it should be admitted that evolution is a religion but not a science. Some say it is unfair to define evolution including the origin of the universe. They say it only has to do with "change in gene frequency over time." All you need to do is read your local textbook and see that all 6 meanings of the word are part of what is taught as evolution theory. If these nay sayers are agreeing that it should not be included then they should help me get it out of the books, if they are genuine.

Over the years I have heard many evolutionists say, "Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. Don't you believe in gravity?" They repeat this mantra as if repetition will make it true. Their example is silly of course. We can all observe gravity every moment of our lives. We can do tests and experiments to verify the theory of gravity. No one has ever seen an exception to it. By the same token, no one has ever observed evolution nor been able to demonstrate any evolution beyond minor variations within the kind. To try to make evolution science by associating it with theories like gravity is ridiculous.

Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: "Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?" This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen. So my next logical question is: "Why do I have to pay for the evolution religion to be taught to all the students in the tax supported school system?" Since all taxpayers are being forced to pay for evolution to be taught exclusively in public schools and evolutionists have had the last 130 years and billions of dollars in research grants to prove their religion, the burden of proof is on them to supply proof of their theory.

I do not have time or interest in getting involved in long e-mail debates, but I will talk to anyone by phone or debate with any qualified scientist (even a panel of evolutionists) in a public forums at a university, on radio or TV, as long as there is equal time for each position not each person. If you call, please have a list of topics to discuss or questions to ask and feel free to record the conversation if you like. Just inform me that you are recording, please. I hope this response is satisfactory.

I have taught for years that evolution is nothing but a religion mixed in with real science. Many have been duped into believing in it. There is no evidence that any plant or animal ever can or did change to any other kind or creature. It is time that intelligent people the world over began to admit that the king has no clothes! There is no evidence for changes between kinds of animals. The Bible teaches that God made them to "bring forth after their kind." This is all that has ever been observed. The same Bible teaches that everyone will face the Creator one day to be judged for everything they have said, done or thought. I recommend that everyone prepare for that day by taking advantage of God's mercy and forgiveness afforded through the free salvation offered to any who will confess their sin and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord. If you are interested in learning more about becoming a Christian, please call me. I travel a lot but always take time for calls when I am in the office. I am most often in Wednesday through Friday at 850-479-3466. Check my itinerary on my web site for my location if you need to talk with me while I am out speaking. If possible, attend a seminar. Seminars are free and we always have a question/answer time for those who attend.



Sincerely,

Kent Hovind


(See: scientific method): http://www.ldolphin.org/SciMeth2.html

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 08:56 am
I like this article:

THE GREAT INVISIBLE PINK FLUCTUATION



"The universe is just a quantum fluctuation..The universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time." - (Hunter College physicist Ed Tryon)


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

First, there was total nothingness. Not even empty space existed. Neither energy, nor matter, nor certainty, nor uncertainty; neither laws of Physics, nor Heisenbergs principle; neither nature nor supernature, future, nor past, neither time nor change: total and absolute nothingness was all there was. Then, suddenly, from out of the void came a great quantum fluctuation like the rumbling of some mammoth cosmic beer-belly and then, presto! An entire universe of billions of galaxies of trillions of stars of trillions of planets just farted into existence. The void passed gas, and now here we are today. Praise be to the great Invisible Pink Quantum Fluctuation! For, without it, we would still be in the void.

As absurd and ridiculous as it sounds, that is precisely what many of today's atheists and many scientists believe. Physicists like Myron Kriegman and Alex Vilenkinwho have based their entire thinking process on such a belief. Now, I dont have a problem with believing something like that, just dont you even think about calling it science! This is religion. This is faith. This is pure, 100% belief. At least a theist has the dignity and honesty to admit he has belief and faith. The atheist has no honesty and little dignity if he tries to deny that thinking such a possibility constitutes an absence of faith, or even the ever bogus claim of a "default position"

Clearly the realm of quantum physics is both fascinating and groundbreaking in our understanding of how the universe works. But one thing that atheists needs to refrain from doing is the same thing they despise about theists, and that is proclaiming an assumption so strong in the absence of scientific confirmation that the assumption itself is seen as fact and warrants no further research. Put in another way- zero-point energy and the quantum fluctuation is the "god" of atheism. Who needs any proof?, Forget critical analysis, it must be true! The universe is a quantum burp! All further analysis in this area will be to affirm this presupposition. We will throw out all evidence that counters it.

This faith of atheism is strong. Before we further examine the IPF and the religion of atheism, lets cover some of the current facts about zero-point energy and virtual particle fluctuations:

The law of conservation of energy is not violated.

Virtual particles occur in a quantum vacuum...not an absolute vacuum. (this is a very important fact atheists love to overlook)

The total amount energy in the zero-point sea is unknown.

"Just because equations produce an infinity does not mean that an infinity exists in any practical sense. In fact, physicists quite often "renormalize" equations to get rid of infinities, so that they can ascribe physical meaning to their numbers. An example is the calculation of the electron's mass from theoretical principles, which at face value leads to an unrealistic, infinite mass. The same kind of mathematical sleight-of-hand might need to be done for vacuum-energy calculations. "Somehow the notion that the energy is infinite is too naive," Milonni says.
In fact, several signs indicate that the amount of energy in the vacuum isn't worth writing home about. Lamoreaux's experiment could roughly be considered to have extracted 10^-15 joule. That paltry quantity would seem to be damning evidence that not much can be extracted from empty space." (EXPLOITING ZERO-POINT ENERGY By Philip Yam From Scientific American Magazine, December 1997, pp. 82-85.)




Though virtual particles appear to be uncaused (due to Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle), that does not mean there isn't an unseen cause. We know they always occur under certain conditions and within a certain context. They are appearing out of a huge energy source that is already there. This is called zero-point energy. Unfortunately, the proposition that they appear from "total nothingness" is absurd and extremely unscientific.

The atheist is quick, very quick, to connect the discovery of virtual particles on the micro level to the existence of the universe on the macro level, very quick to connect the appearance of virtual particle fluctuations in a quantum vacuum to macro ex-nihilo uncaused existence out of an absolute vacuum. Quick to equate the infinitesimal life of a virtual particle to the extreme life of the universe. There is no science to support such leaps. No science at all! This is a gap of logic and faith of such grand proportions it borders on lunacy. Are atheists that desperate that they are willing to clutch at any straw man that rears its frail head in the name of science? Yes, they are. This done despite the established fact that quantum physics is limited to the micro level, to quantum vacuums (which aren't even empty to begin with), and to infinitesimally short periods of time. The atheist makes a huge leap of faith to:

1) Equate the quantum vacuum that exists within an existing universe to an absolute vacuum

2) Assume, against the face of evidence, that "virtual mass" can appear spontaneously on a macro level

3) Declare the universe is on "borrowed energy" when even in quantum theory, virtual particles are immediately destroyed.

4) To assume that causality is not necessary for science

5) To assume (without proof) that the universe is either on "borrowed energy" or has a total sum of zero energy.

If the whole universe is nothing but an effect of "borrowed energy", does it not beg the questions, "Borrowed from who? The void? Then why must it be borrowed? Since when did the void have rules that must be obeyed? How could Heisenbergs Uncertainty principle even exist in an absolute void of total non-existence? Why would even the law of logic (non-contradiction) exist? Is the universe merely an effect? An effect of what?" The atheist, of course, is silenced in the face of these questions. All he has at this point, is his extreme faith in the great IPF.

As for vacuums, lets get something straight. A quantum vacuum in this universe is not nothing, it is a something! It is not completely empty. The University of Oregon Department of Physics defines a quantum vacuum as

"a state of minimum energy where quantum fluctuations, consistent with the uncertainty principle of the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, can lead to the temporary formation of particle-antiparticle pairs. " (University of Oregon)

This is not a complete vacuum. A quantum vacuum, then, is not non-existence, it is a something! This is completely different from an absolute vacuum in which nothing at all exists. Yet for some reason, the atheist will take a quantum vacuum and assume that any event that occurs there can 1) occur in an absolute vacuum and 2) can occur on a macro level. All this without even a tittle of scientific evidence.

Quantum physics seems to provide a loophole to the age-old assumption that 'you can't get something from nothing.' Physicists are now talking about the 'self-creating universe': a cosmos that erupts into existence spontaneously, much as a subnuclear particle sometimes pops out of nowhere in certain high energy processes.
(Paul Davies, God and the New Physics)


Ahh, yes, the "new physics"....the new god of atheism. It has to be new physics because this is not the physics the universe is used to operating on. At least Davies is brave enough to admit that this kind of science is "new." The universe is actually The Great Rice Crispy: it just "popped" into existence ex-nihilo from a random fluctuation within a total vacuum of absolute nothingness. First there was absolute nothing, then a quantum "burp" and POP! One hundred billion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion particles fart into existence on borrowed energy. Arrgh! How does anyone with an IQ above 10 draw such a conclusion from such a huge lack of evidence? How could a "quantum fluctuation" occur in absolute nothingness? Quantum events occur within a quantum vacuum. PERIOD. They do not occur in a classical vacuum. If you are going to postulate a fluctuation can occur in a classical vacuum then YOU have the burden of proof, else admit your faith. Its time for the atheist to get out of lazy chair and quit spewing the good ole "You have the burden of proof- I dont have to prove anything" syndrome and bring their "science" to the table. I will say it again: If you are going to postulate a fluctuation can occur in a classical vacuum then YOU have the burden of proof!

All vacuums in our universe are part of the universe and obey the laws of physics, including the Heisenberg Principle. But unfortunately for the uneducated atheists, in a state of absolute nothingness, prior to the universe, there was no Heisenberg Principle...there were no laws...there was no energy...because there was absolute nothing! Furthermore, no one, not even the current authority of zero-point energy, Dr. Puthoff himself can define what this "fluctuation" would be in a total and complete vacuum. Its the biggest dogmatic pile of unintellectual irrational supernatural mythical tripe that could ever reach the ears of a post-Hale-Bopp Heavens Gate cult convert. Anyone who adheres to such a possibility possesses faith comparable to the entire continent of India. That person must exercise a very strong, biased, unfounded religious blind faith to adhere to such a fantastic, supernatural belief. Atheists who believe in this have tremendous faith. And lots of it. I am not saying all atheists believe this, and I dont even disrespect the ones that do. What I disrespect are atheists who believe this and then try to claim they have no blind faith!

I am very thankful for the many honest physicists out there who are not so dogmatic in their non-theistic world view that they can admit science does not support the view of a universe from total nothingness. For example, NASA scientists Dr. Sten Odenwald when asked

"What sort of quantum field could possibly have triggered the Big Bang out of nothingness?" He answered, "We have no idea. And certainly not one that we can examine and test to confirm the theoretical expectations" (Sten Odenwald, Big Bang Cosmology - Origins of the Universe) -emphasis ours

Yes, the truth is that the atheist expects his theories to be true. He has an a priori supposition against the possibility of miracles which guides his pursuit of knowledge in the universe. If an explanation of something goes against theism, then it doesn't matter how wild and fanatical the explanation, it must be the most reasonable; not because it is scientific or has the support of evidence, it is more reasonable solely because it attacks theism. These atheists have developed a presupposition and will stop at nothing to twist science around until they feel it is confirmed. How we need more atheists out there to let go of their denial of faith and start admitting the truth: they are believers in the IPF.


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

Unreal the religion that atheists follow. Literally....its unreal, because their religion is in the realm of fiction- its not real at all. They have thrown off their clothes and in full sackcloth humble worship, have prostrated in the dust and ashes before the satin waves of glorious Pink Light, pouring out their lonely hearts in full surrender to its quantum majesty. Bow low before the IPF!

http://www.unbelief.com/secchurch/science/greatipf.htm


ATHEISTS PROCLAIM THE IPF!

There are many prominent thinkers and scientists today who have chosen to leave behind their chains, and hit to the streets, proclaiming the good news to the people. Simply click on a person to the left, and enjoy their hyms of praise. You will find many proclamations of faith by atheists who have found their new hope and the answers to the universe in the greatness of the Giant Fluctuation. It is our wish that you find comfort here in the fellowship of some of the big free-thinkers of atheism.

We've gone to great extent to ensure all the quotations are accurate and truly reflect the views of the author. Our sources include books, magazines, journals, speeches and online articles- all of which are cited after each quotation. We were able to locate a home page for mosts of the people here and included a link with their quotation(s). If you find a misquote, please email us here

We have included with each quotation, our own personal comment, which is our opinion and evaluation regarding the individuals in light of their claims. We have added commentary to the quotes to highlight how we feel the authors excercise great faith in their own "unbelief." Even so, we feel the quotes speak quite well on their own. We have provided links to the authors and encourage visitors to research the material for themselves.

Let us know what you think of this section. Depending upon user-feedback, we will continue to expand this area with many more quotes. The IPF has a great number of followers and we will be happy to expose them, so let us know!
http://www.unbelief.com/secchurch/quotes/frame.htm

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 08:57 am
I personally think that anyone should feel free to wear whatever they want. If TLG or whoever wants to wear some sort of clothing that covers every inch of her body, that's up to her. It's her life. The only thing I ever am really concerned with is this BS idea of establishing a Muslim country under Sharia. Then we have people like Formerguest and TLG trying to force people to conform - enforcing such standards on "Muslims" whether or not they see things the same way. That's just plain wrong. When I go back to Somalia that sort of thing isn't going to happen in my presence, as least not while I'm alive. For every Somali who wants to live that way there are ten that don't. The decision about what style of clothing to wear, regardless of where you live, is a personal one. TLG, do you concur with that point of view? Or do you think that in "Muslim" countries the Gestapo should be looking for people who break Islamic law, as happens in that shithole they call Saudi Arabia (man, I hated living there)?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

123

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 09:17 am
>Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: "Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?" This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen.< >Unreal the religion that atheists follow. Literally....its unreal, because their religion is in the realm of fiction- its not real at all. They have thrown off their clothes and in full sackcloth humble worship, have prostrated in the dust and ashes before the satin waves of glorious Pink Light, pouring out their lonely hearts in full surrender to its quantum majesty. Bow low before the IPF!<

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 10:02 am
xirsi, no, actually, I feel quite confident with anonymous here. This person is a slave to the words of others, and don't have his/her own opinion. In the lack of own words, this he/she is trying to be smart by using others.
I do NOT believe in a god, hence there is NO beginning and NO end.... Do this sound like the bottom line rules for an atheist? If yes,
where is the belief? There is simply NOTHING to discuss, so why have a debate about NOTHING?? :O
And if you BELIEVE, why discuss it? Don't you have enough CDONFIDENCE to know you're right if you know the TRUTH?
What we are discussing here right now is the written word of the Quran. You can twist and turn it as much as you like, but the book is written by MAN, not GOD. So, that can be a good issue to discuss for both believers/non believers. Good, then we agree about that! ;-)))
TLG; after reading YOUR explanation I guess I am back to start again? I asked a simple question, but I guess there are no simple answers? So why not just credit Mad Mac and his words; "The Qur'an is a set of guidlines, which the faithful can choose to subscribe to or not. The degree to
which they subscribe is judged by Allah - not you or anyone else on earth".......Well said MM! :)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 10:23 am
123, I guess I didn't live up to your expectations then...hehehhe! I could read "your"
words like an open book... You better try better next time.... :O

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

hehehe

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 11:39 am
Atheists say they do not believe in a God and there is NO beginning and NO end, but if this is not a belief, I do not know what is. You say there is nothing to discuss with your blind belief because you do not have proof. I guess there is no letting up to remind you about you BELIEF like it not. Are you going to hide from your blind BELIEF or you are going to show us proof? .@LOL

>What I disrespect are atheists who believe this and then try to claim they have no blind faith! I am very thankful for the many honest physicists out there who are not so dogmatic in their non-theistic world view that they can admit science does not support the view of a universe from total nothingness. For example, NASA scientists Dr. Sten Odenwald when asked "What sort of quantum field could possibly have triggered the Big Bang out of nothingness?" He answered, "We have no idea. And certainly not one that we can examine and test to confirm the theoretical expectations" (Sten Odenwald, Big Bang Cosmology - Origins of the Universe) -emphasis ours. Yes, the truth is that the atheist expects his theories to be true. He has an a priori supposition against the possibility of miracles which guides his pursuit of knowledge in the universe. If an explanation of something goes against theism, then it doesn't matter how wild and fanatical the explanation, it must be the most reasonable; not because it is scientific or has the support of evidence, it is more reasonable solely because it attacks theism. These atheists have developed a presupposition and will stop at nothing to twist science around until they feel it is confirmed. How we need more atheists out there to let go of their denial of faith and start admitting the truth: they are believers in the IPF.<

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 11:46 am
WGN, Here is more reading for you. I hope you enjoy reading it as I did.

If atheists who accept Big Bang cosmology do not believe the universe "came from nothing and by nothing", then what do such atheists believe? If, on the other hand, they believe that the universe really did come from nothing and by nothing, then how could they respond to the metaphysical intuition that, "out of nothing, nothing comes"? (Secular Web, call for papers 19 Jul, 99)

Did anyone notice the word "believe" several times? I hope so. If not, go back and re-read it. Here, from the most exhaustive and extensive atheist website on the internet (run by Jeffrey Jay Lowder, a respected and very intelligent person) is a two fold admission:

1) That atheists have beliefs

2) Atheists who accept "from nothing by nothing" have yet to adequately substantiate their position with science- hence the secular web is making a plea for current papers regarding this issue.

Currently, the theists have the lead. Quantum physics, the new god of atheism is unable to adequately explain how the universe got here. It falls short in numerous areas (which are exposed on this website). Atheists are so desperate....so desperate...to find an answer, they are willing to jump at anything in the name of science that would even hint that the universe can exist without God. This is not the pursuit of knowledge. This is the pursuit of a validation for a personal supposition.. This is the pursuit of purging the "enemy" of Christian theism. Is atheism really about logic and science? Atheists will tell us they disbelieve solely on intellectual grounds, but in reality, there are deep emotional issues as well. Many atheists are not indifferent to the existence of God as they are a "pink unicorn"- they hate God. Many of them have a personal mission to rid the world of the "xian" God. A bonafide conviction, (or as the Mormons would put it- a "burning in the bosom":O. Why? Is it because the concept of God is illogical? Is it because scientific evidence has overwhelmingly confirmed a universe without a Creator? Does a man spend so much of his life fighting against something just because he thinks it lacks sufficient evidence? No. Not at all. The reason many atheists are proactive in their pursuit to eliminate those pesky 'xians' is because the concept of God is a threat to the atheist (note: its not the Christians that are the threat...its the concept of their God that is). You see, if God does exist, that means the atheist is a sinner and that his existence is inferior and absolutely contingent. This idea that you are ultimately in submission to and utterly dependent to a superior being is a repugnant notion for the atheist. This idea makes the atheist angry; for he does not want to submit his life to any higher power. Therefore, he actively searches for any evidence that would suggest that God's existence would be false (note: this is not very becoming of a "default position":O.

With the new field of quantum physics and the mystery of the zero-point energy sea and virtual particles, there was a huge rustle in the atheist community. The fact that so many scientists and atheists were willing to make the huge logical leap necessary from a virtual particle in a quantum vacuum to a real universe from a classical vacuum only shows the desperation that the atheists are in. Almost like a unified choir singing a Sunday hymn, the harmonious chorus of atheists bellowed out in song, "Something can come from nothing! Its proven! God doesn't exist! Yippee! Yeah!" For a community of people so reliant upon science and empirical evidence to support objective claims (especially when you bear the "burden of proof":O, it seemed quite strange that so many atheists would rush to such a mammoth conclusion from so little evidence. Yet they did, and in doing so, they have only reaffirmed what many theists have already known about atheists: and that is many atheists are unbelievers not because of a logical conclusion, but because of an emotional conclusion. And this brings me to my final point. I will now postulate an hypothesis that only each individual atheist can answer. Since I am a theist, I cannot answer the validity of this hypothesis, but in light of the evidence, I believe it is a generally true one.

If an atheist dies and in the afterlife sees a great Unicorn Spirit hovering above a purple sea of protoplasmic jelly that says "welcome to heaven", to say the atheist would be extremely shocked would be a gross understatement.

However, if the atheist dies and sees an infinite being who created the universe sitting upon an eternal throne, he would be filled with deep regret.-The Ministry of Reason

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

TLG

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 12:11 pm
Whitegirlnorway,

<And if you BELIEVE, why discuss it? Don't you have enough CDONFIDENCE to know you're right if you know the TRUTH? >

Good point. Very good point indeed. But I guess we are not the one's on an ATHIESM site or YOUR sort of site (I don't understand what your belief or the lack of it is) screaming Islam is the answer. You guys are coming to an ISLAMIC forums raving Islam is evil. Now who is insecure, not confident about his/her beliEfs? If you guys are sooo content in your disbelief or your rejections of Islam, then why not just stay away from Muslims or Islamic sites. I bet you guys can't stand the possibility that we are right and hence get a kick out of ranting and raving against OUR BELIEF.

<What we are discussing here right now is the written word of the Quran. You can twist and turn it as much as you like, but the book is written by MAN, not GOD. >

I suppose you have evidence to back up this bold statement! I'm waiting with bated breath to see it.

<So, that can be a good issue to discuss for both believers/non believers>

No it aint. It aint even a good issue for believers to debate about. What is in the Quran cannot be debated by you or me or any other pseudo-scholar. The Sciences of the Quran require years and years of studing the Arabic language and then the Quran itself.

Madmac,

<Then we have people like Formerguest and TLG trying to force people to conform -enforcing such standards on "Muslims" whether or not they see things the same way.>

MM, what have you been smoking guy? Can you cite anywhere I enforced anything on Muslims.

Regardless of what FG or myself think or say, muslims are bound by specific principles. When an individual claims Islam by Testifying that Allah is one and Muhammed (peace be upon is his appostle) with out coercion, s/he takes a responbility. The responsibility of submitting to the will of Allah. And once one submits, S/he puts her/his desires aside and follows what have been ordained by Allah and his prophet. And it is only fair that s/he abides by what that responsiblity entails.
It is like u making an oath upon joining the military to serve and protect the United States of America. You have to abide by that oath. You can't pick and choose which ones of the military regulations u are going to follow.

For example, both Galool and PG once were muslims but now decided otherwise. So an individual does either what they did or stays in the realm of Islam and abides by its rules.

Islam is a such (from my humble opinion and understanding). No one will put a gun to your head and tell you to accept Islam. But once you make that personal choice in accepting it, it is only fair that u play by the rules.
Now, if you are saying that some interpretations of specific issues are a lil more rigid than others, then that is fine and even the scholars tell you to abide by whichever one is easy for you as long as their is evidence for all the cases.

To the anonymous that spoke of Galool being smoked, stop creating a rift btn me and my cyber uncle. Him and I will get along just fine if he practises what he preaches interms of being humane, being respectful, and tolerating others by stopping harrassing individuals that are not interesting in debates on the validity of Islam and the existence fo Allah.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

123

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 12:40 pm
WGN,

I see you that you were bothered reading what I quoted. Read it again like an open book and please don't be bothered by reading it again.


>Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: "Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?" This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen.< >Unreal the religion that atheists follow. Literally....its unreal, because their religion is in the realm of fiction- its not real at all. They have thrown off their clothes and in full sackcloth humble worship, have prostrated in the dust and ashes before the satin waves of glorious Pink Light, pouring out their lonely hearts in full surrender to its quantum majesty. Bow low before the IPF!<

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 12:46 pm
Atheist Clique Jargon: If you want to be "one of the guys" (or gals), if you want to be on the "inside", then you've got to learn to speak the techno-babble. Its all right here! http://www.unbelief.com/secchurch/doctr/jargon.htm

Ad-Hominem Arguments for Atheism: Most atheistic arguments attempt to use logic. Here we have listed some of the lesser known emotional arguments.
http://www.unbelief.com/secchurch/doctr/adhominem.htm

Q: Theo means "god". What the heck kind of term is "Atheist Theology?"

A: Atheists believe in the Great IPF(http://www.unbelief.com/secchurch/atemple.htm), a deity, so yes they have a theology, and we are here to minister to them. Thank you my friend, may the IPF be with you.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 12:51 pm
Barker Worse Than His Bite

A Critical Look at "Losing Faith in Faith"

James Patrick Holding

A few months ago, this author took an excursion down a little-known skeptical side street. I ordered, via interlibrary loan, a copy of Dan Barker's Losing Faith in Faith.[Bark.LFIF]

I'm glad I did. Naturally, I had to consult it to do a more comprehensive job on our contra-Barker contradictions piece; but more than that, it gave me the occasion to see how yet another high-level skeptic operates - and as has continued to be the case, I find myself more persuaded than ever that the rejection/renunciation of Christian faith is never the result of forthright intellectual doubts.

We will begin with a couple of general and personal observations before migrating into specifics.

First, we shall not here be providing a full refutation to Barker's material. There is really no need. Barker presents no threat to Christian faith: His squalling "village atheism" is more likely to put off prospective converts (on all sides) than it is to make any real difference in the present dialogue. Not only so, but most of what Barker brings up is "old hat." We will list some examples in a later section, and in a few small cases provide some in-depth analysis.

Finally, for my one and only "psychological" observation on the subject. Barker repeatedly stresses that asking questions about his motives and psychology in becoming an atheist are simply ad hominem - we cannot ask whether he became an atheist for emotional and psychological reasons, and we are assured that his conversion to atheism was the end result of a careful and logical process.

The evidence, however, points in precisely the opposite direction. Barker's guilt and shame over having once believed is as evident and intrusive as a herd of elephants grazing in your living room. However, rather than dwell on this, and rather than engage what Barker would simply term further ad hominem (instead of actually addressing the question of his motives), I will only pose a question to the reader, following a brief discourse.

Barker openly admits that he spent several months pretending to be a faithful Christian during his "deconversion" process from a less faithful Christian to an atheist. During this time he put on a face to others - pretending to be a genuine believer, to the point of leading religious services, when in truth his heart was elsewhere. He admits this openly, along with admitting the shame, guilt, and embarrassment he felt (and apparently continues to feel) at ever having believed as he did.

The question I have is this: If Barker so willingly and willfully deceived others in this fashion, for several months no less, what reason is there for taking his word on the matter of his conversion to atheism being the product of a sincere and well-intentioned search and analysis? Why should we take his word about his own honest and searching now?
|

Making It Tick
In terms of Barker's personal motivations, ultimately we can do no more than speculate. However, there are two lines of direct evidence that, I daresay prove that Barker's professed objectivity is a sham.

The first reason is this. By and large, Barker relies on what I have called "argument by outrage" to make his points. That is, he uses arguments that are based not on logic, but on his personal outrage at the contents of the Biblical record. These consist of all the familiar strains, of course: The slaughter of the Canaanites; the stoning of the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath...and, of course, the biggest and sorest point of all, eternal punishment. Compared to the extermination of the Canaanites, this one is a gorilla; all other objections pale beside this one. So, to this we go as an example of Barker's methodology of "argument by outrage."

Early in his work, Barker tells us of a relevant story of a discussion he had on the matter of eternal punishment [Bark.LFIF, 42], which occurred sometime after his declaration of disbelief. While meeting with some Christian friends in a restaurant, he posed the following to them:

I'm not a bad person. I'm honest. If I walk out of this restaurant and get killed by a truck, will I go straight to hell?
The declaration of being "honest" is a peculiar one, in light of the fact that Barker has at this point already explained how he lied to himself and to others by playing a farce as a "false believer" for months! Nevertheless, note the reaction he records by his friends: They squirmed uncomfortably, and finally said, yes, he would go to hell. At this Barker comments:

I wanted to make the brutality of Christianity clear to them. I knew it would be hard for them to imagine their God punishing someone like me.
To which I might reply, that Barker's friends might well have had something of a lack of imagination! The point, however, is this: Whatever the truth about God and eternity may be, the above is NOT an argument, but rather a shame-faced appeal to the emotions. It is an "argument by outrage" - and these sorts of arguments form the core of most of Barker's objections.

We will not endeavor here to provide answers to these sorts of charges. There is no need: Simply stating outrage is not a sufficient form of argument; it is merely a substitute for true argument, with the intention to win over the prospective convert by means of tugging on their heartstrings like an orchestral harp. If the reader finds the God of the Bible cruel, unjust, bloodthirsty, etc., as Barker does, then that is their own personal problem.

Of course, Barker would say of this position, "Why, you're a barbarian!" How can you say such an outrageous, etc. etc. blah blah blah." Well, fine: That's just another "argument by outrage." The questions that remain unanswered are: 1) Does this God exist? 2) Is what the Bible says true, whether in whole or in part?

Even then, of course, we still have no sufficiently-based answer as to whether the God of the Bible is a just and fair one in His treatment of us. I say that He is. Barker says that He is not. Also, what can Barker offer as proof, other than his own personal point of view? It is terminally amusing to examine Barker's grievances about the inequity of the God of the Bible, and offering his own standards as proof. Does Barker hold the morality of the ages in the palm of his hand? Who made him the judge of what is fair, just and right? Where does he get his standard of objective righteousness? In no place does Barker give us adequate reason to prefer his personal morality over any other. Simply offering shocked outrage, and dealing with the moral (and other) arguments for the existence of God in ham-handed fashion, is not enough.

So we conclude, in summary fashion, our overview of the first reason why we should not take the texts of Dan Barker seriously. Now to the second and more obvious reason to suspect that Barker is not the objective skeptic he professes to be - and that is a reason that deserves a section of its own.


|

Sham Scholarship
To be fair, all of Barker's efforts at "argument by outrage" might carry some weight if Barker could actually provide some sort of logical or factual reasons to doubt Christianity. However, it is precisely at such points that Barker's presentation is weakest, and where his rampant "village atheism" stands out most sorely. To be quite blunt, it is fairly plain that Barker should have paid much more attention to what was going on in his seminary classes while he had the chance. At least then, his skepticism might have some intelligent grounding. As it is, his presentation is so riddled with errors that there is no way that Barker can be taken seriously.

This is not to say that Barker is totally uneducated in his subject matter. We have alluded to seminary classes: He attended Azusa Pacific College and took a number of relevant courses. By his own admission, however, he "coasted through college" [Bark.LFIF, 22] and retained little that was useful - for his heart was with evangelism, and he "believed that (his) education was secondary to (his) calling." I think that the significance of this admission will become obvious as we explore some of Barker's errors.

Generally, Barker touches upon a number of areas that we and Glenn Miller have discussed elsewhere - the matter of the Quirinian census; the supposed "anonymity" of the Gospels; the alleged bias of the NT writers (with the gratuitous quote of John 20:31 included); the standard bit about Isaiah 7:14; the Matthean/Lukan genealogies conflict; the association of Christianity with Mithraism (a position NOT held Mithraist scholars at this date) - and most painfully of all, in what ought to be a profound embarrassment to skeptics everywhere, Barker gives space to the idea that Jesus did not even exist at all, dealing with the secular evidence for the existence of Jesus in a way that makes Arthur Drews seem brilliant and reasonable by comparison!

There is no indication, of course, that Barker has consulted the works of Josephan, Tacitean, or Greco-Roman scholars, or of any professional historians. His cited sources (on those rare occasions where he DOES provide them!) include three or four "gems," but gems which are badly scratched by an overwhelming number of garbage items: J. M. Allegro's The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth; Baigent and Leigh's Dead Sea Scrolls Deception; Dennis McKinsey's Biblical Errancy newsletter; Gordon Stein's response to Josh McDowell; Farrell Till's Skeptical Review; and of course, several works by G. A. Wells! What sort of intellectual discipline does the use and implied recommendation of these sources suggest?

There were a few gross errors of scholarship that caught my eye particularly, and which we can consider briefly:

We find the typical skeptical sin of overreading to make one's point: Repeating the usual litany against the miraculous, Barker categorizes as "outrageous" the story of the "resurrection of thousands of dead bodies on Good Friday." [Bark.LFIF, 377] Beg pardon? Where did that "thousands" come from? Matthew gives no number; he simply says that "many" were resurrected. Given that ANY number of people resurrected is unusual, there could have been only five or ten to account for the description of "many." (Of course, Barker would quarrel with THAT also; the point is that he has clearly performed an unwarranted eisegesis for the purpose of scoring points.)
Barker spends a few paragraphs criticizing the Golden Rule [ibid., 347-8]. He first points out that the rule is paralleled in other cultures. "The Golden Rule is not unique to Jesus, nor did it start with Christianity." No one with any sense or knowledge ever claimed that it was, or did. This is the same straw man that we have dealt with elsewhere. (See AJINOD Chapter 8.)
Now it has been noted, of course, that the superiority of the Golden Rule lies in that it is stated positively rather than negatively, as are the parallels. It pointedly directs the doing of good deeds. Barker is aware of this. But then he scribbleth upon the restroom wall:

But the positive version is ambiguous; the negative version is useful. What if you are a masochist? Should you 'do unto others' what you would like to have done unto yourself?
And so on - such manipulation would be funny were it not so tragic; but it does not take a great deal of sense to see that ANY complex rule could be thus manipulated. One of the negative parallels cited by Barker from Buddhism reads: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." A splendid sentiment: May the masochist then feel free to hurt people in ways that he does not find hurtful himself?

Either way Barker's manipulations fail. The masochist could not use the Golden Rule in his favor, because what specific action is taken is overruled by the intent and purpose behind it, and the results. The masochist wishes to be hurt because it gives him pleasure. He would therefore be required to do things to others that give them pleasure, if they so desired - and applying the same sort of masochistic treatment that he enjoys to another person would not cause them pleasure. My own manipulation of the Buddhist parallel could be answered similarly. Barker's analysis here is a sham.

Barker devotes an entire chapter (21) to the question of context, as he hands out a series of advisories on what to do when a "fundamentalist" charges the skeptic with quoting a verse out of context to make a point. Again, the level of scholarship offered here is almost terminally amusing, and rather ironical in some ways; two examples, one from each Testament, will suffice for our purposes.

Regarding Isaiah 45:7 (and this also applies to Lam. 3:38 and Ler. 18:11), Barker quotes as follows:


When Isaiah quotes the Lord as saying, 'I create evil [ra]' (Isaiah 45:7), does it really mean 'evil' or is it simply 'calamity' as some apologists assert? (Though that wouldn't seem to solve much.) Looking through the rest of the book of Isaiah we find that the Hebrew word ra indeed means 'evil' in a moral sense.
Barker follows with examples of this usage of ra = evil from Is. 7:16, 13:11, and from Genesis. He closes:

To say that 'God created evil' is not to take things out of context at all. (All you need to do this yourself is an inexpensive English concordance, such as Strong's or Young's that indicates the original Hebrew and Greek for each word.
With due respect to Strong's (which I own) and Young's, which are indeed highly useful tools, I would advise the reader that one would "need" a lot more than just these books to do proper research - college courses, properly attended, might be particularly helpful; it might also be a good idea to check some commentaries by people who know Hebrew or are professional OT scholars - and that would include plenty of folks who are not fundamentalists or inerrantists. But let's attend to this particular from the OT, using better information from our sources.

To begin, ironically enough, Barker fails to quote the entirety of the verse in question. It reads (with context!) as follows:

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster. I, the Lord, do these things.
Ra here is translated "disaster" which equates with the "calamity" translation choice that Barker refers to. And yes, the word does indicate moral evil elsewhere. But there are meanings offered in Strong's for this word like "adversity" and words of similar nature. Ra can therefore be used in both senses.

Now with this in mind, how do we determine the proper translation of ra in this case? The answer is simple, once we consider the literary parallel in the verse in question. Note the antithesis in the first part of the verse: light/darkness. The second part of the verse must also be therefore reckoned as an antithesis. The word we translate "prosperity" is a familiar one: shalom. We commonly translate this word "peace" - but it is NEVER used to indicate moral goodness, the antithesis of moral evil! We must therefore translate "ra" in terms of its specified antithesis, and that is why it is thoroughly proper to give it the meaning of calamity/disaster/adversity here. (As for that not "seeming" to solve much - that's just another "argument by outrage" in any case. Presumably Barker would say that God has no right to cause us adversity. For more on this, see Glenn Miller's article on this verse.)

Now for our NT example, and it is a similar one. The focus is Luke 14:26:

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
The subject here is the word for hate, which is the Greek miseo. Barker writes:

Most Christians feel obligated to soften the face meaning of the word 'hate' to something like 'love less than me,' even though the Greek word miseo means 'hate.'
Once again, Barker fails to consider the socio-historical context of the material in question. He is correct about miseo: It does translate "hate." Where he fails is in his consideration of Jewish teaching techniques, which use exaggerated emphasis to make their points (viz. the camel/rope? through the needle and the beam in the eye). The "love less" idea is correct, even though most believers are probably not aware of the reasons why. (This sort of expression, where a stronger or absolute term is used for emphasis, is also found in the OT and in rabbinic sources.)

These, then, were a couple of the shorter, more entertaining episodes of "Barker up the wrong tree." Again, however, we will not endeavor to address all of Barker's efforts here - I think that it will be sufficient to close by addressing two exemplary chapters of his that further demonstrate the level of scholarship, so to speak, that Barker engages.


|

All Crossed Up
Chapter 26 of Barker's book is entitled, "Cross Examination." Barker includes in this chapter a few salient points about the trivialization of the cross as a symbol of Christianity (i.e., its use as jewelry or as a social symbol). These are things that any serious Christian would find agreeable. Where Barker's inadequate investigation of his subject comes to the fore is in his treatment of two particular issues related to the fact of the cross of Christ itself.

After a few mild and somewhat childish complaints about having to see the cross of a church outside his office windows, Barker begins with a form of "argument by outrage" - one that does more to reveal an aspect of his personal squeamishness than it does effect any serious argument against Christian faith. He writes [Bark.LFIF, 202]:

A cross is not beautiful. It is an emblem of humiliation, agony and death. It represents a public execution, like a gallows, guillotine, or gas chamber. Approaching a cross is like walking into a firing squad. Try to picture a steeple supporting an electric chair; or imagine people wearing noose jewelry!
And after a few complaints of similar nature from one of his cohorts, he continues:

Suppose someone saved your life by blocking a terrorist's attack, but died from the bullets. Would you hang little gold machine guns on your ears?
Barker closes this aspect of his "argument by outrage" with citations from a few hymns about the blood of Jesus. Is this not offensive, he asks?

Aside from the admittedly excellent points about the trivialization of the cross, Barker here has missed the point badly - and would not have, had he consulted the excellent work of Martin Hengel [Heng.Cx] on this subject. The shame of the cross, so to speak, was just as much a problem in the first century as it is today from Barker's perspective. (See on this subject also our reply to Earl Doherty.) Hengel, whose work is recognized as the premier work on the subject of crucifixion in the ancient world, observes that "crucifixion was an utterly offensive affair, 'obscene' in the original sense of the word." (22) The process was so offensive that the Gospels turn out to be our most detailed description of a crucifixion from ancient times - the pagan authors were too revolted by the subject to give equally comprehensive descriptions!

This being the case, we may fairly ask why Christianity succeeded at all. The ignominy of a crucified savior was as much a deterrent to Christian belief as it is today - indeed, it was far, far more so! Why, then, were there any Christians at all? There can be only one good explanation: Because from the cross came victory, and after death came resurrection! The shame of the cross turns out to be one of Christianity's most incontrovertible proofs! Fair enough to say that the cross has been misused as a symbol: But had a person in an electric chair risen from the dead after dying for our eternal salvation, well might some house of worship place an empty chair upon their steeple - with the clasps undone, to proclaim the victory over the conquered instrument of death!

Now to the second issue, one more connected to technical details, and quite astonishing in its baldness. Barker writes:

There is no cross in Christianity. No cross at all!
The enduring emblem of atonement is an impostor. There is no cross anywhere in the Bible...The words which have been translated 'cross' and 'crucify' in the New Testament are (Greek word) (pronounced 'stau-ross' or 'stav-ross') and (Greek word) ('stav-ro-oh'). All translators, even fundamentalists, agree that a (Greek word) is not a cross.
Barker goes on to cite Vine's and a couple of other works indicating that the word we translate "cross" actually means an upright pale or stake. He adds, citing another source, that a stauros was never in the shape of a cross or a T. He continues:

There is no cross in early Christian art before the middle of the fifth century, where it (probably) appears on a coin in a painting. The first clear crucifix appears in the late seventh century.
Any Bible that contains the word 'cross' or 'crucify' is dishonest...
We may ask, of course: What scholarly works has Barker consulted to arrive at these conclusions, which run against the grain of the conclusions of literally thousands of Biblical scholars and historians of all persuasions? Raymond Brown's magesterial commentary, The Death of the Messiah, [Brow.DMh] perhaps? Hengel's comprehensive monograph on crucifixion in the ancient world, already alluded to?

Hardly. In fact, the one source that Barker lists, other than the original Greek texts of the NT and related translation aids like Vine's, is Herbert Cutner's, Jesus: God, Man or Myth! Needless to say, one need not be a scholar to be startled at the level of incompetence indicated here! To use Cutner in place of that of trained scholars is an unimaginable offense against the sanctity of true scholarship and a victory for the purveyors of propaganda. The fact is, had Barker consulted the works of Hengel, Brown, and perhaps a few others of a more academic bent, he would have discovered that his objections are way, way off base! (Cutner himself inspires little confidence: His only stated qualification is that he is "one of England's leading Freethought writers," and he is said to be the author of a book on sex worship (!). His work is a sad mix of badly outdated information [even in 1956 when he wrote!], focusing mainly on the ideas that Jesus did not exist and that pagan influence created Christianity. His own treatment of the evidence is scarcely more impressive than Barker's, and earned him a Rogue's Gallery article of his own.)

True enough: The word stauros does refer to an upright stake. But stauros was used in the Gospels by synecdoche to refer to the entirety of the cross! [ibid., 913] This was a known literary practice when describing a crucifixion, and perhaps a signal of how revolting it was thought to be: Single parts of the cross, like the crossbar (patibulum), could be referred to as a "cross," and the entire cross could be referred to by the names of individual pieces like the stauros - as was the case with the Gospels. (Brown cites parallels to this practice in the works of Seneca and Tacitus.) This bit of information, along with information from Plautus indicating standard practice for crucifixion, tells us what we know today: That what Jesus carried was the crossbeam, and the actual stauros was embedded at the cite of the crucifixion. (The stauros itself, Brown adds, could refer to a stake which "people could be attached to in various ways: Impaling, hanging, nailing, and tying." To this we can also add Josephus' confirmation of Jesus' fate, although of course Barker considers those references to be interpolations.)

So there is no foundation here for Barker's stauros argument; what about the rest? Again, not digging further than Cutner and a few base reference works makes for some poor judgements: Brown reports that the cross symbol itself appears in catacombs in the third century, and becomes common by the fourth. There are also about a half-dozen depictions of the crucified Jesus dated between the second and fifth century.

Also, what of the actual shape of the historical cross? The descriptions we have, indicating that Jesus carried a crossbeam, mean that the cross was either shaped like a capital T or a lower case t. The latter was favored by Ireneaus and Tertullian, and was supposed from Matt. 27:37, which indicates room for the printed charge against Jesus above his head. The former was favored by Justin (though for reasons of supposed prophetic fulfillment) and is indicated by Barnabas 9:8, an apocryphal work from near the end of the first century.

So what does it boil down to? Barker's objections are not the product of serious scholarship. They are, rather, the product of his own personal squeamishness over the shed blood of Christ (one hopes that Barker does not cut himself while shaving), and his personal animosity towards a church steeple and cross that he happens to find annoying. Here, then, is quite incontrovertible proof that Barker was no objective convert to atheism. His appeals are reflective only of an axe to grind.


|

Hardly Charitable
Now, if we need any further proof that Barker is not an objective convert to atheism, but rather has allowed his personal distastes to get the best of him, let us examine a more modern attack, one on the activities of the modern church.

In Chapter 37, "Age of Unaccountability," Barker addresses the matter of charitable giving. Again we willingly concede that in certain places Barker makes salient points, regarding misuse of funds and the need for accountability. However, as before, the force of these salient points is lost (for the intelligent reader) on the fact that they are bookended by personal anecdotes from Barker's own life (which hardly reflect on anything, other than of course his own personal and familial issues), and by what can only "charitably" be called outright misrepresentation.

Let's begin with the most blatant error. Seeking to answer his own question, ":OH)ow much does the average church actually contribute to the needy?", Barker cites an article by George Gallup, Jr. and Jim Castelli that records the results of a 1988 study of almost 300,000 churches - indicating "the percentage of all congregations that have selected charity services." [Bark.LFIF, 257] Statistics are given for the percent of such churches that selected services for homeless shelters, meal services, and the environment, with churches being in the categories of liberal, moderate, conservative, and very conservative. In each case, the liberals score the best, in the 40th percent rank, and the numbers get lower as we get more "conservative." Barker then notes similar numbers for other areas: "family planning, day care, civil rights, and the arts". [ibid.] He concludes that "This shows that considerably less than half of all churches are involved in any kind of charity." [ibid., 258]

There are several problems with this analysis:

First, one wonders why there is no "very liberal" category!

Second, while we may observe that shelters and meals are certainly part of a church's mission, and day care and environment might be, since when is a church obliged to contribute to "family planning" (which many find objectionable, especially when the words are a euphemism for "abortion":O and "the arts"????? How many starving children has that ballet troupe fed today?

Third, and the most important point of all: The study does NOT tell how many churches are involved in ANY kind of charity. It tells how many have SELECTED CHARITY SERVICES! (In this regard it is not surprising to see that liberal churches, generally associated also with liberal politics and the "government solves all" mentality, prefer to use some sort of organization for their charity!) This says NOTHING about the level of charity that individual churches are involved in, or the personal contributions that individual members make privately; it says nothing about churches that fund their own soup kitchens, or give within their own membership to members in need, or about contributions that churchgoers make outside of their church, but because of their religious beliefs. Nor does it make any distinction for people who have little or no money to give in the first place (many of whom are in religiously conservative, poor, and rural areas - whereas the liberal churches tend to be attended by wealthy urbanites who prefer the lack of demand for personal commitment)! In fact, what does the mere selection of a charity service say about amounts and percentages of income actually given to charity? NOTHING! This reflects an extremely unscientific use of data by Barker!

He does seem aware of this incongruity, for he does address private giving - anecdotally! "Well, sure. A few churches feed the poor," he writes, and "Some churches (I remember) once or twice a year will pass a plastic 'Bread for the Hungry' loaf-bank around Sunday school classes..." [Bark.LFIF, 257-8] What's this? To prove that churches are not involved in charity, we get precise statistics; but where is this same precision when it comes to contributions made on a lower level? Are Barker's memories the same level of data as George Gallup's polls?

Thus, Barker relies on misrepresentation to make his points. This is simply his way of stumping for what he really wants: Direct taxation of churches. (If Barker really wants to reduce the federal deficit, he should check into cutting spending on wasteful government projects! The suggestion to tax churches sounds more like sour grapes than sound economic sense!)




Conclusion

Dan Barker should not be taken seriously. His arguments are more shock than substance, and there is almost no depth to his research. If you have read his book and been bothered by it, fear not - it's Bark is worse than its bite!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 01:03 pm
Anon, 123 or whatever,No-no, I'm still here, I just have problems getting in here because of all
your ENDLESS postings...
Wow, you can use your own words all the sudden, what happened to you, the BIG BANG? Heheh!
No-no! You got it all wrong, it is not a belief it is reality. I can say that I believe in
reality, but it is not a belief. And I surely don't have a book to guide ME in "the right"
direction...I know where I stand and where I'm going. Anyway, why dig for proof if there is NOTHING to dig for? What a waste of time and work.... I'll leave that for the real diggers, THE BELIEVERS. And to tell you the truth, you seem to know better than me what an atheist is, OH LORD, what a salvation for you... And oh yes, I do have a faith! So don't hate me, hehehe! I have a very strong faith in myself, so I am NOT in a denial, now, there could be a BEGINNING if I want to start a discussion with you on this subject, but no END to it, so let's just say that there will be NO BEGINNING neither.... Sorry, I know it is hard for you to UNDERSTAND, but that's REALITY dear.. :O

TLG, no, I am always open to other people's opinions, and I am serious about my questions. I don't come here to throw dirt on muslims, and I am not here to discuss wether your belief is right or wrong compared to mine,but to learn and understnad more about what's going on in this world. So please don't take offence of my questions, I appreciate that you take time to answer me. And I really can't stop people from discussing my questions about the Quran, this is an ISLAM discussion forums.....
But when it comes to a GOD writing the Quran, then I just have to ask you, what do YOU think?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 04:30 pm
Hey WGN,

Is the REALITY of yours be proven or is it just a theory or a blind faith?

Is this what you are saying: >Of course this is stronger than Darwin. You see, Darwin's theory of evolution is just a theory. The IPF is a fact! There is no debate. We have proven empirically that from nothing came the universe. All thanks to the ambiguous, everpresent, preeminent, ominous "wave function law" and its "natural, mathematical properties." Oh, how silly of me to ever doubt! Of course! This wave function law, which existed prior to the universe in a total state of non-existence caused the universe because of its already existing mathematical properties. Yeeekiaaeee! Hallelujah! Glory to the great IPF! Amazing, Quentin, Amazing.< ..@LOL

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonmous

Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 04:41 pm
WGN, here are more problems for you, the ENDLESS postings. I hope you enjoy it. ..@LOL


ATHEISTS PROCLAIM THE IPF!

There are many prominent thinkers and scientists today who have chosen to leave behind their chains, and hit to the streets, proclaiming the good news to the people. Simply click on a person to the left, and enjoy their hyms of praise. You will find many proclamations of faith by atheists who have found their new hope and the answers to the universe in the greatness of the Giant Fluctuation. It is our wish that you find comfort here in the fellowship of some of the big free-thinkers of atheism.

We've gone to great extent to ensure all the quotations are accurate and truly reflect the views of the author. Our sources include books, magazines, journals, speeches and online articles- all of which are cited after each quotation. We were able to locate a home page for mosts of the people here and included a link with their quotation(s). If you find a misquote, please email us here

We have included with each quotation, our own personal comment, which is our opinion and evaluation regarding the individuals in light of their claims. We have added commentary to the quotes to highlight how we feel the authors excercise great faith in their own "unbelief." Even so, we feel the quotes speak quite well on their own. We have provided links to the authors and encourage visitors to research the material for themselves.

Let us know what you think of this section. Depending upon user-feedback, we will continue to expand this area with many more quotes. The IPF has a great number of followers and we will be happy to expose them, so let us know!

Quentin Smith
Ph.D., Philosopher

"So a scientific theory that is confirmed by observational evidence tells us that the universe began without being caused. So if you want to be a rational person and accept the results of rational inquiry into nature, then we must accept the fact that God did not cause the universe to exist. The universe exists because of this wave-function law....the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces...So I think that is the strongest scientific argument there is against theism. I think it's even stronger than Darwin's theory of evolution." (Quenten Smith, Two Ways to Prove Atheism, Atheist Alliance Convention, 1996)

Of course this is stronger than Darwin. You see, Darwin's theory of evolution is just a theory. The IPF is a fact! There is no debate. We have proven empirically that from nothing came the universe. All thanks to the ambiguous, everpresent, preeminent, ominous "wave function law" and its "natural, mathematical properties." Oh, how silly of me to ever doubt! Of course! This wave function law, which existed prior to the universe in a total state of non-existence caused the universe because of its already existing mathematical properties. Yeeekiaaeee! Hallelujah! Glory to the great IPF! Amazing, Quentin, Amazing.

Victor Stenger
Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of Hawaii

"Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless space-time can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam"...The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms." (Victor Stenger, 1996)

What amazing mustard-seed faith! The IPF is pleased to hear such phrases of Stenger as "spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off." Ha, ha! Ok, lets take a time out, here. Just say it real slow- "space-time-foam-has-an-infinite-number-of-universes-popping-off."

We here at the Ministry of Reason were so amazed at such a statement in the name of physics that we wanted imagine what it would be like to be present in a scientific lecture where a professor said such a thing. You can listen to it here.

Steng.wav (00:08, 32 KB)

Also note when Stenger says, "forces of physics seem to be 'fined tuned' for the production of carbon-based life," and "we just happen to be in the one where the forces..." Wow, what great faith! Thanks, Victor.


Mark Vuletic
M.A. Philosophy

We enjoyed this one.

"Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things - perhaps even the entire universe - can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes" (Mark I Vuletic, Creation Ex-Nihilo- Without God, 1997)

Curious, however, what are these natural processes that exist in a state of absolute nothingness? But who needs to answer that, after all we've seen causation ex-nihilo with our own eyes. May the IPF be with you.


We enjoyed this one.

"Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things - perhaps even the entire universe - can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes" (Mark I Vuletic, Creation Ex-Nihilo- Without God, 1997)

Curious, however, what are these natural processes that exist in a state of absolute nothingness? But who needs to answer that, after all we've seen causation ex-nihilo with our own eyes. May the IPF be with you.


Heinz Pagels (1939-1988, no home page found)
Physicist, Former CEO New York Academy of Sciences

"Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility." (Heinz Pagels, The Cosmic Code)



Oh, Pagels my child. Ye of little faith. There is no Maybe! The gigantic vacuum fluctuation is real! The IPF is a physical reality proven by science. Cast off all doubts, my son. The great IPF perhaps will give you a vision, and light the fire in your bosom.

Heinz Pagels (1939-1988, no home page found)
Physicist, Former CEO New York Academy of Sciences

"Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility." (Heinz Pagels, The Cosmic Code)



Oh, Pagels my child. Ye of little faith. There is no Maybe! The gigantic vacuum fluctuation is real! The IPF is a physical reality proven by science. Cast off all doubts, my son. The great IPF perhaps will give you a vision, and light the fire in your bosom.


Andrew Lias
(credentials unknown)

Mr. Lias composed a widely-distributed response to the Kalam Cosmological Argument (thanks in part to the Secular Web). Though not a scientist (as far as we know), he expressed such blind devotion to the IPF, surely it inspires even a PhD.

"So what about creation ex nihilo? ...the vacuum itself is subject to quantum uncertainty. If the energy of the vacuum were precisely zero, then there would be no uncertainty. The consensus of Quantum physicists is that this manifests itself as a basic "frothiness" in the actual fabric of space-time..there is, literally, nothing in the laws of physics to prevent a vacuum from spontaneously "degenerating", nor any necessary upper bounds that such degradation can manifest.." (Andrew Lias The Kalam Cosmological Argument: A Rebuttal, 1997)



Can someone please petition the IPF to get me a hot mug of spacetime frothiness? I'd like a shot of vanilla with that if you dont mind please. Oh, by the way Andrew, there is nothing in the laws of physics that can demonstrate such a wild, fanatical claim as a vacuum spontaneously generating with an infinite upper boundary. Wow, what amazing faith! Such a feat is greater than any possible, conceivable supernatural event. There is also nothing in the laws of physics that can summarily rule the existence of the supernatural and the possibility of miracles. AND, there is also nothing in the laws of physics to conclude that at precisely zero there is certainty for anything except nothing. (note: this is not the zero-point level, which is actually more than precisely zero).

We decided to record a scholarly coversation about this very issue: that with no uncertainty, there is certainty. Listen to the amazing freethinking skills at work:

play streaming (00:29)

Since there exists no vacuum that we can observe that contains "precisely zero" how can Andrew make such a bold claim that with no uncertainty, there could be certainty of anything more than nothing? But who cares! Its the convicting faith that counts. The IPF has touched his life. Andrew has been changed by its great pink power.


William Kaufmann
ASU, Department of Physics and Astronomy

"Normally, a particle and anti-particle have no trouble getting back together in a time interval...short enough so that the conservation of mass is satisfied under the uncertainty principle. During the Big Bang, however, space was expanding so fast that particles were rapidly pulled away from their corresponding antiparticles (William Kaufmann, Universe, 1985)

Kaufmann here admits that laws of physics (in this case the Heisenberg principle) can be thrown out or even "beaten" at the time of the big bang . But of course, if we can chuck aside the laws of physics at the beginning of the big bang, then how in the world can you use physics to explain the universe before the big bang? The IPF is pleased, very pleased with the faith of William Kaufmann.

Paul Davies
PhD, Physicist

How we love this one:

"Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all." (Paul Davies, God and the New Physics, 1983)

That deep cosmic principle- come one Davies...just say it and proclaim it. Its the IPF! Of course in a void of absolute nothingness, the path of least resistance would be nothing. But who cares about logic and reason, just toss it out the door! Davies has (wisely) chosen to give adoration to the Great IPF. Listen to these great, all-wise words of wisdom concerning that "deep cosmic principle" (all backed by science, of course!):

deepcosmic.wav (00:13 in 44kz stereo - 90KB)



'"anything can come out of a naked singularity—in the case of the big bang the universe came out. Its creation represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing." (Pauld Davies, The Edge of Infinity, p. 161)

Of course, it takes no faith at all to say "anything (including gods and spirits) can come out of a naked singularity!" Thats pure physics! Remember, we atheists dont have any faith. Those dumb xians have the blind faith, not us. We have logic and Reason- we have the Great IPF! Now we know just what Davies means by "New Physics!"

A "naked singularity"- we never knew physics had a "smut" side. Ha ha! And lucky for us that our universe just happened to come out. Wow, this is far, far more reasonable and scientifically proven than creation. What devotion to the IPF. We here at the Ministry of Reason wondered what it may have sounded like when our universe popped out of a naked singularity. We think we have the answer:

plop.wav (00:06, 25 KB)


Peter Atkins
PhD, Professor of Chemistry

"The second possibility is that the universe can come into existence only with a particular mix of fundamental constants. Other universes, some with pi=42, others with bright pink electrons wieghing a ton, might bubble into incipient existence but collapse again through want of stability or in some way being logically self-inconsistant." (Peter Atkins, What is the Evidence For/Against God?, 1998)

Wheew, let those universii bubble into existence. Yeeaaa! We love it! And so does the IPF. I mean, just think about this concept: You have this potential universe that is a priori logically self-inconsistant, it then begins to bubble into existence. But suddenly, it realizes that it is self-contradictory. Somehow, it manages to weigh itself against an already existing absolute standard of logic, to which it realizes that it is fundamentally disobeying, hence necessitates its own annihilation. Please, can I get a scribe? Anyone? This is good religion here. But it doesn't stop there. Atkins wont let us down with just one profession of blind faith- he dishes it up buffett style:

"The third possibility is that there are trillions and trillions of universes with trillions more popping up into existence as I speak!" (Peter Atkins, What is the Evidence For/Against God?, 1998)

Orville Redenbacker would be seriously thwarted by such competition. Lets get out that popper and have us some freshly popped, caramel-coated universii. Oh, wait, this is all science, of course. This is all fully logical and backed by empirical evidence. I almost forgot. Atkins continues to serve the well-fed table:



"Sometimes chance patterned points into a space as well as a time...then, by chance, there came about our fluctuation." (Peter Atkins, Creation Revisited, 1992, emphasis ours)

How lucky, how fortunate, how blessed we are that OUR fluctuation just happened to come about. I feel so special. After all, ours was a very special fluctuation. Wow, the benedictions of the IPF are great indeed.

The IPF is so proud of such logical, backed-by-science freethinkers

Theodore Drange
PhD, Philosopher

"Scientists can claim that miracles occur, but when they do so, they do so only as laypersons, not as scientists. But what, then, are we to say about such persons? Their minds seem to be compartmentalized into at least a scientific part and a religious part....We have already established that the scientist 'qua scientist' cannot believe in miracles":OTheodore Drange, Science And Miracles, 1998)

Our friend, Theodore, has latched hold of the Great IPF with a solid grip. Here, he summarily slams all the xians, denouncing any belief in miracles as being unscientific. And how does Drange define "miracle?" (from the same article):

"Let us define a "miracle" simply as an event which violates at least one law of nature."

So Theodore plainly concludes that a person who believes in an event that violates a law of nature cannot be doing so as a scientist! But of course our atheist friend would emphatically declare that a self-caused universe ex-nihilo doesn't violate any laws of nature! You dont need any faith at all to accept "something from nothing!" Its science!

Listen below to a philosophy lecture and enjoy some good Theo-style preaching.

play streaming (mono)

-or-

philosophy101.wav (00:38 Stereo, 263KB)

Jeffrey Jay Lowder
President, The Secular Web

Ahhh....the great apostle Jeffrey Jay Lowder, president of the Internet Infidels, the largest atheistic website on the internet.

"Scientific hypotheses must be testable. There is no such guarantee with respect to religious claims: they may be testable; then again, they might not be. " (Jeffrey Jay Lowder, Has science found God? July 25, 1998)

So, is the spontaneous uncaused existence of the universe testable? If not, then surely, according to Lowders own words, it cannot be a scientific hypothesis. But who cares about science! A mammoth quantum fluctuation from the void is not a hypothesis. Its a FACT! Glory to the IPF!

I've heard he is a really nice guy, actually, who is respected among even many theists. But we still cannot overlook the fact that despite his reputation and amazing achievement at the Secular Web, his professed goal is still one to combat supernaturalism (see his article making a plea for an atheistic full-time 'hired gun')

Many contributors on Lowders site are obstinate haters of Christianity, and some (like Zindler) advocate its total abomination. I sometimes wonder if Lowder's politeness towards Theists is a disguise and like other atheists, he ultimately sees Christianity as a "disease" like some of his peers do. (Farrell Till, Richard Dawkins, and Dan Barker just to name a few). Or perhaps Lowder actually does respect Christians without having any kind of an "inner struggle" with his atheism (more importantly, an inner struggle with the entire purpose of his website). Does Lowder side with Madalyn O'hair and Farrell Till who believe that religion is a great societal evil that needs to be eradicated for the benefit of humanity? And if so, could he say it to his theists friends? Could he tell them directly to their face that they represent a "disease" on earth that needs to be "cleansed?" He wouldnt be such a "nice" guy if he did, now would he? And if not, then how would he respond to some of his more radical and extremist peers that he supports with his website?

There are many kinds of theism out there. In fact, there are many kinds of "christianity". As a Christian theist, I would never put up a paper written by a White Supremacist on my website, even though that supremacist claimed to be a "christian". If I did, I would put a disclaimer disassociating my organization from the individuals posted view points. I discern between that which I can unify with, and that which should not represent my position. Lowder, on the other hand, apparently does not discern. If its atheistic and "scholarly," it can go up- even if it is militant and advocates extremists viewpoints such as Christian eradication and passionate hate (yes, oh yes, atheists can be very passionate) There is a big difference between an atheist who wants a separation of church and state and one who wants elimination.

I dont personally know Mr. Lowder, nor make any claim to what his true stance is. I do know that he has attempted to "unify" or "communize" the atheistic community in an effort to strengthen their position by combining resources for an increased attack against theism (specifically Christianity). He has a very clear and directed purpose, and because of his many articles and links to pro-active and militant atheism, that purpose does not appear to be a friendly one. It would seem, then, that Lowder sees Christianity as an enemy- an enemy that needs to be 'cleansed' from society, a disease that infects humanity requiring extermination- yet at the same time he seeks to earn respect from theists, perhaps even friendship? And if he does not take such a radical stance against Christianity (such as desiring its eradication), then why does he promote and support such atheists on his site? This is what I find interesting. Lowder has made an incredible achievement with his website, no doubt. But the question that theists may soon need to ask is "What does he seek to benefit through his relationships with theists?" We ask this question in light of the many articles on his website that support the total abolishment of Christianity (implying the use of force as justification to get rid of the "disease":O. To host such articles without disclaimer forces us to question if theists should pursue friendly relationships with Lowder. We will withold further comments and opinions on Mr. Lowder since we dont know him, and (from what I've heard) is a very decent guy. For now, we are just left but to wonder...


Ed Tryon
Ph.D. Particle Physics, Cosmology

Now, let us close with the greatest man of the IPF faith there is- the all-wise and enlightened Ed Tryon- even Siddhartha Guatama would feel abased.

"The universe is just a quantum fluctuation..The universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time." - (Hunter College physicist Ed Tryon)

Oh, Ed, how we love you. You just flat out admit it point blank. Your faith has inspired us all. May the IPF be with you.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 01:28 am
WNG,

You deny that you do not have faith in things and you do not want to discuss it, but at the same time you said you are not here to discuss if TLG's belief is right or wrong compared to YOURS. Aren't you contradicting yourself? You do not want to talk about YOUR BELIEFS, but you want to talk about other's BELIEFS. Why are you scared to talk about YOUR BELIEF(YOUR FAITH SELF-CREATING UNIVERSE). hehehehehehe things comes from nothing?

>This is not a complete vacuum. A quantum vacuum, then, is not non-existence, it is a something! This is completely different from an absolute vacuum in which nothing at all exists. Yet for some reason, the atheist will take a quantum vacuum and assume that any event that occurs there can 1) occur in an absolute vacuum and 2) can occur on a macro level. All this without even a tittle of scientific evidence. Quantum physics seems to provide a loophole to the age-old assumption that 'you can't get something from nothing.' Physicists are now talking about the 'self-creating universe': a cosmos that erupts into existence spontaneously, much as a subnuclear particle sometimes pops out of nowhere in certain high energy processes. (Paul Davies, God and the New Physics) Ahh, yes, the "new physics"....the new god of atheism. It has to be new physics because this is not the physics the universe is used to operating on. At least Davies is brave enough to admit that this kind of science is "new." The universe is actually The Great Rice Crispy: it just "popped" into existence ex-nihilo from a random fluctuation within a total vacuum of absolute nothingness. First there was absolute nothing, then a quantum "burp" and POP! One hundred billion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion particles fart into existence on borrowed energy. Arrgh! How does anyone with an IQ above 10 draw such a conclusion from such a huge lack of evidence? How could a "quantum fluctuation" occur in absolute nothingness? Quantum events occur within a quantum vacuum. PERIOD. They do not occur in a classical vacuum. If you are going to postulate a fluctuation can occur in a classical vacuum then YOU have the burden of proof, else admit your faith. Its time for the atheist to get out of lazy chair and quit spewing the good ole "You have the burden of proof- I dont have to prove anything" syndrome and bring their "science" to the table. I will say it again: If you are going to postulate a fluctuation can occur in a classical vacuum then YOU have the burden of proof! All vacuums in our universe are part of the universe and obey the laws of physics, including the Heisenberg Principle. But unfortunately for the uneducated atheists, in a state of absolute nothingness, prior to the universe, there was no Heisenberg Principle...there were no laws...there was no energy...because there was absolute nothing! Furthermore, no one, not even the current authority of zero-point energy, Dr. Puthoff himself can define what this "fluctuation" would be in a total and complete vacuum. Its the biggest dogmatic pile of unintellectual irrational supernatural mythical tripe that could ever reach the ears of a post-Hale-Bopp Heavens Gate cult convert. Anyone who adheres to such a possibility possesses faith comparable to the entire continent of India. That person must exercise a very strong, biased, unfounded religious blind faith to adhere to such a fantastic, supernatural belief. Atheists who believe in this have tremendous faith. And lots of it. I am not saying all atheists believe this, and I dont even disrespect the ones that do. What I disrespect are atheists who believe this and then try to claim they have no blind faith! I am very thankful for the many honest physicists out there who are not so dogmatic in their non-theistic world view that they can admit science does not support the view of a universe from total nothingness. For example, NASA scientists Dr. Sten Odenwald when asked. "What sort of quantum field could possibly have triggered the Big Bang out of nothingness?" He answered, "We have no idea. And certainly not one that we can examine and test to confirm the theoretical expectations" (Sten Odenwald, Big Bang Cosmology - Origins of the Universe) -emphasis ours. Yes, the truth is that the atheist expects his theories to be true. He has an a priori supposition against the possibility of miracles which guides his pursuit of knowledge in the universe. If an explanation of something goes against theism, then it doesn't matter how wild and fanatical the explanation, it must be the most reasonable; not because it is scientific or has the support of evidence, it is more reasonable solely because it attacks theism. These atheists have developed a presupposition and will stop at nothing to twist science around until they feel it is confirmed. How we need more atheists out there to let go of their denial of faith and start admitting the truth: they are believers in the IPF<

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 01:46 am
Hm, I'll leave that for you to find out, because you are the digger... :O Advice; Don't dig too deep, you might meet more than you can handle down there... :O

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 02:04 am
WGN,

Your faith which you do not want to talk about is a PANTHEISM. May be you are a PANTHEIST.

Pantheism has nothing to do with "pantheon" or "polytheism"- belief in many Gods or belief in One God. It is neither theism nor atheism, but transcends all. Its central tenet is that the universe is the ultimate reality, the ultimate object of reverence.

A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge in people, but they do not know that they have it in them.

Are You a Pantheist?
When you look at the night sky or at the images of the Hubble Space Telescope, are you filled with feelings of awe and wonder at the overwhelming beauty and power of the universe?
When you are in the midst of nature, in a forest, by the sea, on a mountain peak - do you ever feel a sense of the sacred, like the feeling of being in a vast cathedral?
Do you believe that humans should be a part of Nature, rather than set above it?

If you can answer yes to all of these questions, then you have pantheistic leanings.

Are you sceptical about a God separate from, and outside, the universe? Yet do you feel an emotional need for your faith, your own self?

If you answer yes to these additional questions then Pantheism is very probably your natural religious home.


>Pantheism is an ancient religion - older than Buddhism or Christianity - and may already count hundreds of millions among its members. Most Taoists are pantheists, along with many Chinese, Japanese and Western Buddhists, deep ecologists, pagans, animists, followers of many native religions, and many Unitarian Universalists. The central philosophical scriptures of Hinduism are pantheistic. Many atheists and humanists may be pantheists without realizing it.

Scientific or natural pantheism is a modern form of pantheism that deeply reveres the universe and nature and joyfully accepts and embraces life, the body and earth, but does not believe in any supernatural deities, entities or powers.

The faith of a pantheist:

To the theory and practice of Scientific Pantheism - from the self-existence and self-organization of the cosmos and nature, to the ways in which we can cement and celebrate our belonging and connection with them and with each other, and create the social and environmental conditions for everyone to enjoy this connection. Scientific Pantheism is intended as a consistent, non-dualistic, empirical and logical approach to pantheism.


The credo of a pantheist:
belief statement a pantheist is not like the creed of Christianity. It is not intended to be recited by rote or read out in meetings nor is subscription to every word of the credo a requirement.

We know that people are not zombies. Everyone has a slightly different slant on the world: if they didn't, there'd be nothing to talk about, nor would ideas advance.

But people associate into social and spiritual groups because they share certain beliefs, so it is best to have a good idea of what those basic beliefs are.

Basically the belief statement is intended as a reminder to our members of the central points of our beliefs, and a guide to our core beliefs for people who are thinking of joining us, so they can get a good idea of who we are.

The belief statement was drawn up and agreed by a working group of pantheists.



The belief statement of the Pantheism:
1. We revere and celebrate the Universe as the totality of being, past, present and future. It is self-organizing, ever-evolving and inexhaustibly diverse. Its overwhelming power, beauty and fundamental mystery compel the deepest human reverence and wonder.
2. All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art.
3. We are an integral part of Nature, which we should cherish, revere and preserve in all its magnificent beauty and diversity. We should strive to live in harmony with Nature locally and globally. We acknowledge the inherent value of all life, human and non-human, and strive to treat all living beings with compassion and respect.
4. All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature, and all deserve a life of equal dignity and mutual respect. To this end we support and work towards freedom, democracy, justice, and non-discrimination, and a world community based on peace, sustainable ways of life, full respect for human rights and an end to poverty.
5. There is a single kind of substance, energy/matter, which is vibrant and infinitely creative in all its forms. Body and mind are indivisibly united.
6. We see death as the return to nature of our elements, and the end of our existence as individuals. The forms of "afterlife" available to humans are natural ones, in the natural world. Our actions, our ideas and memories of us live on, according to what we do in our lives. Our genes live on in our families, and our elements are endlessly recycled in nature.
7. We honor reality, and keep our minds open to the evidence of the senses and of science's unending quest for deeper understanding. These are our best means of coming to know the Universe, and on them we base our aesthetic and religious feelings about reality.
8. Every individual has direct access through perception, emotion and meditation to ultimate reality, which is the Universe and Nature. There is no need for mediation by priests, gurus or revealed scriptures.
9. We uphold the separation of religion and state, and the universal human right of freedom of religion. We recognize the freedom of all pantheists to express and celebrate their beliefs, as individuals or in groups, in any non-harmful ritual, symbol or vocabulary that is meaningful to them.<

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 02:19 am
WGN,

Let me dig more of your BELIEF. hehehehe


Why do pantheists believe in what they believe?
There are several compelling reasons. Many atheists and humanists may be pantheists without realizing it.


1. Most traditional religions have elements which are hard to believe or to reconcile with common sense, evidence or modern science. Most pantheists are reared in another religion, and as they mature come to question what they have been taught. This leads many people to atheism or humanism.

2. Atheism and humanism don't suffer from the logical or empirical problems of traditional religions - but many people find them too cold and dry. They don't provide a sense of positive belonging to nature and the universe.

3. Nearly everyone feels religious feelings when looking at nature or the night sky. Most people explain those feelings in terms of the religion they were taught as children.

Pantheism believes that those feelings are older and more basic than any traditional religion: they are a natural part of our existence as natural material beings. They are a recognition of our participation and belonging as members of nature and the universe.

Pantheism takes those feelings as its basic foundation.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 02:22 am
WGN,

Let me dig more of your BELIEF. hehehehe


Why do pantheists believe in what they believe?
There are several compelling reasons. Many atheists and humanists may be pantheists without realizing it.


1. Most traditional religions have elements which are hard to believe or to reconcile with common sense, evidence or modern science. Most pantheists are reared in another religion, and as they mature come to question what they have been taught. This leads many people to atheism or humanism.

2. Atheism and humanism don't suffer from the logical or empirical problems of traditional religions - but many people find them too cold and dry. They don't provide a sense of positive belonging to nature and the universe.

3. Nearly everyone feels religious feelings when looking at nature or the night sky. Most people explain those feelings in terms of the religion they were taught as children.

Pantheism believes that those feelings are older and more basic than any traditional religion: they are a natural part of our existence as natural material beings. They are a recognition of our participation and belonging as members of nature and the universe.

Pantheism takes those feelings as its basic foundation.

Is pantheism just theism in disguise?

Yes, and No. Theism means belief in a personal God who is greater and older than the universe. This God is present in the universe. Pantheism says simply that the universe is divine. This is a statement about the attitude we should adopt towards the universe and nature - an attitude which we have no choice but to adopt of we open our eyes to the full awe and mystery of reality.

The universe has some features in common with the God of traditional religions - its power, immensity, and mystery. But it is not personal. It has no mind apart from the minds of intelligent species within it. It is neither loving nor vengeful. It does not sit in judgement over us and mete out rewards and punishments in an afterlife.

Before we can really understand the divine cosmos, we must forget everything we have learned about traditional gods, and learn to look at what is in front of our eyes with an open mind.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 02:34 am
So is Pantheism just atheism or humanism in disguise?

Like atheism and humanism, pantheism does not believe in a personal God separate from the Universe. Like them it is critical of beliefs that depend on faith in impossibilities, or unproven revelations in ancient books.

But atheism is essentially defined by a negative. It states that there is no God, and nothing more. It is not a coherent philosophy. Humanism has tried to develop a positive philosophy, but sometimes this has been too anthropocentric, too confident of human superiority.

Pantheism goes far beyond atheism in offering a positive approach to the world and a a reverent and religious attitude towards nature and the universe. It affirms our unity with these, and rejects the idea of human mastery over nature or human pre-eminence in the cosmos. It takes our relationship to nature and to the universe as the centre of our religion, our ethics and our aesthetics.

What is the difference between pantheism and panentheism?

Panentheists and pantheists share the view that the universe and every natural thing in it is pervaded by divinity.

However, pan-en-theos means "all-in-God" - that is, the universe is contained within God, not God in the universe. Panentheists believe in a God who is present in everything but also extends beyond the universe. In other words, God is greater than the universe. Often they also believe that this God has a mind, created the universe, and cares about each of us personally.

Pantheists believe that the universe itself is DIVINE. They do not believe in personal or creator gods.


Does pantheism have anything to do with pantheon or polytheism?

Only the etymology. In Greek pan means all, theos means god, while poly means many.

POLYTHEISM is belief in many gods.

The PANTHEON (=all gods) is the collection of classical deities like Zeus, Hera and so on, or a building in which they are worshipped.

PANTHEIST (all=god) is a term coined in 1705 by John Toland, for someone who believes that Everything is God. On this basis in 1732 the Christian apologist Daniel Waterland used the noun "PANTHEISM" for the first time, condemning the belief as "scandalously bad . . . scarce differing from . . . Atheism."

Very confusingly, many dictionaries give an alternative definition of pantheism as "belief in all the gods." However, this use is based on a nineteenth century misunderstanding. Pantheism was first recorded in this erroneous sense in 1837 - one hudred and five years after its first use in the original sense - by Sir Francis Palgrave. Palgrave wrote: "The great proportion of the Tartar tribes professed a singular species of Pantheism, respecting all creeds, attached to none." Probably Palgrave had heard the word pantheism and confused it with the word "pantheon" - a temple erected to all the Gods. Other people repeated his mistake, and their usage was recorded in the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (published between 1884 and 1928).

It's important to note that this second "meaning" has nothing at all to do with the original meaning, with which it is incompatible and contradictory. It's also useful to note that "belief in all the gods" is not the same as "POLYTHEISM" which means belief in many gods. Polytheism usually means belief in the several gods of a particular national culture. Pantheism in its second sense means belief in all the gods of all nations. This second meaning of pantheism is never used today in books on religion or philosophy. It only persists in dictionaries because it crept into the OED, the mother of all dictionaries, consulted by every new dictionary-compiler. And it only crept into the OED because of a mistaken use of the word! Hopefully bolder dictionary compilers will soon begin to omit the second meaning, which is never used by anyone familiar with the first, original meaning.


What is the relationship between paganism and pantheism?

There are many points in common between paganism and Pantheism. Most pagans say they are pantheists. They too believe that divinity is manifested everywhere. They too celebrate solstices, equinoxes and other natural passages. They too have a strong environmental ethic and a deep love of nature.

Many pagans are straight pantheists, using polytheism as a metaphoric way of approaching the cosmic divinity. Some people feel the need for symbols and personages to mediate their relationship with nature and the cosmos. There is no harm in this, as long as the symbols help us to connect to Reality and do not block or distort our view of Reality.

Pantheists can also relate directly to the universe and to nature, without the need for any intermediary symbols or deities. The divine cosmos manifests itself directly to us in nature and the night sky.

However, many pagans are literal polytheists, and believe in magic, reincarnation, and the irrational. Modern pantheists are not polytheists, and do not believe in magic, or disembodied spirits. Most of them do not believe in a personal afterlife, whether through reincarnation or transport to any kind of non-material "heaven."

If by the irrational, people mean a strongly emotional and aesthetic approach to nature and the universe, then we support it just as strongly as any pagan. But we see no conflict in principle between this and science, reason or logic. The findings of science have often been abused to harm nature and humans, but to correct the harm we need better, more ethical science and better public control over science and technology - not an abandonment of science. Without science we would have no hope of saving the earth, and no hope of understanding the universe we live in.

However, if the irrational means abandonment of science, reason and logic, then pantheists reject it. Once these are abandoned, all beliefs are equally valid - including racism, fascism and the wildest superstitions.


Has pantheism got anything to do with animism?

Animism is the belief that every living thing in nature - including trees, plants and even rocks or streams - has its own spirit or divinity. In primitive societies animism often requires that before anyone can kill an animal or fell a tree, its natural spirit must be placated.

Pantheism is in a sense a natural development of animism. Pantheism celebrates the divinity inherent in the whole of the universe and nature. This whole possesses the power, the creativity, the awe and mystery that we need for a supreme divinity.

However, the whole exists through and in its parts. Every natural thing from the sun to a grain of sand, from a giant sequoia to a bacterium, partakes of the divinity. Every natural thing has the numinous quality of being an incarnation of reality, a distinctive organization of matter with its own unique character and dignity. Some natural things - like the sun, or the ocean, or trees - possess that numinous quality in larger measure.

Only animals have nervous systems. But all living things have communication systems, through which information about the external world is transmitted by way of chemical and electrical messages. In this sense they have "spirits." Even inanimate objects are shaped by and shape their environment and in that sense are responsive.

The pantheist attitude to all individual natural phenomena is one of appreciation of beauty, quiet and respectful observation, love and care. Since it is impossible for us to perceive or grasp the whole universe or the whole of nature at once, we can revere it in and through its constituent parts.


Does pantheism believe that all things are one?

Spinoza, the first modern pantheist, believed that there was only one substance in the universe, and that was God. This position is known as substantial monism.

Most modern pantheists are monists in the sense that they believe there is only one type of substance - matter - rather than two different and distinct types, spirit and matter. They believe that all individual things have a common origin with humans, and are closely interlinked and interdependent in many ways. They and we interconnect through social systems and ecosystems and the greater system of Gaia, as well as through gravity and the universe-wide spread of signals and impacts.

However, few modern pantheists would agree with Spinoza's extreme form of monism. Anyone with eyes can see that matter in the universe is arranged into distinct individual things: galaxies, stars, planets, trees, people. This diversity is an essential part of the beauty of nature and the night sky. Without diversity everything would be drably monotonous.

Attempts to deny diversity usually end up in claiming that the visible world is mere illusion. Scientific pantheism believes the universe is vibrantly real.

So things are one in some senses, and many in other senses. They are linked in some senses, and separate in others. Anyone who claims that things are totally united, or totally separate, is flying in the face of everyday experience and of scientific evidence.


Does pantheism believe that humans are one with nature and the cosmos?

Yes, there is a fundamental underlying unity. Humans are made of the same substance as the rest of the universe. We don't have any magic spiritual ingredient just for ourselves.

We developed as part of nature, and remain part of local and global ecosystems.

However, humans do have consciousness, and that can be a blessing or a curse. The conscious mind evolved to help survival, and it can help us to relate to nature and the universe through love, appreciation, study and action.

But consciousness also means awareness of one's own individuality, so it can also give us a misleading sense of separation from and radical difference from the world. Our ideas can also develop out of tune with reality and with nature.

So it is important not just to state that there is a unity, but to learn to perceive that unity, to understand it, and to act upon it.


If God is everything, then surely all actions are God's actions, and there is no distinction between right and wrong?
This is a misconceived Christian criticism of pantheism. Certainly a few sects of Pantheists (like Tantric Buddhists and some pantheistic Christian heresies have believed this.

But remember that pantheism does not say that "God is everything", but rather that the universe is divine. Within that overall divinity, it is possible for intelligent species or individuals to become separated from the divinity and to act in conflict with it, by harming nature or other people.

Modern pantheists are not amoral. They have very strong ideas about right and wrong in relation to environmental ethics and social justice. They would consider environmentally destructive or unjust and oppressive actions as "evil."

Does pantheism believe that everything is predetermined and there is no free will?

Some pantheists, like Spinoza and Einstein, have believed this. The Stoics believed in a divine providence, as if the universe had a plan for its own evolution.

But there is no logical link between pantheism and determinism. Many pantheists have not been determinists, and many believe in free will.

Scientific pantheism does not believe in determinism. Of course no-one could prove conclusively that things were not predetermined - the future may already exist, and we may be simply moving into it. In that case space time would be like a monolithic, rigid block with no freedom of movement and no room for free will.

But there is no scientific evidence to suggest this. Indeed two crucial branches of modern science strongly suggest the contrary.

Quantum physics suggests that although the overall pattern of sub-atomic events is predictable, the outcome of any particular event is unpredictable and seems to be undetermined - at least by any laws we are presently aware of.

The science of chaos shows that very small differences in the present can make enormous differences in the future - a butterfly flapping its wings in China may cause a cyclone in the Bay of Bengal. Therefore it would be possible for a tiny undetermined sub-atomic event today to influence the future on a very large scale, just as minute quantum fluctuations in the early universe may have influenced events on the scale of galactic clusters today.

Scientific pantheism also believes in free will. Our actions are usually shaped by our drives and the belief systems we have built up over our lives. But we are also free to change our ideas, and humans often do so. We can also learn to resist our selfish drives. Everyone has examples from their own lives of agonizing between alternative decisions that were very finely balanced.

The future is undetermined. The future of life on earth is ours to make - or unmake.


Does Pantheism believe in an afterlife for the individual soul?

Some idealistic versions of pantheism - such as neo-Platonism or Hinduism have held such beliefs.

No-one could completely exclude this possibility. But there is no scientific evidence for such beliefs.

Most modern Pantheists believe that the mind is an aspect of the body, and at death dissolves with the body to merge into the elements from which it was formed. If there is any validity at all to near-death experiences, then this is what they are expressing.

For environmental as well as religious reasons, Pantheism strongly prefers natural burials in special woodlands, at sea, or in other natural areas, where the individual can be reabsorbed into the nature of which they were, are and always will be a part.


Without the hope of heaven, what incentive is there to morality?

The idea that the hope of heaven is the only guarantee of moral behaviour is absurd. Highly ethical behaviour is found among peoples who do not believe in heaven - for example, many Chinese, or Japanese. Conversely, crime and corruption are rife in Christian societies. Nowhere was the hope of heaven stronger than in medieval Europe - yet few places on earth have seen injustice, oppression, and violence on such a scale, much of it in the name of Christianity.

The strongest stimuli to moral behaviour in all human societies are parental and social discipline, either externally imposed, or internalized. Plus the direct rewards for good behaviour - love and social recognition. These factors ensure that we are often punished and rewarded for our deeds before we die - though chance and social injustice can often distort the outcome.

Of course, religion can provide support for ethics, and Pantheism provides better support than religions which believe in heaven.

Pantheism believes that we live on in nature where we are re-absorbed, but also in people's memories and in the achievements we leave behind. Therefore we have a powerful incentive to be good and kind to people, and to achieve lasting good in our lives. The kinder we are, the more good we do, the longer will be our "afterlife" in people's memories. If we do harm, then our memory will be execrated.

Contrast this with the God of Christianity who forgives mortal sins even on the deathbed and can reward mass murderers with heaven if they are truly penitent. What kind of incentive for lifelong morality is that?


If there is no personal creator God, wouldn't the universe and human life have no meaning or purpose?

There are two meanings for the word purpose. One is purpose in relation to something external. By definition the Universe comprises all that exists: there is no outside in relation to which it could have purpose. If God exists, we can include him in this All, and the totality "God plus universe" would have and could have no conceivable purpose. Theists claim that God is self sufficient and can exist without purpose. So why can't the universe?

But we can have purpose in the second sense: purpose and goals for our lives which we freely choose for ourselves, in the light of the needs of others humans, animals and ecosystems. The fact that our lives have no external purpose designed by some dictator in the sky liberates us to create our own purposes! For the pantheist, the purpose of life is to connect more deeply and harmoniously with the universe, nature and other humans, and to help others to do so.

Finally consider the so-called "purpose" the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam has planned for us: to struggle through a miserable brief spell on a stage designed as a testing ground for eternity, and prove we are good enough to get into the real show which only starts when we're dead. What on earth would be the "purpose" of setting up such a show, creating little puppets and seeing whether they're good enough and burning the ones that aren't for all eternity? The truth is that theists cannot provide any convincing purpose for life or for the universe either.


Nature and the universe are changeable and sometimes hostile. Isn't that incompatible with the idea of divinity?

Change and flux are facts of life throughout the divine cosmos. So are the risks on earth of disease, accident, collision with meteorites and so on. [See God and Reality]

It is true that these attributes of the universe and nature are not compatible with pre-conceived ideas about God as an unchanging, loving being. But pantheism does not believe in such a God, and accepts the universe as it is - wonderful, mysterious, creative, exuberant, joyful, and yet also at times chaotic and destructive. Evil and pain exist for theists too, and they are extremely difficult to reconcile with the idea of an omnipotent, yet loving God. Christian apologetics have still not come up with any satisfactory explanation of why God should have created them.


How can we feel gratitude or love or worship towards impersonal matter?

Matter is not impersonal: it is our very substance. If we cannot love matter, then we cannot love ourselves as we are. Almost everyone loves nature, even though it is impersonal, and often seems indifferent or cruel. We can feel gratitude, too, to nature and the universe, for giving us the privilege of conscious life. People love mountains, oceans, stars - even though they know these things are material and impersonal and cannot love them in return.

Consider the reverse of the coin: how can Christians feel love and gratitude towards an all-powerful God who has created disease and pain; a God who has given humans the free-will to do evil, and then if they use it punishes them for all eternity; a God who is planning to wrap up creation, destroy the earth violently, and create a new heaven and a new earth?


How can we pray to the universe and nature?
The short answer is that we can't. But can we pray to a God and realistically hope that out of nearly six billion humans in an immense universe he will come to our personal assistance? Could we really expect any kind of just God to alter his decisions and laws simply because we asked him to do us a favour?

Apart from outside forces, it is we ourselves - our thoughts, our feelings, our determination, our action - who decide what happens to us. So Pantheists can meditate on the right course of action, and pray to themselves, to summon up the determination to act.

They can also meditate on nature, and achieve states of mental union with nature and the universe akin to mystical states.


Isn't it idolatry to worship the creation and not the Creator?

It is not idolatry at all if there is no Creator. Even supposing there was a Creator who has left no visible trace of himself, if he were just then surely he would not punish us for worshipping his visible works? Creation itself cannot be an idol or a graven image.

But pantheists believe that the universe created itself [see The Self-existent Cosmos] and designed itself [see The Self-organizing Cosmos.

If this is the case then the true idolatry is to worship an imaginary Creator rather than the visible and vibrant reality that surrounds us.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 03:00 am
I'm impressed...hehehe!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 03:16 am
Anonymous, there is more to come. Maybe WGN and the likes of her enjoyed reading these too, but if it is problem for them to read their FAITH or BELIEFS, that is too bad.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 04:19 am
Oh, Anonymous, the impressed anonymous was me, I just hit the wrong button, hehhe! Let me say that you are getting closer... :O What a joy!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 05:28 am
There is more digging to come, but are you going to have more problems with the digging? HEHEHEHE

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 05:43 am
Anon, no-no, it's not a problem for ME. I'll let you do the dirty job, I hate do get dirt on my hands... ;-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 09:50 am
I'm gald that you don't have any more problems with my digging and the ENDLESS postings. I just love to show the dirt beliefs of atheists.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WhitegirlNorway

Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 10:42 am
Well, to be honest, you always have a choice, so don't blame me...hehehe! You're wasting your time with me, I hardly read anything of what you post anyway. Just thought I should let you know because I am not going to waste more of MY time. ;-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 11:10 am
Don't tell me then that you had problems with the ENDLESS postings because they will come more of them like it or not. hehehhe

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

yawn

Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 01:44 am
interesting.....

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 06:49 am
Yawn, since you found this insteresting, sleep on this bed time story:

An atheist is said to be someone who denies the existence of the Creator. This is a good definition, provided that we mean by it that the creator whose existence they deny is only the God of religion, the one true Creator. Otherwise, atheists do believe in creators, albeit they do not recognize them by that name. This is so because atheists, in their endeavor to find alternatives to God for explaining the existence of the temporal things we see around us, invent some imaginary entities and give them some of the essential attributes of God.

Thus materialistic atheists used to believe in matter as such a god. But this matter-god of theirs is not the matter with which we are familiar in our daily life; it is something that is eternal and everlasting, hence the statement, which used to masquerade as a scientific fact, “matter is neither created nor destroyed.” But when you ask them to point to this eternal and everlasting matter you discover that they are only chasing a will-o’-the-wisp. The matter that we can recognize and to which we can point is matter in the form of the large heavenly bodies, in the form of earthly physical things, and in the form of the constituents of these things: molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, photons, etc., none of which is eternal. Atheistic materialists used to believe in an eternal matter behind all such material things which come and go, but the advent of the “big bang” theory shattered all hopes in the existence of such matter. Scientists now believe that everything - matter, energy, even space and time - had a beginning. In fact they speak about a moment of creation of all these things.

Another such imaginary god is Nature (with a capital N). The nature with which we are familiar is the totality of natural things. But when we are told that Nature does this or that, as atheists are prone to say, we find ourselves at a loss. What is this Nature? If it be the one we know, how can it cause or create itself? But if it is something else, then we want to have proof of its existence.

The same applies to evolution. Now evolution, scientifically speaking, is “the gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms…” (Concise Science Dictionary). But the Evolution of the atheists is not this process; rather it is the agent which brings about the process. Only in this unscientific and imaginary sense can evolution take the place of God; otherwise, a believer who accepts the theory of evolution can easily reconcile it with his belief in God, by saying that that process is itself the work of the Creator.

There are, on the other hand, atheists who say in a misleading way that they believe in God; but on inspection, their god turns out to be the god of the atheists. I am referring here to people like Einstein, who is said by some to have been a believer, but whose god was in fact not God the Creator in whom we all believer. Einstein declared that he believed in “Spinoza’s god”, i.e. in a god that is identical with the universe, and who does not thus interfere from outside in its working. “The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation,” says Einstein, “cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events.”1

Thus all atheists are, in fact, polytheists (mushriks). A mushrik, according to Islam, is one who believes in a god or gods besides, or to the exclusion of, the one true God, or who worships such gods, even if he also worships the true God. That perhaps is the reason why the Quran never talks about atheists, but only about mushriks.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WGN

Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 01:01 pm
To Anonymous; [As the Voyager 1 spacecraft headed out of the Solar System in 1990, it looked back and snapped a "family portrait" of the Sun and planets. From beyond Pluto the Sun looks like a bright star surrounded by a few faint dots. The Earth is one of those dots. Reprinted below is an excerpt from a presentation made by Carl Sagan in 1996 about that striking image.]
Reflections on a Mote of Dust

We succeeded in taking that picture , and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it, everyone you ever heard
of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.

The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in
glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the
inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.

Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It's been
said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the
folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and
compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

PEACE to you!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 06:25 pm
WGN, I'm glad that you are coming along. Keep reading what I post. I knew you that you were reading. hehehehhe Btw, more digging will come.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WGN

Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 08:32 pm
No, I don't read it, I'm trying to tell you that you are just an unimportant little fragment in a dot in this universe...hehehe!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Friday, March 30, 2001 - 01:32 am
WGN, but i cause problems with my ENLESS postings as you said. I do not RESPECT. ehehehehh

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

PragmaticGal

Friday, March 30, 2001 - 03:07 pm
FG:

Yes, I wore the hijab while I was a Muslim, and since I was in a non-Muslim nation, it was entirely by choice.

WhiteGirlNorway:

To answer your question, yes I was a Muslim but became an atheist for a variety of reasons, although none of them included an IPF, whatever it may be.

Why did I stop believing in the Qur'an as the inerrant word of God? I read it. That's to say, I stopped reciting it, and started actually paying attention to what it said--not much: a lot of praise to Muhammed, a little on sex, some confused ramblings on predestination and free-will, and bribery and threats aimed at non-Muslims.

What's more, no matter how much sophists tried to make Islam the feminist religion, I just couldn't buy some of their more obvious arguments. Sure, Islam was sometimes an improvement on how Arabs treated women before, and for a while the little "Women in Islam vs. Women in the West!" booklets were actually convincing, but then I realized that, for some odd reason, comparison were always being made between women in Islam NOW, and women in the West BEFORE.

But about the Qur'an: well, I loved the poetry of some surahs (probably because of upbringing), and liked some of the ideas, but then I started to read other peoples' writings, and not just secular writings, but religious ones as well. And I came to the conclusion that the Qur'an wasn't anything special, in terms of being unique or noble or admirable. The final blow came when I discovered that the Qur'an, contrary to popular propaganda, actually contains errors, inconsistencies, and contradictions, even internal ones. So I followed its own advice: "Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than God, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy." [4:82]

It's definitely from other than God.

BTW, are you an atheist?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fg.

Friday, March 30, 2001 - 04:21 pm
PG.

Let us open another thread where you can prove your claim that the Quran is from other than Allah. The verse you quoted obviously says "consider" and after consideration you said it is from other than Allah. You need to prove that to the masses if you can.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

PragmaticGal

Friday, March 30, 2001 - 04:45 pm
TLG:
<PG, What do we have now? A big non-Muslim, "independent" woman, who dared to disblieve in Allah addresses a small "oppressed" muslim girl in the third person, perhaps indicating her insignificance. I ain't mad though, for I never claimed significance.>

Is it my imagination, or are you getting awfully snippy with me, "sis"? From chastizing me for stealing Galool away from you (which is truly demeaning, even if it's only a joke), to accusing me of considering you inferior, you seem to be projecting your painful insecurity and immaturity on to me.

First of all, notice that I was replying to an Anonymous, who also referred to you in the third person. Why aren't getting all huffy with him/her? Because he/she is a Muslim?

Secondly, calm down honey, I never once so much as implied in my post that you were ignorant or subjugated. I know that Islam is your choice, in so far as you live in a secular society that guarantees you freedom of conscience, but let's face it, no way are Muslim women in, say, Afghanistan said to be choosing the harsh laws/practices of the Taliban, by any stretch of the imagination. But instead of seeing that I'm criticizing those countries for their excesses and violations of basic human rights, rather you jump to the conclusion that I am criticizing Islam itself (which I do, but elsewhere). I was objecting to the strict definition of Hijab, etc. made by the Taliban, not to the hijab itself.

<Sorry to disappoint you, but my cloths meet the requirements of hijab.>

As defined by one group of Muslims.

<My not implementing some Islamic requirements>

Such as covering the face?

<have to do with the fact that I was born in a non-muslim country and brought up in a household where majority of the members were/are not Islamically inclined.>

Are you saying your family refuse to let you wear what you feel is proper Islamic garb?

<And as long as i'm under their care, i'll have to play by their rules.>

I have never heard of that particular excuse applied so liberally: I think most scholars would say that, since you are now an adult, you should either leave your parents if they are forcing you to behave un-Islamically, even if through marriage, or you should dis-obey them anyway. What are they gonna do, beat you?

<I'm not a perfect Muslim but I work with what I have and i'll never stop improving myself as long as Allah gives me another second to breath.>

Hmmm.

<And btw, don't obfuscate the Mahram issue. You know very well when it does/does not apply.
Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but the sharia requirements of a mahram don't include my trekings from lab to class or class to home.>

Precisely. But the Taliban and the Grand Mufti (or whatever) of Saudi Arabia disagree. In Afghanistan, you can't so much as step outside the front door of your husband/father's house without getting into some serious sh*t, to quote Mad Mac. Re-read what I wrote dear, I didn't say that ISLAM requires that you have a "guardian" at all times, but that according to the Taliban, you better have your husband, brother or father with you. Oh yeah, sometimes you're allowed to go outside, provided you have a little sticker on your shoulder proclaiming that your husband et al. gave you permission, but they often ignore that too. Ugh, like an adult woman is a freaking kindergarder.

<Now let's correct some of your and Galool's misconceptions on the requirements of the hijab.>

"Misconceptions" hehehe. The new battle-cry of the beleagured Defenders of Allah (who really should need no defending, but there you go).

<Although minor differences exist among scholars on the requirments of the hijab, the majority of
them agree that it is COMPUSARY FOR ALL BELEIVING WOMEN AND NOT ONLY the wive's of the prophet (peace be upn him) as Galool claimed.>

Yup, all true. However, "minor differences" DO exist, and there's a minority that think the Hijab is not compulsory on all women at all times. So, there's no unanimous, universal agreement among ALL Muslim scholars that the Hijab is compulsory. Plus, you get into the messy business of what's meant by Hijab exactly, and well, pretty soon you get confused from all the contradictory claims and counter-claims.

<When the enemies of Islam failed in convincing muslim women that the hijab oppresses them, they
switched gears into ranting that it is not really required or that it was meant only for the wives of the prophet(peace be upon him). They gained support from some pseudo-scholars who are trying to reconcile their whims and desires with Islam. Others who borrow anything and everything from the west and who try to re-interpret the Quranic verses to please the Westerners also joined the
bandwagon. Amongst them are the "modernists". If their claims of who the hijab is required for holds water, why is it then that the women during the time of the prophet (peace be upon him), or the time of his companions or those that followed them wore hijab?>

This is exactly what I am talking about: One group decides that they are the true upholders of the Qur'an, and any other interpretation must be wrong, simply because it doesn't agree with the them. Tell me, why are there four schools of thought within Sunni Islam? They disagree on some major points, but they are all considered equal and correct. And if there are four equally valid ways of interpreting the Shariah and Qur'an, could there not be a fifth, a sixth or seventh? Did Muhammed personally sanction these four and prohibit any others?

<Moreover, why is that majority of muslims wear hijab today?>

Why do the majority of Muslims believe women are inferior to men? I am not talking about the educated "men and women are equal but different" minority, I am talking about simple Somalis, Iranians, Pakistanis, Afghanis and Arabs. Is the majority always right? And if so, maybe Muslims are wrong: the majority of humans are not Muslim, maybe Muslims should bow to the wisdom of the masses and all the de-convert!

<Additionally, do this "modern" pseudo-scholars claim that they understand these verses better than the sahaba (who the prophet (SAW) explained the Quran to) and those that followed them? Or majority of the scholars of mainstream Islam today?>

There we go with the Majority Must Be Right spiel. The sahaba are secondary, maybe tertiary sources of interpretation. We can't be certain of what they said, we can't even be sure of the Hadith of the Prophet himself! If the Qur'an is not self-evident in it's meaning (and here it's definitely not), then divergent interpretations are valid. If they are not, you'll have to explain why TLG.

<The sharia injunctions of the hijab is even well known among orientalists.>

But damnit, the sharia is not the word of God. It's not even a unanimous, agreed-upon system of law, and it's not consistent across time or space: The Taliban have different ideas of what contitutes Mahram, for example, and the Saudis won't let a woman drive a car because it says so in their "sharia", even though some Saudi women rightly point out that women used to ride/guide camels during the Prophet's time and a car is just a form of transportation, like a camel.

<I guess the fact that MAJORITY OF YOUNG MUSLIM GIRLS IN THE WEST opt for hijab despite all this abhorrent dissuadings and even at the dissent of their family members shows how successful this morons are!>

But a great deal of young Muslim girls don't wear the hijab, many wear it because their parents force them to (yes, even in the West), and the "hijab" they wear would not be considered hijab by the "requirements" that follow!

TLG, I read the "requirements", and the only thing that stands out is INTERPRETATION!! No single Ayah is so unambigious that the writer didn't need ammunition from "esteemed scholars" of "mainstream Islam". Pardon me, but since when did the interpretations of fallible men become absolute law for Muslims? I thought you lot generally refrained from the Christian practice of causing dissent and splitting into endless sects because one fellow wants to make his opinion equal with God's. But what am I saying? What are Sunnis, Shi'ites, Ahmediya Muslims, Sufis, and etc. but sects created by intolerant morons bent on appropriating heavenly virtues for themselves.

<And FYI, we don't go by what Iran, Afghanistan or Saudia say is Islam. We go by what is in the
Quran and what is from the authentic narrations from the (Prophet peace be upon him).>

Who's "we" here? I am of the impression that folks like FG do go by what Afghanistan and especially Saudi Arabia say about Islam. Besides, what happened to the "Majority of Muslims" rule?

And as I pointed out, the Qur'an is terribly ambigous on the subject of hijab: that's why different translations have different meanings for the same ayah--because it can be interpreted differently. As for the "authentic" traditions of the Prophet, I wouldn't trust those too much. Besides, why is it you pick and choose? The hadith that says women are inferior to men is highly "authentic", and yet you stated you have doubts about it. Could it be because, maybe, just maybe, you don't like it because it disagrees with your image of the Prophet as the sugar-coated savior of womenkind?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

PragmaticGal

Friday, March 30, 2001 - 04:50 pm
FG:

All right, I will. Let us also open a thread where you lot can prove your claim that the Qur'an contains scientific ideas not known at the time it was "revealed". This is especially aimed at Nour and JB.

I will open the thread re: errors in the Qur'an within the next week, insha allah :O

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

JB

Friday, March 30, 2001 - 06:10 pm
PG:
You suffer from an illness known as excessive blabbering, You talk about guardians (muhrum), differences of opinion on the status of Hijab and the quran, Taliban and Saudi Arabia and confuse this with the sources of Islam. If you bother to ‘talk’ about an issue please use the appropriate verses or ahadith to back up your talk. And if you quote a scholar place mention his name and the source, What do you take us for? Americans! You are correct to mention “misconceptions” in quotation marks because most of the things coming from you is pure slander and not a misconceptions……you say you used to recite the Quran until your started to ‘read’ it lol, Your synopsis of the Quran is hilarious. A little this and a little that, rather the whole of the Quran is tauheed. If a sick ant (with a diseased heart) were to read the quran it would view the whole of the Quran as human verses ants, lol. Myopia can be treated only if your read the Quran with an Open heart and you sincerely desire Allah to guide You. The first few verses of Bakarah state that it is guidance for those who believe! Not for those with a disease or an agenda in their hearts. I await what you have to say about the Quran and scientific errors. I will give you a little more room….don’t restrict yourself to scientific errors. Find any sort of error Or contradictions. I bet the ‘claimed errors” you find will not be due to your own research but from the ‘research’ of others. I don’t have high expectations from a parrot, so don’t sweat PG. I expect this is going to be an exercise in cut and paste. A white man says this about the quran and the Muslim says he does not know the root word in Arabic or he misunderstands. Give it a shot, May I suggest that you start your cut and past from www.answering-islam.org because we have answers for that page, lol

One last thing your comment about women in Islam verses women in the west should be, woman in Quran verses woman in the bible or torah. Once again you get confused between the sources of Islam versus the source of Christianity and Judaism. The sources are eternal truths (or supposed to be) and not dictated by CNN or western changing fads. All those logic courses must be messing your little mind up! :)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Friday, March 30, 2001 - 06:12 pm
Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist


In this paper, I ponder two questions:
(1) Why can't the religious believer simply put the burden on the skeptic, and ask him to justify his unbelief, with the underlying assumption that as between theism and atheism, it is the former that is obviously true and the latter that is obviously false? (2) This not being possible in any way that is of immediate interest to religious belief, how does the believer regard his inability to prove the truth of faith in the manner the skeptic demands?


[1]
Should one review the considerations and discoveries and breakthroughs that have been taken to render religious belief false, inane or pointless, the list could prove amusing. Greek atomism, disease and death, heliocentrism, electricity, the new physics or philosophy or psychology, have all been advanced as telling decisively against any belief in God. The point on which the refutation or rejection rests, for a moment the latest thing, is all too soon forgotten or refuted. Shouldn't this tell against atheism?
Of course skeptics seldom think of themselves as part of a tradition. They take no more responsibility for the follies of earlier versions of themselves than they do for the claims of theists. The skeptic is always at Square One, arguing ab ovo, willing to be himself alone against the world, and even when he wheels in the views of others for support we sense that he feels no need for company in order to hold what he does, or to deny what he does.

Believers have recently gotten a little weary of being assigned research projects or intellectual tasks by the skeptic and have devised a number of versions of the tu quoque to stop the demands. No one is more adroit at this than my colleague Alvin Plantinga and I shall not attempt to steal his fire. (The phrase has nice theistic overtones but perhaps assigns Al a place more exalted than he himself would claim.) I simply refer to the structure of God and Other Minds. This book argues that it is no less reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the existence of other minds. But critics of theism cannot get along without belief in other minds, therefore they have no consistent way of objecting to theism.

In other words, So's your old man.

A later version of this is to counter the claim, one, that there are certain basic propositions which do not include 'God exists' and, two, that other such propositions as 'God exists' must be justified by grounding them in basic beliefs. The theist can accept this model of justification and blandly add that 'God exists' is one of his basic propositions. Why not?

This should not be understood in a private or subjective sense. When Job says that he knows that his redeemer liveth, he is not simply reporting on his psyche; he doesn't mean that he knows that he knows something or other, it doesn't matter what. It is the object proposition and the truth it contains he is asserting. Does the believer who says 'God exists' is basic for him want simply to report on his idiosyncratic convictions?

If he does, he may be saying only that he has as much right to take 'God exists' as basic as his critic does to take sense data or truths about the world as basic. Perhaps that is all Plantinga wishes to do. The upshot is then to claim that the believer and his critic are in the same boat. They agree on some formal account-that there are basic propositions and propositions derivative from them-but there is no way to adjudicate claims as to what propositions, materialiter loquendo, can function as basic. The skeptic is simply wrong if he thinks some version of empiricism is beyond dispute or, worse, that it is part of the formal theory.

My own first question envisages a meatier interpretation than that. I am asking whether the skeptic is justified in calling into question the truth of 'God exists.' Why not put the burden on him? Why not insist that he is attempting to convict of irrationality generations of human beings, rational animals like himself, whole cultures for whom belief in the divine and worship are part of what it is to be a human being? Were all those millions, that silent majority, wrong? Surely to think something against the grain of the whole tradition of human experience is not to be done lightly. It is, need one say it, presumptuous to pit against that past one's own version of the modern mind. This suggests that the present generation is in agreement on things incompatible with belief in God. Or that all informed people now alive, etc. etc. Meaning, I suppose, that all present day skeptics are skeptics.

Is there thus a prima facie argument against atheism drawn from tradition, the common consent of mankind both in the past and in the present time? I think so. There is a way in which it is natural for human beings to believe in God. I think of St. Thomas who on several occasions observed that a person need only look around at the world and gain the idea of God. The order and arrangement and lawlike character of natural events impose the idea. Indeed, so easily does the idea come that it seems almost innate.

This may be taken both as a factual historical remark as well as a theoretical claim. Thus it has been in the experience of the race. The difficulty with this all but universal acceptance of the divine lies in the identification of God. That is, trees and wind, sun and the world itself have been identified with God, nor has it been necessary to choose among these possibilities. This diversity does not tell against the naturalness of the recognition.

Let me cite a parallel in St. Thomas in order that it may be clear what he is and what he is not saying here. Thomas, as you know, agrees with Aristotle that there is an ultimate end of whatever we do, that any human action of any human agent aims at the supreme good or ultimate end which is happiness. The familiar objection to this is that humans have very different aims when they act and that any given human appears to have a plurality of aims not easily reducible to the kind of unity Thomas's view suggests. Since Thomas was not the village idiot, we may presume that he is aware of the diversity mentioned and that he does not think it tells against his doctrine of ultimate end. How not?

He distinguishes in any action the ratio boni, the note of goodness, the formality under which we do any action, on the one hand, and, on the other, the particular deed done in which we take that formality to be realized. What the dizzying variety of deeds done have in common is the reason we do any of them, our aim, and that is that they are good for us to do, meaning, to do such-and-such is perfective of the kind of agent I am. A vast variety of types and tokens of act fill that bill. Some do not. Just as I may, misled by a miracle diet plan, think ground glass is good for me, so I may think theft is a kind of action perfective of the kind of agent I am. To want to be healthy, the presumed goal of dieting, with being wealthy and wise following hard upon, of course, is an unquestionable good for man; physical well-being is a constituent of any adequate account of a fulfilled human life. The problem lies with the ground glass.

No need to go on about this here. What I wish to recall is the way in which Thomas holds that human agents always act under the same formality-aiming at what is perfective of them-and that this in no way precludes legitimate and illegitimate diversity in action.

In similar fashion, the idea of the divine, the concept of a god, is what is shared; the identification of this or that or the other thing as God does not destroy the common assumption. Men disagree about who and even what God is. Another way Thomas makes this point is by saying that 'God' is a common noun, not a proper name.

Consider Thomas's remark about Anselm's proof. Someone might not agree that 'God' means that than which nothing greater can be conceived. What does Thomas think is the common formality of the term 'God.' The etymology of the Greek term suggests to him: one who sees, with the connotation, I think, of one to whom we are responsible, one on whom we depend for being or well-being, one to thank, petition, worship, placate.

Thomas's reference to Anselm is in a discussion in which he argues that 'God exists' is not a self-evident truth. At first blush, this seems incompatible with his other view that knowledge of God is natural, easily had, widely shared, kind of unavoidable. There is no incompatibility because the latter claim, that knowledge of God is natural, means that men easily make the requisite inference as, e.g., from the order in the world.

Does not the burden of proof then fall on the shoulders of the skeptic? Yes. And the skeptic is the first to admit this-or at least to exemplify it. I would hazard the view that more attention is paid to theism, religious belief, the existence of God, as a problem to be dealt with, as something that is an intellectual task, by the skeptic than by the believer. I have met many more militant skeptics than I have believers who look as if they were going to toss and turn all night unless they developed an airtight proof for the existence of God.

The Thomist distinguishes rigorously between theism and Christianity in terms of the distinction between praeambula fidei and mysteria fidei. The preambles of faith are truths about God which happen to have been revealed but which had been discovered, independently of revelation, by the pagan philosophers. Theism, call it natural theology, establishes truths about God on the basis of other truths which are accessible in principle to any human being. Mysteries of faith, on the contrary, are truths about God which cannot be established as such by grounding them in or deriving them from what anyone knows.

This distinction would seem to imply that even if the best conceivable results were obtained on the level of theism, this would do nothing to establish the truth of the mysteries of faith, precisely those truths which are the heart and soul of Christianity, viz. that Jesus is both human and divine, that there is a Trinity of persons in the one divine nature, that we are called to an eternity of blissful union with God, etc. The distinction between nature and grace, between the natural use of human reason and reasoning which is aided by grace and revelation, makes it clear that while Thomas holds that theism is natural and relatively easily attained, he does not regard this as making the further step into Christian belief as a continuation of the same sort of thinking.

It is, of course, within the ambiance of his own religious faith that Thomas makes such distinctions, just as it is in reflecting on revealed truths and on what philosophers have accomplished that he distinguishes the preambles from the mysteries. Given the distinction, there would be no way in the world that the believer can respond to the nonbeliever's demand that he show that the central truths of Christianity are true. Current day skeptics doubtless think that theism is in every bit as much trouble as Christian mysteries and thus that the distinction does not make much difference.

Indeed, the skeptic might well say to me that my suggestion that the burden of disproof is on him in the case of theism should lead me to the same claim with respect to Christian mysteries. That is, he might say, an awful lot of people over the last two thousand years and an awful lot of people today are Christians. Do I accordingly think that it is natural to be a Christian and that until proven otherwise Christianity ought to be accepted as true?

Of course the parallel does not hold. It is the Christian who makes the distinction. St. Paul says that the misbehaving Romans are inexcusable because they can come to knowledge of the invisible things of God from what God has made. Just as men have a law written in their hearts which is not identical with the law of the Gospel. It is the Christian who insists that it is only thanks to the grace of Christ that he has accepted the word of God.

It might seem that the believer would have no particular interest in theism. From the point of view of the fullness of revelation the truths about God men could learn on their own are few in number and relatively exiguous. There are several reasons why someone like Thomas Aquinas exhibits such an interest, but let me stress only one here, the one which enables him to formulate an argument for the reasonableness of belief.

The truths of faith, the mysteries, are truths about God whose truth cannot be established by natural reason. (Nor can their falsity.) Does this mean that Thomas is a fideist if by fideist we mean one who holds that nothing we know counts either for or against Christianity? No, because Thomas has devised proofs on behalf of the claim that it is reasonable to accept as true propositions whose truths we cannot now comprehend. And one of those arguments makes use of the preambles of faith.

It is not that preambles of faith provide premises from which mysteries of faith could be concluded to be true. That would of course erase the difference between preambles and mysteries. The argument is rather this. If some of the truths about himself that God has revealed can be known to be true (the preambles), it is reasonable to hold that all the rest (the mysteries) are true. It is that argument, and its far reaching implications, that explains the historic interest of Christian believers in theism and natural theology. If theism is accepted by the non-believer, he has one less obstacle to accepting the grace of faith. The believer believes on the basis of Romans 1:19, and the Roman Catholic on the basis of Vatican I, that men can come to knowledge of God by natural reason. The believer does not need such proofs. He does not fret when relevant objections are brought against his own efforts to formulate one. He will return to the task, not to shore up his own faith and certainly not in search of something that will argue another irresistibly into the faith. There is only one way to come to believe.

This is why, in discussions with skeptics, the believer confines himself to philosophical theism. His aim is not to triumph, to crush, to embarrass, even simply to succeed, since success in natural theology has such an oblique relation to what is truly important, that all men recognize and accept the pearl of great price. If there is something that makes the believer toss and turn it is the thought that he might become an impediment to another's acceptance of the gift of faith.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Friday, March 30, 2001 - 07:03 pm
Theism and Atheism; the Battle Continues

This is going to sound like more rant than essay; but hey, I have my reasons. Theism makes say that there is a god, and atheism doesn't. Period. That sounds rather simple, yet in the opinionated, self absorbed, self-righteous world we live in from both camps, it is just not that way. The battle rages on and those like myself who find the matter a foolish topic to bicker over, sit watching and giggling at the ignorance displayed as wars are fought, people are slain, entire races are targeted, and hypocrisy runs rampant on both camps. Such is life...

And yet the funniest thing is that there should not be an argument at all. On the one side, most theists (those who believe in a god) claim that their belief is based upon knowledge that cannot be proven, but should be believed as a matter of faith(an opinion that they are entitled to). And atheists (those who say they do not believe in a god) claim that the "facts" (which most atheists admit cannot be prove and a personal judgement call that they are also entitled to). The truth is that the argument is really not about whether there is or is not a god. This argument is nothing short of a pissing match between two different *viewpoints* and they both refuse to believe that they might be mistaken, seeking to help the other person agree with them.

No one wants to be wrong, or to be told they are wrong, or think for even a moment that they might be wrong. (We do not even want to think that the person we are talking to might be thinking we are wrong!) Thus, the war goes on, and no side (there are many) can see that it is all in vain. The point being; who cares what I believe in for myself?!?!

Why should it be a matter of debate as to whether or not I choose to have a faith. Who decided that was anyone else's business but mine? It would be nice to see everyone just step back and take a look at the ignorance and hypocrisy, and wake up to the fact that all viewpoints are subject to flaw, belief and unbelief is subject to inadequacy, and human nature is innately imperfect.

With these simple things realized, the endless drama could be avoided, and everyone might be capable of going about their happy lives.

But, you might say, people INTENTIONALLY enter into discussions about religion, so they ASK for the arguments. I would have to agree that in many situations, this might be the case. Those who are so firmly held to a faith in something will LOOK for ways and times to defend it. WHY? Back to that "always wanting to be right thing" with a small touch of earnestly wanting to do what they believe will "help" another person (see things their way). Not all discussions are intended to be hostile and argumentative, though; there are many people who truly enjoy hearing and sharing views with others without a need to argue and bicker over the semantics of who is right and who is wrong.

Debate and discussion would be all well and good, if only the emotionally charged "battlefields" were done away with and objectivity could enter in. But this is one subject that few can discuss without the attachment, so every statement against one's stance is viewed as a direct attack at the PERSON. It is ridiculous. If I make a comment regarding an IDEA, should it be transformed magically into a personal attack? If someone tells me that their favorite color is BLUE, am I to assume that my own favorite color (black) is being put down, attacked, or otherwise harmed or slandered? Even if the color black WAS under direct attack, should I internalize that and see it as a threat to ME?

On the other end of the spectrum, if someone were to come up to you and say, "I have a purple monkey in my pocket", You might be inclined to ask to see the thing so as to prove it was real. Now, if that person can produce the purple pocket monkey, You will be inclined to believe that there are such things, and might even want one for your own. If, when you request proof of the creature, you get a defensive, irritated, or otherwise hostile response and NO PROOF OF THE MONKEY...you will not believe, and you will most likely choose to just go about your day. If the owner of the supposed animal insists that you believe it is really in there, even without the proof that you require to make the value judgement for yourself, who is now to blame here for beginning a conflict? Even if you choose to walk away laughing to yourself, this person is obviously and noticeably agitated and might even be inclined to follow after insisting that you change your mind. The next step might be to tell you that 100 other people that this person met up with today CAN TELL YOU that the claims are true, and that they, too, believe in the purple pocket monkey. Yet, when you ask them why they are so sure, the response is a mish mash of "Because I was told it was there", "Because there is a bulge in the pocket", "I thought I heard it wriggling about", "What does it hurt to believe it is in there", and a myriad of other nonsense replies. GEEZ! Now you are likely getting irritated yourself, having to discredit all of those claims, while still adhering to the one simple idea that "Until I have proof that convinces me, I cannot believe it is there". None of these arguments offers that proof; why should you waste your time? A. Simply because someone tells you something is true does not mean it is. B. ) Anything could be causing a bulge in a pocket; keys, tissues, wallet, etc... C.) Thinking that you might have, possibly, by chance, heard something is just not good enough. And D.) I guess TRUTH is more important than blindly believing in this creature that no one can offer you proof exists, wasting your time considering the monkey, or following suit to "fit in" with the horde of 100 people who are now looking at you like you are a moron. Maybe this person can produce a pet store receipt that clearly states that they were sold a small purple monkey this morning. Does that mean you should accept that as proof? Couldn't anyone have printed that receipt? Perhaps they have with them a small baggie filled with some sort of animal droppings, claiming it to be the monkey's excrement...Well, you get the picture. You want to see clear and unmistakable proof that the purple pocket monkey is REAL, and now you are really fired up about proving the thing is NOT IN THERE, because so much of your time and energy has already been wasted in this ridiculous debate, and you are near to anger now over this intrusion into your afternoon.

This is the argument in a nutshell that rages on between theists and atheists. You have those who believe in their god) and will argue to the death about BEING RIGHT, and those who say, there is not god will argue to death about BEING RIGHT. Each has their own reasons which are valid for them, and realistically, neither can PROVE or DISPROVE any of it.

Theists vehemently defend their positions, often claiming them to be the ONLY right positions, and atheists vehemently defend their positions and believe something that they say they know.

Theists cling to doctrine and teachings of their given religion, and atheists cling to personal experience, as a means to validate their view to the other side.

My question is this: Why must it be such a tremendous effort to validate one's own opinion or viewpoint to others? If someone chooses to look up every day at a bright blue sky and see that sky as the color orange, that is their right, and no one should be standing their saying "No, it is blue." Who cares? If that orange-sky-seeing person chooses to walk around downtown and proclaim to everyone that the sky is orange, and not blue, then he/she is automatically accepting opposition to that idea. If the scenario is taken one step further, and this person decides to INSIST that everyone follow along and believe that the sky is orange, or THEY ARE WRONG...well, there is something innately ignorant about that in my opinion. Worse still is when that person decides that anyone who disagrees with his/her claim of an orange sky is inferior to him/herself, and pulls a rifle from his/her pocket and mows down crowds of those who claim to see blues and reds and yellows in their sky, simply because they do not agree.

Just something to think about.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WGN

Saturday, March 31, 2001 - 09:07 am
PG, I just have to say that I wish I know more than I do, because it is getting interesting.
But I have never paid much attention to the bible and the koran, because religion has never been
a part of my life. You said; "booklets were actually convincing, but then I realized that, for some odd reason, comparison were always being made between women in Islam NOW, and women in the
West BEFORE". I have to admit that it really doesn't make sense to me why people of today feel the need to follow rules that were written by some men thousands of years ago, when the world looked quite different from what it is today. No wonder you get conflicts when the old words meet the modern world. It must be allowed to question the words of the holy books? To me it seems like
people simply interprete the bible and the koran the way they want. Can you tell me about some
of the errors or contradictions that you found?
I am curious about what's behind what people say and do, but I have discovered that it is difficult to ask even the most innocent little question without being exposed to harsh
comments, suspiciousness and sometimes pure hostility too. Is it only because I am a non-muslim? Or do all strangers meet this warm welcome and suspiciousness, or is it just the atheists fate?
To most people who ask I do say that I am an atheist, but it's only to make it simple. I don't
believe in a god, but I will not go as far as to say that I am right and all other people are wrong. But to me there is no god, unless the god is within yourself. The good and bad in people. You, and only you, are responsible for your own acts. In other words; I am just particle in a dot in eternity.
Anonymous here was pretty close a while
ago... :O
I am more interested in human rights than religion, especially the womens rights, and that's why I ended up here in the first place. But then I realized that this was maybe not the place to discuss womens rights....

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Saturday, March 31, 2001 - 12:13 pm
in the depths of the spirit of those who deny God with their tongue, a faith in God exists.

There is no doubt that victories and successes - especially for individuals with few possibilities - develops pride and this very pride becomes the source for forgetfulness, to the point where often a person even forgets his or her own opinions. But the moment that a storm of difficulties throws their life into chaos and the strong wind of difficulties attacks that person from all sides, the curtains of pride and selfishness moves away from their eyes and divinely-created nature (fitrat) and monotheism (the belief that God is One) appears.

History gives many examples of individuals who were like this, whose lives were full of deceit:

There was a minister who was very strong and powerful in his age. He had taken control of most of the power and no one opposed him. One day he entered a meeting in which a group of religious scholars were present. He turned to them and said, "For how long will you continue to say that God exists? I have many reasons to prove otherwise."

He said this with special pride. As the scholars who were present knew that he was not a reasonable or logical person and that power and strength ha d made him so proud that no words of truth would affect him, they ignored him and remained silent, a meaningful and humble silence.

This event passed. After a time, the minister insulted someone. The ruler of the time had him arrested and thrown into jail.

One of the scholars who was present at the gathering thought to himself that the time to awaken him had come. Now that he has gotten off the horse of pride and the curtain of self-interest has moved away from his eyes, and the sense of accepting the truth was awakened in him, if he contacts him and gives him words of advice, it may produce good results. He received permission to visit him and he went to the prison. As he neared him, he saw that he was in a room all alone, walking back and forth and thinking and he was recalling a poem which said, "We are all like drawings or paintings of a lion which are painted or drawn on a flag. When the wind blows, it moves and perhaps even attacks, but in reality it has nothing from itself Its strength is the wind which gives it power. We, also, as we gain more power, have nothing from ourselves. It is God who has given this strength to us and whenever He wills, He can take it from us."

The above-mentioned scholar saw that under these conditions, not only does he not deny the existence of God, but he has become ardently aware of God. After greeting him he said, "Do you recall how you said you have many reasons for the non-existence of God. I have come to answer those many reasons with just one response, "God is He Who, with such ease, took your power away from you." He hung his head in shame and did not answer because he knew that he had been wrong and he saw the light of God within himself.

The Holy Quran says, "We took the Israeli tribes across the sea; Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in pride and insolence. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said, 'I believe that there is no god except Him whom the Israeli tribes believe in. I am of those who submit (muslim).'" (10:90)


TWO CLEAR WAYS OF KNOWING GOD

With the first way, we get in touch with our deep, inner self and we hear the cry of monotheism from within the depths of ourselves.

With the second way, we explore the expansive created world, and we see the signs of the Creator in all creatures and in the heart of every atom. Each one of these two ways requires a great deal of explanation, but what we will try to do is to briefly study each one of these two ways.

The inward way

Let us think about the following:

1. Scholars say that every human being who thinks, from whatever class or race one be, if left alone, receives no special training, not even hears the words of people who worship God nor the words of materialists, that person will naturally become aware of a force or power which is above nature and which rules all of the world.

In the comers of one's heart and spirit, one will sense a very subtle sound, which is full of kindness and, at the same time, clear and firm, which calls one towards the great Source of the universe and the power that we call God. This is that very pure, divinely-created human nature of people.

2. It is possible that one becomes occupied with the commotion in the material world and one's daily life and the lights and attractions of life and one may temporarily neglect to hear this sound, but when one finds oneself facing problems and difficulties, whenever a natural catastrophe like a flood or an earthquake or a hurricane comes, yea, at this time, when one is curtailed from all means of material life, and when one finds no place of refuge, this inner sound gains strength. One senses that within one's self, a power is calling one, a power which is superior to all forces, a secret force and all difficulties and problems seem simple before it.

It is rare to find a person who in such difficulties does not automatically turn to God. It is this issue which shows how close we are to Him and how close He is to us. He is in our spirit and our very soul. Of course, the cry of instinct (nature) is always within a person but at times like this, it finds greater force.

* * *


3. Our history shows that even the powerful rulers who, at the time of peace and calm, refuse to even mention the Name of God, when the bases of their power begin to shake and they see that they are about to lose all of their power, they turn to God and they hear the voice of their Divinely created nature.

History tells us that when Pharaoh saw that he was drowning in the waves of the sea, he said, "I confess that there is no god but the great God of Moses." This cry came from his soul. Not only Pharaoh, but all people who are in a state or condition like he was, cry out the same thing he did.

* * *


4. If you study the real reasons for this, you will agree that a light shines from there which calls you to God. Perhaps there have been times when you have met with difficulties and problems and all of the usual ways of solving problems do not work. At that moment, most certainly, you have seen that there is a force in the world which can easily solve it.

At this moment, a hope mixed with love fills your spirit and soul and it removes the clouds of darkness from our soul. Yea. This is the closest way which a person can take to God.

* * *

Only one question:

We know that this question may arise for some of you. Does this possibility not exist that based upon what we have been taught by our environment, our father and mother, at sensitive moments, we begin to think that we should not ask God for help?

We know you are right and correct in asking this question. The Holy Quran says, "Now, if they embark on a boat, they call on God, making their devotion sincerely (and exclusively) to Him; but when He has delivered them safely to (dry) land, behold, they give a share (of their worship to others)!" (29:65)

THE SIGNS OF GOD IN OUR DAILY LIFE


1. Knowing God and the Progress of Science: Pretend that a friend has come from a trip and has brought a book as a present for you. He says that it is an excellent book, because the author of this book is full of information by a very great scholar, who is accurate, an expert and a genius in his own field.

You will most certainly not study this book carelessly. Rather you will concentrate on every, sentence and even the choice of words made and if there be a sentence there that you not understand, perhaps you will spend hours and even days, whenever you can, studying it until the meaning of it becomes clear to you. Why? Because the author of this book is not a normal average person but rather a great scholar who considers every word he uses carefully.

But if the opposite were true and they had said to you, "This book may appear to be beautiful and pleasing on the outside, but the author is not very literate and he has no base in science and has not taken any care," it is clear that you will only quickly glance at the book and wherever you found something unclear in it, you would say, "This is because the author was uninformed and it is a waste of time for a person to study this."

The world of creation is like a great book in which every creature forms a word or sentence in that. From the point of view of a person who worships God, every atom of this universe is worthy of study. A person who has faith in the ray of the light of worshipping God, will make use of a special sense of curosity in studying the secrets of creation - and it is this very fact which helps science and human knowledge to progress - because he knows that the Creator of this universe has endless knowledge and power and everything He does is based on a wisdom and a philosophy. Thus, he studies with greater care, more profoundly in order to be able to understand the secrets better.

But a materialist has no reason to discover the secret o f creation for he believes that nature is senseless. If we look at the work of a materialist scholar, it is in the same rank because he accepts God but calls him 'nature'. Why? Because he accepts an order and a program in nature.


2. Knowing God, Endeavoring and Hope: Whenever a difficult and complicated event takes place in the life of a human being, whenever all doors are somehow closed, one senses weakness, hopelessness and loneliness, when confronted by these difficulties, a person with faith in God then seeks His help, which He gives.

A person who has faith in God does not see himself or herself as being alone or powerless. He or she does not despair. He or she does not sense weakness or inability, because God is above all difficulties and everything is easy for him.

With hope in His kindness, support and help, he or she will struggle against the difficulty and will use all of his or her energies. With love and hope, one will continue his or her endeavors and efforts and will overcome the difficulty.

Yea. Faith in God is a great place of refuge for a human being. Faith in God is the substance of perseverance and steadfastness. Faith in God always keeps hope in hearts alive. Be cause of this, individuals with faith never attempt to commit suicide because attempts at suicide comes from despair, a complete lack of hope and a feeling of having failed but individuals with faith neither lose hope nor do they sense failure.

* * *


3. Knowing God and the Sense of Responsibility: We know a doctor who, when poor people visit him, not only does he not get money from them for the visit, but he gives them money and drugs and if he senses a danger for that person, he will stay all night in his home. These are people who worship God and have faith.

But we also know a doctor who, until the money of the visit is not paid, he will not take the first step for the sick person because he does not have a strong faith.

A person who has faith, no matter what his or her profession is, senses responsibility, knows his or her duties, does good. readily forgives and constantly sees a spiritual policeman within his or her soul who watches over one's deeds.

But people who lack faith are selfish and dangerous people who have no sense of responsibility. Oppression, suppression and aggression against the rights of others is easy for them and they are less prepared to do good.

* * *


4. Knowing God and Peacefulness: Psychologists say that mental and psychological diseases are greater in our time than in any other. They say that one of the factors is anxiety over future events, anxiety over death, anxiety over war and anxiety of fear and failure. They add, "Among the things which can take anxiety away from a person's spirit is faith in God because whenever an anxiety wants to penetrate one's spirit, faith in God pushes it away.

A God Who is kind, a God Who helps one meet one's needs, a God Who is aware of His servants condition and if they turn towards Him, He helps them and frees them from anxiety.

Because of this, a real believer always has a sense of peacefulness and no anxiety exists within his or her spirit.
Whatever such a person does, is for God. Even if one suffers a loss, one seeks its replacement from Him. Such a person even enters the war front with a smile.

The Holy Quran says, "It is those who believe and confuse not their beliefs with oppression - that are ( truly) in peacefulness, for they are on (right} guidance." (6:82)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Saturday, March 31, 2001 - 12:40 pm
If man evolved from animals, he might possibly be a mutation of the pig. Well, why not? Many of us eat like a pig. Others live like a pig.

Seriously, surely you won't mind if I call you a monkey. Or a baboon? Or a pig? Or tell you about your ape-like features? After all, the yarn tellers of the century say your predecessors were the beasts of the field. And isn't that fable rather odd, considering those same beasts did not counterevolve into extinction? Those still living in the wild, and those confined to zoos, still resemble the beasts they have always been---no transition to a higher level occurring, and no transitional fossils have yet been discovered.


So, what goes here? What's the big deal? Simply, atheists are incessantly striving to enforce a godless, destructive philosophy upon us---a view of man's origin that has no foundation in truth, fact, or reality. It is just as rational to assert that monkeys and apes evolved from humans as it is to claim that humans evolved from monkeys and apes. And there's just as much "evidence." Get the "monkeys" off our backs or give us equal time in classrooms to air our views.

"Man's Common Ancestry"

One evolutionist wrote that the Eohippus counterevolved into extinction when our modern horse arrived upon the scene. Other evolutionists are now claiming that the common bird evolved from the dinosaur, now extinct. The problem with this "logic" is if the Eohippus became extinct when the horse arrived, and the dinosaur ceased to exist when our modern bird appeared, why didn't the ape become nonexistent when man arrived? Well, why? Both the ape and human families continue to thrive in the same era. This "mystery" cannot be explained by the evolutionist, for if one goes when the other comes, why do both ape and man exist in the same age? Well, why?

Another matter biological evolutionists need to work out is how did the genes of brute animals evolve into human genes? For if the genes of brute animals evolved into what is now human genes, what prevented the genes of brute animals from counterevolving into extinction?


The Evolutionist Answers

"Natural selection or selective breeding," the evolutionist says. However, be it understood that natural selection or selective breeding has always produced its own kind. The selective breeding of cattle does not produce horses, and the selective breeding of wheat does not yield barley. We may surely harvest thoroughbred cattle and wheat by selective breeding, but rest assured that each living thing produces its own kind. As cats cannot evolve into dogs, regardless of time span, so apes cannot evolve into humans, regardless of time span.
.............................................

The Monkey's Disgrace
Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree,
Discussing things as they're said to be.

Said one to the others, "Now listen, you two,
There's a rumor around that can't be true.

"That man descended from our noble race,
The very idea is a great disgrace.

"No monkey has ever deserted his wife,
Starved her babies and ruined her life.

"And you've never known a mother monk,
To leave her babies with others to bunk,

"Or to pass from one to another,
Till they scarcely know who is their mother.

"And another thing you'll never see,
A monk build a fence around a coconut tree,

"And let the coconuts go to waste,
Forbidding all other monks a taste.

"Why if I'd build a fence around this tree,
starvation would force you to steal from me.

"Here's another thing a monkey won't do,
Go out at night and get on a stew,

"Or use a gun or club or knife,
To take some other monkey's life.

"Yes, man descended, the ornery cuss,
But, brother, he didn't descend from us!"

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Saturday, March 31, 2001 - 12:43 pm
Where does science end and blind faith begin?

The problem with the atheists is that if something can come from nothing, then you can effectively throw out all science and reason. (Are virtual particles actually proven to be uncaused? Get real.) Who needs to question how the magician pulled a rabbit out of the hat? It could now be possible that the rabbit caused itself ex-nihilo from the void (which would definitely be true magic). Perhaps life itself was the result of a flux in the "void" or a "borrowing" of energy from the zero-point sea. A DNA molecule just suddenly "popped" out from the void and bam!, you have life. (Just hope the void doesn't demand the borrowed energy back any time soon!)

With the new view that causality is no longer a universal law, now all of the sudden, every miracle mentioned in religious dogma since the history of the world becomes scientifically viable. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if quantum "laws" can effect an entire universe from the void, then minimally comparable events such as a biblical flood are trivial and tripe- candidly being absolutely scientifically viable in comparison. As soon as you throw out cause-and-effect from the universe (by stating that it can be "naturally" breached), you no longer have any right to declare a miraculous event as being scientifically impossible or foolish. You no longer have a leg to stand on in your claim that miracles are unscientific. In fact it can be reasonably stated that of all religions and all myths in the history of this world combined, the idea that the universe spontaneously caused itself ex-nihilo from absolute nothingness is by far the most supernatural world view of them all. "Something from nothing" meets the very definition of supernatural, and is in fact, even more supernatural than any religion I know of. At least the other religions ascribe some sort of cause to the universe!

The only way to embrace this world view (that cause-and-effect is no longer a universal law) is to let go of all established science and reason. How amazing it is to me to see an atheist criticize a creationist for foolish views and then turn around and declare that cause-and-effect can be breached! How can you define any natural law when causality can be negated at the spontaneous "will" of the void? You cant. At least the creationist believes in a universe that is caused; far more in line with established physics. The modern atheist on the other hand a believes that it is possible for events to arise from absolute nothing- without a cause. Nothing could be more supernatural! Even a supernatural event like the resurrection of Christ is still a caused event (Christians believe it was caused by God). With the modern atheist world view, we can still have the resurrection of Christ, only now we don't need a cause for it. Yikes!

This atheism----fanatical world view is the most superstitious and supernatural of them all. I laugh every time I here people like Quentin Smith spend so much time and energy arguing with finely-tuned eloquent dialogue that "something can arise from nothing," while simultaneously declaring theism to be absurd. Its actually unbelievable! When you take a step back and look at it, you have to laugh at its pathetically sad, but blatantly exposed double standard. Like the classic story of The Emperor's New Clothes, you see a well-respected person "clothing" himself up with the robes of skilled words and philosophical reasoning, but when you realize just what he is arguing in favor of, like a flash of bright awareness, you suddenly behold a frail, naked man; weak and desperate for answers. So desperate that he is willing to throw out to the dogs the very things that science and reason stands and has stood upon; the very things that atheism has stood upon for centuries- all just to satisfy a sad, desperate need to answer to those "inferior" theists. Deep down, all atheists who are honest with themselves who publicly claim causality can be beaten know it. Why wont any of today's free-thinkers stand up and identify the naked king for what he is? Perhaps because they enjoy their puny skirmishes with the theists so much that I guess science just doesn't mean as much to them as it used to. Once you can see the obvious, you realize the truth- there is no science here; no objective pursuit of reality, no devotion to reason, no unbiased study of empirical evidence, only a bitter spirit towards theism and the desperate need to quench its thirst in man.

Robert Ingersoll would be appalled to know that today many of his fellow atheists are actually ready to throw out cause-and-effect, thereby opening the wide gates of the supernatural. He would be astonished to see so many atheists throw it out just for the sake of landing an angry, emotion-driven blow in the endless war against the theists. And doing so in the name of science is only a defamation of what science stands for, and a slap in the face of men like Robert Ingersoll. Are theists worth it? Is it worth sacrificing science and reason upon the altar of personal aversion for the sake of attacking theism? I am sorry, Mr. Ingersoll, that the progress you made in the advancement of knowledge is being so desecrated by today's new breed of supernatural atheists.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Saturday, March 31, 2001 - 12:47 pm
APES UP FROM?, Donald Johanson, "At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday....", Lucy, p.363

Reconstructions are unscientific

GREAT GRANDPA APE, EARNST A. HOOTEN, Harvard, "If we are descended from apes our remote ancestors ought to look their part. You may not be willing to admit that you resemble an ape;.... But if that thousandth ancestor's forebearers become progressively more simian as you trace back the genealogical lines you will have to admit that somewhere in your family tree there squats an ape.", UP FROM THE APE, p.289

RECONSTRUCTIONS? EARNST A. HOOTEN, Harvard, "To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip, leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public.... So put not your trust in reconstructions.", UP FROM THE APE, p.332

RECONSTRUCTIONS? W. HOWELLS, Harvard, "A great legend has grown up to plague both paleontologists and anthropologists. It is that one of these wondrous men can take a tooth or a small and broken piece of bone, gaze at it, and pass his hand over his forehead once or twice, and then take a sheet of paper and draw a picture of what the whole animal looked like as it tramped the Terriary terrain. If this were quite true, the anthropologists would make the F.B.I. look like a troop of Boy Scouts.", MANKIND SO FAR, p138

THEORY DOMINATED DATA, DAVID PILBEAM, Yale, "I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, ‘theory’ - heavily influenced by implicit ideas - almost always dominates ‘data.’ ...Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted." Quoted in Bones of Contention, p.127

PARANORMAL ANTHROPOLOGY, Lord Zolly Zuckerman, "We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER, p.19

BASIS OF "FAMILY TREE," ROGER LEWIN, Ed., Research News, Science, "The key issue is the ability correctly to infer a genetic relationship between two species on the basis of a similarity in appearance....can be deceptive, partly because similarity of structure does not necessarily imply an identical genetic heritage: a shark (which is a fish) and a porpoise (which is a mammal) look similar..." Bones of Contention, 1987, p.123

PROVEN? R. C. LEWONTIN, Harvard , "Look, I'm a person who says in this book [Human Diversity, 1982] that we don't know anything about the ancestors of the human species. All the fossils which have been dug up and are claimed to be ancestors - we haven't the faintest idea whether they are ancestors. ...All you've got is Homo sapiens there, you've got that fossil there, you've got another fossil there...it's up to you to draw the lines. Because there are no lines.", Harper's, 2/84

UNRELIABLE "TREES," J. LOWENSTEIN & ADRIENE ZIHLMAN, "But anatomy and the fossil record cannot be relied on for defining evolutionary lineages. Yet, paleontologist persist in doing just this. ...the subjective element in this approach to building evolutionary trees, which many paleontologist advocate with almost religious fervor, is demonstrated by the outcome: there is no single family tree on which they agree." Nature, 1992, Vol.355, p.783

MARY LEAKEY’S CONCLUSION, According To Associated Press, "Since scientists can never prove a particular scenario of human evolution, Leakey said "All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense." 12/9/1996

Ramapithecus Is Discarded Ape

"APE-MAN" OUT, ROGER LEWIN, Ed., Research News, Science, "The dethroning of Ramapithecus - from putative first human in 1961 to extinct relative of the orangutan in 1982 - is one of the most fascinating, and bitter, sagas in the search for human origins." Bones of Contention, 1987, p.86

"APES", Robert B. Eckhardt, Penn.S.U., "...there would appear to be little evidence to suggest that several different hominoid species are represented among the Old World dryopithecine fossils... (Ramapithecus, Oreopithecus, Limnopithecus, Kenyapithecus). They them-selves nevertheless seem to have been apes -morphologically, ecologically, and behaviourally." Scientific American, Vol.226, p.101

Australopithecus Is An Ape

SECOND "APE-MAN" OUT" ROGER LEWIN, Ed., Research News, Science, Richard and his parents, Louis and Mary, have held to a view of human origins for nearly half a century now that the line of true man, the line of Homo - large brain, toolmaking and so on - has a separate ancestry that goes back millions and millions of years. And the ape-man, Australopithecus, has nothing to do with human ancestry." BONES OF CONTENTION, 1987, p.18

LEAKEY DEFECTION, "Dr. Leakey bases his repudiation of Darwin on the results of his long search in East Africa for the remains of the original man. The generally accepted post-Darwin view is that man developed from the baboon 3 to 5 million years ago. But Leakey has found no evidence of a spurt in development at that time.", Chicago American, 1/25, 1967

DISMISSED APE, LORD SOLLY ZUCKERMAN, "His Lordship's scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. 'They are just bloody apes', he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa. ...Zuckerman had become extremely powerful in British science, being an adviser to the government up to the highest level. ...while at Oxford and then Birmingham universities, he had vigorously pursued a metrical and statistical approach to studying the anatomy of fossil hominids. ...it was on this basis that he underpinned his lifelong rejection of the australopithecines as human ancestors." Bones of ContentioN, 1987, p.164, 165

DEFINITELY AN APE, LORD Solly Zuckerman, "The australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human (figure 5) that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white." BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER, p.78

LIKE APE, William Howells, Harvard, "...the pelvis was by no means modern, nor were the feet: the toes were more curved than ours; the heel bones lacked our stabilizing tubercles; and a couple of small ligaments that, in us, tighten the arch from underneath, were apparently not present. The finger bones were curved as they are in tree-climbing apes. ...Here is something of an enigma. Excellent evidence of a very modern foot from the from the hominid footprints at Laetoli. Excellent evidence of hominid but not fully modern feet from the Afar bones. Russel Tuttle of the University of Chicago, a leading expert on hominoid gaits and limbs, finds that all aspects of the footprints, especially toe proportions, are remarkably like modern human feet and that the Afar feet are significantly less than human." GETTING HERE, 1993, p.79

LIKE APE, A. afarensis...The recent description of four articulating foot bones from 3-3.5 Myr deposits in the South African cave site of Sterkfontein support this. ...the divergent big toe indicates some degree of prehensile grasping as in apes. Developmental patterns were also more ape-like than human. ...ecologically they may still be considered apes." Nature, 376, 8/17/1995, p.556

LIKE ORANGUTAN, CHARLES E. OXNARD, Dean of Graduate School, Prof. of Biology & Anatomy, USC, "...conventional wisdom is that the australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to humans...the new studies point to different conclusions. The new investigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different from any living form: when they do have similarities with living species, they are as often as not reminiscent of the orangutan, ...these results imply that the various australopithecines are really not all that much like humans. ...may well have been bipeds,....but if so, it was not in the human manner. They may also have been quite capable climbers as much at home in the trees as on the ground." The American Biology Teacher, Vol.41, 5/1979, pp.273-4

Like Pygmy CHIMP, Adrienne L. Zihlman, U.C. Santa Cruze, "Zihlman compares the pygmy chimpanzee to 'Lucy,' one of the oldest hominid fossils known, and finds the similarities striking. They are almost identical in body size, in stature and in brain size , she notes, and the major differences (the hip and the foot) represent the younger Lucy's adaptation to bipedal walking. These commonalities, Zihlman argues, indicate that pygmy chimps use their limbs in much the same way Lucy did..." Science News, Vol.123, 2/5. 1983, p.89

SHRIVELED Status, Matt Cartmill, Duke; David Pilbeam, Harvard; Glynn Isaac, Harvard, "The australopithecines are rapidly shrinking back to the status of peculiarly specialized apes...", American Scientist, July-August 1986, p.419

Failed Links: Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, Peking Man

BELIEVE IT &#61508; SEE IT, ROGER LEWIN, Editor of Research News, Science, "How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones - the cranial fragments - and 'see' a clear simian signature in them; and 'see' in an ape's jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists' expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data. ... It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions. If this were the case, then each scientist faced with the same data would necessarily reach the same conclusion. But as we've seen earlier and will see again and again, frequently this does not happen. Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions." Bones of Contention, pp.61, 68

EVIDENCE MISSING, W. Howells, Harvard, "Java Man went into Dubois' locker for a time. But Peking Man seems to have gone into Davy Jones' locker, and for good. He disappeared, one of the first casualties of the war in the Pacific, half a million years after he had died the first time." Mankind IN THE MAKING, p.165

CONTEMPORARY, "[H. erectus] would have been alive when modern human and Neandertals roamed the earth. ...If the dates are right, we have three different species coexisting at the same time..." SCIENCE, V.274, p.1841, 12/13/1996

Homo erectus = Homo sapien, S.C.ANTON, Anthropologist, U. of FL, "Anthropologist Milford H. Wolpoff of the University of Michigan...argue[s] that H. erectus fossils actually belong to an anatomically diverse form of H. sapiens... ‘The proper way to define both a living and a fossil species is the $64,000 question,’ Anton states." Science News, V.150, p.373, 12/14/1996

Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon Are Men

EVOLUTION OR VARIATION? "...a Neanderthaler is a model of evolutionary refinement. Put him in a Brooks Brothers suit and send him down to the supermarket for some groceries and he might pass completely unnoticed. He might run a little shorter than the clerk serving him but he would not necessarily be the shortest man in the place. He might be heavier-featured, squattier and more muscular than most, but again he might be no more so than the porter handling the beer cases back in the stock room." EVOLUTION, Time-Life Nature Library.

LARGER BRAIN, William Howells, Harvard, "The Neanderthal brain was most positively and definitely not smaller than our own; indeed, and this is a rather bitter pill, it appears to have been perhaps a little larger." MANKIND SO FAR, p.165

"FULLY HUMAN," Mat Cartmill, Duke U., Pres., Amer. Asso. of Phys. Anthropology, "I tend to think they [Neanderthals] had fully human language. After all, they had larger brains than those of most modern humans, made elegant stone tools, and knew how to use tools." Discover, 11/98, p.62

MODERN CAME FIRST, O. Bar-Yosef, Peabody Museum, Harvard, B. Vandermeerch, U. Bordeaux, "Modern Homo sapiens preceded Neanderthals at Mt. Carmel. ...modern looking H. sapien had lived in one of the caves some 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, much earlier than such people had been thought to exist anywhere. ...The results have shaken the traditional evolutionary scenario, producing more questions than answers." Scientific American, p.94, 4/1993

Man "Older" Than Proposed Ancestors

RUINED FAMILY TREE, "Either we toss out this skull [1470] or we toss out our theories of early man," asserts anthropologist Richard Leakey of this 2.8-million-year-old fossil, which he has tentatively identified as belonging to our own genus. "It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings." The author, son of famed anthropologist Louis S. B. Leakey, believes that the skull's surprisingly large braincase "leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.", National Geographic, 6/1973, p.819

Human Brain, "Leakey further describes the whole shape of the brain case [1470] as remarkably reminiscent of modern man, lacking the heavy and protruding eyebrow ridges and thick bone characteristics of Homo erectus." Science News, 102. 4/3/72, p.324

Human Brain, Dean Falk, S.U.of N.Y. at Albany, "...KNM-ER 1805 [Homo habilis] should not be attributed to Homo... the shape of the endocast from KNM-ER (basal view) is similar to that from an African pongid, where as the endocast of KNM-ER 1470 is shaped like that of a modern human." Science, 221, (9/9/83) p.1073

Fossil Wastebasket, Ian Tattersal, Head, Anthropology Dep. American Museum of Natural History, "This assignment more than anything else reflects the usefulness of having around a basket called Homo habilis into which paleoanthropologists could sweep a lot of fossil loose ends. And of course, the more this basket swelled, the less biological meaning it possessed." The Fossil Trail, 1995, p.135

Human Brain "The foremost American experts on human brain evolution – Dean Falk of the State University of New York at Albany and Ralph Holloway of Columbia University–usually disagree, but even they agree that Broca's area is present in a skull from East Turkana known as 1470 Philip Tobias...renowned brain expert from South Africa concurs." Anthro Quest: The Leakey's Foundation News. No.43 (Spring 91) p.13

NOT ERECTUS, "According to paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History in New York the African skulls...assigned to erectus often lack many of the specialized traits that were originally used to define that species in Asia, including the long low cranial structure, thick skull bones, and robustly built faces. In his view, the African group deserves to be placed in a separate species..." Discover, 9/94, p.88

"OLD" MODERN MEN, LEWIS LEAKEY "In 1933 I published on a small fragment of jaw we call Homo kanamensis, and I said categorically this is not a near-man or ape, this is a true member of the genus Homo. There were stone tools with it too. The age was somewhere around 2.5 to 3 million years. It was promptly put on the shelf by my colleagues, except for two of them. The rest said it must be placed in a ‘suspense account.’ Now, 36 years later, we have proved I was right." Quoted in Bones of Contention, p.156

TOO HUMAN – TOO OLD, Russel H. Tuttle, Professor of Anthropology, U.of Chicago, Affiliate Scientist, Primate Research Center, Emory U., "In sum, the 3.5-million-year-old footprint trails at Laetoli sight G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. ...If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus ...In any case we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy's kind..." Natural History, 3/90, p.64.

MODERN & TALL, Richard Leakey, "...the boy from Tukana was surprisingly large compared with modern boys his age; he could well have grown to six feet. ... Suitably clothed and with a cap to obscure his low forehead and beetle brow, he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today. This find combines with previous discoveries of Homo erectus to contradict a long-held idea that humans have grown larger over the millennia." National Geographic, p.629, 11/1985

Man Even "Before" Lucy

CHARLES E. OXNARD Dean, Grad. School, Prof. Bio. and Anat., USC, "...earlier finds, for instance, at Kanapoi...existed at least at the same time as, and probably even earlier than, the original gracile australopithecines... almost indistinguishable in shape from that of modern humans at four and a half million years...", American Biology Teacher, Vol.41, 5/1979, p.274.

Henry M. McHenry, U. of C., Davis, "The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens...." Science, Vol.190, p.428.

William Howells, Harvard, "...with a date of about 4.4 million, [KP 271] could not be distinguished from Homo sapiens morphologically or by multivariate analysis by Patterson and myself in 1967 (or by much more searching analysis by others since then). We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at that time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element.", Homo Erectus, 1981, p.79-80.

Eve KICKED OUT, STEPHEN J. GOULD, "...'mitochondral Eve' hypothesis of modern human origins in Africa, suffered a blow in 1993, when the discovery of an important technical fallacy in the computer program used to generate and assess evolutionary trees debunked the supposed evidence for an African source...disproving the original claim." Natural History, 2/94, p.21

Variation within kind is observed – Evolution is not observed!

FALSIFIED CASTS, Ales Hrdlicka, Smithsonian (Re: Java Man) "None of the published illustrations or casts now in various institutions is accurate." Science, 8/17/1923

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

LOL

Saturday, March 31, 2001 - 01:55 pm
Do I scrach my ass? Do I have ticks?do I pick ticks off the back of others?and do i fling doo? NO! why are we still coming up with this man is an ape?Why do some put faith in darwin?The guy is dust!I heard on his death bead he recanted?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

LOL

Saturday, March 31, 2001 - 01:55 pm
Do I scrach my ass? Do I have ticks?do I pick ticks off the back of others?and do i fling doo? NO! why are we still coming up with this man is an ape?Why do some put faith in darwin?The guy is dust!I heard on his death bead he recanted?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

LOL

Saturday, March 31, 2001 - 02:01 pm
Look atheists , you can custumized all the theroies (blind faith) you want .The never ending quest for atheists to dissprove God has been taken from one great lingth to another. To me it is fun whatching the atheist chase his or her tail, in an usless effort to dissprove God! You will never find an atheist to disprove God by scientific means. !Let us stop chasing our tails and accept the facts atheists could not dissprove God two thousand years ago and they still have not!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Premonition

Saturday, March 31, 2001 - 07:50 pm
In her attempt to "show" the errors in the Quran, I bet Pragmo will be spending some time with Mr. P. Newton and Mr. Rafiqul-Haqq rather than the Quran.
I can of foresee where she will base her arguments: Embryology, the sun, incongruent verses and so on... Have ago anway "practical girl" because we have all the counter arguments for you.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Saturday, March 31, 2001 - 08:26 pm
An Atheist's Faith:

Listening to a song about faith, I think: Do I believe in faith? Is faith a concept relevant to me, to one who has no belief in the existence of deities and demigods, angels and devils?

What do I believe in? What is my faith, my firm conviction, my passion that inspires and guides my life?

Faith in this world. Faith in humanity. Faith in myself. Faith in our ability to change our world, influence, make a difference.

To believe that life is possible, that life is worthwhile, to believe that life is more than "passing through" to a "better world," to believe that this life is worth investing in, this world is worth investing in, we are worth investing in. To believe that living this life fully, richly, humanely, is purpose enough for this brief existence. That we don't need anything more than this life, wholly engaged.

My faith is in myself and in my world. My faith is in life itself.

Mine is a faith with reason, even when it seems unreasonable to persevere in faith. An atheist's faith is not built upon speculations of entities not experienced or seen or demonstrated, not upon mere wishful thinking that there might be more to life than this brief span followed by an eternity of oblivion. An atheist's faith is built upon a reasonable hope, a hope founded in reality, in demonstrable possibility: We know, and we have seen, that people can change their world, or at least their own small corner of it, for the better, when they gather together in good will and cooperation and determination. We know, and we have seen, that sometimes when life seems hopeless, circumstances can change for the better, chance can fall upon us for good as well as for ill. We know, and we have experienced, that the future often does not become what we expected it to become, whether for good or for ill. We know that in the end, the only way we shall find out what lies ahead, around the next corner, is to travel the road that leads us around the next corner. And so we have a reasonable basis for hope, based on the experiences of our forebears and fellows as well as on our own.

And now there remain these three, wrote Paul of Tarsus, faith, hope, and love.

And now there remain these three, agrees the atheist, faith, hope, and love.

Faith, not in a better world beyond this miserable one, but in our ability to better this one.

Hope, not in the sweet bye-and-bye, but the here-and-now which awaits our sweetening labors to become that for which we hope and dream.

And the greatest of these, love, from which springs the desire to invest in ourselves, in one another, in our world.

Do love the world, and the things, and the people, of the world, for love, not fear, is the beginning of wisdom.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Saturday, March 31, 2001 - 08:53 pm
Apathetic Agnosticism and Our Articles of Faith:

There are those that see agnosticism as only a way-station, an intermediate step for those still trying to decide whether to believe in God (or Gods) or to absolutely disbelieve. Agnosticism is seen as a refuge for those who cannot make up their minds.

What this site seeks to illustrate is that agnosticism in itself is a legitimate end position in religious belief. We do not know because we cannot know. The ultimate truth about the existence of a Supreme Being is unknowable. Recognizing this, we can free ourselves from a fruitless search and indeed, no longer care about answering the question.


Our Articles of Faith
1. The existence of a Supreme Being is unknown and unknowable.
To believe in the existence of a god is an act of faith. To believe in the nonexistence of a god is likewise an act of faith. There is no evidence that there is a Supreme Being nor is there evidence there is not a Supreme Being. Faith is not knowledge. We can only state with assurance that we do not know.

2. If there is a Supreme Being, then that Being appears to act as if apathetic to events in our universe.
All events in our Universe, including its creation, can equally be explained based on the existence or the nonexistence of a Supreme Being. Thus, if there is indeed a God, then that God has had no more impact than no god at all. Thus, if there is a Supreme Being, that being acts as if it is entirely indifferent to our Universe and to its inhabitants.

3. We are apathetic to the existence or nonexistence of a Supreme Being.
If there is a God, and that God does not appear to care, then there is no reason to concern ourselves with whether or not a Supreme Being exists, nor should we have any interest in satisfying the purported needs of that Supreme Being.

Nomenclature
Our full designation is The Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic. In the interest of brevity, we are also known as the Church of the Apathetic Agnostic or alternatively The Apathetic Agnostic Church. All three terms refer to our church. Our official abbreviation is UCTAA.

Our Gospel
Some jurisdictions limit clerical marriage authority to "Ministers of the Gospel." In countries which claim separation of Church and State, it is not logical that this is intended to limit such authority to Christian clergy. Accordingly, we believe such laws refer to the broad definition rather than the narrow. Within the Church of the Apathetic Agnostic, the Gospel is made up of of the following sections of the main web site: Discussion of the Articles of Faith; The Church Position on Ethics; and Meditations. These sections constitute Church Doctrine and the examples and parables which serve to teach the message of the Church. We consider all clergy ordained by the Church to be Ministers of the Gospel.

Explore
Please explore the site and discover what we are about. There is a lot of content, and along the way you can join the church, apply for ordination, get a free degree, and submit your own thoughts for publication.

Use Table of Contents on the next page to visit sections directly - or click on the Next Buttons to go through in sequence.

Link to us using www.uctaa.org or www.apatheticagnostic.com

Aim 1
We could be bigger than Scientology... if only we weren't so darned apathetic.

Tom! Nicole! John! Kelly! Please contact the Supreme Patriarch. You can each become Archbishops in the Church if you will publicly switch to our religion. And we won't require you to act in any silly movies based on science fiction stories written by our Founder.



Aim 2*
To disseminate the concept of Apathetic Agnosticism as widely as possible. To be apathetic on the question of a Supreme Being’s existence does not imply being apathetic about the concept.

The Church Position on Ethics

The Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (UCTAA) takes no official position on Ethics and Morality. As acceptance of the Articles of the UCTAA by members of the Church involves an intellectual decision rather than an act of faith, similarly, decisions on Ethics and Morality should be determined through an intellectual process rather than blindly following rules set down by any Church.

However, if you need simple guidance, then the Church suggests that if you do right by others, you will do right by yourself.



A Fable
Three passed their lives doing good works.

The first chose to do good works because of belonging to a religion that promised everlasting damnation to those who failed to do good.

The second chose to do good works because of belonging to a religion that promised eternal pleasures of paradise after death to those who did good.

The third chose to do good works because of a considered decision that it was the right thing to do.

Which of the three was indeed good?


First you live, then you die, and then...?
What happens when we die? Is that it? Or is there more? Do we come back to live another life? As a human? Or perhaps as a dung beetle? Do we become restless unseen spirits roaming the world? Do we go to heaven or hell? Or do we simply return to the Arcturian mother ship waiting in Mars orbit to carry us back to the home planet.

We don't know. The Church has no formal position on the matter. No-one has come back from being truly dead and reported on the matter. We don't know. But should we care?

Perhaps we should live our lives as if it did matter. Perhaps it would be prudent to manage our personal affairs as if good is rewarded in some way after death, and as if evil is punished.

I'm not suggesting we should waste time in meaningless rituals of worship. But we would be wise to treat those we live with on earth with respect, fairness, and generosity.

Meditation #3a
My personal view is that in all probability, once it's over, it's over. there is nothing after death. Our only hope for immortality is to be remembered.

Looking at my own life, the only thing that I can see being remembered for (beyond the memories of those who know me personally, and who will not live for more than a century after me) is this creation right here - the Church of the Apathetic Agnostic.

Not too much of hope of that is there! But it's nice to imagine that in 10000AD, the current Supreme Matriarch will be educating her daughter in the faith, and showing her a hologram of the original web site.

- And this was all created by one man back in the late second millennium, when most people still claimed to believe in gods.

- You mean the official religion of the entire galaxy started here on Earth, mama?

- Yes. His greatness wasn't immediately recognized, but eventually nearly everyone recognized the clearness of his thinking. There are now nearly 900,000 biographies of him in the data-banks.

- But mama, he wasn't such a genius - it says here he didn't believe in an afterlife.

- Yes, but before Earth developed space travel, they did not know about the transmigration of souls between star systems.

- So he must have been really surprised to wake up on that Andromedan star ship?

- Yes - he had expected it to be from Arcturus.

Q: Isn't life meaningless without faith in God?

A: Your life and it's meaning is whatever you wish to make it. Without serving the needs of a God that, if it exists, is quite apathetic about our existence, you are free to determine for yourself what the meaning of life is for you. If it is to stop world hunger, you can contribute to that. If it's the pursuit of happiness, go right ahead. You can pursue a rich, fulfilling life doing whatever it is that you personally find rewarding.

Q: Without religion, how can one live ethically?

A: There is more to moral behaviour than mindlessly following all the dictates of a religion. However, you can adopt guidelines from any source which you find appropriate to you. For example, consider the "Golden" rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or consider the statement: You reap what you sow. In other words, how you behave and treat others dictates how you will be treated, God or no God. The purpose of living ethically then becomes a matter of coexisting successfully and happily in a society of other people rather than serving the needs of a God that may or may not even exist.

Q: Do you believe in Satan/Hell/the Devil?

A: We do not believe in anything that cannot be proven with verifiable evidence. Likewise, we do not dismiss such things that cannot be proven. For example, we do not think that there is intelligent life on Saturn, based on current evidence. However, we don't dismiss the possibility of there being intelligent life on Saturn. If someone provided verifiable evidence of intelligent life on Saturn, we would then concede that yes, there is intelligent life on Saturn. Likewise, if someone provided verifiable evidence that there was no intelligent life on Saturn, we would then concede that no, there is no intelligent life on Saturn. At present, when asked if we believe in intelligent life on Saturn, we would answer, "We don't know, but current evidence indicates that there is not intelligent life on Saturn, nor would there need to be intelligent life on Saturn for anything to exist - but since nobody has proved without a doubt that intelligent life doesn't exist on Saturn, the possibility exists." So, we have the same position on Satan and Hell as we do on God and Heaven. “We don't know, and we don't particularly care.”

Q: What is the purpose of your church, if you don't believe in God?

A: Basically, we provide a means of promulgating the concept of agnosticism. We teach "Knowledge over Belief." We encourage people to learn, and to place what they've learned and know to be true over any beliefs they may have.

Q: Are you anti-Christian?

A: No. It does not matter to us whether or neighbour worships no God or twenty Gods. The only thing we are opposed to is when a religion preaches it's congregation to impose upon the fundamental rights of another human being.

Q: Are you Atheist?

A: There is one important difference between us and Atheists. Where an Atheist will plainly state that there is no God, we state that if there is a God, it is beyond our current knowledge to know if God exists, and if that God does exist, that God is apathetic to our existence.

Q: Don't you know that the Bible is the word of God?

A: After reading the bible, there are some things we know for fact. We know that it is a book. We also know that it was written by humans. After some investigation, we discover that it has also been translated from ancient languages. After careful evaluation, we can also conclude that not one word in the bible was actually written by anything other than humans; that is to say, there isn't anything in the holy bible written by God or Jesus Christ or other supernatural force, even though there is a lot of things written about them. Finally, we can also conclude that from the description of God in the bible that if a God exists in our world, it most certainly isn't the same God that's described in the bible. There is nothing indicating to us that the Bible is indeed the word of God, but rather the word of humans unfamiliar with the world that existed thousands of years ago.

Q: Don't you know that Jesus Christ died for your sins?

A: We are more comfortable with taking responsibility for our own "Sins" than to have somebody we've never met who supposedly existed thousands of years ago who supposedly was the son of God take that responsibility away from us. We believe in personal accountability, which is demonstrated in our high regard for moral standards.

Q: Don't you know that we're all sinners and will burn in hell, unless we accept Jesus Christ/believe in God?

A: Since there is no conclusive evidence of the existence of a place called hell, our feelings are much the same regarding Hell as with God and intelligent life on Saturn. We know we've made mistakes, that's what makes us what we are. By learning from our mistakes, we better ourselves. We believe it is better to learn from ones mistakes than to hope that an apathetic deity will wash them away; otherwise, what would we have learned?

Q: What's your position on homosexuality/abortion/insert latest controversy here?

A: We believe that all individuals hold a personal responsibility to themselves to fully research and understand the issue at hand, study both sides of the issue, and then arrive at an unbiased conclusion that they feel is right for them. It is not our place to dictate to others how they should live their lives, nor is it our place to think for others. We encourage people to think for themselves.

Q: If there is no God, then how do you explain the Universe and our being here?

A: When presented with this question, the person asking the question is assured that "God has always been, and always will be" and considers that the Universe is something that was created or popped into existence by way of some supernatural force. Although we won't dismiss that possibility, it is also possible that the Universe has always existed in some form (perhaps a big blob prior to the "Big Bang":O, and will continue to always exist in some form. In other words, it's possible that the Universe has always been, and always will be. Science has adequately provided very good theories explaining how we got here. See Meditation 1.

Q: I'M A BRAINWASHED TEENAGER AND I ACCEPTED JESUS IN MY HEART AND YOU SHOULD TOO...

A: We are confident in our Articles of Faith. If you have conclusive evidence that proves (or disproves) the existence of God, we wholeheartedly ask that you send us a copy. If you have conclusive evidence, we will revise our articles of faith to reflect this. While you're at it, please familiarize yourself with the SHIFT key. We find it hard to take serious anyone who TYPES IN ALL CAPS

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

fg.

Saturday, March 31, 2001 - 09:39 pm
Premonition and JB, Thanks guys for putting the word out concerning where she will bring from her critisizm. I will love to see what you guys write when she opens the new page. Jazakumullaah for what you do for the sake of Allah.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Nour

Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 11:50 am
Oh, PG used to be very religous women who wears Hijab and enjoys the nice "Poetry" of the Qur'an. And then, all of a sudden, God know what happened. I would like to know the Arabic Poetry in the Qur'an PG used to enjoy. PG who told you, Qur'anic style has any resemlance to Arabic Poetry. Did you studied Sarfi, Balaagah, Nahwa. Before, you did that, did you studied the (standard)Arabic Language?. Do you even know, any of the non-standard Arabic Language. I would like to know which Arabic poertry rule and Qaafiyah applies to the Qur'anic verses and style. To give you a hint, study the work of ancient Arabic Poertry legends such as Qais, Nabiga, Zuhaib and Khansa( She is a women, in case you interested). Then I would know that you are not misleading the poor girl from Norway.

WGN

You sure, you don't have any ideas and principles from old?. How about if the Idea is timeless and always it's needed and valid like eating and drinking. Would you throw that away, because it's very old.
You said you want to talk about Women's rights. Why women only?. How about the children, old people, families, men or even the animals. Why not being wholesome instead of fragmentaion, division and sexism.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Nour

Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 12:38 pm
PG
Don't take personal from me and JB that, we pointed out some stupidy in your Evolustionistic faith. It was just the nature of that pathetic concept,that it always falls apart against any real sense and logic.

By all means, show us the errors discovered by PG in the Qur'an(I'm proud that you are the first women discovered errors and inconsistancies in the Qur'an). Sinse, you used to enjoy it's "Poetry", I assume you know the Qur'an very well, So pick a verse and show which Ayah it contradicts and the Error.
You have to use different reason and judgement than the one led you to believe in Evolution. I hope, by now, you know the problem with that reason kind of reason.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

WGN

Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 01:25 pm
Nour, you seem pretty confused about what I'm saying. But don't worry, I don't expect you to understand it. You see, you are just a particle too on this dot called earth..LOL!
Uhm, and I did say HUMAN rights, THEN I said especially women's rights... And you want to know why? Simply because a woman is the one who gives birth to cildren, both MALES and females... And you need a STRONG woman if you want her to take care of her children, family and old people....
Oh, I forgot, that's the man's job right?? So maybe we should talk about the man's rights instead..? LOL!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Monday, April 02, 2001 - 08:09 am
Let me present shortly what atheism is, and how it is upheld. Some people think that atheism is a positive belief that god does not exist. That is not atheism but strong-atheism. The three kinds of atheism can be defined as such :
Strong-atheism : belief that there is no god.
Weak-atheism : disbelief in god.
Agnostic atheist : disbelief in god, despite the lack of evidence against.
Weak-atheism is a personal opinion, while strong-atheism is a statement about faith. Or, from another angle, you could say that strong-atheism holds 0% of probability of the existence of god or non-existence of god, while weak-atheism is disbelief without impossibility being a necessary condition. Weak-atheism is not agnostic atheism because the agnostic holds that atheism has no evidence for its case. more generally, faith is merely the expression of one's subjective emotions into belief. Strong atheists have this and the beleivers in God have this. there is no logical proof for the non-existence of gods as we define the term. You might also say, "but it's impossible to prove a God's existence. First of all, atheism in the broad sense is only disbelief to believe there is no God. The atheist is the one who has the burden of proof in this regard, since atheistic arguments stand refuted. Also this argument can be reversed by saying that to claim that there is a god would require knowledge that there is nothing in the universe which prohibits the existence of gods, which would be impossible.Another problem of atheism qua atheism is that it does not contain its own basis. What I mean by this is that atheism is a punctual, ontological belief, which is itself the implicit or explicit result of metaphysical and epistemological deductions. Any reply to an attack on this basis cannot come directly from atheism. Concentrating oneself only on being an atheist is like trying to build a house from the second floor up. It may look less costly on paper, and for people who only build houses in their imagination this may be a good way of seeing it, but it's not good enough for a serious endeavour. And most importantly, it's too fragile. I see too many religionists attacking atheism from the bottom and atheists being unable to adequately reply to the arguments. If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard.
One last problem that undermines any propagation of atheism is inspiration. Let's be honest here, "there is no god!" is not a very motivating call for most people. It's not that there are no reasons to fight the influence of religion in our daily lives. It's just that it's not a very inspiring call to arms. Besides, atheists, as a general rule, tend to be more intelligent, independent and productive people, and therefore have other things to do. The problem is that by doing so, they let society undermine their efforts through wasteful laws, customs and regulations.
Atheism and freethinking in general have nothing to go for them, apart from being reason-able and good. But reason and truth doesn't sell.
These problems are reflected in reality. Awareness of atheism has not really changed since the beginning of the Enlightenment. Indeed, it could be said with much evidence that the Golden Age of atheism is behind us.
The turn of the last century saw incredible atheist luminaries like Joseph McCabe, who wrote a whole library of atheist books and was a popular lecturer in his day, Robert Ingersoll, of whom opposing attorneys, when he testified in various causes, said that his eloquence "is famed over two continents and in the islands of the seas (...) and transcending the oratory of Greece and Rome", and who was foreseen as possible President of the United States (a thing that would be unthinkable today!), when atheist writers had columns in the newspapers of the day, and the orators of the field were more popular than the pop singers of today, even without considering the subsequent increase in population. Surely such men of valour do not have the opportunity, nor the popular demand, to express themselves today as they used to. Nowadays the only people who can muster that kind of frenzy are religious leaders and preachers.
Atheism is eternal in terms of human existence, but the conscious widespread notion of explicit atheism, as a choice of disbelief, is, in terms of meme complexes, very recent. There were people who put forward arguments for atheist of all times, but the term "a-theism" itself originates approximately from the end of the 16th century, and atheism itself did not start in earnest until the 19th century. This makes atheism one of the youngest established "religious beliefs." Not that atheism is religious, mind you, but it is the best designation we have for this type of position.
Because of this recent emergence, we have good reasons to suppose that the growth of atheism is due to simple propagation of the idea, and is not any kind of permanent trend. As religion's grip on culture has weakened, people can more easily assess this kind of positions. As the mediums of communication transcend distance and time, we can expect that most meme complexes will be quickly available to anyone, and that we will then attain the upper limit of possible belief, constrained by people's psycho-epistemological choices.
This is why I think atheism qua atheism will, and must, lose.


Non-Spiritual Spirituality

So what's the point of working on atheist apologetics like I do? Nobody likes to work for the losing side.
People want to believe in something, that is pretty obvious. But why do people believe? There are three influences on people's beliefs, in order of importance: genetic instincts, education and society, and individual thought. Genetic instincts, in turn, can be divided in three general categories: the level of survival, the level of other problems, and personal impulses.
There is no need to go in detail here. What is of import is that religious thought in general fulfills the two strongest categories of belief-catalysts. People believe in religions because of the doctrine of the immortal soul, because of the strong desire to survive to one's corporeal death. People also believe in religions because they purport to solve one's problems in life: get one out of a miserable lifestyle by belief in God, as well as solving other problems by the use of prayers (which are nothing more than glorified magical spells) to God. Religion, through churches and communities, also give people a sense of belonging and comfort.
Atheism alone, being the absence of a belief, only opens the mind to possibilities: it does not meet these expectations. To be able to fulfill them, we must present a set of positive beliefs which are atheistic in nature, an atheistic religion.
Yes, there are already atheistic religions out there. Some are dubious in nature. Some are much more reasonable. My personal favourite, LaVeyan Satanism, comes to mind.
What should such a movement incorporate? First, you need hope - hope of a better future and a better world. Science and technology can offer such a hope. Unfortunately there is a lot of aggressiveness and fear towards these things today, and this seems to be another universal constant, for some reason. Perhaps this is because we fear far-reaching novelty and the disturbance they entail.
You need to have ways to make your daily life better, as well as the lives of the people around you. Reason and philosophy in general, are great ways to do that. Being unconstrained by doctrines makes a freethinking way of living much more likely to be truthful and good than any other. And we have made great strides in terms of ethical technology in order to make this possible.
You also need periodical rituals. Human beings crave rituals, to mark the passage of time and important events, not to mention well-deserved holidays. Of course, the most obvious is one's birthday. Personally I've always thought we should do like the hobbits and give out gifts at our birthday instead of receiving them: you only have to shop once. But that's not really the custom around here.
Rand talked about "repossessing the language." She believed strongly in that and drew much controversy around her use of the word "egoism." In the same vein, the noble religious language, which is used to designate chimeras and gross evils, could be repossessed for our own use. Here I can't help but think about pantheists, who look to reality as a great wonder. It is, in fact, a great wonder: and reality is what, objectively, we look into to find truth. In that sense, it is very much like gods. Reality is also the most potent, scient entity that we know of, because after all we are part of it. I think it is the series Babylon 5 which had a character say "we are the universe made manifest of itself," but I digress.
My point is that atheism cannot stand alone. It needs to be integrated in a coherent, robust whole, and become a mere consequence, an indirect truth. Indeed, from a general philosophical point of view, atheism is a consequence, not a premise.
Ironically, by reducing atheism to nothingness, we elevate it to the greatest heights. If we can get rid of our near-sightedness, atheists and scientists alike, we can change this world in a more profound way than Robert Ingersoll could have ever thought of.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Monday, April 02, 2001 - 08:26 am
Atheism and Death: Why the atheist must face death with despair:

The title of this paper may catch some off guard. You or someone you know might be an atheist and you feel as though you have no despair when contemplating your death. I don't doubt that there are many atheist that, in fact, have no despair over death. But, for the atheist to live without despair, they must do so inconsistently. In my paper, I will show why it is logically inconsistent for an atheist to live and face death with happiness.

To do this I want to present two major arguments. The first is from the theist point of view that life is meaningless without God and thus death is hopeless. This is derived from two of the world's top philosophers, William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias (both are theists). It should be noted that this argument will be supplemented with the thoughts of several respected atheistic philosophers so one does not think they are being biased.

The second part of the paper will show why death is a necessary evil within the atheistic world view. To demonstrate this I will be drawing from the works of a major contemporary, atheist philosopher, Thomas Nagel. Both arguments are convincing by themselves, but I hope to show that with the two of them together, it is even more compelling to believe that the atheist must face death with despair. I don't doubt that many atheist have been able to boldly face death without fear, but I do believe that they were being inconsistent in their world view.

Albert Camus said that death is philosophy's only problem. That is quite the statement. Not only is death a problem, but a it is a large one. Why is death such a problem for someone like Camus? He was an atheist and I will attempt to show that death is a problem for all atheists.

Atheism cannot offer any comfort in the face of death. You see, everything we do includes some kind of hope. However, what kind of hope can the atheist give in the face of death? One may say that death is the final freeing of all desires and thus is good. Or that one can have hope in death if they are suffering. These really are just false hopes that I hopefully will clearly show.

After the death of his friend, Arthur Hallam, Alfred, Lord Tennyson composed his poem, "In Memorium". This poem show the stuggle he had as he wrestled with grief and the question of what ultimate power manages the fate of man. It shows the struggle he had between his realization of the consequences of his choice between atheism and God. I will quote a lengthy excerpt to feel the full impact.


Thine are these orbs of light and shade
Thou madest Life in man and brute;
Thou madest death; and Lo, thy foot
Is on the skull which thou hast made.

Are God and Nature then at strife
That Nature lends such evil dreams?
So careful of the type she seems
So careless of the single life,...

"So careful of the type?" but no.
From scarped cliff and quarried stone
She cries a thousand types are gone;
I care for nothing, all shall go.

"Thou makest thine appeal to me
I bring to life, I bring to death;
The spirit does but mean the breath:
I know no more." And he, shall he,

Man her last work who seem'd so fair
Such splendid purpose in his eyes,
Who rolI'd the psalm to wintry skies,
Who built him fanes of fruitless prayers,

Who trusted God was love indeed
And love creation's final law--
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shrieked against his creed-

Who loved, who suffer'd countless ills
Who battled for the True, the Just,
Be blown about the desert dust,
Or seal'd within the iron hills?

No more? A monster then, a dream.
A discord. Dragons of the prime
That tear each other in their slime,
Were mellow music match'd with him.

O life as futile, then, as frail!
O for thy voice to soothe and bless
What hope of answer, or redress?
Behind the veil, behind the veil.[1]

Atheism has parented this offspring, and it is her legitimate child--with no mind to look back to for his origin, no law to turn to for guidance, no meaning to cling to for life, and no hope for the future. This is the shattered visage of atheism. It has the stare of death, looking into the barren desert of emptiness and hopelessness. Thus, the Nietzschean dogma, which dawned with the lantern being smashed to the ground, now ends in the darkness of the grave.[2]
Is this true? Is there no hope in atheism? Is there no meaning in a world without God? William Lane Craig offers a resounding yes.

Craig argues that if God doesn't exist, then man and the universe are doomed to die. There is no hope of immortality. Our lives are but an infinitesimally small point that appears and then vanishes forever.

Jean-Paul Sartre affirmed that death is not-threatiening provided we view it in the third person. It isn't until we face the first person, "I am going to die, my death," that death becomes threatening. Most, though, never assume first person attitudes during their life. So the question arises, "Why is my death so threatening?"

This is because within an atheistic world view there can be no meaning or purpose. I'm sure that many will be quick to disagree with me because they are an atheist or know an atheist who does ascribe meaning and purpose to their lives. But is this consistent within the atheistic world view? I don't think so.

If everything is doomed to go out of existence, can there be any ultimate significance? If we are inevitably faced with nonexistence can our lives have any ultimate significance?

Influencing others or influencing history doesn't give your life ultimate significance. It only gives it relative significance. Your life is important relative to certain events, but there is no ultimate significance to those events if all will die. Ultimately, your life makes no difference.

Even the universe is doomed to die (due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics). So what ultimate difference would it make if the universe never came to exist at all if it is doomed to become dead?


Mankind is thus no more significant than a swarm of mosquitos or a barnyard of pigs, for their end is all the same. The same blind cosmic process that coughed them up in the first place will eventually swallow them all again.[3]
If one's destiny is the grave, what ultimate purpose is their for life? The same is true of the universe. If it is doomed to become a forever expanding pile of useless debris, what purpose is there for the universe? To what end is the world or man in existence? There can be no hope, no purpose.

What is true of mankind is true of individuals as well. So there can be no purpose in any individual's life. My life wouldn't be qualitatively different than the life of a dog. This thought is expressed by the writer of Ecclesiastes, "The fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. All go to the same place. All come from the dust and all return to the dust" (Ecc 3:19-20).

The universe and man are cosmic accidents. There is no reason for our existence. Man is a cosmic orphan.


Without God the universe is the result of a cosmic accident, a chance explosion. There is no reason for which it exist. As for man, he is a freak of nature--a blind product of matter plus time plus chance. Man is just a lump of slime that evolved into rationality. There is no more purpose in life for the human race than for a species of insect; for both are the result of the blind interaction of chance and necessity.[4]
If we are only cosmic accidents, how can there be any meaning in our lives? If this is true, which it is in an atheistic world view, our lives are for nothing. It would not matter in the slightest bit if I ever existed. This is why the atheist, if honest and consistent, must face death with despair. Their life is for nothing. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.

Friedrich Nietzsche admitted that with the end of Christianity comes nihilism, which is the "denial of the existence of any basis for knowledge or truth; the general rejection of customary beliefs in morality, religion, etc.; the belief that there is no meaning or purpose in existence." In "The Will to Power", Nietzsche says this,


What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism.. ..Our whole European culture is moving for some time now, with a tortured tension that is growing form decade to decade, as toward a catastrophe: restlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end, that no longer reflects, that is afraid to reflect.[5]
Bertrand Russel, a famous atheistic philosopher, even admits that life is purposeless. I quote him at length,


That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyound dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.[6]
"Only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair,"? What can be placed on such a foundation?

Even Jean-Paul Sartre affirms the absurdity of life when he says, "Being is without reason, without cause, and without necessity. The very definition of being release its original contingency to us."[7]

Three of the most important atheistic philosophers, Nietzsche, Russell, and Sartre, all admitted that apart from God life is meaningless and absurd. So how do people live happily with this world view? They live inconsistently. For if one lives consistently, he is unable to live happily

Francis Schaeffer illustrates this problem well. He says that we live in a two stroy universe. On the first story the world is finite without God. This is what Sartre, Russell, and Nietzsche describe. Life here is absurd, with no meaning or purpose. On the second story life has meaning, value, and purpose. This is the story with God. Modern man resides on the first floor because he believes there is no God. But as we have shown, he cannot live there happily, so he makes a leap of faith to the second story where there is meaning and purpose. The problem is that this leap is unjustified because of his disbelief in God. Man cannot live consistently and happily knowing life is meaningless.

Of course, atheists don't want to live in this kind of a predicament so they attempt to ascribe meaning to life and value to death. Walter Kaufmann does this in his book, Existentialism. Religion. and Death. The last chapter is entitled, "Death Without Dread". He quotes several poems from a span of 150 years by poets from many different countries. He shows that death is commonly viewed without fear and he hypothesizes that death is only feared as a result of the impact of Christianity on culture. One of the poems quoted is by Matthias Claudius (1740-1815), it is entitled "Death and the Maiden," and was eventually set to music by Franz Schubert.


Death and the Maiden

The maiden:
Oh, go away, please go,
Wild monster, made of bone!
I am still young; Oh, no!
Oh, please leave me alone!

Death:
Give me your hand, my fair and lovely child!
A friend I am and bring no harm.
Be of good cheer, I am not wild,
You shalt sleep gently in my arm.[8]


He goes on to quote Nietzsche from Twilight of the Idols, "To die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly. Death freely chosen, death at the right time, brightly and cheerfully accomplished amid children and witnesses."[9]

Nietzsche saw death as the ultimate liberation. He even emphasises the desire he has to freely choose when he dies. Kaufmann affirms this when he says, "We should also give up the unseemly Christian teachings about suicide and accept it as a dignified and decent way of ending our lives."[10]

When Sartre, who agreed with Nietzsche, was asked why he didn't commit suicide, he replied by saying that he didn't want to use his freedom to take away his freedom. This is an absurd solution though, because they say that freedom is the problem with its aimlessness, pain, and despair.

Kaufmann argues that if we live life richly and not expect to live long lives then when we die we can combat the hopelessness of death because we won't feel cheated or won't feel as though we need more time. The problem lies in the fact thay kaufmann makes the jump to the second story. He wants to ascribe meaning to a richly lived life, which I've shown can't be done in a God-less universe. When he says that one won't feel as though they've been deprived of time when they die is wishful thinking. One of his contemporaries, Thomas Nagel (an atheist) shows the falsity in this thinking.

Nagel begins his discussion of death with this statement, "If death is the unequivocal and permanent end of our existence, the question arises whether it is a bad thing to die."[11]

He argues that if life is all we have, then its loss is the greatest loss we can encounter. Nagel's goal is to see whether death is in itself an evil, how great of an evil it is, and what kind of evil it is.

If death is an evil, it is because of the loss of life and not the state of being dead, or nonexistant. Some say that dying is the the real evil. But Nagel points out that he wouldn't really object to dying if it wasn't followed by death. He says,


If we are to make sense of the view that to die is bad, it must be on the ground that life is a good and death is the corresponding deprivation or loss, bad not because of any positive features but because of the desirability of what it removes.[12]
There are three objections that many have raised about the proposition that death is an evil. 1) One may doubt that there are any evils which solely consist in the deprivation or absence of possible good, particularly when one doesn't mind the deprivation (because they don't exist). What you don't know, can't hurt you. 2) How is the supposed misfortune assigned to the subject? So long as one exists, he isn't dead, and once he dies he no longer exist. So there can be no time when death, if it is a misfortune, can be ascribed to the subject. 3) Finally, the asymmetry of our attitudes towards our posthumous and prenatel nonexistence. Why can we view the eternity after our death as bad, but not the eternity before our birth?

He illustrates the errors of the first two objections with a simple illustration that is analogous to death. Imagine an intelligent man being reduced to the mental condition of a content infant. Even though he is content, we pity him. Yet, he doesn't realize this tragedy, for he is a content infant. Does the phrase, "What we don't know doesn't hurt us," apply to him? If so why do we pity him? Second, it isn't the content infant who is unfortunate, rather, it is the intelligent adult who has been reduced to this condition.

We shouldn't and don't focus on the content infant, instead we consider the person he was and the person he could be now. So his reduction to this state and the premature ending of his adult development is a catastrophe. Just as death is a catastrophe.

What about the problem of our asymmetrical attitudes towards our posthumous and prenatel nonexisetence?

Lucretius was the one who first pointed this out. He recognized that no one finds it disturbing to contemplate the eternity before their birth, which really is the same as the eternity after their death. Thus, it is irrational to fear death.

Nagel disagrees, he argues that the time after death is the time in which nonexistence deprives a person. "Any death entails the loss of some life."[14] So the eternity after death isn't the same as the eternity before birth, because one is deprived of life. Some may argue then, that one is deprived of life before birth as well because they could have been born earlier. But Nagel shows the fallacy of this thinking by pointing out that if one is born any earlier (except a few weeks premature), they would not be the same person. So it doesn't entail the loss of any life. Lucretius, and any one who agrees with him, is wrong in thinking that it is irrational to fear death on the basis that we aren't bothered by our prenatel eternity.

Life makes known to us the goods of which death deprives us. Death, no matter when it happens deprives us of some continuation of life. While it is tragic for a 17 year old to die, it is just as tragic for a 90 year old to die because both are deprived of life and the good that comes with it.


Viewed in this way, death, no matter how inevitable, is an abrupt cancellation of indefinitely extensive possible goods. Normality seems to have nothing to do with it, for the fact that we will all inevitably die in a few score years cannot by itself imply that it would not be good to live longer. Suppose that we were all inevitably going to die in agony -- physical agony lasting six months. Would inevitability make that prospect any less unpleasant? And why should it be different for a deprivation?[14]
Not many atheists are as consistent as Thomas Nagal when they speak on death. Kaufmann says he can face death without hopelessness because he lives richly and that gives meaning to his life. But what kind of meaning is it? If Kaufmann never existed, what ultimate difference would it make? None. If the atheists faces this honestly, how can he view death with anything but despair?

As shown in these two extended arguments, death apart from God cannot be faced with anything but fear and despair if one is to live consistently within their atheistic world view. The only way an atheist can face death without despair is by ascribing ultimate meaning to their life, which is a jump to the second story and is completely inconsistent with atheism.

Certainly it doesn't follow, then, that theism is true simply because the atheist must face death with despair. If the atheist is right we must follow the instructions of Bertrand Russell and build our lives on the "firm foundation of unyielding despair." We must look for the truth and then logically structure our lives accordingly. Obtaining hope from religion for the sake of hope, when that religion is not true, is simply obtaining false hope. False hope is no hope at all.

That is why it is crucial to examine our world views to see if they are logically consistent and correspond to reality. It does one no good to put faith and hope into a god who doesn't exist. However, if a god does exist, we must put our faith and hope into the right one.

We've seen that within the atheistic world view there can be no meaning or purpose and this leads to hopelessness. The atheist must choose whether he wants to live consistently or happily. For as long as he is an atheist, he can't do both.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anonymous

Monday, April 02, 2001 - 08:38 am
"In the Depths of Religious Atheism"

In America, everybody believes in God! Right?? "In God we Trust!" -- it's right there on the money. "One nation under God" -- we say it every time we repeat the Pledge of Allegiance. So, all Americans are "religious!" Right??
No! The truth is belief in God does not automatically make you "religious," any more than non-belief thereby makes you "irreligious."

Religious living is not so easily come by -- a fact that most clergy readily recognize, regardless of their denominational persuasion. Yet again and again, the casual assumption is that "God" and "religion" are synonymous. It's assumed that God is the cornerstone of all religion, and that without deity, religious faith and spiritual living are simply impossible. But this merely reflects an ignorance of the religious history of the world, as well as of the religious realities of contemporary world cultures.

Years ago, the Princeton philosopher, Walter Kaufman, in a book entitled A Critique of Religion and Philosophy, (p. 137f) pointed out that there are really "three kinds of religion" that have characterized human life throughout the ages. All three kinds are extremely ancient.

All carry with them a rich history of myth and ritual, of custom and theological teaching. All three kinds still exist today, and draw many adherents to them.

The first is the belief in many gods. Of course, this was typical of the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Greece and India. It's a very ancient belief, perhaps dating back to a kind of pre-historic, primitive animism which ascribed conscious life to all material objects: plants and animals, trees, rocks and mountains, ... as well as to women and men. Probably from this grew the belief that many of the forces of nature were symbolized by deities possessed of personality and a separate, "divine" life.

Such polytheism is likewise true of many peoples of the earth today. It typifies many of the more primitive areas of the world where natives are firmly convinced of the presence of many deities, peopling the rocks and streams, overseeing their daily lives. And of course, certain branches of Hinduism and Buddhism, as well as Shintoism, offer much more sophisticated versions of the "religion of many gods."

The second kind of religions is belief in one God only. Naturally, this is the type of religion with which we are most familiar. Monotheism in the West has two historic sources. The first is with Ikhnaton, the ancient Pharaoh of Egypt, who undertook to establish a monotheistic religion around the sun god in the 14th century BC. Of course, the other source is with the Hebrews and their worship of Jehovah, or Yahweh, as the one true God.

Upon closer examination of the records and other historical materials, many Biblical critics find that Yahweh started out with the Hebrews as a polytheistic god -- originally a "mountain god," as the old story about Moses and Mt. Sinai would suggest. And down through the years, this special tribal god of the Hebrews tended to take over all the attributes of other gods, slowly extending his powers in Hebrew thinking until at last he was THE God, ... the only true one, ruler of the heavens and the earth.

Other scholars suggest some linkage to Ikhnaton's Egyptian religion, perhaps picked up during the Hebrews' long captivity in that land. In any case, Judaism stands out as the first really successful, permanent Western religion to be monotheistic in nature. Naturally, Christianity with its monotheistic attitude sprang from this background. And a little later, the Muslim faith emerged from the same source, with its strict devotion of the one God, Allah. Together, these three -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- represent the continuing world tradition of faith in "one God."

Now, ... it is customary to believe that with polytheism and monotheism, you have thereby exhausted the broad, general forms which traditional religion has taken in the world. Such is the delusion of many Western writers -- and most of the American public!

But the fact is there is quite clearly a third kind of historic religion. Logically, as Walter Kaufmann pointed out, after you've gone through "many gods" and "one god," the third kind is one that does not believe in any god. Quite bluntly put, this is "godless, atheistic religion!"

Many Western religionists will tell you that "godless religion" is a complete contradiction in terms -- an oxymoron, a theological impossibility! Those who do recognize the existence of this kind of godless religion are fond of saying that it is confined to two men who lived in the north of India in the 6th century B.C., and only them. Such is grossly unfair and inaccurate! Actually it is embodied in five major religious movements, centered in both India and China, and radiating out into many other lands over the centuries. Together they represent the "atheistic religious tradition," extending back almost three thousand years. It's a religious tradition that stands behind any contemporary religious humanist who attempts today to find answers to religious living without resorting to the idea of God.

Of these five, one is the tradition represented by the writers of The Upanishads within the Hindu religion. Another is Hinayana Buddhism which lays claim to being the original form of Buddhism. The others are Jainism, found mostly in India, and Taoism and Confucianism in China.

Interestingly enough, all five seem to have begun as "reform" movements. That is, they began as attempts to free their people from superstition, ignorance and fear. At least some of them arose out of a background of widespread polytheism, ... a religious climate wherein the masses of people were beset by the imaginary demands of innumerable gods or goddesses, ... or more accurately, by the demands of the priesthoods who represented these many deities.

Into this environment came the "godless religions," intent upon freeing their fellow human beings from the terror of capricious gods and the exploitation of avaricious priests. They sought to establish a more progressive, enlightened view of humanity's role in the world. Their founders and chief exponents included some of the most profound and impressive religious persons of all time. Their followers numbered amongst them some of the most devoutly religious persons of history. Their adherents today comprise perhaps a sixth of the world's population.

But, ... obviously, whether large or small, religious movements are not built upon "non-belief," whether that non-belief is about God, or some other aspect of religious thought. Religions do not survive as "negative" ventures, ... any more than men and women live solely by their "negative" opinions. And when I speak of "godless" or "atheistic" religions, I'm not suggesting that any of them bear as a vital, major tenant the denial of God. Instead, they all represent rather positive approaches to the questions and problems of religious living. But, they are approaches that do not include a belief in a God, or in many gods, as their primary dynamic. Rather they seek another basis for religion or "spirituality," instead of God.

So, let's take a quick look at these five traditional "godless" religions. Here, very briefly, we'll try to see just what it was that each used in place of the God assumption in order to formulate a viable religion. We'll look at how they used their results in the lives of their adherents.

Oldest by far is the religious thought embodied in the Hindu writings called The Upanishads. The creative philosophers of The Upanishads made their appearance in India around 800 B.C. The Hindu religion at that time was already perhaps twelve hundred years old, dating back to a time prior to its entrance into India. Over those twelve centuries, it had evolved a rather elaborate mythology about the external universe, peopling it with all manner of deities and supernatural forces. And this outside world was controlled by highly complicated rituals of sacrifice and priestly devotionals.

The thinkers of The Upanishads did not attack directly this much older religion that was the exclusive monopoly of a very powerful priestly caste. Instead, they simply turned their backs on the external universe -- on the realm interpreted by the ancient myths and controlled by ritual sacrifice. They turned their backs on it because they had discovered something more interesting. They had found the "interior world," the inward universe of the human person, and within that, the mystery of the Self.

With this change in orientation, a whole new era in religious thought and experience was opened up for them. It was a continually deepening insight into humanity's unconscious, interior life, ... a search for an understanding of the life force within human life itself. From this grew an entirely new system of thought, wherein various states of human consciousness were described, and numerous "principles of spiritual life" were delineated. From this there arose the splendored concept of an eternally enduring Self -- an immense, underlying unity of all life -- that embraced all the lesser "sparks" of individual life in a single kindred substance. A whole new realm of "interior" existence was built up within the thinking of The Upanishads, one in which deity had no part!

Today, many of us are apt to look upon all this metaphysical reasoning with a rather skeptical eye. And I would not suggest that such holds an answer for any of you personally. Not necessarily, though it may! But I would ask that you recognize what a tremendous advance this was for its time -- that is, for the time of 800 B.C.

For one thing, it freed human beings from their superstitious fears about the external world, from their dread of the gods and demons that populated the cosmos. For another, it pointed to their significance as individuals, as human beings who possessed within themselves a realm of infinite worth and importance, who partook of the universal substance of all life. And thirdly, it set them out upon the road that led to great self-understanding and self-knowledge.

But, as you may guess, the Upanishadic religion was not one apt to have great appeal to teamsters and hod-carriers and the great mass of humanity. For the common working folk, it demanded entirely too much intellectuality, as well as much too much leisure time for introspection and self-examination. So, with the passing of the great Upanishadic teachers, religion in India tended to return to its old superstitions and customs, except for a privileged few who still retained the fascination with the Self.

Three hundred years passed! Then, in the 6th century B.C., two more attempts at "reform" were made in India, ... attempts that were somewhat more successful. The first was founded by Mahavira, and is known as Jainism. Jainism denied the authority of the older Hindu traditions, and so became a completely separate religion. It set up a system of complete materialism. In its view, the universe is a living organism, animated throughout by "life-crystals" which are eternal and deathless. Among those life-crystals were the monads that were people. Since the life-crystals are eternal, existence is an endless round of rebirths, of return to the suffering world of existence. The human creature, by its actions, "stains" itself with the world. By so doing, it accumulates "karma," or bondage, and links itself ever more strongly to the world of suffering.

However, a Jaina -- by asceticism, and self-renunciation, and careful living -- a Jaina may achieve release for oneself. In other words, Jainism represents a means whereby you may achieve your own salvation, for yourself, without outside intervention. In fact, according to the Jaina, such is the only way you may do so: by your own deeds, by your own living. And such a road is a long, hard one, but one that any human being may undertake. Even today, some continue to undertake this Jaina path of what could indeed be called: "godless, materialistic religion."

The other "reform" movement in India at this time was vastly more successful, in a worldwide, evangelical sense. This was the one started by Siddhartha Gautama, called "The Buddha." Perhaps, his teachings are best typified today -- in Southeast Asia, at least -- by that branch of Buddhism that goes by the name of Hinayana Buddhism.

The Buddha did not break with traditional Hinduism, nor with the teachings of The Upanishads. Nor did he adopt any such elaborate metaphysical worldview as the Jaina. Instead, he simply dismissed much that traditional Hinduism taught. He dismissed it as irrelevant to the basic religious problems of human life. Having done so, he then undertook what might be called a "purely psychological" approach to religion.

The Buddha argued that the basic religious problem for humanity is that all life is suffering, and that humanity is eternally involved in life! Humanity's involvement in life arises from its cravings and desires, and it clinging to life at all costs. These, in turn, arise out of humanity's blindness and ignorance of its true condition in the world. However, the Buddha said, such ignorance and blindness may be overcome, and so one may find enlightenment and release from the suffering of this world.

But such is possible only through discipline. So, to this end, the Buddha outlined the so-called "Eight-fold Path," ... a set of personal, life-disciplines that struck a middle road between self-indulgence, on the one hand, and the severe asceticism, such as Jainism advocated, on the other. In his teachings he endeavored to make clear what he meant by each one of the eight steps on the Path.

Here was a religion that offered a way that was possible for many. Its disciplines neither required great intellectual understanding, nor a withdrawal from active life. Not an "easy" religion by any means, yet still one capable of being undertaken by the average person, regardless of her or his position in life. Moreover, it was one that you could undertake for yourself. It made you dependent upon no other power save your own efforts. It demanded no belief in any deity, nor in any theological or metaphysical assumptions. It asked only your own devotion to the venture of freeing yourself.

These, then, are the three strains of "godless religion" that had their origin in India. The other two arise out of the Chinese culture. And strangely enough, they too make their appearance during this amazingly fertile religious period around the 6th century B.C.

The first of these is the religion of Confucius. It is often said that Confucianism is China! Without it, Chinese culture as we think of it would not exist. Because, after the time of Confucius, his teachings came to pervade the total thinking of the society. They became the foundation of the entire Chinese system of living until the recent advent of Communism.

Confucianism is a purely humanistic religion. Deity enters into it only in a ceremonial sense, much as deity enters into our Pledge of Allegiance or on our money. But the message of Confucianism, simply put, is that the fulfillment of a human being is found within the matrix of human society, rather than through any relationship to outside forces. The "good life" lies in finding one's place within the properly ordered world of human relationships, ... of maintaining that position, ... and by aiding in the maintenance of "right relations" throughout the society.

Through his teachings, Confucius outlined the proper relationships that he believed should exist between human beings, and between human institutions. It was a matter of everyone and everything having its proper place. The evils of life arose, he said, out of improper "relations" within the society, and could be corrected by bringing things back into their proper order. His is a religion of "human orderliness," par excellent. Or to put it another way, it is a purely ethical religion, when ethics are understood to be the duties and obligations one bears toward one's fellow human beings.

However, Confucius' contemporary, Lao-Tze, has a somewhat different view of religion. Where Confucius is pragmatic, Lao-Tze is mystical. While Confucius' center is humanistic, Lao-Tze's is naturalistic. Taoism, which is the religion based on Lao-Tze's supposed teachings, sometimes poses a problem for Western religionists. Usually they avoid it by simply ignoring the religion entirely, since in recent times it has degenerated into magic and superstition. Others attempt to handle it by pushing it into the Western theistic mold. But it seldom fits well! Because Lao-Tze speaks of the "Tao" or the "Way," some have tried to suggest that he thereby believes in a God. Actually, if you read Lao-Tze's primary writings carefully, you realize that nothing like this is being implied.

What Taoism teaches is that humanity is a part of nature, not separated from it, or ruler over it. Instead, we are an integrated part of that larger whole which is Nature. Nor is that "Nature" a static condition. Rather it moves, unfolds and flows along carrying everything with it in its unfolding. The "Tao" or the "Way" consists of a person's intuitive understanding of how he or she fits into the natural rhythms and movements of the world. It represents one's ability to conform to the flux and flow of Nature.

Lao-Tze insists that if you learn how to so accommodate yourself to Nature, then it in turn supports and carries you along, effortlessly, as a mighty river carries a frail boat without destroying it. The evils of life, according to Lao-Tze, arise from your efforts to fight Nature, from your presumption that you may command and alter the natural order to fit your whim.

The mysticism of Taoism arises from the fact that the Tao represents an "intuitive," rather than a reasoned, understanding of humanity's relationship to the natural processes. A person finds the "Tao" not through intellectualizing about life, nor through a scientific examination of Nature. Rather, it is found through "intuitive insights" into the unfolding of life.

Hence, Lao-Tze always seems to view the work of Confucius as nothing more than empty "ceremonialism," a slavish obedience to dead forms. Because Lao-Tze could never believe that the ways of Nature could be confined within the words and maxims of human beings. On the other hand, Taoism's intuitive approach to Nature does not suggest any communication with a supernatural deity. Taoism is essentially a "godless" nature religion.

Over the centuries, Taoism has indeed degenerated into little more that magic, largely practiced by rural magicians. It's significance lies more in its influences of other religious movements. It is said that nothing passes into or through China without being stamped with the Chinese culture. So it is that as Buddhism entered China it took on some of the teachings of Taoism, becoming known as Chan Buddhism. And in turn, as that faith passed over into Japan, it took with it some of the Taoist flavor and became known as Zen Buddhism. So that Taoism has spread its influences far and wide, ... through other faiths.

These five religions, then, represent the primary "atheistic tradition" in the religious world. None agree completely with any other as to the proper approach to the problems of religious living. Nor would I suggest than any one of them is adequate to meet the problems and questions of religion today. But they do indicate the historical depth to which the roots of this kind of religion extend. They reach back almost three thousand years!

It seems to me that any thoughtful person who undertakes the religious search for meaning and purpose -- without recourse to a belief in God -- has behind her or him a long and honored tradition, ... a tradition which has sustained and encouraged literally millions of people down through the ages. Such a religious atheist is in truth a participant in the third great religious stream flowing down through human history. Such persons ought to look with inspiration and pride upon this ancient and honorable past, realizing they too are part of humanity's spiritual quest.

Feel like posting? Pleaase click here for the list of current forums.