Claire Keane
Sade Olutola

JVL

Andulka

@theartofmadeline
we're not kids anymore.

⁂
Stranger Things

No title available
styofa doing anything
i don't do bad sauce passes

★
wallacepolsom
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

No title available

Kiana Khansmith

Love Begins
Cosimo Galluzzi

tannertan36

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Hong Kong SAR China

seen from United States
seen from Greece

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Brunei

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia

seen from United Kingdom
seen from South Africa

seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from United States

seen from Japan

seen from United States
@reasononfaith
Changing Species: On Dogs and Wolves
This post explores an exchange about Ahmadi Muslim claims regarding speciation and evolution, as gleaned from the Q&A section of the Rational Religion website’s page on Evolution.
Twitter user @hasanahmad80 (Hasan Ahmad) responded to my tweet, correcting me on my supposition that dogs evolved from wolves. This post is my more detailed response to Hasan.
@ReasonOnFaith huh? https://t.co/GITv6s5ZtJ
— Hasan (@hasanahmad80)
February 3, 2017
The cited article from The University of Chicago school of Medicine, published in January 2014 is an excellent read. It covers the commonly held position that docile wolves were bred by humans to evolve into dogs is one that is too simplistic to tell the full story.
So the evidence thus far collected points to at least two possibilities:
1. Dogs and wolves have a common “wolf-like” ancestor. 2. Dogs evolved from a line of wolves that is no longer; that lineage of wolves is now extinct.
I’m happy to accept either of these positions. Position 1 is a revision of my original understanding gleaned from the Cosmos series in 2014. Watch the first eight minutes of Episode 2, “The Things that Molecules Do”.
Evolution, abiogenesis etc. are still areas I’ve yet to really dig into. I’m willing and happy to refine my positions and to be corrected as good evidence is pointed out to me.
Here’s the original excerpt from the Rational Religion web page that got my attention:
I do also believe that we should be able to sketch out our positions at a high level in ways that an educated non-scientist can follow.
From the article you cited:
So, we’re on the same page. I accept your position on this point that dogs didn’t necessarily evolve from wolves (they may have, if that line of wolves is now extinct, but likely, it was an ancestor common to both dogs and wolves).
By citing this, you are implicitly accepting that there’s a common ancestor between dogs and wolves. The article suggests that this is a “wolf-like” ancestor.
Do you accept that this common ancestor between dogs and wolves likely had 4-legs and a tail?
Do you accept that this common ancestor was technically a different species than both dogs and wolves? If so, then do you accept that one species gradually evolved into one or more other species? If so, how do you reconcile this with the Ahmadi Muslim Q&A (shown above) that suggests that species don’t evolve into other species via a long process of evolution?
I don’t have an issue (in this context) of you calling that evolution God-guided. My issue at this initial stage of analysis is whether you and I have a roughly equivalent map of what we postulate happened, as we see similar yet distinct species of animals today.
Or do you take this Ahmadi Muslim Q&A to be one that rejects a progressive change of species leading up to human beings, but accepting exactly such a process for all other animals in the animal kingdom?
I’m trying to ascertain what you are open to, based on your theology, versus what you are categorically rejecting as being not possible.
Advice to Cultural Muslims on Reconciling with Leaving Islam
I often receive messages from Muslims, including former Ahmadi Muslims, who no longer believe. But they stick around as cultural Muslims because they enjoy the sense of community they’ve grown up with. They wish and hope for there to be an afterlife. They just cannot accept Islam theologically as they’ve taken a critical and close view of the Qur’an. Other religions seem similarly ridiculous to them. These cultural Muslims do find value in some religious positions however, as a means of pushing back against some trends they perceive in popular culture, such as the sexualization of young children. This post is my response to one such private message, which I feel can benefit many other cultural Muslims going through a similar thought process.
These are not unreasonable positions.
I'm also culturally conservative in many ways. I think it would be great for a subset of Humanists to form different societies that resemble religions in that they provide community, structure and some non-controversial, structured ethical teachings.
Imagine a "Sunday School" where the kids read from wise extracts of stoic philosophers that we curated, instead of Qur’anic verses excoriating “the disbelievers”. Where we read inspiring stories from Khalil Gibran instead of Sahih Bukhari or the biography of Muhammad.
That hasn't happened yet because so many people who leave religion are scared of re-inventing anything that even remotely resembles it, and re-starting the vicious cycle of control and dogma anew.
On definitions, being an atheist just means that you are not convinced that there is a god (by default, without specifiers, “atheism" implicitly means taking the "weak atheism" position). This is a completely different question than whether you would like or hope that there is a deity out there.
Hoping doesn't make it so. So these are two different questions for you to be honest with yourself about.
I wish there was an afterlife to frolic around in for eternity too. But that doesn't mean I have good reasons to believe it.
The first stage in achieving progress is self-honesty. Set aside what you wish to be true, and first get clear on what you earnestly believe is actually true. Then go from there.
What you want to then do is codify what you feel is missing in the world. And help popularize that secular philosophy. Some groups have already gotten started. For example, The Ethical Culture Movement.
If you watch/listen to enough episodes of the YouTube show, The Atheist Experience (you could even call in to the live show), you'll get a lot of these concepts better clarified in your mind.
Consider the position of deism as a way to hold on to a belief in an Intelligent Creator and let go of the mythical claims of all "revealed" religions ever known to humankind. Maybe that will strike a chord with you. Read Thomas Paine's classic The Age of Reason. He's a founding father of the United States of America, and was a vocal deist.
Finally, you may find my post on Beliefs and Labels of interest, walking you through the terminology.
A Logistical Note
As I don't have time for many 1:1 conversations, if you'd like to contact me and have me weigh in on a topic, please create a pseudonym and post publicly, including on Twitter.
I do wish to invest my time sharing what I can in a way that can reach the most people. Your questions are bound to be ones that others want to ask. Share your thoughts publicly. You’ll realize that you are not alone. Thanks for understanding. Peace.
Critiquing with Compassion and Levity
The YouTube Channel Rational Religion recently put out a video entitled The Scientific Evidence for God. In the comments section, I read a series of comments from a detractor, that I felt were a touch harsh. Still pretty mild by YouTube standards. Nonetheless, it got me thinking and spurred me to write this post to talk generally about critiquing with compassion whilst also leaving room for constructive levity.
My Response Comment
+Casey Lee: I'm not a theist anymore. In fact, I'm an ex-Muslim. And yet I don't believe your ad hominem attributions to others of being "an idiot" are constructive.
I may dispute what theists put forth as evidence, but if the video's creators missed out saying, "Please check our website for other videos, articles and external links for what we present as evidence" should we really slam them? Any of us could make that editorial decision on videos for brevity and flow.
Why not suggest to them, "Hey Rational Religion team, I realize your video was short. Can you update your description box with more detailed arguments exploring the items you presented as evidence?"
Introducing the concept and mystery of abiogenesis is one of the pieces of evidence submitted. We are free to dispute that concept as truly being evidence. We are free to say, "That's a well known theistic argument, and here's a strong counter point to consider". But to dismiss it seems to me, to be harsh. It's a 6-minute video. It's fair game for the folks at Rational Religion, IMHO, to make a 6 minute video instead of a 60 minute video and just introduce topics in brief.
If you are sincere in challenging the Rational Religion folks, you might write a comment saying, "Can you point me to a detailed discussion on the abiogenesis topic you've introduced, so I can evaluate your claims that it constitutes evidence?"
To close, it's fair game for a video to introduce topics. The video didn't claim to be a treatise on the best arguments for and against God using abiogenesis as the focus, for example. That may well be a 2 hour video. If such a video was made and failed to tackle the best counter arguments from non-theistic positions, then I'd call foul.
I think we also have to realize that not all content produced (articles, videos, etc.) are meant to be all things to all audiences.
I personally believe the "fine tuning" or "Goldilocks" position has strong counter arguments (e.g. twiddling multiple physical constants simultaneously, other types of life we can't imagine, multiverses, etc.). I'd call foul if a video dedicated to that topic of moderate length didn't consider the best of such commonly known counter arguments.
TL;DR: There's a time and place for everything.
Additional Thoughts
There are probably more egregious examples of poor etiquette in YouTube videos out there. This topic has been on my mind for some time however, and so this example, albeit mild, reminded me to speak up about compassionate dialog in general.
I know that as I put more content out there, I too will be critiqued. If I want that critique to be constructive and fair, I also have to be a proponent of this universal courtesy.
Levity, Ridicule, Mockery and Satire Welcome
Note that I am not suggesting that we avoid provocative devices like ridicule, mockery and satire. These have their place and can help add some colour to our arguments. In fact, I cherish such modes of expression and I believe that they can and often do, enhance an argument. I certainly intend to employ such in the future where I believe it serves to compliment the logical reasoning at the foundation of my positions.
Take for example the Rational Religion video Atheism Analysed! Is God Dead? Belief in the ‘Age of Reason’!. There are some playful jabs at non-theistic positions. Was I offended? No. Should I be? No. I actually enjoyed the video even more because it was so colourful.
(As an aside, I find the Rational Religion duo to be quite charismatic. They’re the type of guys that I grew up with, related to and enjoyed hanging out with the most growing up. Beyond the topic of religion, I’d love to one day break bread with these charming lads and share some laughs. Most of my closest friends who are Ahmadi Muslims are the deeply devout kind. But I digress!)
In fact, tastefully calibrated, I think such levity and ridicule can enhance one’s argument because being provocative on occasion helps us all jolt out of our complacency and bias.
In the same vein, when The Masked Arab uses playful mockery around the incidents that led to Sura Al-Kahf (Chapter 18) of the Qur’an in his video The Qur’anic Chapter that gave it all away..., he is also within his right. And I believe that this playful treatment enhances his argument because it jolts the viewer into shedding their indoctrinated scripts and considering the topic from a new perspective.
What We Should be on Guard for
In content mediums that are by nature terse (e.g. Twitter) or lacking context such as text without vocal intonation or facial expressions, I do believe that we need to cut each other some slack. If we’re really offended, give the other party an opportunity to clarify before crying foul.
You can examine a person’s body of work to also gauge their attitudes towards others — supporters and detractors.
This has happened to me in the past, and I’m sure it will again in the future.
I am generally quite restrained on social media. I know that anything that can be misconstrued will be jumped upon by detractors. While I shouldn’t have to be so guarded in how I conduct myself, I voluntarily choose to do so in order to keep the focus on my arguments.
Occasionally, I’ll employ levity and satire. Most of the time, it should be understood. Sometimes, I’ll even end with a sportive, winking smiley face to telegraph that playful emotion.
On rare instances, instead of addressing my arguments which precede the levity, detractors will feign righteous indignation, capitalizing on the missing adjectives, adverbs and pronoun clarifications that the constraints of Twitter can constrain a tweet to.
The most prominent example that comes to mind from my own interactions with some Ahmadi Muslims is this tweet/conversation from June 2016 regarding the characterization of women’s mental faculties in Ahmadi Muslim Qur’anic commentary:
.@islam_et_media No, most haven’t read much and/or are socially under pressure to conform. I’ll help raise awareness, though ;)
— Reason on Faith (@ReasonOnFaith)
June 13, 2016
For context, the blog post Men’s Superior Mental Faculties over Women covers the topic in detail, including how this levity was seized upon and misconstrued to shift the conversation. It also covers how Muslim women in the West in other denominations (such as Shia denominations) often don’t know what provocatively disturbing statements are present in their revered sources (such as Nahjul Balagha).
In Closing
Let’s give others the opportunity to expand and to clarify.
Let’s remember that not every piece of content is meant to address every angle, especially if the piece is brief.
And let’s leave room for levity, humor, satire, mockery and other such devices of communication that can serve a purpose — whether to lighten the mood or to provoke us into re-thinking our positions with fresh eyes.
Responding to Christians citing an atheist murdered by an atheist
In response to a recent twee about having assembled a YouTube playlist of other speakers covering the topic of morality well, a Christian who follows me on Twitter post a tweet in response that demonstrates a very simplistic thinking. Had he run the argument by more sophisticated Christian theologians, they would have pointed out that (a) he shouldn’t make such a flawed argument (b) doing so makes Christians look like simpletons.
Here’s my tweet and Bill Morgan’s response:
@ReasonOnFaith always puzzling,why an atheist killed my another atheist -https://t.co/dpmW9JIzZs
— Bill Morgan (@billrmorgan)
January 10, 2017
Has a Christian never killed another Christian? A Hindu?
To make any kind of point here, you'd have to point to specific atheist doctrine. But that doesn’t even exist. Clearly, you don’t even understand what atheism is.
All atheism is, is a rejection of a theist’s God claim, based on a lack of evidence for such claim.
There is no secret Atheist bible with passages in it of moral depravity that create the conditions for or instruct atheists to do good things or bad things.
Your argument shows a poverty of thinking: just because you subscribe to a codified belief system and worldview, does not mean that everyone else that disagrees with you also subscribes to a structured, codified manifesto for life.
We can talk for hours about exactly the kind of moral depravity you allude to, which is actually supported by the God of the Old Testament. The God who, according to you, is Jesus in his earlier non-human manifestation as Yahweh.
I’d like to suggest that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Responding to Farhan Iqbal on the premise of metaphor for Qur'an 18:86
This post is a response to Farhan Iqbal in an ongoing Twitter conversation regarding Qur’anic verse 18:86 and the topic of metaphor.
@ReasonOnFaith No. First, you have to be humble about this and admit that your premise is faulty.
— Farhan Iqbal (@FarhanIqbal1)
January 4, 2017
I strongly take issue with your characterization of this being an issue of humble vs not humble.
Can metaphor exist in a divine religious scripture? Sure.
If you showed me a verse that said something like, “And when you feel Allah’s love, you will know it because your heart will soar with happiness and contentment”, I can totally get behind that as metaphor.
In my opinion, you abuse the concept of a metaphor when anything that reads very plainly at face value, you tell us not to. Especially when the earliest exegetes of the Qur’an made no such claims about this verse, and desperate attempts to “metaphor”-it-away came on the scene in an era where the implications of scientific error became unmistakable.
But if you're going to pull the metaphor card on everything that is completely nonsensical without it (especially when the supposed metaphor has no discernible value other than gibberish), I believe that you are making a desperate attempt to hold on to your beliefs instead of honestly appraising the evidence and saying, "Indeed, this makes little sense."
You're taking the position that effectively, your beliefs are unfalsifiable. Nothing that looks odd will you even consider the more obvious explanation for that is staring you in the face. To me, that is the height of not approaching the subject with humility.
Ask yourself; are you truly willing to consider and explore the possibility that what you’ve been taught is not true? It is that spirit of inquiry, regardless of the uncomfortable consequences, that I took in evaluating my previous beliefs and a conviction that I continue to hold and aspire to stay true to today and into the future.
Consider the comment below from an Ahmadi Muslim. Here, I can appreciate his willingness to say in effect, “we’re willing to look at the words, the Arabic, the translations” etc.
Consider the following comment exchange on a YouTube video on the topic of Atheism by the charismatic Ahmadi Muslim duo at Rational Religion.
When effectively cornered, it appears that your only options become:
“Oh, it’s metaphor” or
An honest engagement with the implications that this verse may not be divinely authored.
If it’s metaphor, then the onus is on you to explain:
What the metaphor is.
Why this metaphor has some lesson or value to humanity that required a metaphor over plain speech.
How you can justify that your explanation of this as metaphor is borne out by the text, the context, the hadith, the exegesis of the time even remotely looking it is as metaphor.
How you can justify that the earliest exegetes closest to Muhammad in time (and in understanding of classical Arabic), could have understood the words and meaning of this verse incorrectly.
Invariably, your approach at making such a case is going to be a stretch. But I’d encourage you to try anyways.
And when we see the scriptural gymnastics required to make that case, all of us can assess for ourselves what is the most likely explanation for why this verse is the way it is.
Responding to Farhan Iqbal regarding Qur'an 18:86 and the sun setting in muddy spring of water
This is a brief response-post to a Twitter conversation with Ahmadi Muslim, Farhan Iqbal. It has to do with my proposing that Ahmadi Muslims respond to The Masked Arab’s video regarding the Qur’an’s assertion that Dhul Qarnayn found the sun setting in a muddy spring.
Background
Here is the tweet that got it started:
Oh Ahmadi Muslims! You have better apologetics than most orthodox Muslims. What is your *reasoned* response to this? https://t.co/hlYFTdt7G2
— Reason on Faith (@ReasonOnFaith)
December 30, 2016
A few tweets later, Farhan proposed the following, which I am now responding to in this post, as short tweets don’t give you much room of course, to make a nuanced argument.
@ReasonOnFaith How does the sun "set"? Why can't you simply say what you mean? pic.twitter.com/AjHT352TyA
— Farhan Iqbal (@FarhanIqbal1)
December 31, 2016
I invite Farhan to write a blog post in response, if he feels so inclined, as I understand responding in a tweet is difficult for making a nuanced argument.
My Response
The sun "setting" is an expression that we still use today to imply that visually, the sun appears to go downwards from our point of reference. No argument there. It’s a well understood expression.
We may even say that the sun appears to set over the horizon or into the ocean, if we were to look out across a large body of water. For example, when you see a sunset from the beach.
But a spring is a small body of water (again, see the video for a primer on the Arabic used in the Qur’an and for bodies of water).
@FarhanIqbal1 Yes, we all use expressions. I might have even coupled it with "over the horizon". But I wouldn't ever suggest a small spring. pic.twitter.com/RHtF6tCVZN
— Reason on Faith (@ReasonOnFaith)
December 31, 2016
If the verse said that “he found it setting over the horizon”, few would raise an issue with the verse (well technically, it should be stated as it appeared to Dhul Qarnayn, and not as an actual fact — that’s the second issue here).
It’s not the word “setting” in the expression that is the issue. That’s a red-herring, since we still use that expression today (sunset, the sun is setting, etc.).
So where’s the first issue?
Well, it’s that few today would use an expression of the sun setting into a body of water, and if they did, it would not be in reference to a small body of water. Think about whether the sunset could appear to the human eye to set into a small body of water. The optical illusion whereby the sun sets into a body of water would occur if that body of water stretched out to the horizon. Again, see the example in the video of the world’s largest spring, and how small springs actually are.
Over and over again, we see references in the Qur’an to a primitive and incorrect understanding of the Earth and of celestial mechanics.
Consider that at the time, it was a popular belief that the sun orbited the earth from rising to setting, and then traveled underneath the flat earth (through the underworld) back to its starting point to begin the day. It would make sense to primitive minds to suggest that the sun set into a spring, as many springs are naturally hot.
Primitive societies can be excused for thinking that springs are hot because every day, the sun descends into them. Of course, we now know that hot springs are hot for geothermal reasons.
While this particular verse of the Qur’an (18:86) is a smoking gun, it's the repetition in the Qur’an of speaking towards a primitive understanding that makes it so much more plausible to see the Qur’an as having been authored by falliable human beings.
Want to see more of these primitive references? Watch the following video by The Rationalizer, linked in my tweet:
For full treatment of orbits and the Earth, check out The Rationalizer's video, "Muhammad's Flat Earth": https://t.co/cMMGqCZcHy. https://t.co/6OUAKD8NRV
— Reason on Faith (@ReasonOnFaith)
December 30, 2016
For more on hot springs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_spring
The second issue, not even covered here, but addressed by the Masked Arab, is about the concept of actual fact versus just appearing as so. I’ll let you watch the video for an exposition on that line of thinking and how it is an indictment of this verse.
The Masked Arab on Sura Al-Kahf (Chapter 18)
Prolific YouTuber The Masked Arab has put together a four-part series on Sura Al-Kahf. This is the 18th chapter of the Qur’an. This post is meant to serve as an easier reference to each of those videos. The summaries and sources under each video come from the original YouTube descriptions written by The Masked Arab.
Episode 1 of 4: The Quranic chapter that gave it all away...
This video will look at Surat al-Kahf, the Quranic chapter Mohamed claimed was revealed to him after he struggled to answer a challenge by non-believers to inform them of old legends.
We will see how Mohamed struggled to meet previous challenges to prove his prophethood to the sceptics and how he struggled with this challenge and how he keeps his answers vague and useless.
Clearly embarrassed by being put on the spot, he comes up with the most bizarre excuses of why he couldn't provide a response in the time he promised it would take him.
He laters has the critic who challenged him with these legends executed as a prisoner of war in Muslim hands.
My next video will continue to look at the third of the two challenges he was given and in particular to the verse clearly saying a noble powerful man called DhulQarnayn reached the setting place of the Sun here on the Earth's surface.
References and Sources
Sources for video (please note many sources used are only in Arabic as far as I can tell - I will link them here anyway) Jalalayn commentary on Quranic verse 6:37 that says "most of them do not know" being explained as they don't know they would have to die if they see a miracle and reject it. http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?... NASA denying moon was split in the past (it's quite sad if you need to double check this!) http://sservi.nasa.gov/?question=evid... Some links to the story of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus. http://www.britannica.com/topic/Seven... https://oca.org/saints/lives/2011/08/... The background story of this Cave chapter explained in Mohamed's life story - Ibn Ishaq's Sira (Ibn Hisham edit) https://archive.org/stream/TheLifeOfM... Story begins on page 133 The same story for the background of the story in al-Tabari's tafsir (exegesis). (Arabic only) http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?... Ibn Kathir's version of the same story (Arabic only): http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?... Qurtubi's version of background to this chapter (Arabic only): http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?... The story of Al-Nadr's execution when he was a prisoner among the Muslims (page 308). https://archive.org/stream/TheLifeOfM... Other myths involving long duration sleepers http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiu... Tabari's tafsir showing the confusion between Muslims on who actually built the edifice (masjid) over the cave dwellers highlighting that Muslims didn't even understand the story properly: (in Arabic) http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?... Ibn Kathir's tafsir on the same issue: http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opti... Tabari's tafsir showing there was another version of the Quran which had a different meaning to the verse explaining who said the cave dwellers slept for 309 years, Allah or the non-believers. (in Arabic) http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?... Ibn Kathir's tafsir highlighting the same issue on the variation found in Ibn Masud's Quran: (in Arabic) http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?... Thank you for watching!
Episode 2 of 4: Does the Qur’an really say that the Sun sets in a muddy spring?
In this video I look at one of the biggest errors found in the Quran - a verse stating that the Sun sets here on Earth in a muddy spring. I look at common apologist arguments & show how they fail in their efforts to spin the blatant error.
Please share this video far & wide. It will hopefully help intellectually honest Muslims to look further & question beliefs they were indoctrinated in since birth.
References and Sources
References / sources: Egyptian mythology on sun travelling on boat, setting on Earth, travelling through underworld: http://www.landofpyramids.org/sun-boa... Quranic verse (18:86) - Muhammad Pickthall translation: http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_di... Islamic apologist websites trying to explain problem away: http://www.answering-christianity.com... This site is perhaps the most absurd of the lot. They seem to make things up as they go along, changing the meaning of Arabic words entirely, going way off topic at times, shouting "miracle" every 10 seconds, they also claim people in East Asia have their particular eye structure because of the Sun over there being different somehow. It's quite a laughable page if you have the time to read it. http://www.speed-light.info/miracles_... This apologist argument doesn't bother trying to argue much, they just claim it's a mistranslation! A mistranslation that somehow all Arabs for 450 years after Mohamed also misunderstood in native Arabic! http://www.quran-errors.com/did-the-s... This page outright lies to its readers in the hope they won't double check its claims. The dishonesty here is pretty astonishing and shameful. The page claims that early tafsirs backed the current position that it was only setting this way from DhulQarnayn's viewpoint, they then go on to ignore ALL tafsirs written in the first 450 years. They make a mention of a tafsir that was written between the 5th and 6th centuries of the Islamic calendar. They don't give you the date of the tafsir, its author died in 516 AH according to this page http://www.maktabah.org/en/item/968-t... But they say this tafsir quotes somebody who lived hundreds of years before him, saying he also thought it wasn't literal and use the date of the time this alleged person lived instead of the date of the tafsir as they do for the others. Arabic version of this video where I don't use translations: https://youtu.be/mCGaN2QoI5U (Arabic) Tafsir of Tabari regarding verse 18:90 where the people near rising sun are described as "negroes": http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?... (Arabic) Tafsir of Ibn Kathir of same verse 18:90 where same description of "negroes" is used to describe people near rising sun: http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?... Frying Pan Lake (Waimangu Cauldron) is the biggest hot spring in the entire world: http://www.lakescientist.com/frying-p... http://whenonearth.net/frying-pan-lak... Authentic hadith where Mohamed states that the Sun sets in a spring of warm water: https://www.facebook.com/themaskedara... Authentic hadith telling us the Sun goes beneath God's throne every evening after setting, requesting permission to rise again, (indicating a flat Earth as the Sun is always above half the Earth's surface, not requiring permission to rise again every morning): http://www.sunnah.com/muslim/1/306 Brief biography of Tabari: http://www.britannica.com/biography/a... Tabari's first volume of his historical work from an Islamic perspective, the History of Prophets and Kings: Download it here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B76p... (Let me know if the link expires & I will re-upload) Pages 234-235 explain his understanding of the Sun rising & setting from & into muddy springs on the edges of Earth Tafsir website I use: http://main.altafsir.com/ YouTube limits how many characters go into the description box... Please chk link to my Facebook page for full page of sources for video: https://www.facebook.com/themaskedara...
Episode 3 of 4: The lost tribes of Gog & Magog in Islam
This video will look at the Islamic version of the myth regarding the lost tribes of Gog & Magog. The story is mentioned twice in the Quran and also in the authentic hadiths... I will attempt to take a look at what these sources tell us about this story and whether it makes sense when we crunch the numbers and analyse what we find.
References and Sources
Authentic hadith where Mohamed says the emergence of Gog and Magog is one of the signs just before Judgement Day. http://www.sunnah.com/muslim/54/51 Gog & Magog being mentioned as numerous in Bible's Book of Revelation. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/... Hadith stating Gog & Magog will drink all water in Sea of Galilee http://www.sunnah.com/muslim/54/136 Hadith stating 999 out of every 1000 humans will go to hell and that Gog and Magog account for 999 out of every 1000 who are destined to hell. http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/81/119 Information on world population now, and all-time... http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/03/7-3-bil... http://www.worldometers.info/world-po... http://www.prb.org/Publications/Artic... Yasir Qadhi full video on Gog and Magog https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3ot5... Another Islamic video on Gog & Magog https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEtRZ... Authentic hadith on Gog & Magog digging every day until they say "Insha'Allah" when God decides to finally let them break free http://www.sunnah.com/ibnmajah/36/155 Narration (not authentic) on shapes of Gog & Magog [Arabic] https://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7... Muslim giving a lecture to others about Gog & Magog mentioning the big ears. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=visCT... Tabari's History describing Noah's descendants in racist fashion Volume 2, page 21 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B76p... Hadith where Mohamed has a nightmare about Gog & Magog and says their release could be soon and that they have already dug a hole through their barrier http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/92/11 Hadith stating that Gog & Magog's primitive weapons will be used as firewood for seven years by the Muslims indicating Mohamed didn't know how people would generate heat and light in the future. http://www.sunnah.com/ibnmajah/36/151 I didn't mention this in the video but interesting nonetheless... George W Bush apparently cited Gog & Magog prophecy as a reason to invade Iraq when attempting to convince French President Jacques Chirac http://www.theguardian.com/commentisf... Thanks for watching...
Episode 4 of 4: The Qur’an and the Alexander Romance
In this video, I look at the similarities between the mythical legends attributed to Alexander the Great and the DhulQarnayn story in the Quran.
References and Sources
Background on the historical Alexander http://www.britannica.com/biography/A... Background on historian Callisthenes http://www.britannica.com/biography/C... Clashes between Callisthenes and Alexander http://www.livius.org/artic…/person/callisthenes-of-olynthus http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander... Information on Persian ritual of Proskynesis http://www.livius.org/articles/concep... The History of Alexander The Great - Alexander Romance https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B76p... Page 19 (on right side) speaks about origins of these legends Page 20 (left) speaks about first written version appearing around 200 AD (Arabic) Pre-Islamic poem by Tubba saying Sun sets in muddy spring, written hundreds of years before Islam - showing origins of at least some of the story preceded Islam. http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?... Origin of DhulQarnayn name in Alexander Romance legends Egyptian version - page 27 on right hand side of double page Ethiopic version - page 50 on right Christian version - page 135 on left King Philip in legends saying he expects Alexander to rule the world - page 67 left Ibn Kathir exegesis explaining DhulQarnayn ruled the world http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opti... [tafsir for Quran 18:84] http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opti... [tafsir for Quran 2:258] Alexander in the legends saying he wants to see the edges of the world, wonders how the sky is held up Page 129 (right) Alexander seeing sun rise above a people who have no protection from it. Page 131 (left) On same page [131 left], we hear about the Sun prostrating to God Alexander legend speaks about him building a barrier to keep out the Huns, who include Gog and Magog - page 132 (left) Alexander in myths using iron and brass to build barrier - page 133 (right) Alexander Romance tells us Gog and Magog will be released near judgment day when they ask God to help them out - page 134 (left) Authentic hadith saying Gog & Magog to be released once they say "Inshallah" (God willing) http://www.sunnah.com/ibnmajah/36/155 People who wanted to keep out Gog and Magog had the heads of dogs in Alexander Romance - page 133 (left) Tabari tafsir quotes Mohamed in a hadith saying the same people mentioned above had heads of dogs http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?... Authentic hadith saying Jesus will kill Dajjal (anti-christ) and also says Jesus will escape Gog & Magog by fleeing to Jerusalem http://www.sunnah.com/muslim/54/136 Jesus flees to Jerusalem and escapes Gog & Magog p.155 (left) Alexander legends saying Jesus will kill anti-christ (Dajjal) p.156 (left) In Alexander myths pages 150 (right) and 151 (left) we hear about many of the signs of things to happen before judgment day - very similar to Muslim signs of things to happen before end of time. Thanks for watching...
Epilogue from Reason on Faith
After you’ve watched these four videos in full and with an open mind, please consider again the words at the end of the closing video.
Religion can be a force for encouraging good
This post is a follow up to a Twitter conversation. I believe that it is important that us non-theists do not fall for the fallacy claiming that no good ever comes from religion.
To @Meandillar1: I’m not referring to your true kindness statement. I was referring to this statement from @AtheistSensei:
…your religion removes selflessness and everything that is good from humanity
That’s the statement that I felt was over-the-top. Not the part about removing selflessness. I understand that doing good because you are expecting a reward is inherently less moral than doing good because it is the right thing to do. I’m referring to the generalization regarding religion supposedly removing “everything that is good”.
While I’m not a fan of religion, I do believe that we unnecessarily hamper constructive dialog if we suggest that no good ever comes from any religion ever.
Do I believe that all the good in Usman Khan comes exclusively from Islam, his religion? No. I don’t even believe that Usman Khan thinks that or has ever intimated that. Such an assertion would be a straw man. I would like us all to get beyond straw men.
I do believe that our goodness comes from our innate sense of morality. Sam Harris explores these concepts well in his book, The Moral Landscape.
Just because I don’t believe any claimants to revealed religion are true does not mean that I believe no religion is capable of motivating people. It can be both a motivator — for good and for evil, as well as an amplifier — for good and for evil.
Having been religious myself, I do know that that there are some things that the social constructs of religion push some of us to do, or to do more of.
I imagine that Usman Khan does many wonderful acts of kindness and service which he may not have had a reason or motivation to do to the same degree had he not been a practicing Ahmadi Muslim.
I’d attribute some of this to an expectation of reward. I’d attribute some of it to the fact that with organized religion, we have organized communities. You can more easily inculcate doing good as part of your community’s culture. Finally, if you’re really devout and you read in your holy book that doing such-and-such an act of charity pleases your Creator, that can be a motivating force too.
Do these facts make religion true? I don’t believe so. Do they make some religions useful in some ways? Absolutely. Should we all drop reason and rationality in favor of the least objectionable religion we can find? No.
I believe the answer is for us to model the positive aspects of religion. But that’s an article for another day.
I’m sure that my fellow non-theists as well as Usman Khan would see Mormonism as not true. Yet none of us should deny that it has under its banner, caused people to get organized and go out into the world to do good things. Here, I’m speaking of charity work; not the two-year proselytization mission.
Religious claims and the religions that build up around them can be both false and the source of positive, constructive actions on the part of their adherents.
There isn’t an ideological hierarchy and tight-knit community among non-theists. So perhaps many are not familiar with how people can be indoctrinated towards constructive and charitable action.
Organized communities, such as organized religions, can bring both positive benefits and negative outcomes. We in the non-theist spectrum often like to highlight the negative effects, the scriptural absurdities and the indoctrination process against questioning beliefs.
There is something to be said however, of how religion can be an organizing force for amplifying positive and constructive action.
If you’re at all familiar with my work, you’ll know that I’m not suggesting the world needs classical theism for happiness or moral progress. In fact, in the same thread as the original discussion that spurred on this post, the idea of religious morality came up. Myself and several others pointed out that if you are anticipating a reward, acts of kindness or virtue or not truly rooted in morality.
@ibne_khalid @Meandillar1 The non religious would differ. We look at the morality banking on future rewards as not true, selfless morality.
— Reason on Faith (@ReasonOnFaith)
December 21, 2016
I do believe that the future of humanity without religion will be one that prospers because us non-theists eventually organize into hundred or thousands of communities that emulate the best of what religion offered, minus the unsubstantiated truth claims. We’ll all rally around different philosophies that build community to rival the best of what religion had to offer.
That we haven’t done that yet is not evidence of atheists, agnostics and deists being “wrong”.
I believe it’s just a function of being so affected by religion that our current focus is on the debunking phase of this process. In the years and decades to come, I believe we’ll actually model some aspects of religion to reclaim that positive sense of community, and some (modest) structure. Such communities will provide for a normalized, amplifying positive moral suasion without traditional religious baggage.
In a small way, some of this has already begun, with organizations like the Ethical Culture Movement.
In the here an now however, if we believe that religion can motivate people to fly planes into buildings or trucks into crowds, we must also acknowledge that it can motivate people to seek out ways to feed the hungry, clothe the needy and to show forbearance in the face of adversity or abuse.
Placing Douglas Murray's Article Referring to Ahmadi Muslims in Context
This post is a follow on to some friendly Twitter conversation regarding Douglas Murray’s latest article, Here we go again - but this time, Je suis Berlin.
What I did take from Douglas Murray’s latest article is that some elements of the liberal media do wish to present Muslims in a positive light, almost as if to try to balance the constant stream of negative news regarding terrorism committed by self-identified Muslims.
I believe that the underlying intentions to do so are noble and coming from a good place, but as currently executed, these efforts create a misleading picture of what is actually going on.
This is what I see Douglas Murray pushing back on. Or rather, what Douglas Murray is bringing our attention to.
By far and away, among Muslims, the group that is most visibly, unequivocally secular and peaceful, are the Ahmadiyya Muslims. I am a former Muslim from this denomination. I can disagree with aspects of their theology, and still admire their vocal commitment to promoting peace.
So where’s the problem?
Well, to suggest that because Ahmadiyya Muslims reject violence and believe in secular governance, that most other Muslims must really believe the same, is what is misleading. To suggest that because 2% of the Muslim population makes us feel good — so much so that we don’t actually need to be concerned with what much of the other 98% of Muslims believe — is what is disturbingly naive.
Sure, there are mainstream Muslims who hold views similar to Ahmadi Muslims in regards to non-violence, secularism and loyalty to country. They also come out to some of the demonstrations and vigils post-terror attacks, in a sincere show of solidarity with their fellow citizens.
However, no one Muslim group (that I have seen — correct me if you disagree) does this as part of an organized religious platform that is even remotely as visible and vocal on these topics, as are Ahmadiyya Muslims.
Most independent minded mainstream Muslims who hold similarly progressive views have learnt them through their families, through self study and through personal introspection and growth.It is not because these progressive views are woven into the fabric of the teachings on offer at the local mainstream Muslim mosque.
Contrast this experience with those of Ahmadiyya Muslims who emphasize these values in their religious teachings and in their religious pledges.
Disturbing Views
Polls have been conducted on attitudes of Muslims living in the West. These polls touch on topics like death for apostasy, blasphemy, punishing homosexuality, etc. Given the polling results, it is understandable that a nation’s people are on edge when attacks carried out in the name of Islam comport with the polling data on Muslim attitudes. For example, consider the Clarion Project’s presentation of data from Pew Research polling. These are very disturbing results.
As a former Ahmadi Muslim myself, I have seen these attitudes first hand in interacting with other Muslims. I saw this as early as high school.
Here’s just one story. A devout Muslim student (not an Ahmadi Muslim) from my math class (arguably the most brilliant student in our class) had told me very seriously that if he had possessed a gun (and without having to worry about consequences of getting caught), he would happily shoot a Jewish person. He believed this to be a religious obligation; something commendable.
Troubling attitudes regarding jihad, apostasy and towards Jews are common among a minority of Muslims in the West. A non-trivial minority.
Unpacking Perceptions
Most non-Muslims are not versed with the denominations within Islam, save for broad subdivisions like “sunni” and “shia". For most, seeing Ahmadiyya Muslims organize and stand for peace gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling that Muslim attitudes aren’t so antagonistic to western values as they might have otherwise concluded.
What they don’t realize is that the most vocal demonstrations of peaceful sentiments by Muslims are those which consistently come from a group that represents less than 2% of the Muslim population and who is shunned by the majority of the other 98%.
Ahmadiyya Muslims actively proselytize and so they want to convey their view (as is their right) that “true Islam" is actually very peaceful. Therefore, when they defend the word “Islam”, they aren’t speaking about what the other 98% of Muslims actually believe. Rather, Ahmadis are projecting their 2% interpretations onto 100% of what they would like you and I to believe about what Islam “really” means.
Ahmadi Muslims don’t want you to think about what a majority of the other 98% of Muslims actually believe. They want you to set that aside in favor of a theoretical “wouldn’t it be great” exercise into what they want everyone to believe about Islam based on their demonstration of how peaceful it could be if every Muslim were to be an Ahmadi Muslim.
This nuanced distinction reveals an unpleasant truth when you put it all in context. This obfuscation of reality versus the aspirations of a religious minority only results in creating a misleading and false sense of security for citizens of the West.
While the admirable views presented by Ahmadiyya Muslims are an accurate representation of Ahmadiyya Muslim beliefs (2% of Muslims), it becomes distortion if you try to map that on to the beliefs and attitudes of Muslims in general (i.e. most of the remaining 98% of Muslims).
This does not mean that Ahmadiyya Muslims are part of some conspiracy with the media. They have the right to view their minority interpretation of Islam as the 'True Islam'. Just like every other religion and denomination has that right to believe that they are the 'one true path’ to God.
Non-Muslims in the West however, are not so concerned with thought-experiments about what is “true Islam” and what is “fake Islam”.
We are concerned with realities on the ground today. We are concerned with the interpretations and attitudes that non-trivial segments of the Muslim population hold today. No amount of “that is not true Islam” from Ahmadiyya Muslims will change that fact in the present moment. If enough Muslims in the world attribute unpleasant ideas to “Islam", then it is that unpleasant “Islam" that we are concerned with. It is those unpleasant interpretations that we have to deal with.
It’s great that western media shows vigils held by Ahmadiyya Muslims. Like Douglas Murray however, I too believe that this reporting needs to tell us the whole story. The reporting needs to put things in context.
Tell us that the noble vigil organized by the Ahmadis represents 2% of Muslims, and that these same minority Muslims are persecuted for their beliefs across the Muslim world. Give viewers and readers the context about how these same Muslims who hold these admirable vigils are those who are believed by the majority of other Muslims to be non-Muslim. That’s the bigger picture.
I believe that Douglas Murray is right to call out how the media doesn’t often tell the full story when their agenda is to publish a good news story about Muslims.
I do believe that Ahmadiyya Muslims don’t want the media to make these distinctions because Ahmadis want to promote their positive message without appearing hostile to other Muslims. They want other Muslims to see Ahmadis as torch bearers for presenting Islam in a positive light.
Historically speaking, most converts to Ahmadiyya Islam came from mainstream Islam. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community knows that it has to strike a delicate balance with showing their own Community in a positive light, whilst minimizing the criticism that mainstream Islam receives. This is the best way for them to gain the hearts, minds and allegiance of mainstream Muslims as converts to Ahmadiyya Islam.
Revisiting the Belittling Claim
Recall this earlier part of the conversation mentioned at the outset:
I disagree @ReasonOnFaith in his article @DouglasKMurray belittles the Ahmadiyya Muslim peace efforts & implies has nothing to do with Islam
— Usman Khan (@ibne_khalid)
December 21, 2016
It should now be clear to readers that Douglas Murray is not belittling the efforts of Ahmadiyya Muslims. As it presents itself in the world we actually live in, Ahmadiyya Islam has roughly 2% “to do with Islam”. Again, Douglas nor I nor anyone else should need to weigh in on opinions of what is theologically “true Islam” or “pure Islam” or “real Islam”.
When most of us talk about the word “Islam" today, we are not referring to subjective opinions of whether Islam really means beautiful things or horrible things or some mixture of the two. We are referring to Islam as the belief system referenced by its self-identified adherents as it presents itself on the global scene today.
Those who feel that Douglas Murray is belittling Ahmadiyya Muslim beliefs are in my humble opinion, missing the mark.
Ahmadi Muslims, in trying to defend Islam hear every reference to the word “Islam” as if the discussion is about Islam's theoretically “pure" meaning as understood by themselves, the 2%.
Meanwhile, the rest of us are most often using the word “Islam” today to refer to how it is practiced and expressed by Muslims the world over — and not just Ahmadi Muslims. When we refer to “Islam” as a theology, we’ll look at the mainstream sources considered authentic and important by a significant portion of the Muslim world — especially those who are acting out on the global stage.
In this way, we are often talking past one another with regards to which “Islam” we are talking about. Ahmadi Muslim spokesmen on interviews tend not to want to acknowledge how they differ from other interpretations of Islam. This difference includes how the Ahmadis reject unflattering hadith and the unflattering portions of the biographies of Muhammad from the earliest source material that we have. This is source material accepted by the mainstream and has been for hundreds of years.
Ahmadi Muslim spokesmen will acknowledge however, that they are Muslims who because of their Promised Messiah figure from the late 19th century and his chain of successors — believe in peace, secular governance, and the rejection of blasphemy laws.
Alternate Voices
For a different perspective, you can read Lutf Islam’s piece, Thanks but no thanks Mr. Murray. Lutf is an Ahmadi Muslim who rejects Douglas Murray’s praise for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community because he sees it as a conspiracy to make Islam/Muslims (in general) look bad. You can read his article and of course, decide for yourself.
An ex-Muslim's Sister asks him to "Stop being an ex-Muslim"
The contents of this post is from Abdullah, an ex-Muslim whom I recently came across. His story highlights how Muslims, when rationally cornered, resign to living a life defeated — especially women. And they have the most reasons to be upset with Islam.
In the middle of a heated argument my sister sent me a text saying I should stop being an ex-Muslim because it will shame our family and that I should think about how other families will think about us. My sister ended her text message with the words, "Do you want to ruin my life?"
So I wrote her back. Word for word, here is what I relayed:
"You like to believe you're half a man, that you don't deserve as much inheritance, that a man must be your provider and be a guardian over you. That you must seek his permission. That he can marry others beside you. That should you do something he disapproves of he can shun and beat you, but if he errs you must find a way to settle with him... you cheapen yourself through your religion and ask me to have some value for what others think of you? Why? You don't even think that much of yourself."
My sister took a while to respond, and then finally said, "That's the way it is."
It saddens me to see how defeated women can be, living under Islam.