certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islam and Science (22 Sep 2016 NewAgeIslam.Com)




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   83


  • Naseer Sb, 

    You sound reasonable in saying that "historically, belief without a good rational basis or evidence may have been a necessity in the past, but today, this is neither necessary nor a good thing".

    Indeed, today's blind belief is more harmful than blind rejection.

    Notably, this what even Galileo seems to have supposed.

    I think in the time of Galileo, the interactions between people and the scientific ideas were complex. His affair was consistently and simplistically portrayed as a battle between science and religion or Christianity.

    But still, he tried a bit to reconciel between them, though he was basically doing science, not the religion-based discourse.

    By GRD - 11/2/2017 8:24:57 AM



  • The great combination of Muslim Sceince and relgion will be when, we invent Halaometer, at least my Muslim brothers will not have to ask for meat food that it is Halal or not every time when they go to vendor shop.

    For Hindu we will have vegetometer.

    By Aayina - 10/8/2016 6:06:55 PM



  • Hats off ji. Isn't it miraculous that no two human beings ever born look the same. This gives a strong argument to suggest that a common humanity is balderdash.

    About economists, it is said that if you join all of them end to end they will never reach a conclusion. 

    These are aspects of Truth, but not the whole truth.

    How does it matter to me,  if you are a kafir or a mushrik? And I am sure, for you, this question should be totally irrelevant. My sympathetic apprehension that you may serve a hell-term, should impell you to assuage me that you are not going to hell because it does not exist. Are you not sure of your non-belief? Why do you become my enemy for my nurturing some kind of concern for you? Do you use your anger to reinforce your non-faith? Please rest in peace with your life's findings.

    But I think your major worry is how can Muslims retract their paths from savagery by saying that they can modify the laws and rules and customs applicable to them. You too are having a kind of bout of sympathy but this time it is not for me,  but for my religion of Islam! Your love for Islam per se is so powerful that you forgot you are a self-confessed atheist. My suspicion is confirmed. You are a spurious Hindu atheist and you have been brought up like that because this spuriuosness has been your family religion. You are rattled at the prospect of our ability to change our laws. I assure you, change will come because drift is the law of nature, but the credit is in holding out and Muslims are holding out creditably well. This will ensure that sharia will remain the divine 'source' of law to give a unique and stable  framework in which newer and newer contents will take shape to settle the issues of the day. The contents of our package need not be the same as the contents of your package, which would more and more be in a state of free fall. Are you willing to be different?

    By Manzurul Haque - 10/2/2016 2:45:52 PM



  • Naseersaab,

    If you took the trouble to understand what others are saying, you would not have any need to call them trolls or liars or whatever else comes to your self-righteous mind.

    Let me repeat what I said before. If the same precept is expressed by wise men in different countries and at different times, it does not necessarily mean that what they are saying comes from divine origin. It means they are expressing a universal sentiment felt by all those who try to co-exist in groups. That applies to Confucius's dictum, "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." Some may call it "the principle of the practice of the family of God," others may see it as "the principle of the practice of the family of man."

    The fact that the source of all religions is divine inspiration does not mean all moral precepts are divinely inspired. Unless if one uses the word "divine" not in its literal sense but in its poetic sense.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/2/2016 1:15:09 PM



  • shariah is man made law? says who?

    what world is mr nseer ahmed living in? in the world of make believe? or eye wash? or white wash?

    let him try telling the al-azhar that shariah is man-made. let us see how that turns out for mr naseer ahmed!

    shariah derives from the koran and sunnah. both are unimpeachable (according to islam). shariah is inseperable from islam and the muslim way of life. it is the 'way' or 'path' for a true muslim to follow. you think you can interpret the koran as you like and claim it to be the only correct way. you are just wrong.

    by the way the miraculous part of the koran is that no two people can ever agree on a single meaning. if two people read the koran there are five interpretations.

    so the burden of proof is on the one who is making whimsical interpretations. not on the one who follows the customary practice and accepted norms and leading authorities.

    mr naseer ahmed forgets what happened to his "polytheists/idol worshippers are not kuffar" theory. it was greeted by a stunning silence from all the islamic students, scholars, exegetes and all manner of holies on this forum.

    try getting just one practicing muslim to agree with mr naseer ahmed that shariah is man made.

    almost everyone one of the islamic experts use the word 'shariah' as a contrary to what they term 'man-made' law. this is the real world! not some laboratory model.

    mr naseer ahmed cannot fool all the people all the time.

    shariah (according to the vast majority of islamic scholars, many of whom have spent their entire lives studying the koran) is divine law, as against democracy (which is not equal to a shura) which is a system that produces man made laws.

    mr naseer ahmed is still a majority of one.

    we will talk about it when you are at least a million. come back then and ask nicely.

    good luck!

    By hats off! - 10/2/2016 4:13:45 AM



  • GM Sb, You are the ultimate troll!

    I repeat for the nth time that  Confucius said many things which are his original thoughts but the moral principle that you attribute to him viz “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” as his original thought is not his original thought. The rest of what he said are not moral principles.

    The findings regarding the moral principle cited are as follows:

    The dates only indicate the first recorded instance.

    Egypt:

    "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do." (c. 2040 – c. 1650 BC)

    A Late Period (c. 664 BC – 323 BC) papyrus contains the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."

     Greece

    "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales (c. 624 BC – c. 546 BC)

     China

    "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." — Confucius c. 500 BC)

    "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." — Laozi (c. 500 BC)

     

    Hinduism

    One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires.

    Brihaspati, Mahabharata

    Jeffrey Wattles has written a book on the subject and this is what he has to say:

     The golden rule, "Do to others as you would have others do to you," is widely assumed to have a single meaning, shared by virtually all the world's religions. (Jeffrey Wattles)

     Interestingly Jeffrey Wattles calls it "the principle of the practice of the family of God." which sounds like Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam which Secularlogic mentioned.

    Religion is associated by the scholars when they talk about the Golden rule.

    The following is reproduced from my article:

    1.       There is only one God and that the Quran is a revelation from the one and only God.

    2.       It confirms previous scriptures and religions and says that Islam is not a new religion but the religion of God all through the ages.

    3.       It says that prophets have been sent to all nations at different periods in history for the guidance of the people and that many of these prophets were contemporaneous.

    The Quran confirms that the source of all religions is divine inspiration.

     Research Question: Why is there such great variety in beliefs and practices if there is only one God who has sent revelations to all the people?

    The answer is in the article.

    The following is also what Confucius said which is a general truth (not a moral principle) and applicable to the two of us who will not change their minds. I have a reason which is clearly articulated in the article and willingness to drop the theory if it can be falsified.  You cannot give one good example that satisfies the falsification test and yet call it a dubious theory. It shows how dubious you are. After strenuous efforts you gave a dubious example of Confucius which is proved to be false.

     Only the wisest and the stupidest of men never change.

    Now please stop trolling and even if you do, I intend to ignore you and anyone else who comes with anything other than an example that meets the falsification test.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/2/2016 3:27:43 AM



  • Hats Off said that he could understand the Quran as well as I can. All my articles are based on the Quran. Why does he not prove me wrong based on the Quran?

    Fiq, sharia etc are man-made laws.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/2/2016 2:53:31 AM



  • Naseersaab,

    Instead of wasting time on whether a word was appropriate or not, let me simplify it for you. Your dubious theory that morality came to us solely through religions is not necessary in order for one to be a good Muslim. Nor does any modern scholar support your theory. The best thing you can do with it is to drop it. 

    You know that I have said over a dozen times that morality can be of either human or divine origin. That itself should have given you pause before reaching the ridiculous conclusion that   I dismissed moral principles as unnecessary! I hope I have made myself clear.

    Regarding Confuscius, as I said before, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, "But we should not regard the contents of the Analects as consisting of old ideas. Much of what Confucius taught appears to have been original to him and to have represented a radical departure from the ideas and practices of his day." There will be some who will maintain that there were antique precedents to what Confucius said, but one can say that also for the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount! Even the Bible itself says, "There is nothing new under the sun". You may be very cocksure about this matter, just because it suits your ludicrous theory, but we cannot take you seriously.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/1/2016 3:01:03 PM



  • Hats off is an institution with a purpose. Best is to express our viewpoint and let them stew in their juice. There is no way you can convince them. 

    At the same time our own people do not understand us because most of them are stone-dry in their minds. We can see their capability by reading some of their comments here. Their overconfidence in their jahiliyat would not let them come out of it. 

    A typical scenario of 'tu kahe gabr mujhe' gabr musalman mujhko'.



    By Manzurul Haque - 10/1/2016 2:20:34 PM



  • all the four schools of islamic fiqh (shia as well as sunni) agree that apostasy is punishable offence.

    three out of the four sunni schools recommend death for apostasy. all four schools fiqh agree that the evidentiary value of women and the kuffar is less than that of a momeen male. they also agree that polytheists and idol worshipers are indeed kuffars. mr naseer ahmed's thesis was entirely ignored by all the sufis and the exegets on this very forum. they probably thought that his rants do not deserve any attention at all.

    mr naseer ahmed's interpretation is wrong, it has never been supported by any islamic scholars on this forum. they are not willing to offer dishonest proofs like mr naseer ahmed does.

    or he is embarrassed by the depressing islamic news from all over the world. like saudi arabia (an islamic tribal society), pakistan, turkey, nigeria and indonesia and is over compensating.

    mr naseer ahmed is just trying to appear brave through writing up pseudo-scientific jargon.

    according to shariah, the women's and kuffar's evidence is not equal to that of momeen men. all the schools of fiqh agree with this. there is no difference regarding this. so is it with blood money for women and kuffar versus momeen males. ask any sharia judge or ulema.

    mr naseer ahmed neither has the linguistic skills nor the rational approach for islamic tafsir. he does not agree with abrogation. abrogation is supported by the koran itself. but he denies it. abrogation is a mainstream islamic principle, supported by clear evidence.

    he depends upon market research and symbolic logic and null hypothesis to cover up his maverick and untenable positions regarding the most universally proved islamic principles.

    mr naseer ahmed thinks that polytheists are not kuffar. he says idol worshippers are not kuffar. he is totally wrong and cannot ever support his conclusions. no school of islamic fiqh (both shia and sunni) agree that polytheists and idol worshippers are momeen. they either convert or get killed. there is no jizya for them.

    he says sex slavery is benign. he thinks jizya is a respectable thing for kuffar. he thinks arabia is not tribal. he thinks there was a so called golden age. this was leaden age for zoroastrians, bahais, ahmadis, the people of byzantium and nearly everyone who was not in agreement with islam and were therefore forcibly converted.

    this is not moral.

    By hats off! - 10/1/2016 11:26:39 AM



  • The wise cracks by atheists are many. H. L. Mencken was not a moral person nor someone who did the right thing.
    Religion not only tells you what is right but the why and how part of it also in a manner that has not been matched by any man. Read:

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/1/2016 4:18:47 AM



  • Between Jn Ghulam Mohiyuddin sb and Jn Naseer Ahmed sb, hats off is having the best of time. Congratulations! 
    By Manzurul Haque - 10/1/2016 4:18:05 AM



  • Hats Off can read:

    On Apostasy etc:

    The Quran prescribes hadd punishments only for kufr in the temporal dimension. Kufr in the temporal dimension is also kufr in the spiritual dimension but not vice versa.

    Hadd punishments for kufr relating to God or the spiritual dimension are not prescribed in the Quran as that would violate the right of conscience that the Quran clearly grants to man.

    Some forms of Kufr may appear to stride both the dimensions - for example, an apostate who turns hostile and carries on activities harmful to a section of the society or the state. Such a person can be punished for the harm that he has caused or can potentially cause but not for apostasy. Apostasy is merely incidental and irrelevant to the case as apostasy is not kufr in the temporal dimension.

    Usury, if it does not contravene laws of the land, will only be kufr in the spiritual dimension. Through legislation, usury could be made a punishable offence since it is injurious to man as well but it is not hadd. Legislating punishments for kufr related to the spiritual dimension alone, violate the freedoms granted to man by the Quran and is kufr.

    http://newageislam.com/islam-and-pluralism/who-is-a-kafir-in-the-quran?-(part-4)-defining-kufr/d/101695

    Learn to make distinction between man-made and divine laws which the article clearly points out. In fact it begins with acutioning against blind belief saying that is worse than blind rejection.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/1/2016 3:43:39 AM



  • GM Sb says: How can you take "principles" to mean "moral principles" when you and anyone following this discussion must know that I have been repeatedly saying that moral principles can be derived both from human and religious sources. –

    You are confirming that when you said principles you meant moral principles. Why do you then say you referred to my thesis and not to moral principles?

    Your saying that moral principles are derived from human thought alone without divine inspiration repeatedly is not enough. Where is the proof to falsify my thesis?

     He says: Even after I told you about your misunderstanding, you would not concede the point. Your contention that "principle" was a wrong word for me to use becomes your main argument now, and what I have been saying for past several days becomes null and void!

    What have I misunderstood when after saying that principles referred to my thesis you are now back to saying that principles referred to moral principles? I got you right the first time.

    Your repeatedly saying that moral principles can also come from human thinking is not proof.

     GM Sb further says: “You say, "The moral principle “Do unto others…” is decisively proved to be much older than Confucius."

     Everything for you is "decisive"! Can't wise men of different countries and different eras come to the same precept independently? You thinks this is sufficient reason for you to call me "a deliberate liar"! Well, if you say so, it must be decisive!”

     He is talking about two different things. Does he concede that the moral principle which he was attributing to Confucius is decisively proved as of ancient origin and perhaps as old as civilization itself? The decisive proof that I have talked about is limited to exactly what I said.

     What proves that he is a deliberate liar is his saying the following even after decisive proof is provided to show that the moral principle cannot be attributed to Confucius as his original thought which by the way even Confucius never claimed as his original and his book starts with a disclaimer:

      “He declares "it has been shown decisively that the moral principle he was attributing to Confucius was not his." To use the phrase "it has been shown decisively," in matters such as these shows his Trump-like inclination to deceive.”

     If I get him right, what he is perhaps trying to say is that if anybody talks of a moral principle, we should attribute it to the man in good faith as his original thought because we are all capable of arriving independently of each of the moral principles independently. (This is his belief without proof and as a matter of fact against all evidence to the contrary)

     In effect, what he is saying is that Religion was never necessary in the past or now and that man could have independently of religion and God arrived at the moral way of living.

     He is entitled to “his way and his beliefs” and we must part now and go our separate ways.

     Those who will not believe will not believe no matter what evidence is provided and will believe in whatever they want to believe in even with all the evidence against it. Only Allah can guide people to the truth.

    My apologies for having hurt your feelings in the process while trying to address your doubts. 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/1/2016 2:32:20 AM



  • mr naseer ahmed does not understand that any statement that is based on "religion", "moral" or "god" cannot be falsified.

    this is the reason why universally among academics, hypotheses which offer "scientific" proof of divinity are placed in the same class as pseudo-science.

    the most famous practitioners of pseudo-science are zakir naik and haroon yahya. that is after rashad khalifa. mr naseer ahmed is getting close.

    this is the reason he is not able to "falsify" the "alternate hypothesis".

    the very fact that the UN charter over-rides the moral principle behind punishment for apostasy completely demolishes the non-hypothesis of mr naseer ahmed.

    islam mandates death for apostasy. this is completely immoral. the UN a man-made council over-rides it.

    most islamic countries have therefore created an islamic charter, incorporating all manner of immorality in it.

    the un is an irreligious body and superseded the islamic death for apostasy.

    all the four schools of islamic fiqh support punishment for apostasy. three of them recommend death. one is ambiguous.

    so is the matter with the inferiority of female witnesses as moralized by the koran. this is also countermanded by superior man-made moral.

    this proves that there is nothing divine, nothing durable and nothing principled about religious moral principles.

    let mr naseer ahmed try and get this article published in some academic journal. then we will see.

    By hats off! - 10/1/2016 2:04:29 AM



  • Here is an interesting quote from H.L.Mencken:

    "Morality is doing right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right".


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/1/2016 1:02:33 AM



  • Naseersaab says, "How can a thesis be called principles? Note that he says principles."

    How can you take "principles" to mean "moral principles" when you and anyone following this discussion must know that I have been repeatedly saying that moral principles can be derived both from human and religious sources. For you to reach the conclusion that I dismiss moral principles as unnecessary shows how eager and quick you are to find something to gloat  about. Even after I told you about your misunderstanding, you would not concede the point. Your contention that "principle" was a wrong word for me to use becomes your main argument now, and what I have been saying for past several days becomes null and void!


    You say, "The moral principle “Do unto others…” is decisively proved to be much older than Confucius."

    Everything for you is "decisive"! Can't wise men of different countries and different eras come to the same precept independently? You thinks this is sufficient reason for you to call me "a deliberate liar"! Well, if you say so, it must be decisive!

    Naseersaab says he has been engaging with me only out of courtesy.

    I must humbly thank him for his courtesy to me. He calls Hats Off and me "trolls" as he takes his victorious leave from this discussion with two unworthy bumpkins! He shows the qualities of a true aalim as he ends this discussion.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/1/2016 12:58:06 AM



  • Let us see now what the vernerable Gm Sb has to say now

    He says: Perhaps he did not understand that when I mentioned his "principles which no one agrees with and which are not even  necessary to uphold one's religious beliefs," I was referring not to moral principles but to his thesis that all moral precepts are of divine origin only.

     How can a thesis be called principles? Note that he says principles (plural). Am I wrong in understanding it as “moral principles” which is the subject of the thesis? I can accept that he communicated poorly but the fault is not mine.

      He says: He declares "it has been shown decisively that the moral principle he was attributing to Confucius was not his." To use the phrase "it has been shown decisively," in matters such as these shows his Trump-like inclination to deceive. 

     The moral principle “Do unto others…” is decisively proved to be much older than Confucius. See my comment By Naseer Ahmed - 9/30/2016 12:05:03 AM. What is the doubt that GM has about it? With the above statement GM has now proved to be a deliberate liar.

     He says: His eagerness to find some flimsy ground to win a point is evident and makes him vulnerable to misinterpret what others are saying in order to declare victory!

     There is no need for me to even respond to any of his nonsense. I have been engaging with him only out of courtesy. The article makes its point very clearly. The only way to refute it is to give one good example of a durable moral principle outside religion which he has failed to do. He made a transparently fraudulent attempt to attribute to Confucius a moral principle that pre dates him and is as old as civilization itself.  

    This is my last comment since both Hats Off and Ghulam Mohiyuddin are only trolling and wasting every one's time. It is a pity that GM Sb has descended to the level of a troll.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/30/2016 11:36:43 PM



  • Hats Off, The very fact that you choose the wrong thread which does not have even the context for what you are saying shows what a great liar and troll that you are!
    What is relevant to the article is to give one example that will satisfy the falsification test and you don't have it.
    I can understand how frustrating that is for you.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/30/2016 11:18:23 PM



  • mr naseer ahmed is behaving like liars generally behave when they are caught.

    being caught he would rather write a stupid illogical haiku on hats.

    there is nothing in his comment about why he lied and misquoted adrian bishop in a contrary sense. this is what fanaticism has done to him. it has removed all traces of regret or remorse.

    he lies and creates illogical arguments to prove that his religion his superior. when his fallacies are pointed out he flies into a rage and makes a silly hat haiku.

    he still did not prove that atheism is a belief system, which he is incapable of.

    he has to still prove that atheism is more irrational. he cannot do it.

    but his hat comment, like his other articles, is a rather pathetic attempt at pun making. all he does is make a laughing stock of himself.

    he will never be able to white wash his lie about adrian bishop.

    he will never be able to prove that atheism is a belief system.

    he will never be able to prove that atheism is more irrational.

    as for his method of using the koran to prove the koran is just a circular argument.

    if mr naseer ahmed could not disprove a mere troll like me, he is entitled to a full refund from the iit.

    apparently you cannot teach logic to a religious fanatic.

    By hats off! - 9/30/2016 8:42:49 PM



  • Naseersaab again quotes me, "GM Sb says: you find yourself in a territory where you stand alone, proclaiming principles which no one agrees with and which are not even  necessary to uphold one's religious beliefs," to perpetuate his lie that I dismiss moral principles as unnecessary!

    Perhaps he did not understand that when I mentioned his "principles which no one agrees with and which are not even  necessary to uphold one's religious beliefs," I was referring not to moral principles but to his thesis that all moral precepts are of divine origin only.

    He declares "it has been shown decisively that the moral principle he was attributing to Confucius was not his." To use the phrase "it has been shown decisively," in matters such as these shows his Trump-like inclination to deceive. 

    His eagerness to find some flimsy ground to win a point is evident and makes him vulnerable to misinterpret what others are saying in order to declare victory!


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/30/2016 1:33:42 PM



  • why doesn't mr naseer ahmed explain the sequence from the point where mr ghulam mohiyuddin commented with the "contextual" matter from adrian bishop's article out of which mr naseer ahmed had previously only quoted a part?

    the sense of adrian bishop's context was contrary to mr naseer ahmed's context. this is a very simple issue - mr naseer ahmed quoted something in his own favor. mr ghulam mohiyuddin provided the relevant context of this quotation. this relevant context turned out to be directly contrary to mr naseer ahmed's context. then mr naseer ahmed picked himself up and said "my thesis stands in spite of adrian bishop". this clearly is an admission from him that the adrian bishop misquotation was a mishap.

    where is the difficulty? i am merely stringing the sequence of comments on a time line. i say this because mr naseer ahmed never addressed the most important aspect of hypothesis testing -the burden of proof. this is paramount. 

    the theists claim to have an explanation and they need to bear the burden of proof. mr naseer ahmed who claims to be a theist, never bears the burden of proving his position. he unfairly offloads this burden to the doubters by saying "let them disprove me".

    theists are the antecedent. atheists do not claim to have an explanation and they are consequent. by the way, mr naseer ahmed's understanding of the antecedent and the consequent is faulty. these are among the most fundamental concepts involved in the construction of valid proofs. he demonstrates a total disregard for these aspects. he also never bothers to define his terms. this is another major flaw in his debate. he does not bother to define "divine", "religion", "belief system", "durable moral precepts", "moral principles" and many other critical terms which he uses very carelessly throughout his articles.

    but without a basic understanding of the method of logic and definitions, meaningful discourse is impossible - as is being demonstrated on this forum.

    this is entirely extraneous, but very startling for me. i remember mr raihan nezami (who cheers for mr naseer ahmed from the sidelines) had in the past compared mr naseer ahmed to salman rushdie in one of his comments.

    like politics, religion also seems to make for strange bed fellows.

    By hats off! - 9/30/2016 10:34:41 AM



  • Hats Off,  I can understand that having been flattened out in the previous article, you have no desire to comment on this article.
    Being a troll however, you are trying to distract by your nonsensical comments or maybe trying to help a comrade in distress. 

    Reproduced is a comment after you were answered. Click on View article and see all the answers.

    The Adrian Bishop false allegation is answered in my comment: 
    9/20/2016 1:23:34 AM


    Your remaining questions are answered in my last comment which is incidentally also the last comment. You had nothing to say after that.

    Isn't "playing chess with the pigeons" apply to you? This is a clear example. 
    9/20/2016 9:24:32 AMNaseer Ahmed

    Hats Off,


    Did I make you eat your hat on the A Bishop question?


    My hat! Is market research about hypothesizing?


    Talk less and then maybe you can keep your ignorance under your hat.


    You can throw your hat at ever being able to understand logic.


    The tricks you play with words is old hat.


    If you had asked a question with hat in hand, then perhaps I may have answered your question, but you are only talking through your hat.


    You may now be only good for passing the hat around. Just do that! or is it "Just do it!"?

    View Article


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/30/2016 9:55:01 AM



  • Hats off ji, frankly speaking, I am also facing melt-down at the hands of Aayinaji  who is out to push me to my melting point by her --- err--- sweet talk! A result of bad childhood? 
    By Manzurul Haque - 9/30/2016 9:28:49 AM



  • why does mr naseer ahmed so studiously avoids directly addressing
    1) how the adrian bishop misquotation exposed him
    2) how he could not prove that atheism is also a belief system
    3) how he was unable to prove that atheism is more irrational

    so now he has again come up with another koranic article, on which i do not wish to comment.

    my commenting could cause one particularly legal gentleman to experience a melt down or some kind of panic attack. especially since i tend to question what we have been exposed to during our childhood indoctrination which is all what religion is about.

    By hats off! - 9/30/2016 6:05:38 AM



  • GM asked “When did you show that Confucius's moral principles were from earlier religions?”

    Full response given in my comment By Naseer Ahmed - 9/30/2016 12:05:03 AM

    He has no response since it has been shown decisively that the moral principle he was attributing to Confucius was not his. With this his desperate attempt to prove that man could produce moral principles on his own without divine inspiration came to naught. And yet this man has the gall to say “You remind me of Donald Trump. The whole world thought he had lost the debate last Monday, but he still keeps insisting that he won!”

     Who has lost the debate and is behaving like Donald Trump?

     Nothing changes. Earlier he said in a different thread ” “If you can't make a watch, your thesis is null and void!”

    That was certainly a dishonest way to try to win an argument and extremely foolish too. What has watch making got to do with what was being discussed?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/30/2016 5:00:35 AM



  • My response is a very clear response to what GM said. Is my response a lie or GM’s allegation? What he actually said and what my full response was to what he said is fully quoted below. I have not said anything beyond what I have quoted below. What additional things GM said while accusing me of lying is immaterial since it does not change anything except prove that GM has once again reframed what I said. GM should show how may response to what he said is a lie.

     GM Sb says: you find yourself in a territory where you stand alone, proclaiming principles which no one agrees with and which are not even  necessary to uphold one's religious beliefs.

      My response was: This is something new. Can you elaborate? What we know from the above is that you dismiss the moral principles as unnecessary which is quite apparent. What we did not know was that this dismissal of moral principles is part of your belief.

      GM Sb replies: You lie blatantly when you allege that I dismiss moral principles as unnecessary. I have never said that.

     Who is lying?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/30/2016 4:32:34 AM



  • the adrian bishop misquotation.

    there are others, but let us deal with them once we finish with this.

    by the way, you were never able to prove that atheism is also a belief system.

    also you were never able to prove that atheism is more irrational than theism.

    you lost both your arguments. and in your effort to appear scientific, you brought in market research, symbolic logic, null hypothesis and all manner of irrelevant strawmen and red herrings. but that did not work out for you.

    the adrian bishop misquotation simply revealed the way you debate - unfairly and bordering on dishonesty.

    then you picked yourself up by claiming that your "hypothesis" stands in spite of adrian bishop. these are your own words.

    you were completely exposed by your own confessional statement.

    and you think quoting the koran will strengthen your weak logic.

    quoting the koran to prove the koran is circular argument.

    you don't seem to be able to understand the first thing about logic or science or reason or god or the koran or statistics. i am getting the idea that you are just able to string some pseudo-scientific jargon in the hope no one will find out. you have been caught and bowled i might say. but you will not return to the crease.

    and you want to be taken seriously. i am trying my best, but it is becoming very difficult. if you think what you are churning out is scholarship, you just need to try to get these gems published. just try!

    you simply made some incoherent remarks, some internet copy paste and some desultory googling and you think you have understood the koran like no one did in the past 1400 years and dropped a couple of names of some journals, made fallacious statements, but you have proved nothing. all your loop holes are available in the comments for the readers to see. just because no one comments, do not think they do not understand what has gone wrong with your entire understanding.

    By hats off! - 9/30/2016 3:53:53 AM



  • Naseersaab says:
    "GM Sb replies: You lie blatantly when you allege that I dismiss moral principles as unnecessary. I have never said that.

     "Who is lying?"

    Well, you lied because you quoted only part of what I had said. Here is my full quote:

    "You lie blatantly when you alleged that I dismiss moral principles as unnecessary. I have never said that. On the contrary what I have said repeatedly is that moral principles can be of divine or of human origins. What makes you totally distort now what I have been saying all along with great clarity? I have also been saying that you have been proclaiming principles which no one agrees with and which are not even necessary to uphold one's religious beliefs. Most intelligent Muslims would readily accept the fact that moral principles can be produced either by man or by religions."

    If you still allege that I dismiss moral principles as unnecessary then it is no use discussing anything with you. You remind me of Donald Trump. The whole world thought he had lost the debate last Monday, but he still keeps insisting that he won!


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/30/2016 1:42:08 AM



  • Which misquotation have you exposed Hats Off?  Why don't you quote what was misquoted? You won't because your lie will get exposed. 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/30/2016 12:42:43 AM



  • GM Sb says: you find yourself in a territory where you stand alone, proclaiming principles which no one agrees with and which are not even  necessary to uphold one's religious beliefs.

     My response was: This is something new. Can you elaborate? What we know from the above is that you dismiss the moral principles as unnecessary which is quite apparent. What we did not know was that this dismissal of moral principles is part of your belief.

     GM Sb replies: You lie blatantly when you allege that I dismiss moral principles as unnecessary. I have never said that.

     Who is lying?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/30/2016 12:14:02 AM



  • Calling a lie a lie is not rude. It is statement of a fact. Here is the proof:



                           The Fig Leaf of a counter example from what Confucius said falls

    The last words of GM Sb,

     Confucianism is a religion or that it is not original. (The moral principle “Do unto others…….”)

     Even after I presented enough material to refute both those hypothesis, he (Naseer) behaves as if he did not hear anything that I had said! How can one discuss anything with such a man?”

     My! My! What a pity! We must have exchanged close to 50 comments on this alone. He said many irrelevant things all of which true and I accepted these. I pointed out what was relevant to the discussion which supported my hypothesis and he behaved as if he did not hear anything.


     He goes onto say:

     Trying to discuss anything with him is a waste of time. This discussion has gone on for so long because his mind is closed to hearing anything that questions his opinions. He cannot be helped. Hence this will be my last comment in this futile conversation.”


     GM Sb can argue until eternity without a shred of evidence to support what he is saying. It amazes me how any reasonable person can do that but he has mastered the art.


     I have written an article: Religion as a Civilizing Influence three years ago in which my thesis is that we lived as savages before religion civilized us or rather the moral principles given to us by religion helped us make the transition from savage to civilization. There are many civilizations which developed in different parts of the world which have co-existed without contact with each other for centuries before these developed enough to make contact with other civilizations. The moral principle that helped each of these different societies to make the transition must be essentially the same. What could this be?


     If you examine “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, it strikes as the very first and most fundamental moral principle which helped us make the transition from the state of savage to civilization. If so, this moral principle is as old as civilization itself.

     If the earliest record of this is found in the works of Confucius, it only means that Confucius was the first to put it into a book.  


     With the above thought in mind I researched further and my thinking is fully confirmed. 


    The findings are as follows:


     The dates only indicate the first recorded instance.

    Egypt:

    "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do." (c. 2040 – c. 1650 BC)

    A Late Period (c. 664 BC – 323 BC) papyrus contains the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."


    Greece

    "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales (c. 624 BC – c. 546 BC)


    China

    "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." — Confucius c. 500 BC)

    "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." — Laozi (c. 500 BC)


    Hinduism

    One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires.

    — Brihaspati, Mahabharata



     “This is the prescription – sometimes phrased as a proscription – to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. It is perhaps rash to claim that the Rule is ‘the only standard of duty common to all people’. But it is certainly recognized in all cultures, and numerous studies show that it has been endorsed in all of the major and most minor religions.” (Neil Duxbury)


    The golden rule, "Do to others as you would have others do to you," is widely assumed to have a single meaning, shared by virtually all the world's religions. (Jeffrey Wattles)

    Interestingly Jeffrey Wattles calls it "the principle of the practice of the family of God." which sounds like Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam which Secularlogic mentioned.


     The above vindicates my stand that without this moral principle, no civilization appears possible and must be common to every civilization. It also puts paid to the transparently fraudulent manner in which GM Sb tried to foist the notion that it was the original thought of Confucius despite the evidence to the contrary which he stubbornly ignored.


    My thesis stands.


     What is clear is that the two of us stood our ground. GM Sb quit only when the ground slipped out under his feet and even then by declaring victory! It would be appropriate to consider what Confucius has to say on such behaviour:


     Only the wisest and the stupidest of men never change.


     The wisest because they are trying to bring out a truth. The stupidest because .......


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/21/2016 1:09:33 AM


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/30/2016 12:05:03 AM



  • dishonest scholarship can only be defended by more dishonesty.

    after mr naseer ahmed's misquotations have been exposed, he is unable to defend himself except by more dishonesty.

    just because the golden rule was in existence before confucius, he is confusing himself that god created it. no, it was created by another human before confucius. that is all he can prove.

    all religions contain immoral principles.

    this is how the peaceful bedouins changed from being nice peaceful people to blood thirsty cruel warriors.

    By hats off! - 9/29/2016 8:12:13 PM



  • Naseersaab says, "Your capacity for brazen faced lying is unbelievable."

    Rudeness implies defeat. When did you show that Confucius's moral principles were from earlier religions?  If Socrates spoke of the soul, does that mean moral precepts were not his own?

    You lie blatantly when you allege that I dismiss moral principles as unnecessary. I have never said that. On the contrary what I have said repeatedly is that moral principles can be of divine or of human origins. What makes you totally distort now what I have been saying all along with great clarity? I have also been saying that you have been proclaiming principles which no one agrees with and which are not even necessary to uphold one's religious beliefs.
    Most intelligent Muslims would readily accept the fact that moral principles can be produced either by man or by religions.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/29/2016 4:41:23 PM



  • Hindus belive in God made by Man and Muslims belive in invisible God made by man.

    Thanks keep it up

    By Aayina - 9/29/2016 11:32:01 AM



  • GM SB SAYS : “Forgetting Confuscius and Socrates, whom you dismiss on very arbitrary grounds”

    Arbitrary grounds? Proving that the moral principle falsely attributed to Confucius by GM sb was a much older one found in every ancient religion and civilization and ?

    Socrates was quoted talking about the soul which is certainly a concept from religion and not Science or philosophy.

    Your capacity for brazen faced lying is unbelievable.

     You also go on to say: “you find yourself in a territory where you stand alone, proclaiming principles which no one agrees with and which are not even necessary to uphold one's religious beliefs”

    This is something new. Can you elaborate? What we know from the above is that you dismiss the moral principles as unnecessary which is quite apparent. What we did not know was that this dismissal of moral principles is part of your belief.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/29/2016 4:22:35 AM



  • Muslims believe in God made man. I guess Hindus believe in man made gods.
    By Manzurul Haque - 9/29/2016 2:55:31 AM



  • Naseersaab,

    You say you do not find a single moral precept developed by a philosopher in the past 600 years. Forgetting Confuscius and Socrates, whom you dismiss on very arbitrary grounds, and making arbitrary distinctions between moral precepts and utilitarian precepts, you find yourself in a territory where you stand alone, proclaiming principles which no one agrees with and which are not even  necessary to uphold one's religious beliefs.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/29/2016 2:49:16 AM



  • Hindu morals !? Keep it up. We like it (your keeping up)😆!
    By Manzurul Haque - 9/29/2016 2:42:49 AM



  • There is living proof before your eyes of religions and morals being formulated and developed from human thought, custom and philosophical process. It is Hinduism. Most morals in Hinduism are derived from philosophical introspection and debate. Yet you choose to ignore it and go on interminably with your crazy hypothesis that morals can only come from religion. Hell, no! All Religions came from Man, and All Morals came from Man. God is the pseudonym used by the very human author of each religion 
    By secularlogic - 9/29/2016 1:42:55 AM



  • Hats Off has finally come up with something sensible. He says:

     “no hypothesis can EVER be proposed regarding either a moral or an ethical issue.”

     Full marks to him for his intensive research over the last couple of weeks after which he found one sound statement to make. I agree with him.

     We are however not discussing any particular moral or an ethical issue here. We are only trying to ascertain the source of all moral principles which is certainly ascertainable. We are looking at facts and data to be able to say with conviction that the source of all moral principles has been religion exclusively, or to disprove the same.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/29/2016 1:18:17 AM



  • Hats Off,

    The quote from Bernard Lewis book was to expose the utter falsity of you trying to say that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not forge a nation out of the tribes and they were zombies etc.

    Lewis is not saying anything that cannot be proved from the surviving works of the people he is talking about. What he says is based on documentary evidence.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/29/2016 1:11:40 AM



  • Hats Off, You are talking out of your hat. All your arguments are straw man arguments. Look up what that means. It is a logical fallacy that weak minded persons such as you indulge in. Not even one of your argument can be attributed to anything I have said.

    You are at the end of your wits. When you cannot argue against what I have actually said, you make believe that I or the Quran say the rubbish you attribute.

    You said you can understand the Quran as well as I can. My article is based on the Quran and all the verses are quoted. Go ahead and find fault with anything that I have said. If you quote anyone, then own up what that worthy has said and defend it as your own view. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/29/2016 12:55:25 AM



  • GM Sb,

    It is you who is making all the silly arguments. We have a good record of the entire history of philosophy starting from 600 BC and find not a single moral principle contributed by any philosopher while many of them built theories based on the moral principles from religion giving us the philosophy of ethics.  During the same period religion was prolific with giving us moral principles. What does that tell you? You choose to be blind and deaf to all the evidence.

    Having failed in your transparently fraudulent attempt to attribute a moral principle to Confucius, you keep on arguing nevertheless. Your capacity for supporting your agenda is admirable. Your regard for the truth is however deplorable.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/29/2016 12:43:07 AM



  • Naseersab,

    You said, "If it is a human construct why are moral principles not found outside religion?"

    This is a poor argument to make to Western academic disciplines if you wanted to convince them that religions and moral precepts are of divine origin. You can't buttress religions by making such silly arguments. Most sensible religious people would readily concede that moral principles may have divine as well as human origins.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/28/2016 3:08:30 PM



  • C/o hats off. The question of the holy Quran or Bible or Vedas (or even Ram Charit Manas) being divine books will arise only when hats off declares his religion. As an atheist his singling out of Islam for his voluminous tirades clearly sets him apart from other atheists and has hinted me of the existence of spurious Hindu atheists working overtime.

     First comes Allah as introduced by the holy Quran. We believe in Allah without visible proof (because of the impossibility of such proof) and we also know there cannot be multiple gods as the polytheists believe. If for an atheist one God is unbelievable then the myriad circulatory affairs of multiple gods and goddesses must be laughing gas for them. Another matter the spurious Hindu atheists are silent on those entities as if they don't exist for them also.

    The Quran does not want Muslims to hate kafirs,  mushriks, homosexuals, women etc. We Muslims know this supremacistly well. Let the ranters rant. We continue to invite them to Truth with all the love, despite all their hatred.

    Sex, that is refusing to leave its lodgement area needs to be dealth with. I think those Yazidi and Christian girls should have been settled in Mumbai call centres to relieve some pressure from Assamese and Nepalese and tribal girls.

     Muslims can go to any extent to screw non-Muslim women. They can request the Western do-gooders to carry out humanitarian bombings on the whole lot of a sovereign Muslim nation, because in the end they would get to screw some females! Buggers have no taste for 'buggering' unlike the civilized lot. Fuckers are getting adrenaline rush doing the act right under the eyes of the dreadful drones !

    By Manzurul Haque - 9/28/2016 2:57:04 PM




  • patricia crone is a scholar of islam. can i believe her? wansborough is also a scholar of islam. can i believe him? why bernard lewis? because he advised western cowboys to start a shoot out at noon in the middle east? if he knew so much about the middle east, you should never bring in his proof while discussing the indian perspective on its islamic invasion. read will durant. hint: he did not advise the wild west gunslingers on their muddle east policy.

    a logical case can be made out for islamophobia - if that is what you are bringing in defense or offence even.

    here's the deal.

    islamic texts hate polytheists. therefore polytheists can hate back
    they hate the jews and christians. therefore jews and christians can hate back
    they hate the idol worshipers. therefore idolators can hate back.
    they hate the unbelievers, the kaffirs. therefore the kuffar can hate back.
    it allows sex with female war captives. therfore the sex slaves can hate back.

    to recapitulate, these classes that are hated by islam are the polytheists, idol worshipers, jews, christians, the kuffar, those vanquished by islam, and their women. these women like the current yazidis and christians in syria have a water-tight case for their genuine fear of islam. not an irrational fear. these people have a legitimate case for fearing islam and devout muslims like al-baghdadi and al-qaradhawi or al-awlaki. it is not a phobia. phobia is irrational. this is a matter of sex slavery and survival. survival is not irrational. sex slavery is irrational. fearing it is rational.

    the golden rule says "do onto others as you would have done unto you".

    in its prescriptive case, one who is hated by a religion can hate it right back, without breaking the golden rule. in the normative case because islam hates these groups, the subjective response of the hated group can only be a legitimate fear of islam.

    accusations of islamophobia, offering proof of one koranic statement by another koranic statement (circular reasoning), offering the conclusion as argument are all signs and symptoms of islamism or a severe case of islamic supremacism. this is what naik does in his dubai mehfils. this is what nouman ali does in his brainless sermons. when mr naseer ahmed ever so smoothly lets loose his hypothesis cat, he forgets the most important injunction of the "western academics" regarding the formulation of hypotheses in particular.

    no hypothesis can EVER be proposed regarding either a moral or an ethical issue.

    another major miss in his oh! so "scientific" hypothesis-circus is that mr naseer ahmed does not follow the principle of parsimony. that much for his hypothesis bull, null or full.

    "scientific" proofs of god are exactly what are the very stuff of pseudo-science. haroon yahyas and rashad kaliphas have done a "better" job than mr naseer ahmed. do a google search for pseudo-science.

    as you would shun abrogation in the koran, you would never be able to win your case in al-azhar or azerbaijan. all mainstream islamic scholarship tacitly believe in abrogation. there are koranic verses that refer clearly to abrogation. use your koran copy. all islamic scholars believe in many types of abrogation. all of them apply to the relevant koranic verses. your advice to shun "abrogators" is a good mirror for you. but entirely explicable in your world view of a monopoly of prophet hood, blockade of future religious evolution, and the supremacy of its medium.

    one who proposes needs to prove his proposition. the one who is proposed to needs a proof. simply inverting a fanciful idiosyncrasy as "proof" of the divinity of the koran, is no argument at all.

    everything mr naseer ahmed wishes to say can be paraprased into two senetnces.

    koran is divine. what is the proof? the prophet said it.
    the prophet is right. what is the proof? the koran said it.

    this is the circular essence of anything mr naseer ahmed can ever say in his entire lifetime. this is fallacious. or in other words, a circular argument from pseudo-science.

    By hats off! - 9/28/2016 11:45:43 AM



  • Hats Off,
    Did you have a proper education? What is your background? 
    Many of the works of Scientists, philosophers etc are available only in translation. So is a German by virtue of being a German more qualified to speak on Kant than an English speaking person who has read Kant only in translation?
    Cannot a Hindi speaking person with a rudimentary knowledge of English learn Physics using a book written in English and understand it better than some English speaking person?
    You disappoint me with your nonsensical arguments. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/28/2016 9:23:43 AM



  • Hats Off,

    Bernard Lewis is not some third rate journalist but a historian whose credibility is very high and is consulted by presidents on how to break up the Middle East using Islamic fundamentalism. So he is not exactly the apple of my eye but I respect his knowledge and scholarship although it has been used in a way that I do not like.

    Your source however is always some Islamophobic site because there hasn't been a single occasion when you said anything positive about Muslims or Islam.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/28/2016 3:55:13 AM



  • GM Sb,

    You continue with your inane arguments ad infinitum.

    Can you show me an academic discipline (western)  which believes in God or attributes anything to God?

    Religion for them is also a human construct. So why would they say what you expect them to say?

    My argument is precisely to expose this charade of the western academics.

    If it is a human construct why are moral principles not found outside religion?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/28/2016 3:50:33 AM



  • Naseersaab says, " I am speaking about producing a moral principle and not learning."

    It seems you have no idea what is being discussed. Your whole answer is totally irrelevant to what I had said. The glaring fact is that you are the only person who claims that man cannot produce moral principles. None of the scientists, philosophers or linguists you quote agree with you. After I have answered your arguments so many times, you still come back with your discredited question, "why don't you just quote what any wise man said that is a moral principle not borrowed from religion?" Why don't you prove to us that religious moral principles were not articulated earlier by wise man? Why do you need to make  false claims on behalf of religions? No religion needs such laughable advocacy.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/27/2016 2:42:08 PM



  • The questions of hats off are always difficult to answer,  but one can hazard a guess. Why is 'this' better than 'that'? May be too much of stone worship could damage the female genitalia,  whereas polygamy was expected to take good care of them all?
    By Manzurul Haque - 9/27/2016 10:00:04 AM



  • do not presume that mr bernard lewis was watching it happening when the prophet and the rashidun were operating.

    what he writes is his opinion. he is welcome to it. if you quote him, it is because he mirrors your apologetics.

    just because he praises what you praise, doesn't mean a thing. look at the work of believers also. not just the unbelievers whom you believe. look at al tabari. al ghazzali. al beruni. al waqidi

    then say something. you advised one mr royalji that his interpretation did not agree with other worthies. so why do you quote a kaffir worthy? the evidence of a kaffir is worthless according to islamic law. i am quoting the momeen. their evidence is impeccable.

    i am asking why is mr bernard lewis so sacred and mr ghazzali so profane? may be because he is not an engineering graduate?

    just because you happen to agree with mr bernard lewis, is mr bernard lewis allah who knows everything? is whatever mr bernard lewis opines holy like the koran?

    do your own reading. and do your own understanding. many others have done a far, far better job of posing theistic questions than you can do. read will durant. not just bernard lewis.

    and remember you said you did not know arabic. so you have no standing on anything to talk about what the koran "actually" means. its in the qureshi dialect of "classic" arabic.

    if you do not know arabic, i am as good as you are. i am as good or far, far better than mr nouman ali.

    i have never told people that they should question the questioning. like mr nouman ali idiotically exults in one of his moronic sermons.

    by the way why is stone worship worse than polygamy?

    it is perverted to pretend that polygamy is worse than worshiping stones when idolatry is a victim-less crime whereas polygamy is a crime against another one or three or four victims.

    polygamy is immoral and religiously recommended. idolatry is moral but religiously condemned. just as it is better than sanctioned sex slavery. or slave trade. or jizya. or death for dis-belief. why?

    why does the koran endorse polygamy but condemn polytheism?

    any ideas?

    By hats off! - 9/27/2016 9:32:45 AM



  • Here is Bernard Lewis a Jewish historian telling you that the Ummah included people of all faiths and this period lasted a full five centuries:

    The Jews of Islam Page 55 

     From the time of the Prophet to that of the first caliphs, and beyond that to the universal empire of the Umayyads and the Abbasids, there is an unmistakable increase in tolerance accorded to non-Muslims (five centuries). From about the twelfth and thirteenth centuries onward, there is a noticeable move in the opposite direction. In earlier times a good deal of easy social intercourse existed among Muslims, Christians, and Jews who, while professing different religions, formed a single society, in which personal friendships, business partnerships, intellectual discipleships, and other forms of shared activity were normal and, indeed, common. This cultural cooperation is attested in many ways. We have, for example, biographical dictionaries of famous physicians. These works, though written by Muslims, include Muslim, Christian, and Jewish physicians without distinction. From these large numbers of biographies it is even possible to construct a kind of prosopography of the medical profession— to trace the life curves of some hundreds of practitioners in the Islamic world. From these sources we get a very clear impression of a common effort. In hospitals and in private practice, doctors of the three faiths worked together as partners or as assistants, reading each other’s books and accepting one another as pupils. There was nothing resembling the kind of separation that was normal in Western Christendom at that time or in the Islamic world at a later time. This kind of common endeavor in a shared field of learning was not limited to medicine and the sciences. It even included philosophy, wherein one might have expected differences of religion to make for separateness. An example may serve to illustrate this point. There is a chapter in one of the theological writings of the great Muslim theologian al-Ghazālī (1059-1111) that is almost identical to a chapter in a work by his near contemporary, the Jewish philosopher Bahye ibn Paquda. The connection between the two has puzzled many scholars. At one time it was assumed that Bahye must have taken the contents of the chapter from al-Ghazālī, since, while Bahye could read Arabic, al-Ghazālī could not have read the Hebrew script in which Bahye’s work was written. When it was shown that there was no way in which Bahye could have seen or read al-Ghazālī’s work, the problem seemed insoluble until the late Professor Baneth found the answer. An earlier text, previously unknown, was the common source of the relevant chapters in both al-Ghazālī and Bahye, and accounts for the striking resemblances between the two. What makes the case still more remarkable is that this earlier work was written by a Christian. We thus have a Christian who writes a theological treatise, presumably intended for Christian readers, which is then studied and, so to speak, borrowed by two subsequent theologians, one Muslim and the other Jewish, each writing a work of religious instruction for his own coreligionists. A society in which plagiarism is possible between theologians of three different religions has indeed achieved a high degree of tolerance and symbiosis.  In the later Middle Ages such relationships begin to diminish. We find less and less of such sharing of intellectual, social, or commercial life, and see an increasing pattern of segregation and separation.

    And for what brought about changes in the later centuries, read some good history books.

    The Muslims were and are some of the most refined and cultured people. 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/27/2016 8:17:57 AM



  • history does not belie the fact that islam simply made a war machine out of the peaceful poetic polytheistic bedouins.

    this is not an article on history. it is about mr naseer ahmed's comment which claims that islam created a nation out of arabians - which it did not. and that islam civilized them - which it did not.

    arabia and most arabians are still utterly tribalistic and backward feudal societies based on strict aurat and harsh ghairat. and one ummah will bomb another as soon as uncle sam says so. they won't think twice about it.

    the article also claims religions to provide moral guidance, when all islam did to those bedouins was turn them into some medieval wehrmacht. defeating the two empires was aggression. if islam did not teach them not to be peaceful, you need to do some big time explaining. because you claim religions give us morals. so show us where.

    how does mr naseer ahmed decide incidentalism? it can be argued that islam being a war-like philosophy, simply instigated the mongols into converting into a religion that seemed most suited to their aggression. so they could conquer with a clear conscience and never be burdened by the guilt of loot!

    afghans attacked india after they converted. so can i argue that had they not converted they might not have attacked india? why not?

    don't tell me this is hypothetical historiography!

    this simply proves that islam did nothing to blunt the war lust and land hunger of those who converted, but only fed it. those who converted then turned against their previous neighbors. this is a fairly common feature of islamic conquests.

    sind and herat and sistan and balkh were all part of india culturally as well as civilizationally. india is not just patna or bhubaneswar. india was right up to iran and the whole of current afghanistan and pakistan.

    these were attacked during the seventh century by the neophyte muslim-arabs. bin abdi, al khattab, ibn quias, are all seventh century neophyte muslim-arabs.

    if islam civilized the masses, there should be evidence of it in islamic countries. they should have stopped fighting if islam had civilized them. mongols should have stopped plundering. afghans should have stopped attacking.

    like ashoka did after converting to buddhism and tried conquering the world through his bald-headed bhikkus and his peacenik brigades.

    an old bedouin saying still extant and popular all over middle-eastern arabia - "its me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousins, me, my brother and our cousins against the world" - 1400 years islamics has not changed this one little tiny bit. even now.

    if anything, tribalism in arabia is only stronger. in no way has islam changed it.

    so it is entirely erroneous to claim islam created one ummah. the ummah is only during haj. even there, indian muslims pitch tents seperately, pakistanis seperately, indonesians seoperately and no one pitches his tents near a native arabian. they are the creme-de-la-creme of muslims. all other muslims are only next best.

    just let a pakistani, bangladeshi, indian or indonesian muslim man try marrying a saudi arabian woman! let us see how long he will last! let one bangladeshi muslim try getting a citizenship in saudi arabia. let us then see the real brotherhood of islam! talk is cheap.

    By hats off! - 9/27/2016 3:58:32 AM



  • Hats Off,  History belies what you say.
    The Muslims fought until the two imperial powers of the day were defeated and this was achieved in about 80 years and then they stopped fighting at the height of their military power.

    The exceptions were local skirmishes for local reasons and this was how Sindh was captured.

    The Islamic Caliphate never attacked India during its entire history of a thousand years despite India's famed wealth and were happy to just trade.

    India was conquered by the Mongols and the Afghans who were also the conquerors of the Islamic Caliphate. That the Mongols became Muslim is incidental. Even if they had not become Muslim, the Mongols would have conquered India. Mongols are known for their barbarism and savagery but the Mongols who conquered India did not display their famed savagery and barbarism thanks to Islam having civilized them.

    When Europe talks of chivalry in war, they talk of Salahuddin who despite the Islamophobia is a much respected figure.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/27/2016 1:16:28 AM



  • GM Says: The distinction is just in your mind which sees morality as being somehow inextricably tied to religion. Morality simply refers to right conduct and is learned both ontogenetically and phylogenetically.

     As far as learning is concerned, moral principles and rules of right conduct are learned as easily as a child learns its mother tongue. As a matter of fact, the process is similar and simultaneous as I have already pointed out in my earlier comments and also in my article:

    Is There A Rational Basis For The Atheists To Oppose Religion?

    Humans need to learn the concepts of empathy, kindness, generosity, giving, sharing, nurturing, modesty and humility.  If these are not learned early enough, man will grow without the capacity for feelings and moral emotions and will exhibit psychopathic behaviour. The earlier, the moral precepts are learnt, the greater their chances of making an indelible mark on the person. Up to the age of 3 years, a person accepts all that it is taught without filtering. Beyond the age of 3 years, a person filters new messages through what he/she has already learnt. Noam Chomsky’s most powerful single idea is that there is a universal capacity for language but it is expressed in different ways in different cultures. Every baby has the capacity to learn all the world’s languages but what the neurologists call synaptic pruning in the early years reduces that child’s capacity to the languages around her. A songbird which does not hear other songbirds singing at the crucial stage of its development can never sing. That account of language can work for morality too – indeed the two are closely related, depending as they both do on human interaction.”

     The confusion is in your mind GM Sb because of which you reframe whatever is said. I am speaking about producing a moral principle and not learning. As discussed at great length, practical ethics is based on learnings from practicing the moral principles and these make great sense in hindsight. If you have nothing meaningful to say beyond repeating yourself, let us end this discussion.

     And instead of making inane comments ad nauseum, why don't you just quote what any wise man said that is a moral principle not borrowed from religion?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/27/2016 12:54:43 AM



  • Harun yahya explain all science related to Quran.

    Here nice joke when I was kid.

    A people from different country were gathered and task was given to every nation to make some invention to every country was doing something, Indians were not doing anything, everyone was thinking what this Indians are going to do.

    This Indians go in the night and watch which country invention is nice, so at they end they go in night and painted made in India an aeroplane made by Americans.

    This is the situation of Muslims through out from start to now, their book start with borrowed story of Greek, Judaism and so on than write made in  Quran or Hadit.

    By Aayina - 9/26/2016 9:10:29 PM



  • Arabs were Jahil  and Mohmmad paigamber came and united all tribes, but this tribe did not unite and still fighting, let's say Arabs are at fault.
    What about Malaysia, Indonesia, did Islam influence to make them one tribe?
    Indian Muslim had Balme game on Hindus for not Becaming one tribe or Ummah, There Quran fail and Hindu ethos win?
    As per our one of commentators  Islam helps poor or Islam helps to remain poor?
    Also as per our one of NAI commentator, Muslim are enlightened  like Buddha, do there acts and public speech through use of Information technology and media tells that they are enlightened one?
    When they cannot use sword they use digarotory words, I think this is new Muslim enlightenment for some Muslim brothers that do not use sword but words.

    By Aayina - 9/26/2016 8:17:25 PM



  • what islam did to the peaceful bedouins is to make them into war-crazed zombies who over ran whatever came in their ruthless path.

    as for the "greatest" empire - it is just a matter of opinion.

    to the zoroastrians and the indians, islamic spread was one oh humiliation, torture, slavery, loot and plunder.

    this is what the "greates" empire known to man did to its followers.

    this directly follows from their god who thinks nothing of condoning sex slavery while killing polytheists.

    what islam did to its followers is best illustrated by what saudi arabia has become due to islam. what happened to pakistan, what is happeneing to turkey, to malaysia, to indonesia and to egypt.

    every nation touched by the fingers of islam has never been able to know peace.

    war and conquest are no proof of morality. they are the very essence of immorality, greed, blood-lust, loot and plunder.

    that is what the neophyte muslims did for 80 long, dark and miserable years.

    it never ever civilized them. the proof is all those so-called islamic countries of today!

    By hats off! - 9/26/2016 8:09:02 PM



  • Naseersaab says, "I see a clear distinction between what any wise man has ever said on his own and what the scriptures speak."

    The distinction is just in your mind which sees morality as being somehow inextricably tied to religion. Morality simply refers to right conduct and is learned both ontogenetically and phylogenetically. 


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/26/2016 4:54:00 PM



  • Hats Off,

    So a tribal society became the largest empire known to mankind until then in just 80 years and ruled the same for a thousand years?
    You are talking out of your hat as usual.

    Provide the reference which says that these people turned their back on the religion. They didn't and therefore calling these wars of Ridda is fine since they rejected the political authority but not wars of apostasy which is a mistranslation.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/26/2016 10:44:17 AM



  • ridda wars had very much to do with apostasy of entire tribes. they seemed to be just waiting to opt out.

    being against paying allegiance to abu bakr was also a factor. islam was basically a political movement against the status quo.

    to say that if they had apostatized they would have offered to pay jizya, is the typical 'clever' argument. apostasy is punishable by death. jizya is for those that never converted in the first place. so why would the apostates offer to pay jizya?

    unless you decry the tribal society you cannot change the status quo. or justify islamic expansionist history. all proselytizing religions start out by condemning the status quo. the term jahiliya is used justify the emergence of islam as a so-called civilizing force.

    from all pre-islamic accounts available, arabia was just another tribal society. no better, no worse. like other zillions of tribal societies in the world.

    as a matter of fact, saudi arabia - the motherland of islam - is still a completely tribal society. it always was.

    except that they go around in lamborghinis today. in fact the current king is one of a couple of hundreds of princes from among different tribes. most of the arabian societies are still tribal.

    so to claim that the prophet turned the tribal arabia into a nation is misleading. the tribes still rule the birth place of islam. tribalism is too very firmly entrenched in these societies to be argued away.

    1400 years of islam should have made some difference to saudi arabia.

    and yet this country seems to be nothing like what mr naseer ahmed is claiming for islam or ummah. one country of the ummah will take dollars and bomb another country of the ummah. pakistanis are not allowed into uae anymore. no non-saudi muslim can marry a saudi woman. no non-saudi can buy property in saudi arabia. how are you going to argue away the most powerful islamic country in history? the answer is easy to guess. the answer is - saudi arabia is un-islamic. then maybe china is. or sweden is. or finland is.

    by the way saud is also the name of a tribe. arabia is just the second name.

    By hats off! - 9/26/2016 6:42:35 AM



  • Ridda wars were not for or against the freedom of conscience. The rebellion was against pledging their allegiance to the political successor Abu Bakr. It was a political rebellion by refusing to recognize the political authority of the successor and refusing to pay zakat. If it was a matter of freedom of conscience and not a political rebellion, they would have offered to pay jiziya in place of zakat.

    Ridda means rejection and in this case, it was rejection of the political authority of the successor. No account of these wars speak of "apostasy" by the rebels in the sense of going back on the kalimah or turning their back on the religion. 

    Arabia was a tribal society before Muhammad (pbuh) who in the course of the last 10 years of his life turned it into a nation and an ummah. If the political rebellion was not contained, the society would have gone back to the old days of tribalism.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/26/2016 3:29:40 AM



  • GM Sb,

    Elders, philosophers discuss known moral principles and litterateurs use them in their works . They have never produced one.

    They are good at coming up with general truths that you will find in any quotable quotes of any wise man.

    This is a subject that I have both studied and reflected on.

    The kind of general truths that humans come up with, are not found in the scriptures.

    There is a clear separation between what we find in the scriptures and what we find in the wise sayings of man.

    For example, in the scriptures, you will never find anything like:

    You can take a horse to a pond but you can't make it drink.

    I see a clear distinction between what any wise man has ever said on his own and what the scriptures speak.

    When Shakespeare touches upon the quality of mercy in Portia's eloquent speech, he relies on religion to drive home the point of how it is twice blessed. How will any human even come up with such an idea on his own? And if he did, it would be meaningless.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/26/2016 2:41:28 AM



  • Naseersaab,

    As I asked before, do you think man could not have figured out for himself that it is wrong to kill another human being or that it is wrong to steal your neighbor's cow? But when ancient wise elders cast these pearls of wisdom, their words were not recorded in books, but the words of our Prophets did get recorded and sanctified.

    Acknowledging man's ability in no way lowers the status of the Quran. It was not for nothing that God asked all angels to bow down before Adam, although we can now use modern concepts and say that man got his wisdom, reasoning and morality through his struggles for survival. We can add that religions further bolstered and formalized his morality.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/25/2016 1:15:36 PM



  • I agree with 'hats off'. Ridda wars were really bad. This Pakistan is still fighting a Ridda war to suppress the Baluchis. As Indians we reject such immoral suppression of call for independence 😱😱😱 !!!
    By Manzurul Haque - 9/25/2016 11:45:50 AM



  • the ridda wars thoroughly debunk the freedom of conscience myth.

    if the first caliph murdered people who apostatized, it means that there is absolutely no freedom of religion in the koran.

    islam is simple a loyalty system for a person. it has more to do with the prophet than to do with god. allah is secondary.

    the primary focus of islam is the prophet.

    By hats off! - 9/25/2016 6:46:30 AM



  • (10:37) This Qur´an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds. 

    All the subtopics listed below can be seen as both a confirmation and fuller explanation of what could arguably be the very first moral principle. The Quran confirms that it is a confirmation and fuller explanation  of revelations that came before it:

    “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”

    1.       Freedom of Conscience

    2.       Sanctity Of Human Life 5:32

    3.       Be Kind, Honourable And Humble To One's Parents

    4.      Celebration of Diversity and tolerance

    5.       Secular Justice

    6.       Forgiveness

    7.       Keep One's Promises, treaties 

    8.       Be Honest and Fair In One's Interactions 

    9.       Resist/Fight Oppression

    10.   Peace with non-aggressors, kindness towards them, and just dealing

    11.   Modesty

    12.   Freeing of slaves

    13.   Tenderness with Wife In Sexual Relations:

    14.   Care for Orphaned Children

    15.   Humility

    16.   Repel Evil with Good

    Without doubt, further explanation of the very first moral principle is to be found in other scriptures and the Quran can be seen as the more detailed explanation of what preceded it.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/25/2016 4:58:52 AM



  • GM Sb,

    Your question is once again on ability and not on facts.

    Have patience until I cover the ability part. 

    The moral principles in the scriptures are purely of divine origin.

    Are there any moral principles beyond the scriptures?

    Since the Quran is the last of the scriptures, we do not have to look beyond the Quran. Are there moral principles outside the Quran beyond incremental progress on the trajectory shown on a few of these principles?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/25/2016 3:32:16 AM



  • Naseersaab,

    Instead of playing with words, just say whether moral precepts can be created only by the Divine. Yes or no? If you say 'no', we have no argument.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/25/2016 12:18:44 AM



  • GM Sb,

    You don't even know what the hypothesis is! Read the article again. What darkness!


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/24/2016 2:23:02 PM



  • The issue is whether there is a hypothesis of the theists which says that moral precepts can be created only by the Divine. There is no such hypothesis.

    Ayat 24:35 does not say that moral precepts can be created only by the Divine.

    If we are all agreed on those two points, we can drop the question of the exclusively divine origin of morality.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/24/2016 1:05:57 PM



  • (24:35) Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light: Allah doth set forth Parables for men: and Allah doth know all things.

     This ayat or verse occurs in Surah Nur or The Light which has 14 sections, and each section deals with some aspect of the law or the moral way of living. The connection of the ayat with the moral way of living is unmistakable.

     The unparalleled excellence with which the Quran teaches us the moral way of living is at several levels. The first level is the moral principle itself which is self-luminous and is likened to the olive oil from a blessed tree neither of the east nor the west which clearly hints that the source of the self-luminous moral principle is divine and not from this earth covering the east and the west. The second level is the use of imagery created with words and using the most effective devices of the psychology of influence such as priming and through reinforcement by repeating the message but in different ways and in different contexts to make the point clear and beyond doubt. The second level of light is when the olive oil is thus lighted up. The third level is the linguistic excellence which clothes/covers this light and is likened to the glass which itself is brilliant like the star. All of these within the framework of a complete and self-sufficient system of belief in a God who is the Creator, Sustainer, Helper, Law Giver, the source of all power, the Wise, the Aware, the Knower, the Just, the Merciful, the one who Rewards, the Forgiver, the Lord of the Day of Judgment and with many more attributes.  The meaning of light upon light is now crystal clear and also the meaning of niche. The Quran sheds light on many truths but specially on the complete way of living a moral life and the source of this knowledge/light is Allah Himself. The excellence is best described by the Quran itself. Allah does guide whom He will to His Light: Allah does set forth Parables for men: and Allah does know all things. May Allah guide us all to His Light!

     More of the excellence of the teaching of the moral way of living in my next article.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/24/2016 9:13:29 AM



  • GM Sb suffers from an incurable disease of reframing what is said.
    In what we are discussing, the hypothesis of the theist can therefore be framed as:

    The scriptures are inspired/revealed by the Divine. These are not a construct of the human mind.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/24/2016 8:17:21 AM



  • There is no theist hypothesis which says moral principles can be of only divine origin. Theists are usually not so insecure as to need such unnecessary controversies.

    The Quran does not claim that moral principles can be of only divine origin.

    There is no scientific inquiry showing that moral principles are only of divine origin.

    Let us follow the best of the moral principles and avoid unnecessary controversies.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/23/2016 2:27:53 PM



  • i totally agree with Riahan and GM, there is no need for us to reconcile science and religion. They both are in their own spheres and no need for us to prove which is the most scientific of all religions. Religions are called FAITHS because these are the beliefs of their respective practitioners. Science on other hand seems to be useful to all humanity in making our life better or worry free or trouble less. Irrespective of trying to prove our faith is the best let us all be happy in our own faiths.
    By Prisha - 9/23/2016 12:03:53 PM



  • religious morals may be divine, but many of them are immoral and evil.

    what is the morality of hellfire for the unbeliever? where is the morality in sacrificial slaughter? where is the morality in polygamy? where is the morality of caste? where is the morality in sati? where is the morality in child genital mutilation? where is the morality in caste system? in najasat and taharat?
    By hats off! - 9/23/2016 4:00:50 AM



  • Moral Principles are divine.

    Science is a utilitarian discipline and product of human effort. There would have been no progress on the civilizational scale without the moral principles from religion and therefore there would not have been Science either.

     Science is not religion. The moral principles from religion are however “scientific” if these help us optimize the well-being of all. Belief in divine origin of the moral principles is amenable to scientific inquiry and proof. Beyond this there is no need to confuse between the two.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/23/2016 12:51:47 AM



  • people whose faith is on the brink and are holding on to it for life, need some pseudo-scientific balm to hold it all together.
    muarice bucaille was a poineer. though he never bothered to "revert",  he laughed all the way to the bank.
    haroon yahya, ditto.. zakir naik, ditto.

    By hats off! - 9/22/2016 9:50:27 PM



  • Science and faith cannot be reconciled and they do not need to be reconciled. Any attempt to do so is likely to be dishonest and contrived. The two can exist in their own spheres, both respecting each other. In this regard we can say that atheistic scientists are probably less harmful than religious folks who reject polio vaccination or blood transfusions.

    Developing moral and ethical principles is part and parcel of our civilizational progress. The process has been blessed by both man's common sense and wisdom and by religions. Neither man nor religion need to claim exclusive ownership.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/22/2016 3:11:24 PM



  • Three articles upon the relation between science and religion, presented in a row by Jb Naseer Sb, have been widely discussed among the star commentators and the learned scholars, and remained undecided regarding the roles being played by religion and science in human beings’ life. Both the topics are poles apart except some similarities in the manner of their evolution over the ages. The basic principles of science, based upon the utility and reasonability, focus on the factual description of the matters proved by the facts in this materialistic world. Religion, on the other hand, teaches us moral precepts, ethics, manners, behavior etc and leads us to righteous path for a fruitful existence of life. It has its own place in humans’ life and can not replace the significance of science in any way. Hope this time the readers may be enlightened with some new LOGICS, so HATS OFF to the scholars.
    By Raihan Nezami - 9/22/2016 1:20:10 PM



  • old matter in new article. like old wine in new bottle. like the same old story with a different name.
    By hats off! - 9/22/2016 11:53:07 AM