Reference checking Sam Harris
August 15th, 2010
Sam Harris wrote an article for The Daily Beast titled, “Obama Backpedals on Mosque“.
It’s an interesting read, but one passage in particular caught my eye. He writes,
Thus, when Allah commands his followers to slay infidels wherever they find them, until Islam reigns supreme (2:191-193; 4:76; 8:39; 9:123; 47:4; 66:9)—only to emphasize that such violent conquest is obligatory, as unpleasant as that might seem (2:216), and that death in jihad is actually the best thing that can happen to a person, given the rewards that martyrs receive in Paradise (3:140-171; 4:74; 47:5-6)—He means just that. And, being the creator of the universe, his words were meant to guide Muslims for all time.
It wouldn’t have been useful to fully quote all of the Koranic references in the article, but I wanted to go through them on my own. Figured you might find it useful as well.
I’ll repost Sam’s above quote in bold, filling in the references using Yusuf Ali’s translation (and a link to the USC copy of the text).
Thus, when Allah commands his followers to slay infidels wherever they find them, until Islam reigns supreme
2:191-193 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
4:76 Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.
8:39 And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
9:123 O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.
47:4
Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.
66:9
O Prophet! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed).
only to emphasize that such violent conquest is obligatory, as unpleasant as that might seem
2:216
Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
and that death in jihad is actually the best thing that can happen to a person, given the rewards that martyrs receive in Paradise
3:140-171
If a wound hath touched you, be sure a similar wound hath touched the others. Such days (of varying fortunes) We give to men and men by turns: that Allah may know those that believe, and that He may take to Himself from your ranks Martyr-witnesses (to Truth). And Allah loveth not those that do wrong.
Allah’s object also is to purge those that are true in Faith and to deprive of blessing Those that resist Faith.
Did ye think that ye would enter Heaven without Allah testing those of you who fought hard (In His Cause) and remained steadfast? … (too long to quote in full, go to the link and read though 171 if you’re interested.)
4:74
Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory – Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
47:5-6
Soon will He guide them and improve their condition,
And admit them to the Garden which He has announced for them.
- He means just that. And, being the creator of the universe, his words were meant to guide Muslims for all time.
Sam’s conclusion is that “American Muslims should be absolutely free to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero, but that the ones who should, probably wouldn’t want to.” I understand the sentiment entirely. I also think that the government should allow it — it simply isn’t the place of the government to start shutting down legal operations because they are unpopular.
Now that my stance on the legality of the matter is stated, I’d like to flesh out a few of my thoughts that the coverage of this ‘mosque at ground zero’ has generated. I’ve heard several interviews in response to the public outcry that the people who think that Islam is dangerous just need to learn about Islam — essentially that the opposition to Islam stems from ignorance of Islam. While ignorance is certainly a common rationalization to oppose something, it’s simply wrong to suggest that it’s always the main underlying reason.
In playing to the more liberal side of the political spectrum, the call to learn more about other religion and cultures is a seductive message, too. It gives a liberal, who might know nothing about Islam himself, the sense that he’s a cultured and sensitive creature while the yokels who only read their Bibles need to learn a thing or two about multiculturalism.
This thinking ignores the possibility of someone like me who has taken a considerable amount of time to learn about Islam. While not being an expert in religion, I can say with confidence that my concern about Islam was not ameliorated the more I learned, it was heightened. When I finished reading the Koran, for example, I was more disturbed than before I had read it.
I think that there are many reasons to argue against Islam, at its core it is another example of a faith-based system for determining how to live ones life. The general promotion of wishful thinking as a good way of deciding ANY decision of consequence is recipe for trouble. Besides that, there is an unbending adherence to the letter-by-letter word of the creator of the universe which seems particularly hard to keep some small percentage from actually believing it.
The selection of quote from the Koran quoted and cited above should give a clear smattering of examples of ideas that can be argued against because of the ideas themselves and not because of some ignorance of what they say. I hope you found this entry informative and useful.
Tags: obama, Sam Harris
Posted in Separation of Church and State, Uncategorized, islam | 1 Comment »
Slavery — a problem in modern times
June 9th, 2010
I’ve mentioned before that slavery is a problem, and that the books of the major monotheisms don’t have a single verse against slavery, anywhere, within them — (see my article on slavery and the Bible, or my article on slavery and the Koran).
TED.com has a ton of high quality and short-and-to-the-point talks on a wide range of topics — I recommend the site and the videos. One of the speakers, Kevin Bales, gave a recent TED talk on the problem that modern slavery still holds on the world.
Slavery is still a problem today. The International Labour Organization (A UN specialized agency which seeks the promotion of social justice and internationally recognized human and labor rights) says:
“At least 12.3 million people around the world are trapped in forced labour.”
If you engage in religious debates often, you will find that there are a large number of people who think the question of whether slavery is morally wrong is difficult to figure out. They will insist that they (and everyone else) needs to be told the answer by their Holy Book. That fact by itself isn’t so strange, but combined with the additional fact that most of those same people seem to have figured out that slavery is morally wrong — and they hold this position with conviction. If a person thinks that the Bible or Koran needs to be consulted to figure out whether slavery is morally wrong, he wouldn’t think that slavery is wrong.
A person who is confronted with the facts above and who are completely wedded to the idea that morality comes from the Word of God, there is quite a bit of cognitive dissonance that he has to work through.
There are a number of common responses a person who is backed up against this wall reaches for — most recently a person disagreed with me, saying that there were verses in the Bible that spoke directly against the evil institution of slavery. We happened to be in a location where we (and about 5 other people who were participating in the discussion) were going to be for the next hour. So I said, “Ok, you are flat out contradicting what I just claimed: that there isn’t a single Bible verse that speaks against slavery, and I said it because I’ve researched the question and I think that what I just said is completely true — but I’m 100% willing to be corrected and would be grateful to learn something new today. Since we’re all going to be here for a while, and you have your laptop and a fast internet connection, please take some time to figure out precisely whether I’m wrong or not.”
The person brought up two verses for consideration.
1. Everyone is equal in God’s eyes and
2. Slave traders are a problem.
As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
The parallel structure could not make the point more obvious. If you are baptized into Christ, does God care if you are a Jew or a Greek? No. How about whether you are male or female? God does not care at all. What if you own slaves, or are owned as a slave? God doesn’t care. The whole point of these verses is to show that there is no moral difference between different ethnicities, genders, or classes (include master/slave classes). A person who brings up this verse in support of the notion that God has a moral problem with the institution of slavery has brought evidence to the contrary to the table.
What about the slave-traders verse?
1 Timothy 1:9-11
This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave-traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
Here we have a potential anti-slavery bible verse. The condemnation is of slave-traders in particular, which is a weird thing to have a problem with if your target is the owning of people as property as an institution. Turns out, in context this verse is specifically speaking out against people who kidnap non-slaves and sell them into slavery.
I prefer just turning a few pages later in the same letter by the same author to highlight exactly what he thinks of slaves.
1 Timothy 6:1-5 (NRSV)
Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
No need to go into a detailed argument at all — speaks for itself fairly well, doesn’t it? Treat your masters well — especially if your masters are Christian. Of all the people to encourage how to treat the other, it’s interesting that the slaves are being told to treat the masters well, isn’t it?
After about a half hour more of searching the person I was talking to conceded that she couldn’t find the verse that she was thinking of — and Google couldn’t find it either.
Slavery just isn’t a historical problem. It’s a modern problem — and an example of where getting your moral convictions from the Bible or the Koran would leave you with a gaping whole where your moral outrage is supposed to be.
Tags: Slavery
Posted in Negative Religious Influence | 1 Comment »
Another victim of Islam — Child Bride Bleeds to death
April 15th, 2010
The BBC reports of a child bride in Yemen bleeding to death.
BBC: Yemen Child Bride “Bleeds to Death”
“A 13-year-old Yemeni girl has died of internal bleeding three days after being married, rights groups say.” … The report comes amid ongoing debate on setting a minimum age for brides in Yemen, where more than a quarter of girls are married before the age of 15.
The story also reports that, “A 2009 law setting the minimum age at 17 was repealed after some lawmakers said it was un-Islamic. A final decision is due this month.”
Why is it always reported like this? “Some lawmakers said it was un-Islamic” makes it sound questionable. It is un-Islamic to set a minimum age for a girl to be married… well, one could argue for maybe 6 years old or 9 years old as the minimum, but not older than that. They are right it is un-Islamic — which gives us another example of why we should oppose Islam.
In Islam, Mohammad’s life is the best example of how to lead a virtuous life. How he lived his life is to be emulated by faithful Muslims. It is blasphemous to suggest that Mohammad’s moral example could be improved upon.
Relevant verse from the Koran:
Surah Al-Ahzab 33:21
Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.
The Sahih al-Bukhari is the most trusted Sunni collection of Hadiths which records the life of Mohammad. It has passages like the following (the link is to the specific quote in the USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts):
HADITH: Sahih al-Bukari — Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88: Narrated ‘Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Mohammad consummated his marriage with a nine year old. The consequences of his actions have tragic consequences for people alive today. More than a quarter of girls are married before they are 15…
The situation in Yemen is bad and Islam is directly standing in the way of progress. The law-makers who oppose minimum age laws for marriage do so on sound Islamic reasoning. It does no good to paper over this fact when reporting on the situation. These stories should go in the back of the minds of my fellow non-believers who have to repeatedly argue with their fellow non-believers that it matters what people believe.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a36da8c4-3f05-4450-84a4-196e097737a8)
Tags: child bride, islam, Muhammad
Posted in Women in Islam | 1 Comment »
What should we do with those that can predict the future?
April 1st, 2010
There is a Muslim man named Ali Hussain Sibat — he traveled to Saudi Arabia to participate in the Umrah, a lesser pilgrimage than the Hajj. He was arrested in Saudi Arabia because he was the host of a Lebanese call-in TV show where he would take call-ins and predict the future.
Predicting the future? That sounded like sorcery to the religious authorities in Saudi Arabia, so they tried and sentenced him to death (TV presenter gets death sentence for ‘sorcery’). The death sentence is apparently going to go forward in the next two days unless something official happens according to an updated CNN article: Beheading planned in Saudi sorcerer case.
There’s not much to more to add than what Amnesty International said in a press release where Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa programme, said “Ali Hussain Sibat appears to have been convicted solely for the peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of expression. Further: The organization urged the authorities to desist from charging and convicting people for “apostasy” as it violates the legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.”
We have another example of faith giving us a terrible solution to an imagined problem:
Q: What to do with those that can (or try to) predict the future?
A: Current answer in Saudi Arabia: Behead them.
One of my complaints about how these kinds of news stories are reported is that they frequently seem to imply that the religious courts “claim they decided to behead a person for religious reasons” — as though this might not be the true motivation. Are all executions religiously based? No, probably not. If there are reasons to doubt the motivations, bring them up, but if there aren’t, I think that they should mention that the Holy Scriptures of Islam are used directly to come up with the sentencing.
Here are just a few verses on the topic so that you are told the relevant source material.
Koran 2.102
YUSUFALI: They followed what the evil ones gave out (falsely) against the power of Solomon: the blasphemers Were, not Solomon, but the evil ones, teaching men Magic, and such things as came down at babylon to the angels Harut and Marut. But neither of these taught anyone (Such things) without saying: “We are only for trial; so do not blaspheme.” They learned from them the means to sow discord between man and wife. But they could not thus harm anyone except by Allah’s permission. And they learned what harmed them, not what profited them. And they knew that the buyers of (magic) would have no share in the happiness of the Hereafter. And vile was the price for which they did sell their souls, if they but knew!
(source)
Koran 4.051
YUSUFALI: Hast thou not turned Thy vision to those who were given a portion of the Book? they believe in sorcery and Evil, and say to the Unbelievers that they are better guided in the (right) way Than the believers! (source)
Koran 20.069
YUSUFALI: “Throw that which is in thy right hand: Quickly will it swallow up that which they have faked what they have faked is but a magician’s trick: and the magician thrives not, (no matter) where he goes.” (source)
Or the charges for sorcery show that he is no longer a Muslim, and so the punishment for apostasy is appropriate — the punishment for which is death according to the most authoritative Hadith the Sahih al-Bukhari:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’”
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Narrated ‘Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”
Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
Narrated ‘Abdullah:
Allah’s Apostle said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”
Hopefully we can bring more awareness so that international pressure builds against this kind of violent superstition.
Tags: islam, Saudi Arabia, sorcery
Posted in islam | 1 Comment »
Sam Harris Ted Talk
March 23rd, 2010
I think that this TED talk — posted yesterday — is worth watching and thinking and arguing about.
I don’t want to pre-influence your thoughts, so I’ll embed the video (be sure to watch through the end because he gets asked a few questions at the end) and I’ll make further comments after the video.
I’m really interested to hear your own thoughts on the video, so leave a comments. I looked at a number of comments on the atheism sub-reddit, and the comments went in a number of directions.
Some people thought that Sam was flat out wrong. Others thought it was an amazing speech. Some thought that his arguments were addressed and dismissed by Hume hundreds of years ago.
My thoughts: To begin, I thought that every aspect of the delivery of the speech was amazing.
Second, I am a moral realist — in the sense that I think there exist moral facts. (I am aware that this puts me at odds with many of my fellow atheists). As such, I think I agree with the majority of Sam’s talk, although I’m not 100% sure on the specifics of what he means by human flourishing.
I think in almost all of the broad strokes, I’m sure we’d agree on what leads to human flourishing, but it gets trickier when you start saying things like brain states…
One interesting thing to me is that I often use analogies of nutrition to demonstrate a range of points in my day-to-day conversational atheism arguments.
I really liked the line about the Taliban’s ignorance on physics — and how their ignorance of human wellbeing being equally obvious.
Finally, did Sam have to use string theory? I think he should have picked something like General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics… string theory… ::eye roll::
Tags: Sam Harris, TED talks
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
Project Reason Video Contest
March 15th, 2010
Project Reason (Formerly The Reason Project) — a very Fight Club name — had a video contest which requested submissions. I entered the contest myself, but did not make the final cut (deservedly so — there are some really good finalists).
The goals of Project Reason: “…to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.”
The Video Contest submission: “We invite you to help us further our work by submitting a short video that conveys the message of the foundation.”
I’ve embedded a few of my favorite finalists in this entry but you should view them all and vote for the one you think should win by going here.
The Values We All Stand For
Imagine
The Fairy Scientist
The Fairy Scientist? Could you get any more adorable? No, I don’t think you can.
Again, check out the Project Reason Video Contest page watch the rest and then vote for your favorite!
Tags: Project Reason, YouTube
Posted in Project Reason | No Comments »
Conversational Atheist creates a YouTube video
February 28th, 2010
I spent some quality time this weekend putting the finishing touches on my very first YouTube video as Conversational Atheist.
Check it out:
Supernatural guesses consistently fail — a conversation
As with my first ever web-comic, you can see the unbridled artistry of my sketches — so lifelike it’s almost uncanny. I do plan on having more videos in the future, so feel free to subscribe.
Let me know what you think. Thumbs up? Thumbs down?
Tags: picasso, videos
Posted in videos | 2 Comments »
On math, chess and God
February 14th, 2010
I wrote a previous entry which was based off a comment I sent to a theologian that I’ve been chatting with. He responded to me here.
Theologian RD says: Mathematics maps onto the world but our intuition of which mathematics maps on is not infallible. The problem is with Conversational Atheist’s apparent view that mathematics does not map onto the world at all. That’s the view that needs defending.
Whether mathematics maps onto the world is a very interesting question. Of the infinite number of mathematical models that are able to be constructed, a few map onto the world in very useful ways. If you come up with a mathematical model, the question immediately becomes: DOES your abstract mathematical model map onto the world?
Re-read a section from the comment that prompted this entry:
Conversational Atheist says: However, Einstein, placed in a box before the first experiments in quantum mechanics were done, would never end up CONCLUDING Quantum Mechanics. He might, given infinite time, detail hundreds of thousands of possible physics on small scales [mathematical models] that includes our modern conception of QM, but he would be in no position to choose one from the others with any confidence at all. He might even pick what he thinks is the most beautiful physics at small scales, but what counts is not beauty or arguments, per se, but whether his physics [mathematical model] matches reality. — Emphasis and [mathematical note] added
What counts is whether your mathematical model matches reality. That’s the $64,000,000 question for a physicist. Long ago a person could have come up with the mathematical framework of modern day quantum mechanics by doing math. Lots of math. Now, that person hasn’t done PHYSICS unless he is either consulting data others have taken, or going out and doing experiments himself.
To answer some of your questions raised in the entry itself:
RD: How do we gain knowledge of this realm? That appears very mysterious, indeed somewhat revelatory.
Are you equally perplexed by how we gain knowledge of chess? It doesn’t seem very mysterious to me. We consider the relationships and interactions between entities in chess-space. Are these relationships, rules, interactions all contained in a self-consistent chess-realm similar to the relationships, rules, and interactions in the self-consistent mathematical-realm? Yes. Does this mean that there is a supernatural chess-realm, mathematical-realm, tic-tac-toe-realm, and scrabble-realm? Um… only in the most abused sense of the word “supernatural”. The chess-realm does not exist in any physical way.
Is the pawn, real? Well, you can hold a wooden piece in your hand that people call “pawn”, but then you should realize that you are just holding a representation of a pawn. Does this upset anyone? It shouldn’t.
Is 7 real? Well, you can hold 7 apples in a bag and call it “seven”, but then you should realize that you are just holding a representation of a number. Does this upset anyone? Apparently, yes.
RD: Second, what is the ontological status of this realm?
I’d say that mathematics has the same ontological status as the game of chess.
RD: And if you accept the existence of abstract numbers and their relations which are irreducible to and independent of the physical world, what about other entities like souls, spirit beings, and God? What rational reason does Conversational Atheist have to believe the supernatural realm, like the natural realm, does not far transcend his limited experiences?
If a pawn is irreducible to and independent of the physical world, what about other abstract entities like souls, spirit beings, and God? — Sure. I’d say they have the same status as “real pawns”. Could there be a supernatural pawn out in the “vast supernature of things that I don’t fully comprehend”?
Sure. He might be playing Chinese Checkers with God and the Easter bunny.
But seriously, considerations in the fully abstract might have something to do with external reality — but you have to actually check to have any confidence that your favorite abstract reasoning maps onto external reality in a useful way.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=48f43f2a-1a53-4bca-a653-f33e473ef3b4)
Tags: Philosophy, Philosophy of science, Physics
Posted in Philosophy, Religious Interaction, Theology | No Comments »
Atheism and our inhuman nature
February 10th, 2010
I wrote up a response to a rather lame article that I read on BeliefNet: Atheism and our inhuman nature, and I wanted to post the ideas here.
The article criticizes the “New Atheists” because they present a Utopian view of humanity and its future.
My response:
I have read all of the popular “New Atheist” books. I’m not sure where you get this idea that they have a Utopian view of humanity’s future. Perhaps you could provide a quote to give me some idea what you’re referencing.
Each of the New Atheists points out that believing claims without evidence, believing you have the One True Magic Book from the Creator, eschewing rational thought in general, and welcoming the end of the world as a glorious future to look forward to — these are definitely bad ideas. And, as nasty as human nature is already, aren’t helping pull us from any potential dangerous brink.
Think of it this way. A doctor might say, “Hey, don’t get hundreds of chest xrays for fun — it’s a dumb idea and you’ll probably end up getting cancer…” A critic who writes for beliefnet might ask whether this doctor thinks he has cured cancer! No, he doesn’t. But he has helped identify a rather dangerous way to live.
People are nasty creatures? Ok, I’ll bite. How does promoting superstition help address that? Starting with the Old Testament, First Samuel 15 has God ordering His followers to kill every man, woman, child and infant of a neighboring tribe with swords.
Moving on to the New Testament. Jesus says love your enemies — an easy thing to say. What actions back up those words? Well, consider that I’m an atheist, and an enemy of superstition in general. How will Jesus treat me as his enemy? By throwing me in a lake of fire to burn in torment for eternity… Sure, humans might be nasty creatures — but wow, can you come up with a nastier human than that?
——————————
Comments?
Technorati tag: P66R3FMZBWGR
Posted in Religious Interaction, Theology | 2 Comments »
