Related posts:

1. The Story of Jackie
2. A Week of Practicing Drumming
3. The Downside To Shooting Your Lover

A new religious Fatwa holds some 600 pages of condemnation for suicide bombers and terrorists. But I put it to you: Imagine the effect a decree from the Pope would have on the Protestant majority….

A friend sent this my way this morning:

“Fatwa on Suicide Bombing and Terrorism” ( Summary, in PDF format)

The actual Fatwa (religious ruling) by Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri, a Sufi scholar from the UK, contains some 600 pages condemning terrorism and suicide bombing. I am skeptical of the impact this will have (if any), and question the reasoning behind trying to fight (hell)fire with (hell)fire.

Now, I feel that I’ll be treading on thin ice here… Because that terrorism and suicide bombing is morally reprehensible is something that no one can argue. And indeed I’m not going to, but while I’m not arguing for terrorism, I’ll be arguing against someone who is opposed to terrorism and suicide bombing. To be very clear and upfront about the content of the rest of this article I will briefly say that I am only arguing against the method of using a religious Fatwa to combat these reprehensible actions of the faithful.

But enough of the tiptoeing. Think back to your youth. Do you remember when the teacher would leave the room, leaving the teacher’s pet in charge? How effective was that authority? That’s how effective this Fatwa is likely to be. Argh.

They’ve been doing this stuff for awhile (decreeing, decrying, de…well, I can’t think of another D word. But you get the idea.). It’s not like this is the first time anyone has objected to terrorism. Nor even the first time there’s been a Fatwa against it. My curiosity is piqued by the fact that Muhammad Tahir ul-Quadri is a scholar of Sufism, however… Remembering that it was once a sufi who reformed Islam into the fundamentalist machine  it is now. (That Sufi being Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali, who effectively began the end of the Golden Age of Islam by leading the Islamic world away from the “Un-Islamic” teachings of Aristotle, and Plato, among others.)

So who knows, maybe this will trigger a sweeping change across the global Islamic community.

But I doubt it.

The Fatwa talks about what Islam is and isn’t. About this, he is flat out wrong. It can’t be said enough: His Islam may very well be as he describes in the Fatwa. But I’m afraid there are terrorists and nasty people going bump in the night, who are Islamic, and who are practicing Islam correctly. As correctly as Muhammad Tahir ul-Quadri is practicing his Islam.

How do I know? Because all forms of Islam are equally correct. Religion is not based on anything measurable in the “real” world, which unfortunately means that there is no way to tell if someone is or isn’t practicing their religion correctly without intervention from outside the “greater than real” world, in the form of Allah. He even said so himself. (42:10)

There is just no way to judge the “correctness” of a religion (Otherwise surely everyone in the world would have converted to the right one by now.), so issuing statements about what is or isn’t correct in religion doesn’t carry a lot of weight unless you’re preaching to the choir, reinforcing the already held beliefs of like-minded people. Imagine the effect a decree from the Pope would have on the Protestant majority. I’m afraid that in this regard, the terrorist community (while by name and number still identified as Islamic), are at least as different from the Islam of Dr. Qadri and other moderates as Protestants are from Catholics.

There is just no way to stop people from drawing (indisputably correct) justifications for whatever they want out of a book that starts with the premise “Everything I say is true” and then goes on to make a million different statements, and conflicting statements about the same things. It’s like the riddle in which one guard always tells the truth, and the other guard always tells a lie. Except that the Qu’ran is both guards at the same time.

The Qu’ran abrogation gimmick doesn’t help you find moral footing either, because the nice bits in the Qu’ran, verses like: “The man who kills another man is a dick, because killing one man is like killing all mankind” Qu’ran 5:32. (Ed: I paraphrased.) are followed by other verses that say:  “He who rejects Allah will be killed, crucified, his hands and feet will be cut off, he will be thrown from his home and spend eternity in Hell”. Qu’ran 5:33

And when read in context and as a whole, instead of quote mining and plucking the nice pieces out of verses, the Qu’ran does seem to imply that it’s only Muslims you’re supposed to be visiting all this charity on. And of course, as everyone who knows me is well aware by now, it is my opinion that in the context of the Qu’ran this behavior is because Islam is “right”, And the people who aren’t following it are “wrong”.

This is a much bigger concept that most people understand. This means not only is it the nonbelievers’ “fault” that they are following the “wrong” religion, but that they are at fault for it. (5:45 – wait, why am I quoting verses to support this? I’ll be here all day!)

Their fault is considered an action by which they bring their own punishment upon themselves (45:7-8, 45:31, a couple examples out of many). It provides part of the moral backing in punishing non-believers throughout the Qu’ran. The Qu’ran explicitly states these things, it also tells that Allah has clouded the minds of nonbelievers such that they CAN’T ever be moved to the truth of submission to Allah (See footnote #1), and nonbelievers are a threat to Islam by virtue of merely existing (See footnote #2), to say nothing of the hundreds upon hundreds of verses describing the evil of nonbelievers, and the fiery dooms and punishments they will receive, and that as a threat they can be fought with the support of Allah. (Which I need not support through verse – if you open a Qu’ran to any chapter the chances are good you’ll find something that can morally support fighting the nonbelievers.)

That’s what really gets me, the… “truce” of Islam. Moderates who modify their religion to fit the modern world annoy me, but those who continue to believe all the fundamental aspects of a religion (and this applies to every faith, but Islam in particular) and have this… air about them, as if they would say: “Yes, I believe in the righteousness of Allah and that in his glory all the nonbelievers will be hunted and killed to please him, and I believe that all the intolerance is morally justified and that you and your life and your family are living a sinful lie… But lets call a truce for now. I need to go to work, go to the store, have friends, do business, and these beliefs make it difficult to get along with other people sometimes. So a truce, for the period of my lifetime, so that I can get along better. Oh, but I still believe all of this stuff! The rules are just…suspended for awhile.”.

Which I’m sad to say is how a lot of people behave. (See 58:22, 86:17 for interesting parallels)

The Qu’ran was written by people with no special knowledge. They may have been smart and talented and very special people, but they wrote for the time and place in which they lived, and we shouldn’t be treating what they wrote as infallible authority on the unchanging nature of life.
Furthermore I get the feeling that parts of the Qu’ran are simply laundry lists of subjective judgments and rulings, with some implied idea of specific situations in which to use them. The danger, like any scripture believed to be infallible, is in the implications.

But I digress…

What good is a religious Fatwa against terrorism? Well, I suppose it will reinforce the beliefs of those who already agree with it. Beyond that… the only thing you could hope for is indoctrination. That this Fatwa would be forcibly taught to children, like religion so often is, in the hopes that they would grow up believing what you want them to believe. The goal makes sense in some way, but I just…can’t wrap my head around the means by which the religious want to get there. Going through the Qu’ran and highlighting all the parts that are friendly and agreeable to our morals does not remove the disagreeable parts from the body of the verse. To believe the cure for “bad” religion is more religion is to make a ludicrous example of fighting fire with fire.

Sigh.

Footnotes:

#1: (2:6, 2:17-18, 4:88, 5:41, 5:67, 6:110, 9:37, 18:57, 17:45-46, 30:59, 36:8-10, 40:74,  52:42, 63:3)

#2: (3:28, 3:118,  3:149, 4:144, 5:12-13, 5:51, 5:63, 8:22,  8:73, 9:7-9, 9:28, 9:107, 9:125, 16:39, 24:55,  26:224, 43:37-39, 47:25-26, 53:29, 58:14-15, 60:1, 68:8-9, 80:40-42)

Related posts:

1. Qu’ran 2:256 – “There is No Compulsion in Religion”. Really?
2. Apologist Tariq Ramadan
3. Islamophobia: Repression on Both Fronts

I woke from a disturbing dream last night, and it was so unnerving I had to write it down.

Related posts:

1. Flyer Time
2. The Story of Jackie
3. R.I.P Picklemonkey

Had an awesomely fun 5 hour jam session today with Colin and Conrad, here’s some highlights.

Related posts:

1. Jamma-lamma Ding Dong
2. A Week of Practicing Drumming
3. Colin

Playing some more drums, recorded to see my progress. I played the crappy guitar riff separately, because I haven’t figured out how to play guitar with my nose yet.

Related posts:

1. Damien Plays the Drums
2. A Song a Week
3. Invitation to the Punkin Festival

I wanted to try my hand at calligraphy so I went looking for a fountain pen or dip pen to experiment with, and ended up finding Pilots’ crazy Parallel Pens – pens without a funny nib composed of two thin metal plates. It’s very different from dip pens and fountain pens. You can write with the edge for calligraphy, or turn it on it’s side and write with the corner for a constant narrow width. I’m sure I sound like a huge nerd, but these are some damn cool pens!

Related posts:

1. Kids These Days
2. Custom Painted Bumblebee
3. Cool!!

Yes, yes, there are pages full of inconsistencies in the Qu’ran listed elsewhere on the internet. That’s all fine and dandy, but this is my dusty corner of the internet and I have a penchant for writing down anything that may come in handy as ammunition during some future debate.

Writing things down and “Discovering” things on my own helps me to remember them. (And fills up notebooks, so that when I die my family will find me collapsed in a den walled floor-to-ceiling with bookcases full of “Crazy Old Man” notebooks. It’s good to have a goal in life.)

So..today on my nitpicking list is what is almost universally the first passage quoted to support Islam as a meek and mild religion of tolerance and understanding: 2:256. Here it is from the good old Skeptics Annotated‘:

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

You can find different translations of it here and here, if you want to read it for yourself. (Which I always recommend doing)

This verse is usually enough to appease the curiosity of those with no real desire to look below the surface. Read into it with any depth and you find subtle underpinnings, but I won’t get into contextual interpretation and that whole bag of arguments-to-be, because I’m immediately going to jump to the following verse, 2:257,

2:257 Allah is the Protecting Guardian of those who believe. He bringeth them out of darkness into light. As for those who disbelieve, their patrons are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness. Such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein.

This verse is alternately translated as referring to “Fire” or “Hell” in different Qu’rans, but either way the message is pretty clear. So it’s true that there is no compulsion to embrace Islam, insofar as everyone has the freedom to choose to be the “companions of Fire, they will abide therein eternally” (2:39). Tough choice.

What it’s really saying is that you’re free to be wrong, or to lie. Islam is correct, and is the obvious path for all who are good and honest. Everyone who does not follow it, and chooses instead to follow a different path is both wrong, and lying, because the truth is in Islam. Take a minute to think about that last part: They’re lying. (2:10)Why? Because the truth is Islam. The sheer infantile mentality of that argument is mind boggling. *(See the footnote for a further comment about this)

And of course if the Hellfire and damnation wasn’t enough, choosing to be a nonbeliever (as is everyone’s inalienable human right, so sayeth Allah!) also makes you vulnerable to every Allah-sanctioned punishment and cruelty that is morally permissible or religiously mandated to be visited upon you by Allah’s chosen. The Qu’ran makes it morally ok to kill nonbelievers (2:191, and countless other passages), unless they realize the truth and convert to Islam, then you may let them live (2:192). As long as they choose to follow the one correct path (of Islam), the Qu’ran is pretty lenient on nonbelievers. Oh wait, no it’s not, I meant to say it’s lenient on converts. My mistake. Just don’t try to convert them yourselves, for you will never find for them a path to guidance (4:88), and they would seek to corrupt you, yourself (4:89).  Nonbelievers must be killed until all religion and worship is that of Islam. (2:193)

Right about now is when the defenders of the meek and mild Islam attack me for quoting the earlier parts of the Qu’ran – as we all know, the Qu’ran has a system whereby later verses correct or reinterpret earlier verses. Allah, however, maintains a pretty stable position on the matter of nonbelievers. We tend to abide in Hell (98:6) and suffer the greatest punishment (88:23-24)no matter what part of the Qu’ran you start reading from.

Footnote:

I can’t help but be reminded of an experiment in developmental psychology performed with children of different age groups, in which the subject is told a scenario like this:

There are two empty boxes on a table. A man puts $5 into the box on the right side of the table. He then leaves the room, and another man comes in. The second man opens the box with the money, and he removes the $5 and puts it into the box on the left side of the table. The second man leaves the room, and the first man comes back in. What box do you think he will open if he wants to get his $5?

This scenario demonstrates mental development in children – young children will answer that the man will open the left box. Why? Because that’s where the money is. They cannot conceptualize the other man as having knowledge separate from their own, subjective truth escapes them during this stage of development. Older children with higher reasoning and cognitive abilities who comprehend the subjective truth of the man (that the $5 is in the box on the right, because that’s where he put it and he has no reason to think it had been moved) and answer that the man would look in the box he had put the money in.

But to the young child, that the $5 is in the left box is universally true. There is no qualifier, it’s not subjectively true for the child, it’s just true. It seems to me that the Qu’ran lacks the same comprehension of subjective reality that a child does. Islam is of the mindset that it is universally true, and anyone who disagrees is lying. Why? Because it’s just true.

Related posts:

1. Fatwa Against Suicide Bombing and Terrorism
2. On: Reducing arguments against Religion to arguments against an Individual
3. Religion: Ad Hominem

This article is meant for people who are perhaps new to atheism, and feel the need to contribute, to do something with it. But what do you do if you’re a new atheist? Write something? Make pro-atheism Youtube videos? Find people to debate with?

Here’s some advice for aspiring new atheists…

#1. Don’t be a Dogmatic Atheist

Atheism is not a belief system, but you’d never know it from observing the average discussion topics on Atheist forums across the internet. People who let go of their faith often tend to reflexively latch on to “Atheist dogma” (Which exists, and you’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise) as something to hold on to during the dizzying period of self awakening and reeducation that follows the paradigm shift of accepting atheism. The trouble comes when people hold on too long, and effectively halt their education. You can only use training wheels for so long before they stop helping you learn and start hindering your development.

When people learn a new language, the first step is always translating it back into their own language. If you’re learning Japanese, you might translate “Kore wa” into its English equivalent of “That is”, but “Kore wa” is not “That is”. They’re different. Your brain just isn’t capable of making a radical leap from one concept to another without the stepping stone of translation to skip off of. Likewise, when people are newly atheists they have an understandable drive to translate this new belief into the structure of their previous belief, and one of the first things they do is look for a community in which to preach and bolster support for themselves and enhance their integration into the community. Superficially, this behavior sounds like it might be a good thing… But in reality these groups remind me of children in a treehouse, with a poorly painted sign out front reading “Atheist’s Club – No Theists Allowed!“.

It makes sense that the easiest to find places for a new Non-Believer are likely to become a stewing place of other similarly fresh faced, amateur Atheists; These groups will often be full of both the seeds and the chaff. This doesn’t mean you need to avoid these places, just… Keep that in mind on your travels, and be wary of people who would seek to put the training wheels back on for you.

Atheist Bus Campaign - Toronto

#2. Becoming an Atheist is The Beginning of the Journey, Not the End

People can feel pressure or stress when confronting their lack of belief, and when they finally admit it to themselves or others, they feel the relief of having accepted their fate. (For lack of a better word)

Having resigned themselves to their immediate future, they no longer have to worry and fret about what might or might not happen with family and friends, but can concentrate on dealing with what has happened, and this can cause a bizarre sort of elation. But for some people, this is as far as their sense of self and philosophical development gets. Sometimes when the natural high of “coming out” wears off, people try to rekindle it by becoming little proselytizing activists, and trying to convince other people to “come out”, completely sidetracking their own further philosophical development in the process.

“Coming out” can be a necessary stage in your personal development. Just don’t become a “coming out” junkie. It often takes so much time and effort and thought to reach the point at which you are ready and able to coalesce your ideas into a solid set of philosophical beliefs and sense of self and “Come out”; It can feel like the largest personal accomplishment you’ve ever undertaken – but chances are good that if you keep learning, your beliefs will continue to change and morph, and 10 years from now you will be as different from the you that “came out”, as that you was once different from the you that was in the “closet”. This slow growth just wont be associated with the same massive emotional buildup and release like “coming out” is. But as you will no doubt observe in your travels, people who pursue only the emotional thrill ride are often found to be philosophically stagnant.

Atheist Bus Campaign - Germany

#3. Don’t Write A Book.

This one is pretty self explanatory. Don’t write a book. Just don’t. Not right now, at least. It seems like everyone is working on a book these days. I don’t know if it’s just the in-thing to say lately, that you’re writing a book, or if it’s that as a cultural group, atheists just tend to want to talk about it a lot. (The great thing about making a statement like that is that anyone who disagrees isn’t likely to tell me about it)

The bulk of these book projects are typically autobiographical accounts of their “coming out”. Memoirs randomly interspersed with the arguments for science and reason that were personally influential in their own paradigm shift, usually arguments which have been presented elsewhere by more qualified people, but arguments with which the author has become emotionally attached and feels the need to share once more.

The point is, new Atheists all seem to have a story to tell, but not all of them are at the point at which they should be writing books. Leave it to the literary authorities for awhile, while you get your bearings in the world and learn and explore some more. There is an axiom I’ve learned from photography, but it applies to all art – writing, painting, everything. It is this: Every artistic endeavor undertaken will look as divorced from itself by the light of day as it did from the empty canvas at night.

What does this poor attempt at profundity mean? It means that it takes time and skill to know what’s worth publishing and what isn’t, and most people can’t differentiate between the two without significant experience. This thought is not to be scoffed at, it is for this very reason even the greats of art and literature submit themselves to editing and criticism before publishing anything. (Barring the occasional weirdo, or “eccentric”, as they come to be called once fortune smiles on them)

But by all means, keep a diary. Write down every idea and article you think of. While most of it will be versions of concepts still fresh in the akashic memory of literature and politics, you might just have some good ideas to rediscover later in your development, when you are in the right position to write something of note.

Atheist Bus Campaign - New York City

#4. Be a scholar

A lot of ex-Christians have a reasonable parable quotation library in their noggin already. But when you enter into debates and conversations, you quickly realize that Pop Theology doesn’t cut it. Go buy some books. If you haven’t read any, start with the Four Horsemen (Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, Seth Green Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens) and Bart Ehrman. Read them all, not just the NYTimes bestsellers. Buy all the books referenced in the ones you read. Start learning science and philosophy alongside religion. Keep notes. Trust me,  the effort will be worth it and so much more the first time you’re having a discussion/argument with someone, armed with your new found scholarly book’learnin.

In the world of debating, some people are “New Money“. They have some points to make and some names to drop, but there’s something… hollow, about it all. New Money spend their treasure early and then spend the rest of the debate trying to get some of it back. Don’t be verse-thumping, name-dropping New Money. Be unflappable Old Money. Have a rock solid foundation, and don’t function by the collection of opinions and ideas but by the creation of your own.

One downside to this path of theological autodidacticism is that you’ll have to resign yourself to never being able to casually discuss religion again without referencing dry, old volumes of journals and books. But such is the price you pay for knowledge, and at least you’ll be granted the right to wear tweed coats with leather patches on the elbows without looking pretentious.

Atheist Bus Campaign - London Subway

#5. Don’t Be an Atheist (Be a Post-Atheist)

So often is the atheist movement contrasted with the gay rights movement that it has become a matter of course. Unfortunately, people tend to stick to the early roots of the gay rights movement and stop the metaphor there, ignoring the progression the gay rights movement has made and what advice we might gleam from it. Which is somewhat to be expected I suppose, given that most people feel the atheist movement is in the infancy of it’s civil liberties.

There is an energetic rush in our subculture to declare yourself an atheist and run through the streets proudly waving flags and banners, and that behavior is indeed needed for to accomplish some things. There was a time when gay people felt the need to spontaneously announce their sexuality to friends, coworkers, and anyone who would listen, and at that time, in that place it was necessary. But attitudes have changed in many places (although not far enough in my opinion, but lets not digress) and the need to publicly “come out” has dwindled to the point where people who do come out can engender remarks such as “So what?” and “Well, look who’s an attention whore.”. Why? Well, to put it bluntly, generally it’s because nobody really  cares, and also because it doesn’t mean the same things it used to.

If you talk to gay people about “coming out” today, you’re likely to hear responses like “Why do I need to “come out”? Straight people don’t need to come out.” and “My personal life is nobody’s business.”. I worry that as a whole, atheists aren’t going to notice when there isn’t a closet left to come out of. To most people, the term “Atheist” is synonymous with this coming-out, proclaiming-and-declaring type of behavior. Which is fine, when and where it’s needed. I am not objecting to the Out Campaign or the Atheist Bus Campaign. (Especially not the bus campaign, because the mastermind behind it is a total hottie.)

But don’t fall into the trap of thinking that these activities are what atheism is, that atheism is founded on bake-sales and activism. There are always stubborn people left in the waning years of civil rights who think the fight still needs to be fought, because for them, the fight was their cause. When we reach that stage (and I believe we will, in time), don’t be an outdated throwback of the “New Atheist Movement“, inventing new closets to come out of. Before we see a post-religious world, I think we’ll necessarily need to see a post-“Atheist” world – a world in which atheism is not considered alternative but a subset of mainstream. If you are new to atheism, you’re going to be one of the ones creating this world, and it’s important to think about what end result you want to accomplish. Don’t confuse the fight with the cause.

If you have any questions, comments, or opinions, feel free to voice them in the comment section below. I encourage polite debate, unlike some websites who delete comments they don’t agree with. *cough*sissies*cough*

Related posts:

1. Atheist Motivational Posters and Cartoons
2. Hitler Was Catholic. Hitler Was Not an Atheist. Can We Move On Now?
3. More Atheist Motivational Posters

I wanted to record myself on drums, then record myself playing guitar…but the video got kind of fuxxored. :/

Related posts:

1. A Week of Practicing Drumming
2. A Song a Week
3. Happy Birthday Me!

A short debate between Muslim Apologist Tariq Ramadan (you  can see what I think of him here), and all around Superwoman Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Related posts:

1. Apologist Tariq Ramadan
2. Islamophobia: Repression on Both Fronts
3. Atheist Motivational Posters and Cartoons