In his important book “the selfish gene” introduces the British evolutionary biologist R. Dawkins the concept of various evolutionary-stable strategies ESS which different organisms adopt to cope with their environment, or with competing species. To give an example, certain members of an animal group, might elect to engage in dovish behavior, which might become the preferred conduct of the whole group (conspiracy of doves) until a member or two of the herd begins employing a contrarian hawkish mentality that allows him or her to gain on the expense of the peaceful doves. If such hawkishness is suddenly embraced by more members of the group, it leads to much bloodshed due to war between the hawks, unless they agree amongst themselves to a truce (conspiracy of hawks) in which they only flex their muscles against peaceful doves, and agree to divide the booty. Such competing strategies ebb and flow in the evolutionary mix, until they reach a point of equilibrium, reminiscent with that of a chemical reaction between reactants and products. Should a less than successful ESS appear in the m
So long as humans will fear death, religion will remain a powerful social institution. It quenches the angst born of the knowledge of one’s fate, provides him with a prescribed way of carrying out his day to day living, and grants him an everlasting life in the hereafter. Now tell me, who would turn his nose on all of this, and choose to stay an atheist. Bottom-line: except for very the very few rational individuals for whom intellectual dishonesty is worse than hopeless life, the great majority of mankind did, do, and will always embrace one religion or another.
The question begging an answer is what then should those intellectuals among us-like you for instance- do about that? Well to start, you wouldn’t want to attack religious founders point blank, leaving no stone unturned to come up with smear material, that would tarnish their reputation, and cast them as bloodthirsty, sexual perverts, for if you did, you loose every hope in reaching the hearts and minds of your audience who will get defensive right away, and also you would be intellectually dishonest comparing conduc
It’s clear from the above comments that two schools of thought exist, as far as handling religious criticism goes. The first engages in ad-hominem attacks on the founder, stopping no short of outright slander, and making no distinction between past events, which shouldn’t be taken out of their historic context, and modern standards, which weren’t known to mankind in those days. The second resorts to philological, archeological, and historic examination of foundation period, pointing at unmistakable contradictions, discrepancies, or absence of records, making every possible attempt to respect the tradition itself, while simultaneously attempting to divest it from the sacrosanct aura in which it was long enshrined, and bring it into the mundane realm.
Unless you are out to exact personal vengeance against that religion, either because your own faith has been out-competed by it, or because of some irreparable harm that personally befell you on the hands of its followers, I see no point in adopting the first path: it alienates the very people you set out to guide, and create an i
Thank you for tipping us with the name of Hans-Ulrich Niemitz; I did a web search myself, and found the article for those of your readers who may be interested: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/Niemitz-1997.pdf
As for your blog, I think it has a bunch of excellent uploaded texts-which will destroy the eyesight of crazy readers like me who read them on screen instead of printing them first-as well as some very interesting articles. One particularly interesting one that contradicts the above-mentioned Luxenberg thesis is the one concerning Sicily or was it Malta? If I recall correctly, archeologists found a pre-islamic Arabic engraved tombstone for the king’s mother. The language is intelligible today, which contradicts the notion of an oral, unintelligible, Aramaic-filled Arabic in those days.
According to Luxenberg’s thesis, the Syrian proselytizers of the seventh century ventured into Arabia, mixed with Bedouins, and left a body of sermons, teachings and writings, that was an amalgamation of their Aramaic tongue (lingua franca of the area at the time,) and the different local Arabic dialects; this medley-the Quran-must have been understood by the indigenous people for whom it was intended, otherwise it looses its intrinsic purpose. The question becomes: why did the locals’ nascent Arabic language evolve along a different trajectory, and became unintelligible to the point that after few decades, the Quranic text seemed rife with alien expressions that required much strained interpretation? Put another way, why doesn’t the science of linguistics show the stepwise evolution from the prototypical language of the Quran-with its Aramaic origin-into the latter documented Fusha Arabic? Also, what role does Muhammad as a figure play into all of this? Was he one of the Syrian proselytizers, a latter-day compiler of their work, or an altogether fictitious personality? And finally,
The author clearly means liberalism, as is commonly referred to in the Arab world, which calls for laissez faire economics, total elimination of the welfare state, and a quasi-fascist oligarchic system, which provides for exchange of power, freedom of speech, etc only among the ruling junta, while denying those very rights to the rest. It roughly corresponds to neo-conservatism in the U.S, Tories in the U.K, and, finds its theoretical basis in the writings of Leo Strauss. Of course he doesn’t mean Liberalism in the U.S sense of expanding the welfare state, increasing the reach of civil rights and liberties, as well as curbing the excesses of big businesses via increasing taxation, and regulation. This “American” version of liberalism finds its representation in the Old British labor party, as well as the left wing of the U.S democratic party which happens to currently occupy the white house. He doesn’t mean the social libertarians (the anarchists) either, who were never called liberals, so while I understand your passion about their cause (which I share with you), I think the author
Wikepedia definition: -Paranoid personality disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis characterized by paranoia and a pervasive, long-standing suspiciousness and generalized mistrust of others this disorder is characterized by a pervasive distrust and suspicion of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:
Suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her Is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates Is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her Reads benign remarks or events as threatening or demeaning. Persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights Perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack Has recurrent suspici
Three major features of Heggi’s writings stand out: Firstly, He seems to confuse business acumen with intellectual prowess. I’m yet to stumble upon an article of his that isn’t littered with copious references to international conferences he attended, eminent personalities he met, or managerial breakthroughs he mustered. All is laudable, and admirable, but is no substitute for intellectual soundness. After all, Nietzsche’s or Diogenes worldly failure didn’t detract from their genius, and Marcus Aurelius never tried to promote his stoic philosophy on accounts of being an emperor.
Secondly, he seems to confuse encyclopedic knowledge with penetrating insight. History is rife with bookworms of every kind; dare I say that I can point to at least two dozen such authors of this site whose love for knowledge, and fondness of erudition have endowed them with impressive intellect? Yet, again well-rounded intellectuality doesn’t an original theoretician make. While, Mr.Nemary general knowledge, as well as special mastery of communism history is manifest, he never claimed original cont
(9) الاسم و موضوع
التعليق
A Reader Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding……
Once upon a time a big fight broke between two men; the first named Ali, and the other named Muawia. Two wise men-one of each camp- seeing the futility of war, decided to set down together and work things out. In private, they agreed to remove their respective leaders from the helm, and let people decide who rules, but when they went public, the fool representing Ali, theatrically removed his ring proclaiming “I thus take out my companion” while the miscreant standing for Muawia further affixed his ring announcing “I thus install my companion”
Moral of the story?
We authors and readers of this cyber joint are by definition atheists, agnostics, or secularists. Each of us walked his or her own path, but by and large arrived at the same destination of tolerance, non-violence, as well as rejection of dogma. Those of us who were raised as devout Muslims didn’t directly know of their religion’s shortcomings, except through polemics of western (formerly Christian) philosophers. Only through Nietzsche’s denunciation of the church, were we able to see sins of the mosque; only th
It has been suggested that the internet has inflicted attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) on all of us to one degree or another. The constant movement and the very quick skimming of WebPages needed to get the gist of a topic before moving to another-while broadening our knowledge base- negatively affects the depth of our comprehension. Many times I catch myself re-reading a paragraph that I failed to understand firsthand because of my very quick skimming; I used to think I was becoming dumber (which I’m sure is partially correct anyway!), but mostly it’s due to my lack of concentration born of the aforementioned “fast food” reading style. To remedy this, I started subscribing to magazines with longer pieces (The Atlantic) and gave up on the general interest ones with shorter articles (times, Newsweek. etc) it’s the age-old question: Breadth, or depth? General encyclopedic knowledge or specialized mastery? Intensity or capacity? Remember, that if major musical, literary bards have had the panoramic view we now possess, they wouldn’t have produced their masterpieces, and if
But why all that twisted logic? If the good doctor would only follow the parsimony principle, calling for the least complex explanation for an observation, he would do us poor readers much service. Instead of having the younger merchant Muhammad paradoxically veer from traditional trade route to the Levant into the uninhabited Sinai desert, engage in daring exploratory feats reminiscent of Christopher Columbus, where he meets with Monks at the monastery for a little respite, continue his boy scout activity southward to the tip of the peninsula, not failing to observe the wonderful sight of the beach there, return back to Mecca, and start his prophetic career, flee to Medina and dwell there for another ten years, then towards the end of his life (long after this verse was authored by the way) he remembers the hospitality of the nice monks in Sinai, so he fires an Email message, granting them safety from future Muslim invasions, which he –as an imposter- have no way knowing whether they will take place or not. Give me a break!
Apart from the few revisionists (Wansborough, Crone, et al) who popularized a later start date of Islam, and whose views has largely now been discredited by mainstream historians, Muslim version of events stands as the working hypothesis by most researchers in the field until proven otherwise. Accordingly, the prevailing opinion is that Muhammad was born in 570 AD, engaged in mercantile trips until around 610 where he started his prophetic career, stayed in Mecca until approximately 622, fled to Medina, and stayed there until his death in 632. Now the Actiname is claimed to have been signed by him in 623, which is a year after his immigration to Medina; how on earth could he have managed to do that? With some hallucinations, I can be led to believe that prior to his prophetic claim (before 610) and during his travels to the Levant, he took a detour to Sinai (plausible though hard to believe), but then again he was just a merchant, and had no temporal or spiritual authority to have written that document then. The only other possibility is that he wrote it much later on, after his reig
You seem to use the Bible as a valid reference to assess Quranic stories, and determine whether they’re true or false. A Muslim could easily debunk your rationale by saying that the differences are clear evidences that Quran was directly revealed to Muhammad from God, wasn’t derived from the Bible, and is a stand-alone authority. Variations in the Biblical storyline (Quran in the devout Muslim opnion) are ascribed to the corruption and falsification of the Bible by miscreant rabbis and priests as Quran always maintained.
What makes you believe Father Justin when he claims he has that manuscript in Muhammad’s writing, and disbelieve Muslim sources when they talk of similar ancient purported letters from Muhammad to his contemporary world leaders? Why St. Catherine’s monastery hasn’t announced such important historic document before, and brought it out for scholarly scrutiny and examination? Most likely: it too is a forgery.
Albert Einstein once said: “A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest; a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive”
First off, the Egyptian state is hardly religious by any stretch of imagination; it’s an heir to Nasser’s regime, which oppressed Muslim fundamentalists, and took a clear secular nationalist stance; it’s a direct outgrowth of Sadat’s secular regime, which oppressed both leftists, as well as islamists, took an open door economic direction, held a peace treaty with Israel, and got assassinated by fundamentalists; It’s a regime that has imprisoned more islamists than both of it’s two predecessors combined, has continued to align the country with western policies, angering devout Muslims in the process, and have fought a staunch war against the spread of fundamentalism through its secular ministry of culture, as well as official information agency.
The spread of fundamentalism is a more complex phenomenon that has nothing to do with governmental sponsorship; if any thing, the current regime has tried its best to halt its progress, alas to no avail. Combination of worsening economic conditions, failed national policies, as well as lack of well-rounded education will inevitably turn
Are you equating genocide, mass murder, and ethnic cleansing with mere violation of civil rights, and denial of civil liberties? You started your article well, outlining the difference between individual crimes, and collective ones, but then you ended up putting harsh undemocratic rule in the same basket with crimes against humanity. There is no denying the transgressions of many Middle Eastern regimes, their autocratic rule, and lack of respect for civil liberties-of which you and your group have been victims-but so are most of governing juntas across the globe. Dare I say that under the ill-reputed Patriot act, the mighty U.S, with its beloved lady liberty, has descended many steps toward restriction of freedom, taping of phone conversation, interference with journalistic work, and illegal detention in GTMO? I understand how frustrated must be progressives and freedom-seekers across the Middle East, unable to make any significant breakthrough among the largely comatose masses on the one hand, or to peacefully petition change of their unjust governments on the other; but this is not
Many things could be said about Heikal, not the least of them is his tendency to selectively choose from documents what bolsters his argument, and suppress what doesn’t; yet there is no denial he resorts to accurate historical records, and presents unquestionable manuscripts to corroborate his theses. In other words you may discount his analyses, but you can’t fight the tape, if I may borrow the financial expression. As for quoting Israeli sources: I only see that as a further evidence of his integrity, objectivity, and unbiased spirit, which doesn’t stop him from looking for the pertinent information, even if it resided with the enemy.
Actually, I spoke too fast; I found and read the article you pointed out by Morris Aique in the archives, in which he lays out detailed thesis of what Bashir, and Puin/Bobb have written in their respective books. They present plausible, but not inescapable explanation for those early foundation centuries. In face of the inconspicuous absence of corroborating manuscripts dating to the period, and the scanty mention in external contemporary writings, it’s rather easy to discount the “accepted version of events” as merely salvation history, and use this line of thought to debunk fundamentalist Christian or Muslim arguments. It’s less easy, but very possible to couple the previous argument, with refutations of scriptural, ontological, or cosmological arguments to debunk faith altogether. Nevertheless, it’s very difficult-in my empiricist viewpoint-to use the scanty available evidence to construct alternative history; I admit it’s a great intellectual exercise, and a good mental gymnastic, but in the department of scientific inquiry, I’m afraid it still remains a minority opinion, awaitin
Thanks for the clarification about Puin; just on passing, I had a quick question about his findings, since I read recently in an apologetic website that he recanted his initial impressions, citing only “minor textual variations” upon further inspection of the manuscripts. As for the subject of major religious founder’s historicity, I submit that a strong scientific undercurrent calls into question Christ’s historicity since the days of Jesus seminary, but Mohamed? Wasn’t he supposed to have been born under “the full light of history?” as evidenced by contemporary hostile sources “Armenian chronicles etc” could you point us to references, or expound on what you presented as your conviction that all personalities prior to Abdul Malik Ibn Marawan are either composite characters or outright fictitious?
First, I would like to thank you for presenting us with Arabic translations for texts that would have otherwise not been accessible to most of us who aren’t very fluent in German. By the way, I think you would do us all a big favor if you translated Gerd Puin’s recent works about the Sanaa manuscripts, which piqued our interest, since their mention in “the Atlantic monthly” few years ago.
Back to today’s subject, this is an intriguing thesis, and I read elsewhere similar furtherance of same claim about many centuries at the juncture of antiquity and middle ages, for which doesn’t seem to be much corroborating evidence. However, to put things in perspective, I reckon you should explain to us where in the scholarship spectrum of views do these arguments lie? Are they main stream accepted current working hypothesis? Or are they in the minority opinion corner? Are they considered standard, or are they revisionist? You see, it’s difficult for me as an amateur to read an opinion that lies outside my area of expertise, and be able to make heads from tails about it.
In some previous articles, you beautifully outlined how the modern discoveries in evolutionary biology (especially neo-Darwinism,) and modern physics have left little credibility for monotheistic religions. The question becomes: how then can we explain the still widespread belief in those refuted faiths, and the answer is very simple; they provide easy-albeit inaccurate-answer to man’s primordial existential questions of why did we come to this world, where are we going after death, and how are we supposed to act in this life. In face of the insurmountable angst, born of lack of answer for this questions, majority of humans are willing to accept half-cooked, ill-conceived, and self contradicting theologies, that purport to provide peace, and quench burning anxiety. Corollary to the beliefs, are the legal codes, the social norms, and the ritual habits that anchor faith in the heart of believers, while simultaneously giving rise to all the ills you described. It’s ironic how out of legitimate, and understandable quest for soothing answers, destructive behavior is born. Only minority of
(23) الاسم و موضوع
التعليق
A Reader A parable for all victims to stand up to their tormenters
She shouldn’t complain of injustice, to which she needn’t have subjected herself; more often than not, it’s the passiveness, and indolence of the victim, that encourage aggression. At any rate, congratulations for her belated awakening, and may this story be a lesson for all oppressed (who needn’t be women) to rise against their oppressors (who aren’t all men).
Have you read sagan’s “The demon-haunted world; science as a candle in the darkness?” I think it comes close to approximating this new book’s main thesis of empiricism, skepticism, and insistence on debunking myth with inquiry.
What Mr.Qurait said was that there are often subtler reasons than just meets the eye for the success or failure of national regimes. Instead of just ascribing the breakthroughs achieved by South Korea to adopting representative democracy as a way of government, and attributing the failure of its southern counterpart to its Maoist regime, one should look carefully at the reasons leading western nations, and in the forefront of which the United States, have allowed-and often assisted- the unobstructed rise of democratic regimes in places where it suited its national security interest, while vehemently suppressed similar ones where they were thought to run contrary to the will of the west.
Many people think that the western destruction of Sadam, or Nasser has been rooted in the undemocratic nature of those regimes; unbeknownst to them is Mohamed Ali’s experiment in the eighteenth century, where the secular, westernized, and thoroughly capitalistic model he was trying to construct, didn’t differ much from the European regimes of his day. Instead of helping him bring Egypt-and for
الفيسبوك
التويتر
اليوتيوب
RSS
الانستغرام
لينكد إن
تيلكرام
بلوكر
الموبايل