imra-usa.org

In my article The Myth That Islam Encourages Scientific Inquiry I noted how ridiculous it is that so many Muslims believe (with delusional fervor) that Islam encourages scientific and intellectual inquiry despite the glaring paucity of Muslim achievements in any field of science.

In response to that article, a delusional Muslim left this comment: “this website make u cry and convert to islam: Miracles of the Qur’an.”

So I visited that website and sure enough, I did make me cry – with laughter.

Here is one example in the section called Mathematical Miracles of the Qur’an

HALLEY’S COMET AND 76 YEARS

One of the greatest developments in modern astronomy is the discovery of Halley’s Comet. The 18th-century scientist Edmund Halley discovered that the comet comes around every 76 years. With that discovery, Halley established that comets have astronomical orbits.

The name “Halley” by which the comet is known, appears in a most striking way in verse 76 of Surat al-An’am in the Qur’an:

When night covered him he saw a star and said, ‘This is my Lord!’ Then when it set he said, “I do not love what sets.” (Sura An’am, 76)

The letters that make up the word “Halley” appear for the first time in the Qur’an in this verse. Furthermore, the reference to a “setting” star is highly significant. What is more, the Arabic word “kawkaban,” meaning “star,” appears right next to the letters comprising “Halley.”

76, the number of the related verse, on the other hand, may indicate 76 years, which is Halley’s orbital period. (Allah knows the truth.) The verse number 76 represents the Halley comet; because Halley becomes visible from the Earth every 76 years. That is to say, its orbital period is 76. For this reason, that Halley is mentioned for the first time in the Qur’an in the 76th verse is a miracle of Allah.

But does any of this horsecrap comport with science and reality? According to Nasa’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory webpage on Halley’s Comet the actual average Perihelion is 75.3 years. The orbital period of 76 has only been approximately true for the last three centuries. For example, the comet’s appearances in 1682 and 1759 were a little over 77 years apart. In fact, Halley’s orbital period has varied between 74 and 79 years in the past two thousand years [P. Lancaster-Brown (1985). Halley and His Comet. Blandford Press].

If, as is alleged, that Allah knows the truth, then Allah should have instructed Mohammed to put the reference to Halley’s Comet in verse 75 since that is closer to the actual average, 75.3.

Another problem is that verse 76 talks about a star. A comet is not a star. Allah should have known that.

But let’s pretend that the Quran was really talking about a comet with a repeating period of about 70 plus years. So what? First century Jewish astronomers had already recognized Halley’s Comet as periodic [Selig Brodetsky: Astronomy in the Babylonian Talmud]. This would only prove that Mohammed not only stole from the Torah but also from the Talmud.

A miracle of Allah? Don’t make me cry.

Planck’s Constant

As we celebrate our 63rd Republic Day, let’s take a look at some Muslim contribution to patriotic songs in India over the years. The list is not exhaustive and considers only the more popular…

Indian Muslims

My previous post took on the question of same sex marriage using an approach I might describe as a form of intellectual defense/advocacy.  Let me, however, don my beloved Legal Realist hat and look at this from a more detached, academic perspective.

HAH

Islamic Law In Our Times

Yes, Virginia, there are Jewish terrorists in the world – Jews are not perfect and when some of them act like vicious thugs, destroying mosques and attacking innocent Muslims, then they deserve our condemnation. All decent Jews will demand that their government punish them for their wickedness.

Consider the following:

Family Security Matters, 22 Dec 2011,
Tag Mehir, The Israeli Jewish Terrorist Organization

Tag Mehir graffiti at a burned-out
mosque in Burka, this month.

By Nancy Hartevelt Kobrin, PhD

As an Israeli Jewish psychoanalyst with a doctorate on Islam, I feel I have a moral responsibility and obligation to denounce the recent upsurge in Israeli Jewish violence committed by Tag Mehir (lit. Price Tag) against Israeli Muslims and especially the torching of their mosques and the destruction of their property. This has motivated me to share some thoughts and observations and hopefully a few possible solutions.

…

I have written extensively on Islam and its use by some Muslims as having a propensity toward violence, domination focusing on female submission and abuse of women by male dominated shame honor based societies. Now I have the unpleasant duty to take a stance against my own people, or are they my own? These recent Jewish terrorists who destroyed and burnt innocent Muslims’ mosques terrorizing the Islamic community and their families in no way represent Jewish causes. Their acts of violence have nothing to do with fighting for a cause. This was clearly an act of aggression by a group of brainwashed manipulated youths whose rabbis incited them to act out of rage impulsively.

Muslim apologists will point to these very few evil Jewish anomalies and scream, “See, Jews also commit violence in the name of their religion.”

However, there is a difference. If somehow tomorrow a strange virus destroyed every single Jewish and Muslim terrorist, the world would still be facing a threat from Muslims but not Jews. A reader of the Family Security Matters article left this comment:

It’s sad but true that retro Judaism is as bad as retro Islam in its stern moral code and male chauvinism. The difference is that Jehovah only wants Jews to live under his stern laws, not everybody, and wants Jews to enact those laws only inside their communities, not throughout the world, and only commanded Jews to wage what could be called jihad to win the future Israel, not a jihad from pole to pole like Allah commands Muslims to do.

I do not excuse Jewish terrorism but I do want to put things in perspective: more people die from bee stings each year ¹ than have died at the hands of Jewish terrorists ² in the past 50 years. If only we could say the same about Muslim terrorists.

Let’s return for a moment to the idea of a world free of both Jewish and Muslim terrorists. I have written before that the danger to the civilized world is not from Islamic terrorists but from moderate Muslims. The US government has stopped more than a hundred plots by Islamic extremists, so we have a mechanism to remove that threat against our way of life. What we do not have is a mechanism to remove that other threat to our way of life, the moderate Muslim.

That seemingly nice Muslim co-worker, friend, associate, cab driver, deli-clerk who doesn’t blow up schools or hospitals but who wants us to

(1):

ABC News, 23 Jul 2009,
When One Bee Sting is Your Last

According to government statistics, about 3.3 percent of adults will experience anaphylaxis after an insect sting and there are 40 to as many as 100 deaths annually from insect-sting-related anaphylaxis.

(2):

Wikipedia, Jewish religious terrorism

A number of violent acts by Jews have been described as terrorism and attributed to religious motivations:

Yaakov Teitel an American-born Israeli, was arrested and indicted for several acts of domestic terror, namely a pipe bomb attack against leftist intellectual Zeev Sternhell, the murders of a Palestinian taxi driver and a West Bank shepherd in 1997, and sending a booby-trapped package to the home of a Messianic Jewish family in Ariel.

Eden Natan-Zada killed four Israeli Arab civilians on August 4, 2005.

Baruch Goldstein an American-born Israeli physician, perpetrated the 1994 Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in the city of Hebron, in which he shot and killed 29 Muslim worshipers inside the Ibrahimi Mosque (within the Cave of the Patriarchs), and wounded another 125 victims.

Yigal Amir’s assassination of Yitzhak Rabin on November 4, 1995 has been described as terrorism with a religious motivation.

[edited by Bernie for brevity]

Planck’s Constant

First I’d like to start out by thanking Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and asking that peace and blessing be descended upon the Seal of the Prophets, Father of Qasim, Muhammad, and upon the pristine People of his Household.

I should start a radio interview like that next time, for fun.  I say “Good Morning” and I get questions about what “shari’a law” has to say about cutting off people’s noses when you don’t like what they say (actual question once not long ago), it would be interesting to see the reaction in this case.

What spurred these musings was a program yesterday on the local NPR radio station here in Pittsburgh, on a national show called The Takeaway, where the question was posed as to America’s likely reaction if Denver Broncos quarterback star Tim Tebow was a committed Muslim as he is a committed evangelist.  For those who don’t know, he routinely opens interviews by thanking his lord and savior Jesus Christ, and is known for this kneeling prayerful stance he takes quite often after scoring a touchdown and the like.  He’s also led his team to an improbable six wins in a row, one more improbable than the last, causing some fascination among evangelists.  (Though careful, my friends in faith, careful.  We were told by the imam at our mosque growing up that Muhammad Ali had two angels fighting with him.  You can imagine our reaction as little children when Ali lost to Larry Holmes, it was as if the devil himself had come to kill the Prophet.  I love Ali, but surely one’s faith must run deeper than the performance of any mortal on a sporting field).  

In any event, I was amused by the program, asking a question that anyone with sense would know the answer to, though it did to me raise the matter that should cause the most consternation.  Taken as a bare and naked expressions of faith, it is difficult to see the problem with what Tebow might do.  I don’t agree with Frank Bruni who I think said what Tebow does isn’t as bad as others have done, Michael Vick and Ben Roethlisburger among them.  True, but irrelevant.  They did what they did, everyone regarded it as bad, and if they hadn’t expressed contrition they wouldn’t be revered.  The revernce is on the basis of their having moved beyond it, that’s the assumption.  By contrast, Tebow isn’t exactly contrite.  But then it is fair to ask why should he be, being a person of faith is not bad, any other person of faith me included would agree.

And as a committed believer in the First Amendment, I don’t think there is any possible way one could sensibly legally restrict what a private individual wishes to say when given a forum on national television. To do so would be to grant the state authority over particular expressions that should trouble anyone.

Yet if we concede no legal issue is raised, and we concede that in the end he isn’t seeking to alienate, only to testify, are we done?  To me, no, because all of that ignores the deeper concern.  As one commentator put it, “America isn’t ready” for a Muslim who would do the same thing.  First, we once were (I could love Ali in the 70′s at least), and are no longer, which suggests serious slipping, a problem on its own.  Though Ali compared to Tebow is positively ecumenical come to think of it.   Second, I hate that phrasing, though it demonstrates something as well.  Like “America isn’t ready for a woman president”, this is supposed to be the nice way to put “there’s a lot of bigots in our country and those jackasses would never vote for a woman for no reason than their own bigotry.”  That you cannot say this in this fashion, as it is considered rude, demonstrates some level of license for sexism, or Islamophobia, as the case may be.  It is legitimate not to be “ready” for something (I’m not ready for lunch, for example, as it’s only 9:30 in the morning), it is not legitimate to be a racist, sexist or bigot .  So we put it the former way, which to my mind legitimizes it.

So because of such lack of readiness, in a world in which a television show about Muslims being normal Muslims is considered offensive because the Muslims don’t actually speak about jihad at the coffee shop (we don’t, we truly honestly don’t.  We talk about college football), you can imagine the reaction if a player began every interview as I started this post.  I just don’t think it would be an option for a player wishing to remain in the league. The distraction for a team would be so immense I cannot imagine it could work. The only choice for a Muslim player would be not to hide their faith so much as make absolutely no issue of it at any time during actual playing, interviewing, etc.  They could do interviews with magazines for the faith community (Olajuan did that as a committed Muslim) and of course participate and lend their name to faith activities elsewhere (again, Olajuan did that) but the times I remember him talking about his religion are when it was brought up, in particular in defense, as in “do you stand when the national anthem is played?”  (The answer was yes.)  And that’s pre 9/11 and Victory Mosques and Obama is a Muslim and all the rest of it that’s only gotten worse with time.  

Now to me those rules are fine, and defensible, when applied to everyone.  I am perfectly comfortable knowing I do not and should not open a Contracts class by offering all praise to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and peace and blessings to Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets and Apostles.  My class isn’t Muslim, it’s a liberal society, faith is faith and Contracts is Contracts.  Likewise, I know when I sit in a Contracts class, I am not going to be subject to someone else opening by thanking their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  These are rules I not only live by but internalize as normatively proper as an American.  Naturally, in a religious sermon, the matter is altogether different but I fervently believe religion has no place in my Contracts class.  

My concern, as a Muslim, is that when particular public displays of faith are rendered normatively acceptable (they are and must be clearly legally protected, again that’s obvious), and when the faiths of some may be professed while the faiths of others may not be so professed unless one wants to become a social pariah, that necessarily will lead to alienation and frustration on the part of excluded communities, and the only normatively proper way to handle this would be to ask all to limit particularist expressions of faith in settings where general audiences are targeted, because the field isn’t exactly level and otherwise the airwaves will be filled solely with appeals solely to Christianity, and that, to me, is decidedly illiberal.  

So yes, in the end, I’d like to see Tim Tebow tone it down.  

HAH  
  

 
Islamic Law In Our Times

Warrior’s Return
Mohammed RACIM
Photo Credit: Algeria Embassy K.Lumpur

Whenever I write that Islam now, today, in our present age, at the current time, is a cruel, The Most Offensive Muslim Jokes Ever:

hdsghds (from Melbourne, Australia): “these fail so much.”

Tom (from London, UK): “Yeah, just like the notion that Islam is a Religion of Peace. Fail.”

Omar (from Hicksville, NY): “Just like the notion that most white people aren’t racist. Fail“

I left Omar this reply:

Omar, what do whites and racism have to do with the fact that Islam is a religion of war? Is that how you justify the fact that Islam is a violent, savage, barbaric cult, by throwing up a non sequitur? And anyway, 100% of white people in the world do not go around muttering, “We’re not racists, we’re not racists …” However Muslims all over the world do go around insisting that Islam is a religion of peace, which is clearly, obviously, absolutely a lie.

And so it goes. If I report on some current Islamic massacre, Muslims will offer as rebuttal a Christian savagery that occurred in the year 1520. Just face it, Ahmed, your religion as it is practiced today is just so 632 A.D. Muslims need a reformation to become civilized. Pointing at past Christian and Jewish barbarities doesn’t excuse current Islamic ones.

Planck’s Constant

(Parliamentary candidate Nada Abo El-Maty, 48, of the largest Salafi party Al-Nour, greets supporters outside a polling station during the parliamentary elections in Cairo November 28, 2011. REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh)

Egypt’s ultra-conservative Islamist Salafis said they will not water down their views to ally with the more moderate Muslim Brotherhood, after a first-round vote put the two rival groups on track to dominate parliament.

The army is in charge for now but the election, the first since Hosni Mubarak was ousted in February, will give the new parliament a strong claim to a role in how Egypt is governed.

The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s best-organized political force, which was banned but partly tolerated under Mubarak, is on course to win the election. The Salafis, who follow an even stricter interpretation of Islam, have emerged from the margins to push liberals into third place.

Analysts say the Brotherhood has a pragmatic streak that makes it an unlikely ally for Salafis who only recently ventured from preaching into politics and whose strict ideology offers little scope for compromise.

Salafi al-Nour party leader Emad Abdel Ghaffour made it clear he would not play second fiddle to the Brotherhood.

“We hate being followers,” Ghaffour told Reuters in an interview. “They always say we take positions according to the Brotherhood but we have our own vision… There might be a consensus but … we will remain independent.”

Read the full story by Tamim Elyan and Muhammad al-Yamani here.
Follow all posts on Twitter @ RTRFaithWorld

Follow all posts via RSS

Follow all posts via Google+

FaithWorld

(The Conference of the Muslim Brotherhood in Benghazi November 17, 2011. REUTERS/Esam Al-Fetori)

The Muslim Brotherhood has held its first public conference on Libyan soil  after being banned for decades, and used the platform to set a moderate tone, calling for a broad national reconstruction effort.

As Libya emerges from a bloody civil war, many observers believe the next elections could pit religious political groups against secular parties, with better-organized Islamists such as the Brotherhood having a tactical advantage.

Speaking nine months to the day after the start of the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi that eventually ended his 42-year rule, Libyan Muslim Brotherhood leader Suleiman Abdelkader praised the rebellion on Thursday and called on Libya’s factions to unite.

“Rebuilding Libya is not a task for one group or one party but for everyone, based on their ability,” Abdelkader told the meeting of about 700 people at a wedding hall in Benghazi, the eastern city where the revolt against Gaddafi began.

His remarks appeared to be an expression of support for the idea of a technocratic interim government, which Abdurrahim El-Keib, the prime minister designate, is trying to assemble by a Tuesday deadline.

Abdelkader would not, however, be drawn on whether the Brotherhood wanted one of its members to be part of the interim cabinet, which is due to organize elections in June to a constituent assembly.

“Maybe some (members) will join based on their qualifications and ability. But for this time period we will not join as a party,” he told Reuters after his speech.

The slickly organized event was heavy in revolutionary references, with the stage draped in the new national colors and speeches given by guest speakers from Tunisian moderate Islamist party Ennahda and Syria’s banned Muslim Brotherhood.

Read the full story here.

Follow all posts on Twitter @ RTRFaithWorld

Follow all posts via RSS

Follow all posts via Google+

FaithWorld