Islamic Creationism: A Short History

quote:

---

In many ways, the world’s most successful creationists are those who rise up to defend Islam, not Christianity. -

---

Hmm! I didn't know that there is a war between Islam and Christianity and that people are called to defend one camp or another.

Taner Edis, the author of this article, is of the same school of thought, and of the same voodooism in their knowledge of Islam as Irshad Manji.

Both lack training in the very subject they approach. Neither of them speak one word of Arabic, besides, maybe "Assalamu alaikom". Both have their academic training in other areas but somehow, after Spet 11, have suddenly discovered some 'academic' talent they did not know -nor did anyone else- they had. Both are vague in their discourse as to how Islam is backward. Both rely on anecdotal narratives of folks who are generally iliterate and definitely iliterate in Islamic theology and history. To both, Islam started with the Ottoman Empire (!?)

But why should knowledge and facts stand in the way of some personal aspirations and private interests ?

Wanted: Muslim, with some academic background who has something negative to say about Islam. promtion to "expert on Islam" guaranteed following first publication. We guarantee publication and wide, attentive and appreciative audiences. Generous compensation, opportunity to build public profile and excellent prospects for further promotions.

What a backward religion this Islam is!! This has become some kind off sport, non?

[url=http://tinyurl.com/2zb27j]http://tinyurl.com/2zb27j[/url]

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

Profound and insightful.

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

Christianity, Islam and Judaism are the enemies of science and scientific discovery. This has always been so, and many have suffered and been silenced for trying to counter the official superstitions. They haven't given up trying, and they know that the schools are one of the most fertile grounds for poisoning minds.

The suggestion, in the opening linked article, that Islamic hocus pocus is somehow more successful than than the evangelical Christian variety, smacks to me strongly of Islamophobia.

Here in Quйbec, we have taken the bull by the horns and told the religious fanatics that they must keep their "creation" myths - and their Puritanical anti-sex creed - out of the schools, or we will padlock them:

[url=http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=73dc97c9-2172-466... sex and evolution or close, Quebec evangelical schools told[/url]

With the intense pressure from the U.S. in favour of religious brainwashing, I am afraid that our secular society may change. The Mario Dumonts would happily reinstate Jesus Christ as King here, and Pauline Marois is more secular when it comes to non-Christian faiths (funny how that works).

The suggestion that Islam has some insight to offer about creation is, of course, laughable and offensive, but even more so is the rant against Islam as being somehow worse that Christianity or the others. It isn't. It is just as braindead.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]I seen tons of Islamic literature wedding modern science to their religious belief, and conversations with Muslim people where they pose that the "big bang" is proof of gods existence.[/b]

---

Maybe I was too hasty.

For example, Islamic automotive sciences are on the verge of a gigantic breakthrough:

[url=http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=13969]Women driving is not in conflict with religion[/url]

quote:

---

A well-regarded Saudi religious scholar said that there is nothing in Islamic law that bans women from driving and that the fatwas issued in this regard are based on individual judgments.

“In principle women driving is permitted in Islam,” said Sheikh Abdul Mohsen Al-Obaikan, a member of the Kingdom’s Council of Senior Islamic Scholars. [...]

The Saudi government has pointed out that there is no law that states women cannot drive. “The Interior Ministry’s stand is clear on this,” said ministry spokesman Gen. Mansour Al-Turki.

But in reality women are occasionally arrested when found driving. Arab News reported several instances in recent years of situations where women have been stopped by authorities and detained for the infraction of driving a vehicle.

---

Of course, one might say that they're not following the "correct" version of Islam.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

Maybe I was too hasty.

For example, Islamic automotive sciences are on the verge of a gigantic breakthrough:

Women driving is not in conflict with religion[/b]

---

Scientific progress is not synomymous with social progress, as any perpipheral survey of human society can show, I believe. Rationalists, were mistaken in this regard, unfortunately.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Scientific progress is not synomymous with social progress, as any perpipheral survey of human society can show, I believe. Rationalists, were mistaken in this regard, unfortunately.

Nor is religion, as exampled by a great swath of Islamic teaching, necesarily antithetical to scientific progress.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Oh, so even though some Saudi Muslim scholars have now determined that women can drive (under very carefully controlled conditions, of course), that doesn't necessarily mean that gender equality is just around the Saudi corner?

I have to wholeheartedly agree with that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
[b]If we are to take Saudi Arabia or any other country for that matter as an indicator of what Islam is or is not, what it discourages, encourages and so on, might as well take gulags as an indicator of what "secularism" is all about.

A deal, unionist and Remind?[/b]

---

I knew it! Saudi Islam isn't the true faith!

Which Islamic regime or scholar would you like us to take instead, adam, as representing the real thing? You choose.

ETA: Perhaps it's the Afghan variety?

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4823874.stm]Afghan on trial for Christianity[/url]

quote:

---

Afghanistan's post-Taleban constitution is based on Sharia law, and prosecutors in the case says this means Abdul Rahman, whose trial began last Thursday, should be put to death.

When he was arrested last month he was found to be carrying a bible and charged with rejecting Islam which is punishable by death in Afghanistan.

Trial judge Ansarullah Mawlazezadah told the BBC that Mr Rahman, 41, would be asked to reconsider his conversion, which he made while working for a Christian aid group in Pakistan.

"We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of tolerance. We will ask him if he has changed his mind. If so we will forgive him," the judge told the BBC on Monday.

But if he refused to reconvert, then his [b]mental state[/b] would be considered first before he was dealt with under Sharia law, the judge added.

---

So you see, Islamic science has obviously made tremendous strides in the psychological sciences as well.

Will wonders never cease?

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
[b]The ones that put into practice the true message of Islam: equality of men and women.[/b]

---

Must be a short list...

quote:

---

Must be a short list... -unionist

---

To some, quipping -and interjecting with vulgarities, for that matter- constitue "discussing".

ETA: a coma after "some".

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
[b]Islam is a religion that encourages free thinking, questioning and allows dissent. For better or worse![/b]

---

That is what Siegal was saying last night, and I fully intend to buy "Reconcilliation" next week.

quote:

---

[b] It has no central authority or hierarchy to dictate interpretations. [/b]

---

Perhaps this is a downfall as much as having a central authority is?

quote:

---

[b]No excommunication.[/b]

---

Other religions, or beliefs in mythology also do not excommunicate.

quote:

---

[b]No Muslim is allowed to judge another as Muslim or non-Muslim. [/b]

---

Really, now this is news, I wonder how come there has been an on going judgemental war between Shia and Sunni then, for several hundred years, I might add?

And whom are they not allowed by, if there is no central authority?

quote:

---

[b]Only in the minsformed's eyes that Saudi Arabia (or Iran) constitues the "model" of what Islam is all about. [/b]

---

Fair enough, then what country do you suggest as a good model?

quote:

---

[b]It is not because Saudi Arabia has Mecca and Medina that it is the "leade" in interpreting the Islamic mission.[/b]

---

I do not think anyone suggested that, and I know it never crossed my mind to even think that.

But then I put little store in mythological relics and alleged holy places, as I tend to see them as worshiping the idol and not practising the [i]ideal[/i].

Though I do acknowledge the existence of Ley Lines and those things that stand upon them, but then they are not mythogical.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b] Fair enough, then what country do you suggest as a good model?.[/b]

---

Well, I don't think there are any "good" models for any of the current systems in place around the globe. None, ever seems to approach the ideal they set for themeselvs, and in terms of ideologies, there is a great disparity between what the ideal is meant to be from country to country.

But, one could easily say that Turkey, more accurately reflects traditional Islamic ideals, even though it is highly secularized, because secularization of some kind is a very common theme in many Islamic traditions. The idea, for example, that Jews should be banned from living in Saudi Arabia, is unique to modern Saudi Arabia, and a concept completely out of touch with any other Islamic tradition, historically speaking.

Yes, it can be said that most majority muslims societies are prejudicial against minorities to a geater or lesser extent, though almost all societies are prejudiced against minorities, regardless of the composition of the majority ethnic group. But the outright banning of non-believer populations is completely out of wack with mainstream Islamic tradition anywhere.

Even on this point alone, it can be seen that Saudi Arabia, is not at all representative of core Islamic traditions.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]....But the outright banning of non-believer populations is completely out of wack with mainstream Islamic tradition anywhere.
[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]

---

True, as long as the non-believer's know their place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slumberjack:
[b]

True, as long as the non-believer's know their place.[/b]

---

This could be said, of any society containing culturally distinct groups. Tollerance is often predicated on the passive co-operation of ethnic minoroties. This is not unique to Islamic majority societies.

For example, the Thai Budhist majority is actively supressing its Muslim minority as we speak. The USA quite speedily rounded up Japanese American's during the war, on the basis, that a few of them had been turned to the Japanese cause.

The question is wether or not such "intollerance" is uniquely different in Islamic custom, or if "intollerance" is justified differently depending on the ideological orthodoxy that is dominant.

Russian Communists found plenty of justification for the repression of ethnic minorities under the guise of promoting the universal brotherhood of man. My feeling is that the rulling ideology is more often than not the source of the authorizing justification for resolving matters that are otherwise really the real-politik political expediency. The ideology is just the veneer, not the source.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

But then repression of womens rights is fairly universal, under the same principle I suggested in my posted response to SJ above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slumberjack:
[b]

This is why I asked him, knowing this. I wouldn't want this thread to solely involve the ridicule of one tenant, when so many others are just as deserving. We'd want to avoid narrowing it down to just one, which has potential to bring forth some distasteful overtones. Respectfully, I'd ask you to withhold your wrath, if only momentarily...ok.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Slumberjack ][/b]

---

I guess this is an example why ironic racism is not allowed. It is just too easily misunderstood.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]But then repression of womens rights is fairly universal, under the same principle I suggested in my posted response to SJ above.[/b]

---

Yes exactly as as you say below:

quote:

---

The ideology is just the veneer, not the source.

---

The source is patriarchy.

And IMV, allowing sciences to fully investigate global history through DNA, and archeology/antropology, is primary to alleviating patriarchy. That way when mythology is proven to be just that, then we will no longer have men; writing words down, or telling stories in oral traditions, or relating previous words by men, that state that some God says women are inferior. And you can replace women with any stigmatized or racialized person, I might add.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]

The source is patriarchy.

And IMV, allowing sciences to fully investigate global history through DNA, and archeology/antropology, is primary to alleviating patriarchy. That way when mythology is proven to be just that, then we will no longer have men; writing words down, or telling stories in oral traditions, or relating previous words by men, that state that some God says women are inferior. And you can replace women with any stigmatized or racialized person, I might add.[/b]

---

How so? When antrhopology and sociology are scientific pursuits which have often been used to express latent cultural ingrained biases, so that scientists (Lionel Tiger for example) have easily come to the conclusion that Baboon culture is partiarchal in structure, and then been able to assert that patriarchy is "Natural."

Of course this is an expression of latent cultural and ideological bias infecting the scientific progress, but these cases are numerous.

Darwins theory has often found a place as the justification for capitalist "competative" social relations.

Back to the main issue, I disagree with the article's point about comparison of Islam and Christianity with regard to creationism.

First one should note that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not three independent and separate religions. Correct me if I am wrong, but Christianity is supposed to be a continuation of Judaism. Islam is considered a new version (or re-adjustment) of Christianity and Judaism. That's why Muslims essentially believe all three religions were one "true religion", just presented and interpreted at different times. Because of that, the beliefs of these three religions are based on the same foundation (even Islamic Sharia law is rooted in Old Testament laws in the book of Leviticus) and that's why you hear muslims sometimes claim Abraham or other biblical figures were "muslim", i.e. followers of that one true religion.

In my view, as the human race progressed over the 2000 years period from Judaism to Christianity to Islam, the common religious view in these monotheistic religions evolved as well. As a result we could say theologically Islam is more modern than Christianity and Christianity is more modern than Judaism. It seems to me the God of Judaism almost has a physical nature, like the grand patriarch of a tribe, with human like emotions and actions on a grand scale. The Christian God is more detached, having both a human side and an eternal one. And the God of Islam is essentially an eternal "force" with no physical attribution. Because by the time of Islam, people's mind would no longer believe the idea of a physical strong man sitting in the sky and taking care of the universe.

Now with regard to Creationism, I am not a theological expert, but from the little I have read I think there are a few issues in Juedo-Christian thought that essentially mandates the believers to reject evolution. Those are:

- The belief that Earth was created only a few thousands years ago (6000-7000?) and within six days.
- The belief that all creatures were created at the same time with the universe (I read an article from a leading American conservative columnist that he had no doubt Dinosaurs and men used to live side by side).
- The belief that Adam and Eve were the first humans and were created alongside with the universe.

None of the above beliefs exist that firmly in Islamic theology.

1) Quran does not provide a timeline for the human history since creation of universe (Old testament does). Only states that the universe was created in six "Youm", a word that can be interpreted as "days" or "Period/era". Modern muslim thinkers often interpret it as "period/era". It is therefore no problem in Islamic theology to accept that the earth may be billions of years old.

2) There is no indication anywhere in Quran or other Islamic sources that implies all creatures were created at the same time. On the contrary, Quran states that God is "continuously creating".

3) The issue of Adam and Eve is extremely interesting. While Quran quotes essentially the same story as Bible, it adds a twist: "and God said to the angels: I am going to create the man to be my representative on the earth. The angels cried: Are you going to have about ANOTHER creature who would ruin the world and bring blood and destruction AGAIN"?

Several Muslim thinkers thought that the notion of "Another" and "Again" implied man existed in the past on the earth and went extinct, and as such, Adam and Eve were the first of the "new generation" of humans. I read an opinion from one of them that, in his view, the timeline might refer to the ice age; i.e. several human races were destroyed during the ice ages and the Adam and Eve story reflects the new "humans", us.

Based on the above, it is incorrect to say that opposition to evolution in Islamic world is stronger than Christians. The concept of ape evolving to men sounds unacceptable to most there; however, the basic notion that an animal could evolve into another, based on God's order, is in line with Islamic theology. So in a way many Islamic scholars do support the idea of a God-driven evolutionary process. This concept does not, in any way, conform to Juedo-Christian thought.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]How so? [/b]

---

By being able to definitively state where all our ancestors origins were, and when, by tracking DNA markers. And by advancing the teaching of history through this framework, and one that has patriarchy removed as bias.

quote:

---

[b]When antrhopology and sociology are scientific pursuits which have often been used to express latent cultural ingrained biases, so that scientists (Lionel Tiger for example) have easily come to the conclusion that Baboon culture is partiarchal in structure, and then been able to assert that patriarchy is "Natural."[/b]

---

Men will always use whatever they can to keep patriarchy alive and well. But I believe the methodology of science when propeerly used, dispells gender bias.

quote:

---

[b]Of course this is an expression of latent cultural and ideological bias infecting the scientific progress, but these cases are numerous.[/b]

---

Yes, it is and it should also be removed where it exists. But I in no way think that there are a majority of sociologists and antropologists who hold a gender bias.

Moreover, if a study done has an apparent bias to the dominant gender, it should be restudied by a gender opposite.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanizadeh:
[b](I read an article from a leading American conservative columnist that he had no doubt Dinosaurs and men used to live side by side).
[/b]

---

Stockwell Day's penpal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slumberjack:
[b]

Stockwell Day's penpal.[/b]

---

Oh, btw, thanks for that poem in another thread, the one inscribed at the UN. The author is a favorite of my companion, originally from Shiraz.

As in the market will correct itself..

Point? Religiousity started committing crimes against humanity, women in specific long before any of the isms you mentioned did.