Some of their treasure was extracted. Then he asked him about the rest of it, and he refused to deliver it. Allah’s apostle gave an order to al-Zubair, saying “Torture him until you extract what he has.” So he kept kindling flint with steel on Kinanah’s chest until he nearly died. Then Allah’s apostle drove him to ibn-Maslamah, so he smote his neck ..} [28]
{Allah’s apostle came to Khaibar, and when Allah made him conquer the fort, the beauty of Sofiya bint-Huyai ibn-Akhtab was mentioned to him, and her husband had been killed while she was a bride, so Allah’s Apostle chose her for himself ..} [29]
{.. Annas said: Allah’s Apostle [...] invaded Khaibar [...] Then he passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet. He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said “Allah is bigger; Khaibar is ruined.” [...] So we conquered it, and took the captives. Then Dihyah al-Kalbi came [...] and said “O
Allah’s Prophet, give me a slave girl from the captives.” The Prophet said “Go and take a slave girl.”
So he took Sofiya bint-Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said “O Allah’s Apostle, you gave Sofiya bint-Huyai to Dihyah and she is the chief lady of the tribes of Quraizhah and al-Nadheer and she suits none but you.” So he said “Bring him along with her.” So Dihyah came with her and when the Prophet saw her he said to Dihyah, “Take a slave girl other than her.” The Prophet then emancipated her and married her ..} [30]
{When Allah’s apostle married Sofiya in Khaibar [...] Allah’s apostle spent the night with her in a dome of his. Abu-Ayyub [...] spent the night with his sword, guarding Allah’s apostle and going around the dome until in the morning Allah’s apostle saw him there and asked him “what is with you Abu-Ayyub?” He replied, “I feared for you from this woman, for you have killed her father, her husband, and her clan, and till recently she was a non-believer, so I feared her for you.”} [31]
Assassinating Opposers
{Allah’s apostle sent a few men to abu-Rafia. So ibn-Ateek entered to him in his house at night while he was asleep, and killed him.} [32]
{Ali ibn-abi-Talib burnt some people, then this was mentioned to ibn-Abbas, so he said “Had I been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said ‘Do not torture with Allah’s torment.’
and I would have killed them like the Prophet said, ‘Whoever substitutes his religion, kill him.’”}
[33]
{Allah’s Apostle said “Who is up for Kaab ibn-al-Ashraf, as he has spited Allah and His Apostle?”
Thereupon ibn-Maslamah got up saying “Allah’s Apostle! Would you like me to kill him?” He said
“Yes.” He said “Then allow me to say something [false to deceive Kaab].” He said “Say it.” Then ibn-Maslamah went to Kaab and said “That man [Muhammad] has demanded offerings from us [...]
we want you to lend us a camel load of food. [...] We’ll mortgage our weapons to you.” And he set a date to return to him. So he came to him at night, and with him was abu-Na’ilah, Kaab’s foster-brother. Kaab invited them to the fort, and went down to them. His wife said to him “Where are you going this hour? I hear a voice as if blood were dripping from him. He said “They are none but my brother ibn-Maslamah and my foster-brother abu-Na’ilah. An honorable man, even if invited to a stab at night, would go.” [...] So he let ibn-Maslamah in with two men [...] He came down to them wearing a shawl, and diffusing scent. Ibn-Maslamah said “I have never smelt a better scent. [...] He said “I have the most scented of Arab women.” [...] He said “May I smell your head?” He said
“Yes.” He smelt it and made his companions smell it [...] When he got a strong hold of him, he said
“Get him!” So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him.} [34]
{Allah’s apostle said “Whomever you catch of the Jewish men, kill him.” So Muhaiyisah ibn-Mas’ood leapt onto ibn-Sunaynah (a Jewish merchant with whom they had good relations) and killed him. Huwaiyisa [his brother] was not a Muslim at the time [...] When Muhaiyisa killed the man, Huwaiyisah started to beat Muhaiyisa, saying “You enemy of God! you killed him? Much of your belly fat is from his wealth!” Muhaiyisah replied “By Allah, a man ordered me to kill him, and if he ordered me to kill you I would smite your neck!”..} [35]
{Amr ibn-Omaiyah, [...] Allah’s apostle sent him [...] and ordered him to kill abu-Sufyan [...] and sent with him Jab’bar ibn-Sakhr [...] So the twain went out [...] Then they entered Mecca at night [...]
Amr said: After dinner, the clan would set in their courtyards [...] By Allah, as we were walking, a man recognized me, [...] so I said to my companion “Run for your life.” So we ran away with all speed [...] and they ran after us, till we climbed a mountain, they gave up on us. Then we went into a cave and passed the night [...] In the morning, a man from Quraish was driving a horse of his, and passed by us while in the cave. I said “If he saw us he would scream, and we will be taken and killed.” I had a dagger I prepared for Abu-Sufyan, so I went out and stabbed him in the breast. He shrieked so loud that the Meccans heard him. I went back to the cave, and people came to him rushing while he was dying, and they said “Who stabbed you?” He said “Amr ibn-Omaiya” [...] and did not point to where we were, then they carried him away. In the evening, I said to my companion
“Let’s escape.” So we went out at night from Mecca seeking Medina. [...] I went into a cave, and while I was in it came an old one-eyed man of banu-al-Deel with a sheep of his. He said “Who is the man?” I said “One of banu-Bakr. Who are you?” He said “One of banu-Bakr.” I said “Welcome.”
Then he lay down saying: “Iwould never be a Muslim as long as I live, nor will I go near the religion of the Muslims.” I said in my mind “You’ll know,” and I waited for him, till when he fell asleep I took my bow, and I put the end of it in his sound eye, and I bore down on it till it reached the bone ..} [36]
{Osmaa bint-Marwan [...] was under [the authority of] a man of banu-Khitmah [...] and she used to spite the Prophet and disgrace Islam and incite against the Prophet; and she said poetry about it [...]
So when Allah’s apostle heard it he said “Anyone avenge me bint-Marwan? Omair ibn-Addi al-Khitmi [a blind man] was there and heard that; so at night [.. in the dark] he entered to her in her home, and around her a few of her children asleep; one she was breastfeeding; he checked her with his hand and felt the child as she was breastfeeding him, so he pushed him aside, then put his sword on her chest until he popped it out of her back [...] Then in the morning he was with Allah’s apostle.
He said: “O Allah’s apostle, I have killed her.” He said: “You helped the crusade of Allah and His Messenger, Omair.”} [37]
{omm-Qirfah (Fatimah bint-Rabi’a ibn-Badr of Fazarah of Ghatafan) [...] She was the most revered Arab. If there was a fight between Ghatafan, she sent her veil and it was hanged between them, and they would settle [...] Her husband was Malik ibn-Huthayfah, and she bore him 13 men, all of them have hung a sword of leadership. She was impervious, inciting against Allah’s apostle [...] Allah’s apostle used to say to Quraish: You see if I killed omm-Qirfah [...] will you believe? [...] They said: Would that happen? [38] The Arabs used to say, “If you were more revered than omm-Qirfah ..” [39]
Zaid ibn-Haritha [...] Allah’s apostle sent him in an army to banu-Fazarah [...] They stood still to them in the night till dawn [...] Zaid said “If I shout “Allah is bigger” do the same”. They surrounded the settlement, and then he shouted it and they shouted it. [40] He afflicted them, and Qais killed [...]
Mas’adah [...] and confined omm-Qirfah [...] a very old woman, and a daughter of hers, then he killed her violently [41]: He tied her legs to two camels, and let them tear her apart. Then they came to Allah’s apostle with her daughter. [42] A’ishah said “Zaid ibn-Haritha came to Medina and Allah’s apostle was in my house; so he knocked the door, and the Prophet got up to him naked dragging his clothes, and hogged him and kissed him and then asked him, so he told him what Allah let him conquer.” [43] Allah’s apostle had her head circle in the city so that killing her becomes known.}
[44]
{And who can be more unjust than he who invents a lie against Allah, or says: “I have received inspiration,” whereas he is not inspired in anything; and who says, “I will reveal the like of what Allah has revealed.” ..} 6:93 H
(Tabari: It has been sent down regarding Abdullah ibn-abu-Sarh. He became a Muslim; and he used to write for the Prophet. If he dictated to him “Hearing, Knowing”, he wrote, “Knowing, Wise” [...]
so he doubted and disbelieved, and said “If Muhammad is revealed to, I am revealed to, and if God
sends it down, then I have sent down like what God has [...] and he rejoined the polytheists, and he stagged Ammar and Jubair .. so they took them and they were tortured until they disbelieved .. So Ammar went to the Prophet.. and he told him what he had faced, and the disbelief it gave them. The prophet refused to accept him. So Allah revealed “Whosoever disbelieves in Allah after believing except he who is forced while his heart remains in his belief, but he who opens his chest for disbelief, ..” 16:106 Q – The ones who were forced were Ammar and his companions, and the one who opened his chest for disbelief was ibn-abu-Sarh.)
{Abdullah ibn-abu-Sarh used to write for Allah’s apostle the revelation, and perhaps Allah’s apostle dictated “Hearing, Knowing” and he wrote “Knowing, Wise”, then Allah’s apostle recited and said
“That’s Allah” and he approved it. So he wondered and said “Muhammad does not know what he says; I write for him what I want. This which I wrote is revealed to me like it is revealed to Muhammad.” And he went on the run from Medina to Mecca, an apostate. So on the day of Conquest, Allah’s apostle permitted shedding his blood ..} [45]
{On the day of the conquest of Mecca, Allah’s apostle granted the people safety, except for four men and two women, and said “Kill them even if you find them clinging to the curtains of the Kaaba.”: Ikrimah ibn-abu-Jahl, Abdullah ibn-Khatal, Maqees ibn-Sababah, and Abdullah ibn-abu-Sarh ..} [46]
{Allah’s Apostle entered Mecca in the year of its Conquest wearing a helmet on his head. When he took it off, a man came and said “ibn-Khatal is clinging to the curtains of the Kaaba.” He said “Kill him.”} [47]
{.. two bondwomen who used to sing, Vartana and her companion, and they were singing insulting poems against Allah’s Apostle [...] So he ordered to kill them ..} [48]
{An old man [...] called abu-Afak was so old, he was 120 years old when the Prophet came to Medina, he was inciting the enmity of the Prophet [...] and he said poetry about it. Allah’s apostle said “Who will get this wicked one for me?” So Salim ibn-Omair went out [...] and held on, seeking his unalertness, till a warm night came, and abu-Afak slept in the courtyard.. so Salim came [...] and put the sword on his liver till it got into the rug ..} [49]
{al-Aswad al-Ansi had come forward in Sanaa and claimed prophecy. [...] there were two demons with him [...] who used to tell him everything happening to people. Bathan was the representative of Prophet Muhammad in Sanaa, and he died, and al-Aswad’s demon came and told him , so he went forward in his people till he reigned over Sanaa and married al-Marzubanah the wife of Bathan [...]
[She arranged for] Dadaway, Fairouz and others till they entered on al-Aswad at night, and al-Marzubanah had served him pure wine till he became drunk [...] so Fairouz and those with him dug the wall till they entered, and Fairouz killed him and cut his head off, and they took out the woman and whatever they liked of the stuff of the house ..} [50]
{A blind man had a slave mother of children that used to insult the Prophet [...] and speak ill of him; and he discouraged her and rebuked her, but she did not listen. And one night she kept speaking ill of the Prophet and insulting him, so he took the dagger and put it on her belly and leaned on her and killed her, and a child fell between her legs, and she stained whatis there with blood. In the morning, this was reported to Allah’s Apostle [...] The Prophet said “You all be witnesses that her blood is unworthy.”} [51]
{abu-Hurairah said: Allah’s apostle sent us in a mission and said to us “If you encounter those two men of Quraish (he named) burn them in fire. Then when we wanted to depart, we went to bid him farewell. He said “I have ordered you to burn two men in fire, but no one shall torture with fire except Allah. So if you catch them, kill them.”} [52]
Freedom of belief.. came exceptionally for the Jews, Christians, Magi, and Sabians. This was only because they were numerous people, so the founders of Islam regarded exterminating them as too much, being peaceful by the thousands.. just because they clung to their beliefs; so they opted to keep them alive, and settle with Islam being dominant in the lands, and to confirm this by banning them from calling for their own religions or establishing public temples, and that “they pay tribute out of hand and have been humiliated.” 9:29 Q
Of course, it is not open to all. If it were open, there would not be hypocrisy to occupy a big part of the Quran. Hypocrisy is a state that people were coerced to because of banning freedom of religion.
{Mohammad said: Whoever substitutes his religion, kill him.} [53]
{Ali ibn-abi-Talib burnt some people, then this was mentioned to ibn-Abbas, so he said “Had I been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said ‘Do not torture with Allah’s torment,’
and I would have killed them like the Prophet said, ‘Whoever substitutes his religion, kill him.’”}
[33]
The biggest flaw of Islam is preventing its followers from questioning it and leaving it, by exercising terrorism, killing, and material and mental harm. This is a fixed fact since its foundation -by order of Muhammad- confirmed by the war on the apostates, and the reality of Muslims for 14 centuries; as whoever dares this is killed, imprisoned, or expelled from his country by being forced to migrate and seek asylum.
Savage Physical Punishments
Torturing people by flogging and other ways, cutting their hands and feet off, beheading them or crucifying them to death.. are punishments that reveal horrible disrespect to humanity, and are only ordered by a leader who is sadistic, barbarian, with an ugly mind and a blind insight:
{You shall lash the fornicatress and the fornicator each with a hundred lashes. In the religion of Allah, let no tenderness for them seize you if you believe in Allah and the Last Day; and let their punishment be witnessed by a party of believers.} 24:2 Q
Imagine, reader: A young man and a young woman.. loving each other, unable to get married..
someday, they acceded the natural instinct and had sex. So they are brought, in front of a gathering of people, are tied, lashed, and go through extreme pain, and people see and hear this torture and this insult to human dignity.
{The meed of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and go about in the land corrupting is only that they shall be slain or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be banished from the land. Such shall be their humiliation in the world, [...] As for the man-thief and the woman-thief, cut off their hands as a meed for that which they have earned; an exemplary punishment from Allah. ..} 5:33-38 D
In ibn-Mas’oud’s recitation, it is “As for the male thieves and the female thieves, cut off their right hands”. [54]
{Muhammad said “Allah curses a man who steals an egg and gets his hand cut off, or steals a rope and gets his hands cut off.” al-Aamash said, “People used to interpret the “egg” as the iron egg [the helmet], and they used to think that the rope may cost several dirhams.”} [55]
{A woman committed theft in the raid of the Conquest, so she was taken to the Prophet, then he gave the order, so her hand got cut off ..} [56]
That did not suffice for Mohammad, as he judged to kill humans in lesser than that:
{Muhammad said: Whoever drinks wine, flog him. If he does it again a fourth time, kill him.} [57]
{Muhammad said: If anyone has sexual intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill it along with him.} [58]
{Muhammad said: If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who did it, and the one to whom it was done.} [59]
{A woman from Juhainah confessed before the Prophet that she had committed adultery, and she said: “I am pregnant.” So the Prophet called for her guardian and said: ‘Be good to her and if she gives birth to her child then tell me.’ So he did so, and then he gave the order that her clothes be bound tightly around her. Then he ordered her to be stoned and she was stoned. ..} [60]
{A group of men from the tribe of Okl came to the Prophet. They lived in Suffa, so they became ill by the different climate of Medina. So they said “O Allah’s Apostle, provide us with some milk.”
Allah’s Apostle said “I see no other way for you than to follow the herd of camels.” So they departed and drank the milk and urine of the camels till they became healthy and fat, and they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. So the help-seeker came to the Prophet, so he sent men in their pursuit, and before the daylight was gone they were brought. So he ordered to bring nails, and they were heated, and he put them on their eyes, and he cut their hands and feet off, and did not cauterize them, and the men were thrown into al-Harrah [rocky area], and were asking for water to dink, and were not given, until they died.} [61]
What a god, satisfied with looting and robbery,
and punishes man with cutting and crucifixion
The atrocities of the war leader Muhammad al-Qurashi and his followers went on after his death.. with the events of bloodshed, combat, and fierce battles, not only against others.. but even among themselves, in rivalry for power; the most famous of them is the battle of the Camel between two sects led by the closest people to him: His wife A’ishah (Mother of the Believers) against his son-in-law Ali (Commander of the Believers). So how can such a leader be described as “mercy for the worlds”? This is surely further evidence on the savagery of the founders of Islam, and on the spuriousness of this religion and the evil inherent in it; for if it were good, it would have reformed the souls of its adherents who had socialized with the alleged messenger, and they would have cooperated for welfare, security and peace.
Note: “Sahih” means authentic. “Sunan” means traditions.
[^][1] Wikipedia Arabic – Raids of Mohammad
[^][2] Sahih, Musnad of Ahmad ibn-Hanbal 7036, Sahih of ibn-Hibban 6567, Large Sunan of Nasaee 11462
[^][3] Sahih of Muslim 1910, Sahih of abu-Dawud 2502, Concise Sunan of Nasaee 3097, Musnad of Ahmad ibn-Hanbal 8865
[^][4] Sahih, Musnad of Ahmad ibn-Hanbal 5667, Siyar A’lam al-Nubalaa by Dhahabi 15 509, Sahih al-Jamea by Albany 2831
[^][5] Sahih, Sunan of Tirmidhi 1550, Sahih of ibn-Hibban 4745
[^][6] Sahih of Bukhari 2541, Sahih of Muslim 1730
[^][7] al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya by ibn-Kathir – Year5, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra by ibn-Saad v2 p14
[^][8] Sahih of Bukhari 3012, Sahih of Muslim 1745, Sahih of ibn-Hibban 4786
[^][9] al-Maghazi by Waqidi p557, al-Sirah al-Nabawiyah by ibn-Hisham p612
[^][10] al-Magazi by Waqidi p753
[^][11] Musnad of Ahmad ibn-Hanbal 15417, al-Sirah al-Nabawiyah by ibn-Hisham p610
[^][12] al-Sirah al-Nabawiyah by ibn-Hisham p50, al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya by ibn-Kathir – Year3
[^][13] Sahih of Bukhari 4269, Sahih of Muslim 96, Sahih of ibn-Hibban 4751
[^][14] Sahih of Bukhari 3823, 4355, Sahih of Muslim 2476
[^][15] al-Sirah al-Nabawiyah by ibn-Hisham p629
[^][16] al-Sirah al-Nabawiyah by ibn-Hisham p601, al-Maghazi by Waqidi p13
[^][17] Sahih of Bukhari 4031, Sahih of Muslim 1746, Sahih of abu-Dawud 2615, Sunan of Tirmidhi 3302, Sunan of ibn-Majah 2312
[^][18] Sahih of Muslim 1763, Sahih of ibn-Hibban 4793
[^][19] Zad al-Ma’ad by ibn-al-Qayyim p100
[^][20] al-Sirah al-Nabawiyah by ibn-Hisham p643, al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya by ibn-Kathir – Year2
[^][21] Zad al-Ma’ad by ibn-al-Qayyim p167
[^][22] al-Sirah al-Nabawiyah by ibn-Hisham p358
[^][23] al-Sirah al-Nabawiyah by ibn-Hisham p300
[^][24] Similar text in al-Sirah al-Nabawiyah by ibn-Hisham p235
[^][25] Sahih of Bukhari 3804, 4121, Sahih of Muslim 1768, Musnad of Ahmad ibn-Hanbal 11171, Sahih of ibn-Hibban 7026
[^][26] Sahih of Bukhari 4028, Sahih of Muslim 1766, Sahih of abu-Dawud 3005
[^][27] Sahih of abu-Dawud 4404, Sunan of Tirmidhi 1584
[^][28] al-Sirah al-Nabawiyah by ibn-Hisham p336
[^][29] Sahih of Bukhari 2235, 2893, 4211, Sahih of abu-Dawud 2995
[^][31] al-Sirah al-Nabawiyah by ibn-Hisham p339
[^][32] Sahih of Bukhari 3023, 4038
[33] Sahih of Bukhari 2854, 3017, 6922, Sahih of ibn-Hibban 5606, Musnad of Ahmad ibn-Hanbal 2548, Sahih of Nasaee 4071
[^][34] Sahih of Bukhari 2510, 3031, 3032, 3811, 4037, Sahih of Muslim 1801, 3359, Sahih of abu-Dawud 2768, 3000
[^][35] al-Sirah al-Nabawiyah by ibn-Hisham p58
[^][36] al-Sirah al-Nabawiyah by ibn-Hisham p634
[^][37] al-Sirah al-Nabawiyah by ibn-Hisham p637, al-Maghazi by Waqidi p172
[^][38] al-Muhabbar by Muhammad ibn-Habib p462,490
[^][39] al-Sirah al-Nabawiyah by ibn-Hisham p617
[^][40] al-Maghazi by Waqidi p564
[^][41] al-Tabaqat al-Kubra by ibn-Saad v2 p20
[^][42] History of Tabari p705, The Complete History by ibn-al-Athir p90, Fat’h al-Bari by ibn-Hajar 4004, al-Sirah al-Nabawiyah by ibn-Hisham p617, al-Maghazi by Waqidi p564
[^][43] Siyar A’lam al-Nubalaa by Dhahabi p. 226, Fat’h al-Bari by ibn-Hajar p64, al-Maghazi by Waqidi p565, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra by ibn-Saad v2 p20
[^][44] al-Muhabbar by Muhammad ibn-Habib p490
[^][45] Sahih of Nasaee 4080, Sahih of abu-Dawud 4358
[^][46] Sahih of Nasaee 4078, Sunan of Darqutni 4344
[^][47] Sahih of Bukhari 1846, 3044, Sahih of Muslim 1357, Musnad of Ahmad ibn-Hanbal 13436, Sahih of ibn-Hibban, Sahih of abu-Dawud 2685, Sunan of Tirmidhi 1693, Sahih of Nasaee 2867
[^][48] al-Sirah al-Nabawiyah by ibn-Hisham p410
[^][49] al-Maghazi by Waqidi p174, al-Sirah al-Nabawiyah by ibn-Hisham p635
[^][50] Fat’h al-Bari by ibn-Hajar 4118, The Complete History by ibn-al-Athir p198, Siyar A’lam al-Nubalaa by Dhahabi p28, al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya by ibn-Kathir v9 p429
[^][51] Sahih of Dawud 4361, Sahih of Nasaee 4081
[^][52] Sahih of Bukhari 3016, Sahih of ibn-Hibban 5611, Sunan of Tirmidhi 1571, Sunan of Darimi 2461
[^][53] Sister ibn-Hibban 4475, Sahih of Nasaee 4070, Sahih of ibn-Majah 2070
[^][54] Large Sunan of Baihaqi 16722, Tafsir of Tabari, Tafsir of Qurtubi
[^][55] Sahih of Bukhari 6783, Sahih of Muslim 1687
[^][56] Sahih of Bukhari 2648, 4304, Sahih of Muslim 1688
[^][57] Sahih of abu-Dawud 4484, Sunan of Nasaee 5297, ibn-Majah 2573, Musnad of Ahmad ibn-Hanbal 16859, Sunan of Tirmidhi 1444
[^][58] Sahih of abu-Dawud 4464, Sunan of Tirmidhi 1455, Sunan Nasaee 7340, ibn-Majah 2564, Musnad of Ahmad ibn-Hanbal 2420
[^][59] Sahih of Dawud 4462, Sunan of Tirmidhi 1456, ibn-Majah 2561, Musnad of Ahmad ibn-Hanbal 2732
[^][60] Sahih of Muslim 1696, Sunan of Tirmidhi 1435, Sahih of abu-Dawud 4440, Concise Sunan of Nasaee 1957, Musnad of Ahmad ibn-Hanbal 19861
PART V
BELIEVE IT .. OR LEAVE IT
On leaving religion (Islam), and what follows it
We are not apostates.
We have not embraced religion.
We found the parents on it.
My nation, how encroaching you are.
21. Values, Morality .. & Life’s Totality
Religious Authority
Is religion the optimal ethical authority? And which one of the religions is worthier to be taken as an authority?
Is it the religion of those who are the loudest, who argue against the irreligionists by claiming that they do not have an ethical authority?
It is a religion that has legalized child marriage (pedophilia), temporary marriage (prostitution), enslaving women of enemy (rape), slaughtering captives, and human trafficking in the slave markets.
In this there’s disgrace for them; and it means that they are deceived.. humiliated slaves subject to the commands of men who founded this religion on myths and legends to subdue people to carry out their purposes, and died and nothing remained but their remains and lies.
Is it better for people to take such a religion as an ethical authority?
Is it better for them to follow an alleged Messenger.. who was a slave to his own cravings, combined 13 wives and owned several slaves, had sex with a nine-year-old girl, had sex with the wife of his own adopted son, incited his followers to assassinate opponents and to slaughter captives, and led invasions on tribes and towns to acquire their wealth and women?
Is it better for them to obey an alleged god.. who misleads whomever he wants, commanded the Jews to commit the crime of genocide against the people of whole cities and villages.. including their children and elderly, commanded the Arabs to invade their neighbors, massacre them, loot their money, and enslave their women and children?
Before all of that.. were the Abrahamic religions founded on the truth, or on a lie, fakeness, and deceit? And are their so called “holy books” revelation from “the knower of the unseen things”, or cunning words of ignorant men? This is what should be the first inquiry; and it has been so for us who left religions.
The unequivocal proofs are ample and plain that the founders of these religions are men who were not inspired from outside the planet. What they did was the plagiarization of some manuscripts and some human values and put their mark on them. Based on those proofs.. the demerit of lying and deceit is added to the above-mentioned demerits. So, what an authority!
The previous chapters have proven that Islam is a human religion without divine authority, representing the place and time in which it arose. Accordingly, the ethical authority is invalidated..
due to the absence of credibility and laudability.
How were the ethics of the Arabs before Islam? They had humanity and minding of good reputation.
Muhammad’s saying “I was sent to complete the good ethics” [1] is a recognition that good ethics were prevalent in people already. This means that Islamic ethics are basically the ethics of the Arabs, with a little change in a way that the founders of the religion and their followers liked.
Baron d’Holbach, a prominent figure in the French Enlightenment, described religion as an impediment to the moral advancement of humanity. [2]
Religion has no positive influence on the morality of people. On the contrary.. the Islamic religion -
for example- causes bad morality.. because it has placed the law and the scholar advisory in the place of the human conscience. Conscience is like anything we have, if it is made inactive, it becomes lazy and atrophied. Wisdom says: Consult your heart, even if the muftis advise you.
The founders of this religion relied mainly on intimidation; and in the eyes of its followers.. the most important trait of a person is “piety for Allah”, i.e. fear of their mythical God; so it is said, “he fears Allah”. They also relied on enticement, through the delusion of saving the “recompense” after death.
Thus.. the religious one is not a human being of full eligibility; he|she is merely a paid slave, who is committed to the ethics he|she is commanded to.. in wish for recompense and fear of punishment.
A religious Muslim is characterized by cockiness and arrogance over others. Only the name differs: Glory and humiliation (as section 16 shows.) This is not strange for that who sanctifies a book that resembles them with cattle and animals (beasts).
He is vain about his religion; and he of course does not make his conscience govern him, because he has illusive god governing all his affairs, often through the fatwas of scholars or mullas, based on texts written many centuries ago. In other words: He does not distinguish right and wrong according to benefit and harm. Rather, right or wrong in his view is what the ancient Arabs (the founders of Islam) said that it is right or wrong. Because of this.. he may oppress a woman and insult her by making her one of four women “harem” of his own..
{You will not be able to be just between your women, even though you are eager. Do not be altogether partial so that you leave her as if she were suspended. ..} 4:129 Q
and beat her and harm her.. in accordance with the text of the Quran..
{.. And those wives whose refractoriness ye fear, exhort them, and avoid them in beds, and beat them; but if they obey you, seek not a way against them ..} 4:34 D
and he may steal the property of people and call it “booty”; he may even deem it permissible to shed their blood, and then dare to kill someone.. just because he|she opposed his belief; he may even participate in the crime of genocide, and dare to take women as captives and rape them; because he heard or read that all of this is in his religion and the tradition of the messenger. The truth is that this is what the following text of the Quran applies to:
{Is he, then, to whom the evil of his deeds made fair-seeming, so that he considers it as good? Verily, Allah sends astray whom He wills ..} 35:8 H
In the first place, the two testimonies.. that there is no god but “Allah”, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of “Allah”, no one has witnessed them. They are false testimonies, and a Muslim as a false witness. A false testimony is of lying; and this is of bad morality. If his conscience was awake and he let it govern him, he would not have accepted to testify with these two testimonies to begin with, as he has not verified their validity. (The text “And when your Lord brought forth from the children of Adam, from their backs, their descendants, and made them bear witness ..” has been proven to be a myth in chapter 5.)
By neutral comparison -for example- between the majority of Muslims and the majority of Christians free from the law.. we find that religion that intervenes in the details of people’s lives
corrupts them. The truth is that the morality of a person committed to detailed religious teachings.. is not genuine morality based on liking each trait by itself, but it is mere blind obedience, as a soldier’s obedience for his leader, driven by desire and fear. Whatever the founders of religion said was good, he accepts, and whatever they said is bad, he avoids. He considers persons (prophets) sacred, and justifies their statements and actions – whatever they were – by claiming they were “the will of Allah” and thus they must be good and there’s wisdom in them.
One of the established principles of Muslims is the link of one's good manners to being afraid of
“Allah” and that he is “ibn Halal” (a legitimate son). These are backward ideas; as fear and greed are the basis of the morals of slaves; and this is not appropriate for the free. The concept of “ibn Halal”
and “ibn Haram” links the good or bad behavior of a person by whether his|her parents are legitimate or not; but reality denies the existence of this link; as good or bad behavior is present in the two categories, and the factor affecting this is what the person receives during his inception from education, treatment, love and tenderness.
Many Muslims nowadays resort to the “moderation” trick to circumvent all what’s mentioned above.
But the rightness is that a thing is either of religion so it is accepted, or it is not. There’s no compromise in this. Moderation is selectiveness, while religion is a whole creed with divine supremacy, no one is entitled to pick and choose in it:
{.. Is it that you believe in part of the Scripture, and disbelieve in part? What is the reward for those among you who do that but humiliation in this life? And on the Day of Resurrection, they will be assigned to the most severe torment. ..} 2:85 I
{It is not for any believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, to have liberty of choice in their decision. ..} 33:36 I
So, the options possible for us are.. either we be like the horde of ISIL or Taliban, so we accept all of the Islamic ethics and abide by them, or we renounce this religion, and seek morality and wisdom wherever they are.
Irreligious Ethics
The irreligionist.. being safe from religious illusion.. mostly has no authority for him except his own conscience, which scolds him if he does something improper, and his desire to love and respect himself, for which he likes nobility, and dislikes ignobility. Also, he wants to be a reputable, loved and respected person, and this drives him in a positive direction (except for miscreants). This is humaneness. He may also adopt social ethics and norms that conform with science and logic. Since he is inculpable of what’s in the religious texts of abominable acts, and his sound soul gets disgusted by them, he generally does not do anything except what is compatible with his nature and circumstances. And he does not considers anyone sacred, but he weighs the statements and actions of persons with the scale of science and logic.
Mohammad said a similar saying: {Virtue is good morality, and vice is what rankles in your heart and you hate that people come to know of it.} [3]
And people are not only a person’s community. We are in days when the world has become a village.
So, they are the majority of people in the world.
The role of religion in disciplining people and the reduction of crime is not important as claimed by its followers. The irreligionist communities in Canada, Europe, China, and elsewhere have managed without it; as those who have a tendency for evil, are anomalous cases, which are addressed psychologically, and|or their danger is neutralized by way of security.
An Islamic leader testified for the irreligious ethics.. Imam Muhammad Abduh, with his notable statement
“I saw in Europe Islam without Muslims, and I see in my homeland Muslims without Islam.” And
most Muslims agree with it. (Virtue is what our enemies have testified for.) And its implication is clear:
The people of Europe (irreligionists and Christians who are free from the law) have better ethics and more elation than Muslims; and they have of justice and kindness what exceeds what they have, and with a big difference; And their work has good for mankind and construction of the earth more than them.
Even in colonialism and the imperial expansion.. in the colonization of Europeans there was construction and a civilization transition for the colonized country, in contrast to what was the case under the rule of the Islamic state (Ottoman Empire). The British -for example- despite their aggression and exploitation of the countries.. they colonized them, meaning, they established urban and civilized areas, roads, railways and trains, which the countries still enjoy. And even after their departure, their relationship with them remained good, through the Commonwealth Association.
The status of the Arabs as described by Mohammad Abduh.. is the product of centuries of ignorance, reclusion and underdevelopment.. after the hegemony of the Ottoman state on the lands. Therefore, the publication of knowledge (enlightenment) and raising awareness are among the most powerful factors to upgrade the level of ethics and manners in a society.
And mostly.. if one discovers that what was raised on of heritage.. is not rightness and justice, he will be open for a better and higher culture; he will change by himself; his conscience will wake and he will become more humane.
The secular countries that are free from gods and holiness from above, recognize their problems and mistakes and work on their treatment and correction, so they improve and advance; while the religious nations crawl behind them trying to catch up with them but they remain lagging, because they are tied down by slavery and teachings of old times and do not dare to free themselves from them, as the inherited illusive belief still dominates them. They are nations that have become a burden on the rest of the nations, begging aid and loans from them, and vie with their children through migrants, who enjoy the wealth thereof and then harm them with crimes and terrorism.
If the human being becomes safe from the influence of religious authority.. the basic criterion he|she would have in evaluating matters is the original principle of.. benefit and harm, with a comprehensive concept of life. It is also called “good and bad”, so it is said “this is good for you,”
and “that is bad for you.” So if the benefit of something is bigger than its harm, it is accepted, and if the harm is bigger, it is avoided.
This principle is original because it is of nature, associated with the feelings of pleasure and pain, which have stemmed from the instinct of survival and preservation of the type; as it does not prevent us from killing an animal for the purpose of feeding on it and preserving our health, while it prevents us from excessive hunting, because it risks reduction in the number of a species and its extinction. It does not prevent the criticism of ideas and beliefs no matter how harshly, because it scrutinizes them, while it prevents the phrases of hatred or racism towards a person or a class of people, because it causes enmity and hurt.
And as far as our consciousness increases, to see benefit as benefit so we accept it, and to see harm as harm so we avoid it. This is true at both the individual and community level. “You are free unless you do harm.” And since benefit and harm of an individual or group.. are directly or indirectly affected by the general benefit and harm of all human beings and organisms, then the obligation on all of us is to be inclusive in acting with this principle, and to prioritize the common good over the private interest.
An old adage says: “Treat people as you would like them to treat you.” This is also an original principle of nature. The original principles are found in non-human beings, so we see -for example-a monkey cleaning another monkey’s back.
The assimilation of the theory of evolution (as shown in chapter 6) enables us to explain the grievances, crimes, disasters and tragedies in our world.. by that it is a world not governed by a wise, merciful ruler, but rather causes and effects, and that its goodness or corruption depends exclusively on us humans. Among what distinguishes the irreligionist.. is respect for living beings in general; as he is aware that we are part of them, and that all is the product of developing and branching from common ancestors; and thus, we along with all the living beings are from one origin, and are branches of one large family tree.
Albert Einstein said:
“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” [4]
It should also be noted that it is important not to ignore spontaneity, which is the opposite of affectedness. We do not have to affectedly control our behavior and our words or evaluate the details of our daily lives.. as does the religious one who is immersed in evaluation, classification, analysis and prohibition. Our life is nicer if we let go of anxiety and complication and live the moment with a blindness and simplicity on innateness.
Conscience
Definition of conscience – Linguistically:
• An internal human feeling in a person which makes him watch his behavior and direct it, following good, avoiding evil. [5]
• Global conscience: International sense based on the principles of ethics and optimal human values, as stated in the Human Rights Document. [6]
Philosophically:
• Psychological willingness to realize the malign and the benign of actions, sayings and ideas, and to differentiate them, and to like the beautiful, and dislike the ugly; and it would be the basis to accept or refuse what the individual does or intends to do. [7]
Scientifically:
• Scientists in evolutionary biology seek to explain conscience as a function of the brain that evolved to facilitate altruism within societies. In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins states that he agrees with Robert Hinde’s Why Good is Good, Michael Shermeris the Science of Good and Evil, Robert Buckman’s Can We Be Good Without God? and Marc Hauser’s Moral Minds, that our sense of right and wrong can be derived from our Darwinian past. He subsequently reinforced this idea through the lens of the gene-centered view of evolution, since the unit of natural selection is neither an individual organism nor a group, but rather the “selfish” gene, and these genes could ensure their own “selfish” survival by, inter alia, pushing individuals to act altruistically towards its kin. [8]
• Numerous case studies of brain damage have shown that damage to areas of the brain (such as the anterior prefrontal cortex) results in the reduction or elimination of inhibitions, with a corresponding radical change in behaviour. When the damage occurs to adults, they may still be able to perform moral reasoning; but when it occurs to children, they may never develop that ability. [8]
Genes (evolutionary biology) are characterized by inevitability, as the organism is driven by it, not free to choose. As for the human, it is an influential factor in behavior, but not the only one.
The brain is an exceptional member of the human body, characterized by the combination of the physical and the mental. One of the most important of its functions is thinking, i.e. processing of mental things (information, culture, and beliefs). From here, come the will and the ability to make a decision, and thus it is not subject to the inevitability of behavior associated with genes.
An individual human, thanks to the capabilities of his brain, chooses all his actions, such that he can follow the inevitability of genes (instincts) or violate them, and can follow what conscience tells him
or violate it. Even under coercion, he has choice not to do the act.
That’s why scolding comes. Conscience has two jobs: guidance and scolding.
Human behavior is a complex multi-factor process. Genes drive a person toward an instinctive direction, but the brain may lead to another one, as a result of the complexity in the physical and mental structure of the human. This is what distinguishes him from the rest of the mammals. The human being is a unique (reasoning) organism that combines instincts and mind. Thus, the source of morality is a combination of biology (genetic factor), education, culture and beliefs (acquired factor).
Culture and beliefs are not inevitable behaviors, but are free intellectual creations. The clues are available in human behavior phenomena: Disagreement in choice and decision, creativity and creation, the will and ability to commit suicide. These phenomena originated with the evolution that got in the human brain, and became functions that are not. They’re phenomena that originated by human brain capabilities, the thing that distinguishes him from others.
Based on this.. a human being is an exceptional organism, affected by the environment, and biological instincts, but the evolutionary inevitability does not apply to him. A human is distinguished from the rest of the mammals by a brain that performs the function of complex thinking that is characterized by freedom and creativity.
This feature is great, it enabled him to break the rule of evolutionary inevitability. Within a human are two conflicting powers: Biological instincts, and thinking (mind). And as much as one of the two prevails, his morality improves or degrades.
The origin of morality is the organism. In organisms in general.. morality is instinctive, and in a human.. morality is a mix of instincts and mind. That’s why one with bad morality is described as an animal, and one with good morality is described as humane.
Commitment
Commitment is a major influential factor in this regard. There is no difference mentionable between the followers of religions and the irreligionists in the extent to which they commit to specific ethics and to the principle of benefit and harm, as the committed and the infractors exist in both categories.
The ascent of something is harder than its descent, because of gravity. Likewise, moral ascent is harder than descent, because it requires will power, and doing its causes, and abandoning trivialities and superstitions. Not all people are able to ascend with the soul and keep its integrity from harmful traits and hurtful acts. And this implicates the administration of a just ruling system that repels those unable to do that and protects others from their harm.
That’s why.. governments impose laws and regulations, for the purposes of bringing benefit and warding off harm, by enabling whatever fulfills the public interest and the maintenance of security and rights and repelling infractors and aggressors. Crime occurs from those of religion and the irreligionists; and dealing with it is by the cooperation of everyone.. the security body and the psychological institution, and all people by reporting who committed it or will commit it, and developing the skills and capabilities of those who fight it. And what’s more important is treating its causes.
Justice
It is a branch of the principle of benefit and harm. What has happened in human livelihoods of complexity, greed, love of ownership, and exchange of interests.. has led him to the idea of justice, in the sense of equality in taking and giving, and rights and duties, among individuals or groups. It is an advanced type of balance that the organisms need, and establishing it causes benefit (satisfaction, safety and peace). Its opposite, injustice, is a disturbance in this balance, and it causes harm (agony
and resentment of the oppressed, problems and anxiety). This is true at the individual and community level.
The idea of the founders of Islam is not justice in any way: That if people were not convinced and did not believe in the presence of the Abrahamic god and his singularity.. theywould be immortally subjected to torture with fire forever.
No matter the extent of a man’s injustice and criminality.. the alleged punishment is not of justice in any way. The unforgivable sin of polytheism is “great injustice”. No matter how great the injustice and how heinous the criminality.. it is limited, it does not deserve an unlimited punishment. This is not fair.
Also, the punishment of cutting the hand of someone who has stolen (even if he only stole a rope worth a few dirhams, as shows chapter 20,) they described it as an “exemplary punishment,” it makes him one with disability, a burden on society, hindered in work and in reforming his life. This is not of justice in any way.
Contrary to justice is.. polygamy. The text of the Quran..
{You will not be able to be just between your women, even though you are eager. Do not be altogether partial so that you leave her as if she were suspended.} 4:129 Q
.. entails that Islam permits men to commit something.. in which there is diminution of justice, i.e.
there’s injustice in it. And this is something in which Muhammad stood out, with combining 13
wives.
The founders of Islam also approved injustice.. affecting a category of people, by stigmatizing them with “shame” throughout their lives that they were born from “adultery”, and the rejection, contempt and deprivation of what others enjoy of opportunities and empowerment; and they are innocent and have no guilt in that.
And among their extremist ideas.. that any polytheist infidel wicked person throughout his life, and committed crimes of murder, adultery, and theft hundreds of times, and then repented and became a believer and did one good deed and died, becomes immortal in Paradise and its goodness; while any believer who did thousands of good deeds throughout the years, and then did one crime and died in that hour, becomes immortal in Hell and its flames. For example, to immortalize in hell a 15-year-old boy, who committed one of the deadly sins or what ousts him of Islam, and died, and had no aging, chances of repentance and good deeds like what aging people have::
{And those who do not call upon another god with Allah, nor slay the soul which Allah has forbidden except by right; who do not fornicate, for he who does this shall face punishment •
doubled for him on the Day of Resurrection is his punishment, and therein he shall live, humbled, •
except he who repents and believes and does good works, those, Allah will change their evil deeds into good deeds; ..} 25:68-70 Q
{Yes! Whosoever earns evil and his sin has surrounded him, they are dwellers of the Fire; they will dwell therein forever.} 2:81 H
{Muhammad said: “Every one of you is compiled in his mother’s womb for forty days, and then he becomes a clot for the same period, and then a piece of flesh for the same period. Then Allah sends an angel with four words, so he writes his deeds, time of death, livelihood, and whether he will be cursed or blessed. Then the soul is breathed into him. So a man may do the deeds of the people of Hell, until there is only a cubit between him and it, and then what has been written for him surpasses, and so he does the deeds of the people of Paradise, and he enters Paradise. And a man may do the deeds of the people of Paradise, until there is only a cubit between him and it, and then what has been written for him surpasses, and so he does the deeds of the people of Hell, and he enters Hell.”} [9]
The idea of Buddhists and Hindus (Karma) represents justice: Inside every human being is a deep memory for his actions, and it affects his life; so everyone is autonomously rewarded and punished
according to his actions, and if he dies before this is completed, he completes it in his next life, (as they believe in the transfer of soul at death to a new body.)
Even in some of the Abrahamic doctrines, they believe that immortality is for the good guys, and that the bad guys on the Day of Resurrection will be sentenced by God to destruction, so they’re cast into fire, and they perish (as termination and nihility) and it ends there.
This idea is closer to justice than the poor corrupt idea repeated by the barbarian authors of the Quran.
As to atheism, it implies that justice is like anything in the world, a concern of humans. They have to administer it among them in order to deter crime, and to maintain their survival, safety and good living, and they have to develop their abilities and skills in working to achieve it and prevent criminals from evading it.
The irreligionists have outmatched the followers of religions in the administration of justice, so the followers of religions have come to migrate to Europe and Canada, and to trust in the justice and integrity of these nations, while the opposite is not true.
Hypocrisy and Self-guarding
Hypocrisy was a major problem the founders of Islam suffered, so they had to occupy a big part of the Quran with it. But what is the difference between a believer and an unbeliever, if one is coerced to hide what he believes.. in cautiousness from brutality or persecution? Both of them believes he is right; but he avoids confronting his oppressive opponents, so he acts and speaks in hypocrisy with them, and self-guard against them.
This text grants permission to the so-called self-guarding:
{Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; ..}
3:28 S
(Tabari: unless you are in their dominion, so you fear them for yourselves, and show them loyalty by your tongues, and hold for them enmity inwardly)
(ibn-Kathir: except one who in some areas or times fears harm from the unbelievers, then he is allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, al-Bukhari recorded that abu-al-Dardaa said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.)
This is what can be called Islamic hypocrisy. In it a believer may even prostrate to an idol, if he has to. So hypocrisy is permitted to the believer toward others.
Mohammad himself committed hypocrisy:
{A man asked permission to enter to the Prophet. When the Prophet saw him, he said “What an evil brother of his tribe! And what an evil son of his tribe!” When that man sat down, the Prophet behaved with him in a nice and polite manner and was completely at ease with him. When that person had left, A’ishah said “O Allah’s Apostle! When you saw that man, you said so-and-so about him, then you showed him a kind and polite behavior, and you were sociable to him?” Allah’s Messenger said, “O A’ishah! Have you ever seen me speaking a bad and dirty language? The worst of people in Allah’s sight on the Day of Resurrection will be that whom the people leave (undisturbed) to guard against his evil.”} [10]
Chastity
The talk about morality is not complete without addressing the idea of.. “chastity”. This is nothing but an idea the ancient Jews put in their religion, and was adopted by the Arabs and others who have a conservative character. It is centered around sexual activity; if it is restricted only to a “marriage
contract” (ownership), it is chastity and virtue, and if it is without a contract, it is fornication and vice.
The motive to magnify this idea and make it part of the core of religion is.. the trait of greed and love of ownership that built up in the Jewish man, then in the Arab man; it built up until it included money, land, women, male and female slaves, sons and daughters. Muhammad said: “You and your property are for your father.” [11]
In an ancient time, men took advantage of their muscular strength, and imposed dominance over women and children by force and violence, and this took shape in the establishment of patriarchy, which is a social system where men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, ethical authority, social privilege and control of property, and women and children follow them legally and depend on them, and the family title is of the father not the mother.
Anthropological, archaeological and evolutionary psychological evidence suggests that most prehistoric societies were relatively egalitarian, and that patriarchal social structures did not develop until many years after the end of the Glacial epoch, following social and technological developments such as agriculture and domestication. In ancient Egypt, women had rights similar to men, including sitting on a local tribunal. Some scholars point to about 4000 BCE, when the concept of fatherhood took root, as the beginning of the spread of patriarchy. The Greek, including Aristotle, adopted patriarchy, and denied women such rights; and then the Greek influence spread in the world with the conquests of Alexander the Great. [12]
From these things emerged the need of “genealogy keeping” which enables the man to keep his properties under control, and make sure that the child is his own and not another man, as he will feed him, and he and he and then bequeath him his properties, and he can also boast about his lineage; and this is a kind of racism.
Accordingly, the girl is the property of her father (an expensive commodity in feeding, raising, and maturing), and then the property of her husband who buys her with an ownership contract; like the camel, the slave, and the rest of the properties, taking her from the owner may either be legitimate or a punishable theft. For this reason he has the trait of excessive jealousy (cautiousness over his property), and calls a woman “sanctity” (harem) and he covers her and preserves her lest she should be a commonage craved and used by others, and he adopts the ideas of honor, sanctity, shame, private parts, and great sin, to strengthen himself in keeping a free woman submissive and owned by him. What complies with this regime is chastity and virtue, and what infringes it is fornication and vice. The Jews and the Arabs went too far in this injudiciousness of theirs until they legalized torture and murder for it, as punishment or retaliation, by stoning or by the hands of the closest relatives.
What souls do these people have, and what minds? They see girls getting older with their parents, and they do not care about depriving them of a normal life (love, sex, and motherhood,) and they do not do anything to change this miserable reality.
These extreme ideas are weightless to those who respect women and consider them human beings equal to men, not properties of theirs. These ideas that the people of the Abrahamic religions liked and propagated in a religious cover.. are extrinsic to humans, not intrinsic in them.
Deprivation and sexual suppression cause obsession; because they oppose an instinct in humans.
People are subjected to this for many years, under the pretext that it does not cause death like preventing water and food does; but the truth is that it is a defiance to nature, which has a negative impact on the psychological state of individuals, and therefore on society. At puberty and the beginning of youth (the stage of the greatest sexual activity).. sex is prohibited, difficult or causes harm by society. That is why most human beings suffer from psychological and physical diseases, obvious or unobvious.
As for marriage, it is a business relationship, not a personal one; and the family is a company to produce human beings, in which the instinct is present, and passion and vitality are absent, even if they were present at the beginning. And it is a very small company that is not qualified for this work in the first place; and a human is not a commodity, and personal relationships on the basis of money and material things is not good.
Also, ownership and “marriage contract” and that “family is the nucleus of society”.. this implies that a man goes away with his woman and children in isolation from the community most of the time. If we disregard the boredom of ever seeing the same person, and having to endure his|her flaws for the sake of the kids and stability, in most cases, an individual man or woman, by nature, can not fulfill the needs of a family -physical and mental- completely all the time; he|she may even be unfair or abusive to family members. Some individuals are raised with a sick reprobate character (lacking discipline) as a result of negligence by parents or their inability or a problem in them or in the older brothers. Parenthood and brotherhood are not good among all people; and even where they are, they remain limited and inadequate, uneven in their quality.
Based on work of 20 years in psychology, sociology, physiology, and biology, scientist Wilhelm Reich, wrote in his book The Function Of The Orgasm [13]:
“The character structure of modern man, who reproduces a six-thousand-year-old patriarchal authoritarian culture, is typified by characterological armoring against his inner nature and against the social misery which surrounds him. This armoring is the basis of isolation, indigence, craving for authority, fear of responsibility, mystic longing, sexual misery, and neurotically impotent rebelliousness, as well as pathological tolerance. Man has alienated himself from, and has grown hostile toward, life. This alienation is not of a biological but of a socio-economic origin. It is not found in the stages of human history prior to the development of patriarchy.
Since the emergence of patriarchy, the natural pleasure of work and activity has been replaced by compulsive duty. The average structure of masses of people has been transformed into a distorted structure marked by impotence and fear of life. [...] The international catastrophe through which we are living is the ultimate consequence of this alienation from life. [...] The immediate cause of many devastating diseases can be traced to the fact that man is the sole species which does not fulfill the natural law of sexuality. [...]
To master the mass neurosis and the irrationalism in social life, i.e., to implement genuine mental hygiene, a social framework is required which must first of all eliminate material distress and safeguard the free development of the vital energies in each and every individual. [...]
The inner and not the external law is the yardstick of genuine freedom. Moralistic bigotry cannot be fought with another form of compulsive morality, but only with knowledge of the natural law of the sexual process. Natural moral behavior presupposes that the natural life process can develop freely.
On the other hand, compulsive morality and pathological sexuality go hand in hand.”
Thus, this system is the cause of the psychological and social problems; and these have the biggest negative impact on the general state of the individual and the community. It is only a matter of common habits of which harm is bigger than benefit. This is not the best social system.
Some tribes and societies that have not been affected by Christian and Islamic campaigns.. their state is different. These extremist ideas are not prevalent in them. The prevailing principle is participation.
Participation
Participation is the best and most beautiful social system: That we live as individuals in a community, where common are compassion, humanity, cooperation, interaction and vitality, with a membership system and agreement on principles and rules (intentional community), no marriage and no family, no privacy except in bedrooms and bathrooms, things are distributed to all, and the entire community raises and nurtures children, (instead of relying on the parents, or on one of them, or a
grandpa, a grandma, a brother, or a sister,) and the parents have no role other than the biological role (pregnancy, birth, and breastfeeding), in addition to the privilege of the mother being close to the child because of breastfeeding. Everything else is by sharing between members of the community, whether in benefits or chores. And whoever gives more gets to take more. There is no value for a person’s lineage to a father, a grandpa, a grandpa’s father’s, and a grandpa’s grandpa. The value is in the individual himself, and in the community because it is a union which comprises the strength of individuals and cooperation over their interests.
There are great interests in this:
• Each of us chooses the community in which he lives, on the basis of principles and rulings, instead of inheritance and forced affiliation.
• Barriers and complexes are eliminated, and belonging, joy, and elation are common.
• No cases of widows, divorced women, abandoned wives, wives unable to divorce, oppression of women, and domestic violence.
• No suffering of the elderly, the homeless, orphans, foundlings, “illegitimate children” and cases of deliberate abortion.
• The problems of infertility, spinsterhood and apathetic marriage are solved, because the community members are your companions, and their children are yours.
• There is no humiliation and deprivation, as the dignity of the members is preserved and their needs are provided.
• When an individual dies, his inheritance is divided equally among the community or directed to its benefit, so no one wishes for another’s death to inherit him, and the problems of inheritance, and feelings of resentment and invidia, do not exist.
• Many mental and physical diseases are avoided, as well as physical diseases result from malnutrition and unhealthy habits.
• Interaction and diversity of characters support the development of man, instead of the influence of the parents' personality or only one of them.
• Everyone is raised in the wholeness of the community, and they are affected by the best personalities in it, so their personalities are strengthened, and in them spread good manners and discipline, social communication skills and other reasons for success.
• Discipline is the effect of adults on young people. It should not be limited to that who may not be good at it (parents?); they may leave it to a nanny who is only interested in money, and to the devices that do more harm than benefit; even if they are good at it, it remains weaker than discipline in a community.
• We live in a spacious wide place (palace, garden, farm) instead of cages and boxes in which families live (apartment, a small house), and we cooperate in its possession, furnishing, equipment and maintenance, cultivating food and decorative plants, and raising poultry and livestock.
• Security and safety.. in a community, is better than what scattered small families have.
• Economic interest is fulfilled by sharing and by buying things in bulk.
• Sharing things frees us from being attached to them, and gives us joy that reflects on us from those who live with us.
• The community members benefit from the availability of capabilities and skills, as each individual contributes to its well-being, and each work is done by someone suitable; so whoever suits cooking makes delicious healthy food for all, and whoever suits taking care of children takes care of them.
• The tasks are distributed to the community instead of limiting it to those who may be unable to do them or not good at it (parents?) and transfers it to strangers.
• It avoids the problem of hiring strangers to work in a house that does not pertain to them, and what this may comprise of carelessness or harm by neglect or deliberately. The strangers stay away from their own families often; and this is also a problem.
• The needs of the community members are met in bulk and with saving time and effort, instead of
each individual’s occupation with the needs of a family of two or three people; so, they have time to think, develop, produce, be creative and transcend.
This way, the freedom and dignity of the individual and the strength of the community are combined. This is why the communities that live by this system.. do not suffer from problems as much as others, and enjoy a greater level of happiness. Therefore, this system (community is the nucleus of society) is better for human health and its well-being at the level of the individual and human society in general.
If we convert to this system, no importance will remain for genetic kinship, and the distinction by actions will replace the distinction by genealogy. This trend is not new, as some religions called for it:
{.. Do not ally yourselves with your parents and your siblings if they prefer disbelief to belief. ..}
9:23 I - Ali ibn-abu-Talib allegedly said [14]:
Be the son of whoever you want and acquire civility
the laudable of which suffices you instead of lineage
As lineage does not suffice the aristocratic one
without a tongue for him nor civility
A boy is the one who says here I am
A boy is not the one who says my father was
Conclusion
As Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics, said,
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
[15]
The comparison is in fact between the authority of science and logic and the principle of benefit and harm.. and the authority of religion of which the basis is ignorance and deception.
The comparison is between intrinsic principles.. and extrinsic ones. It is very important to distinguish between these two types; as the former conforms with nature, which we belong to and our lives and happiness depend on, while the latter mostly violates it and is a reason for our suffering and unhappiness.
Even if we find a good wise religious authority, it is not the best option; because it is limited to the knowledge and wisdom of the people who founded the religion in an earlier time, while humans evolve and their knowledge accumulates and their circumstances change; what is suitable for previous generations may not be suitable for subsequent ones; and this requires recourse to contemporary scholars and sages who benefit from available cumulative expertise and blend them with their own expertise and the data of their days, so they produce for people what suits their conditions and needs.
Man is the source of religions and the source of morality. Therefore, we only need to rouse our consciences, and spread the culture of life, love and peace, and have those whom we admire of sages, scholars and writers.. as advisors to us, and agree on a secular system based on science, logic, and the principle of benefit and harm, which regulates people interactions, rights, and duties, and modify it and develop it to keep pace with scientific and practical developments.
The optimal ethical authority is active conscience, and collective mind; i.e. what we reach through the open discussion of matters in the scale of the total concept of benefit and harm, and in the light of humanistic studies.. after ensuring freedom of expression and belief for all.
Religions divide us. Humanity unifies us.
Among the loveliest things in man,
his participation in kindness.
Both sexes cooperate in it.
I do not forget you and you do not forget me.
Note: “Sahih” means authentic.
[^][1] al-Silsilah al-Sahihah by al-Albani 45
[^][2] Wikipedia – Baron d’Holbach
[^][4] Einstein A. Religion and Science. N Y Times Mag. 1930: 1-4
[^][7] Contemporary Arabic language dictionary
[^][9] Sahih of Bukhari 3332, 7454, Sahih of Muslim 2643, Sahih of abu-Dawud 4708, Sahih of Tirmidhi 2137, Sahih of ibn-Hibban 6174, Sahih of ibn-Majah 61, Musnad of Ahmad ibn-Hanbal 3924
[^][10] Sahih of Bukhari 6032, 6131, Sahih of Muslim 2591, Sahih of ibn-Hibban 5696, Sahih of abu-Dawud 4791, Sahih of Tirmidhi 1996, Musnad of Ahmad ibn-Hanbal 24106
[^][11] Sahih of ibn-Hibban 410, Sahih of ibn-Majah 1869, Sunan of abu-Dawud 3530, Musnad of Ahmad ibn-Hanbal 6902
[^][12] Wikipedia – Patriarchy
[^][13] Wilhelm Reich, The Discovery of the Orgone, 1973, v1 (The Function Of The Orgasm) p7-18
[^][14] Be the son of whoever you want and acquire civility - ar.wikisource.org
[^][15] Steven Weinberg – Wikiquote
22. Have Some Wine .. You’ll Be Fine
Argument for Prohibition and the Response to It
Some Muslims claim that their religion only forbade alcohol because it is harmful; and I claim that it forbade it for the purpose of men’s readiness and vigilance for the invasion and possession of lands, spoils and women.
The harm of alcohol is only through excessive use of it -like other things-; as to having it in moderation, it is beneficial for health.
Argument for Prohibition and the Response to It
In a discussion in the Arab Liberal Forum, one of them argued that a meta-analytic study concluded that “the safe level for alcohol is zero,” published in The Lancet journal in August 2018, [1] and further argued that the American Cancer Society in June 2020 advised that “it is better not to drink alcohol.”
The aforementioned study is merely an analysis of previous studies, it has methodological flaws, and its claim that the “safe level of alcohol is zero” antagonizes several strong studies. And by the admission of the study itself, it contradicts most of the medical references and their guidelines:
“This level is in conflict with most health guidelines, which espouse health benefits associated with consuming up to two drinks per day.”
It is also flawed by the generalization regarding the health of people, which is affected by many factors. For example, it does not take into account the effect of smoking, which is characteristic of those who drink alcohol more than others; it does not distinguish between those who are accustomed to regular moderate drinking and those who are accustomed to excessive intermittent drinking, and it does not distinguish between types of alcoholic beverages. There is a difference between beer and distilled alcohol and red wine.
Studies in this regard have a drawback that consumption is usually measured by self-reported drinking habits, so the data is subject to biased recall. For example, those who drink a lot are more likely to under-report or forget their consumption, so their harm is counted on moderate consumption.
The graph in the mentioned study shows that the risk does not start to rise until you exceed one cup per day (not zero):
A website specialized in alcohol research commented on the study with the following [2]:
“.. by combining data from widely divergent populations into one analysis, the investigators make it impossible to consider the strong effects that social and cultural factors of individual populations have in modifying the effects on alcohol on health. For example, by combining data from countries where ischemic heart disease and stroke are minor causes of death (where there may be a 10%
increase in total death rates from alcohol) with data from western industrialized countries where such ischemic diseases are the leading causes of death (where there may be a 10% decrease in total death rates from alcohol intake), you will end up with zero effect of alcohol on death rates. Such an estimate does not provide information relevant to either population: in fact, it applies to no one.”
“We already know that high levels of drinking lead to severe health problems: what would be preferred is presenting the risk at the levels of intake usually seen in different populations, say, from none up to an average of two or three drinks per day; these are the levels of consumption for which data would be useful. Detailed information on this level of drinking (say, differences in outcome going from none to 1 drink/day) cannot be evaluated from data presented from these analyses. And, in the present paper, the authors include consumption up to 0.8 standard drinks per day in their
“zero” intake category; Forum members contend that 0.8 drinks/day is close to the level considered
“moderate” in many guidelines – e.g. a recommended level of “a drink a day” — and this causes a problem in using their data to look for any potential benefits of light drinking. No one advises people to “drink more,” and if the advice of these authors to abstain completely from alcohol was followed, it is likely that many light drinkers (who have been shown to have better health than abstainers) would stop their drinking.”
“There are some tensions between advice intended only to reduce the prevalence of misuse and that which also seeks to reflect evidence on the beneficial health effects of moderate consumption.”
The New York Times published an article critical of the study, written by Aaron E. Carroll, physician and university professor, stating that its conclusion that it is best for health to abstain from drinking is wrong [3]:
“Observational data can be very confounded, meaning that unmeasured factors might be the actual cause of the harm. Perhaps people who drink also smoke tobacco. Perhaps people who drink are also poorer. Perhaps there are genetic differences, health differences or other factors that might be the real cause. There are techniques to analyze observational data in a more causal fashion, but none of
them could be used here, because this analysis aggregated past studies — and those studies did not use them.”
“The news warns that even one drink per day carries a risk. But how great is that risk? [...] Only 4 in 100,000 people who consume a drink a day may have a problem caused by the drinking, according to this study.”
“For diabetes and heart disease, for instance, the risks actually go down with light or moderate drinking. The authors argue that this result is overrun, however, by risks for things like cancer and tuberculosis, which go up. But for many individuals, the risks for diabetes and heart disease are much higher than those for cancer and tuberculosis.”
As to the Cancer Society’s advice, “It is better not to drink alcohol,” it is a strict precaution (for the purpose of blocking excuses). It was built on the same atypical study mentioned above. We find that the Society’s guidelines in the section on alcohol consumption talk about the danger in drinking excessively or without limiting the amount, and in smoking associated with it, and then finishes by mentioning that study:
“.. recently a report from the Global Burden of Disease Study found that consuming zero standard drinks daily minimizes the overall risk to health.”
The New York Times published an article on this matter from the same author. [4] These are excerpts from it:
“A 40-year-old woman has an absolute risk of 1.45 percent of developing breast cancer in the next 10 years. This announcement would argue that if sheis a light drinker, that risk would become 1.51
percent. This is an absolute risk increase of 0.06 percent. Using what’s known as the Number Needed to Harm, this could be interpreted such that if 1,667 40-year-old women became light drinkers, one additional person might develop breast cancer. The other 1,666 would see no difference.”
“The large meta-analysis upon which this announcement was based looked at 23 types of cancer with respect to alcohol consumption. It found a harmful relationship between three of them and light drinking. But it also found protective relationships — meaning a decreased risk of cancer —
between six of them and light drinking.” “.. cherry-picking allows you to come to different conclusions.”
“It’s even cherry-picking to focus only on cancer, though. [...] studies of other diseases [...] found that those who drank at least once a week had better cognitive function in middle age [and] that moderate drinkers had lower rates of diabetes”
“Randomized controlled trials of alcohol (they do exist) show that light to moderate drinking can lead to a reduction in risk factors for heart disease, diabetes and stroke. These protective factors may be greater than all the other negative risk factors (even cancer) that might be associated with light or moderate drinking. More women die in the United States of heart disease than cancer. So do more men.”
“dire warnings have consequences. I know far too many people who now throw up their hands at every news story because it seems as if “everything” causes cancer.” “The absolute risks of light and moderate drinking are small, while many people derive pleasure from the occasional cocktail or glass of wine. It’s perfectly reasonable even if a risk exists — and the overall risk is debatable — to decide that the quality of life gained from that drink is greater than the potential harms it entails.
This is true for many, many foods, not just alcohol.”
“Consider the absolute risks. A 30 percent increase in risk sounds scary, but an increase from 1
percent to 1.3 percent absolute risk does not, though these are the same things.”
On the other hand, the official US Dietary Guidelines, which are issued every 5 years, were issued in December 2020. [5] They stated:
“Adults of legal drinking age can choose not to drink or to drink in moderation, by limiting intake to 2 drinks or less in a day for men and 1 drink or less in a day for women, when alcohol is
consumed. Drinking less is better for health than drinking more. There are some adults who should not drink alcohol, such as women who are pregnant.” “a standard drink is defined as a drink with 14
grams (0.6 fluid ounces) of pure alcohol.”
Numerous studies have been published in respected, trusted scientific journals prove and confirm that drinking alcohol, especially red wine, in moderation is better for health than abstaining from it or having it excessively. Examples:
Studies on Alcohol
• A study published by Oxford University on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology says:
Epidemiological studies have suggested an inconsistent relationship between alcohol drinking and risk of all cancer mortality. There is no consensus on the ‘safe’ level of alcohol consumption in general population.
18 prospective cohort studies [7–9, 24–38] met the inclusion criteria and were included. A total of
48,178 deaths from all cancers were observed among all these cohort studies.
This meta-analysis shows a J-shaped relationship between alcohol consumption and all cancer mortality, which confirms the health hazards of heavy drinking (≥50 g/day) and benefits of light drinking (≤12.5 g/day).
Alcohol drinking and all cancer mortality
• To examine the association between alcohol consumption and risk of mortality from all causes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in U.S. adults, data were obtained by linking 13 waves of the National Health Interview Surveys (1997 to 2009) to the National Death Index records through 2011. A total of 333,247 participants ≥18 years of age were included.
Result: Compared with lifetime abstainers, those who were light or moderate alcohol consumers were at a reduced risk of mortality for all causes and CVD (a protective effect). In contrast, there was a significantly increased risk of mortality for all causes and cancer in adults with heavy alcohol consumption. Binge drinking ≥1 d/week was also associated with an increased risk of mortality for all causes and cancer.
Relationship of Alcohol Consumption to All-Cause, Cardiovascular, and Cancer-Related Mortality in
• The dose-response relationship for hemorrhagic stroke had monotonically increasing risk for increasing consumption, whereas ischemic stroke showed a curvilinear relationship, with a protective effect of alcohol for low to moderate consumption. Moderate consumption seem to be protective for ischemic stroke only, but slightly detrimental or at best neutral for hemorrhagic stroke.
Alcohol consumption and the risk of morbidity and mortality for different stroke types
• Favourable changes in several cardiovascular biomarkers (higher levels of high density lipoprotein cholesterol and adiponectin and lower levels of fibrinogen) provide indirect pathophysiological support for a protective effect of moderate alcohol use on coronary heart disease.
Effect of alcohol consumption on biological markers associated with risk of coronary heart disease
• Among 38,077 male health professionals who were free of CVD and cancer at base line. We assessed the consumption of beer, red wine, white wine, and liquor individually every four years using validated food-frequency questionnaires. We documented cases of nonfatal myocardial infarction and fatal coronary heart disease from 1986 to 1998. As compared with men who consumed alcohol less than once per week, consumption of alcohol at least three to four days per week was inversely associated with the risk of myocardial infarction. (The risk decreased.) Neither the type of beverage nor the proportion consumed with meals substantially altered this association.
Men who increased their alcohol consumption by a moderate amount during follow-up had a decreased risk.
Roles of Drinking Pattern and Type of Alcohol Consumed in Coronary Heart Disease in Men
• The authors investigated the relation between alcohol consumption and cognitive function in a United Kingdom cohort study (4,272 men, 1,761 women) with median follow-up of 11 years.
For middle-aged subjects, increasing levels of alcohol consumption were associated with better function regarding some aspects of cognition (short-term memory, inductive reasoning, phonemic fluency, semantic fluency, and ability to recognize and comprehend words.)
Alcohol Consumption and Cognitive Function in the Whitehall II Study
• Using alcohol intake at one point in time, numerous studies have shown a J- or U-shaped relation with all-cause mortality. Mortality is lowest among the light to moderate drinkers, with the risk of dying from coronary heart disease higher among nondrinkers and the risk of dying from cancer higher among heavy drinkers. We studied whether changes in individual alcohol intake result in corresponding changes in mortality. In a longitudinal study of 6644 men and 8010 women, age 25 to 98 years, who had attended at least 2 health surveys with a 5-year interval between them, we
addressed the risk of death after combinations of changes in alcohol intake.
Result: Persons with stable patterns of light and moderate alcohol intake had the lowest all-cause mortality. Individual changes in alcohol intake were followed by corresponding changes in mortality.
Changes in Alcohol Intake and Mortality
• Of 490,000 men and women (mean age, 56 years; range, 30 to 104) who reported their alcohol and tobacco use in 1982, 46,000 died during nine years of follow-up. We compared cause-specific death rates and rates of death from all causes across categories of base-line alcohol consumption, adjusting for other risk factors, and related drinking and smoking habits to the cumulative probability of dying between the ages of 35 and 69 years.
Result: Moderate alcohol consumption slightly reduced overall mortality. The benefit depended in part on age and background cardiovascular risk and was far smaller than the large increase in risk produced by tobacco.
Alcohol Consumption and Mortality among Middle-Aged and Elderly U.S. Adults
• Growing epidemiological evidence indicates that moderate alcohol consumption is associated with reduced total mortality among middle-aged and older adults. We examined the association between alcohol consumption and all-cause mortality over 20 years among 1,824 older adults, controlling for a wide range of potential confounding factors associated with abstention.
Result: Even after adjusting for all covariates, abstainers and heavy drinkers continued to show increased mortality risks of 51 and 45%, respectively, compared to moderate drinkers.
Late‐Life Alcohol Consumption and 20‐Year Mortality
• We performed a prospective cohort study in 22,071 men in the Physicians’ Health Study.
Participants were aged 40 to 84 years and had no history of myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or cancer.
Result: Risk of all-cause mortality varies by level of alcohol consumption. In this apparently healthy cohort, men who consumed 2 to 6 drinks per week had the most favorable mortality profile and men who had 2 or more drinks per day the most unfavorable mortality profile. The difference between consumption of small and large amounts of alcohol may mean the difference between preventing and causing excess mortality.
Prospective Study of Moderate Alcohol Consumption and Mortality in US Male Physicians
• This is a prospective study of mortality in relation to alcohol drinking habits in 1978, with causes of death sought over the next 13 years (to 1991) on 12,321 British male doctors.
Result: Among British men in middle or older age the consumption of an average of one or two units of alcohol a day is associated with significantly lower all cause mortality than is the consumption of no alcohol, or the consumption of substantial amounts. Above about 3 units (2 American units) of alcohol a day, progressively greater levels of consumption are associated with progressively higher all cause mortality.
Mortality in relation to consumption of alcohol
Studies on Wine
• Numerous epidemiological studies have observed that moderate intake of alcohol including wine is associated with a lower risk of CVD. However, according to several authors, moderate consumption of wine is more beneficial than that of beer or spirits. Some studies have shown that moderate consumption of wine can lower mortality from CVD and other causes. The link between drinking wine and total mortality risk (all causes combined) has been studied. The results of various prospective population studies show that intake of beer and spirits from abstention to light to moderate daily intake did not influence mortality, while wine seems to have a beneficial effect on all causes of mortality. Several authors have reported that in subjects consuming wine in moderation the risk of mortality from all causes is 20-30% lower than in abstainers. Moderate wine consumption
appears to have a beneficial effect on several types of cancer and on total mortality.
Overview of epidemiological studies on wine, health and mortality
• Light to moderate alcohol intake lowers the risk of cardiovascular mortality. The impact of long-term alcohol intake and types of alcoholic beverages consumed on cardiovascular mortality and life expectancy at age 50 was investigated in a cohort of 1373 men born between 1900 and 1920 and examined repeatedly between 1960 and 2000. Hazard ratios (HRs) for total alcohol intake and alcohol from wine, beer and spirits were obtained from time-dependent regression models.
Result: Long-term light alcohol intake, that is 20 g per day
⩽
, compared with no alcohol, was
strongly and inversely associated with cerebrovascular (HR 0.43), total cardiovascular (0.70), and all-cause mortality (0.75). (The mortality decreased.) Long-term wine consumption of, on average, less than half a glass per day was strongly and inversely associated with coronary heart disease (0.61), total cardiovascular (0.68) and all-cause mortality (0.73). (The mortality decreased.) These results could not be explained by differences in socioeconomic status. Life expectancy was about 5
years longer in men who consumed wine compared with those who did not use alcoholic beverages.
Long-term wine consumption is related to cardiovascular mortality and life expectancy
independently of moderate alcohol intake
• To investigate the effects of the consumption of wine, beer and distilled spirits on total mortality and on mortality from CVD, their consumption was assessed in 1,828 individuals by a psychiatrist.
They were aged 18-65 years. Mortality was recorded after 22 years.
Result: A low to moderate intake of wine seems, unlike the consumption of distilled spirits and beer, to be associated with reduced total mortality and reduced mortality from CVD.
A moderate intake of wine is associated with reduced total mortality and reduced mortality from
• Demographic and history data were collected from 128,934 adults undergoing health evaluations in 1978–1985, to determine relative risk estimates according to total alcohol intake and days per week of drinking wine, wine types, beer, or liquor. The J-shaped alcohol-mortality relation was stable for 20 years.
Result: Independently, frequency of wine drinking was associated with lower mortality risk, largely because of lower coronary disease risk. Similar risk reductions were associated with red wine, white wine, other types of wine, and combinations of wine types. Much of the lower risk associated with light drinking was related to wine drinking.
Wine, Liquor, Beer, and Mortality
• This study examined the relationship between consumption of different types of alcoholic beverages and the risk of death, with a 10-12 year follow-up for deaths in 6051 men and 7,234
women aged 30-70 years.
Result: The risk of dying steadily decreased with an increasing intake of wine—from a relative risk of 1.00 for the subjects who never drank wine to 0.51 for those who drank 3-5 glasses a day. Intake of neither beer nor spirits, however, was associated with reduced risk. For spirits intake the relative risk of dying increased from 1.00 for those who never drank to 1.34 for those with an intake of 3-5
drinks a day. The effects of the three types of alcoholic drinks seemed to be independent of each other.
Mortality associated with moderate intakes of wine, beer, or spirits
• We pooled cohort studies in which intake of beer, wine, and spirits; smoking status; educational level; physical activity; and body mass index were assessed at baseline. They included 13,064 men and 11,459 women, 20 to 98 years of age.
Result: Wine intake may have a beneficial effect on all-cause mortality that is additive to that of alcohol. This effect may be attributable to a reduction in death from both coronary heart disease and
Type of Alcohol Consumed and Mortality from All Causes, Coronary Heart Disease, and Cancer
Studies on Red Wine
• Drinking red wine in moderation (a glass a day) has been shown to have multiple beneficial effects on health.
The French population has relatively low incidence of CVD, despite a relatively high dietary intake of saturated fats, potentially attributable to the consumption of red wine.
Several studies have investigated the fascinating, overwhelmingly positive biological and clinical associations of red wine consumption. They arrived at some explanations for them, which include combined, additive, or synergistic effects of alcohol and other wine components on atherogenesis, coagulation, and fibrinolysis.
Moderate Red Wine Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Risk: Beyond the “French Paradox”
• Collaborating researchers from 21 countries studied more than 7 million men and women (35 to 64
years of age) from 37 populations over a period of 10 years. They observed a lower mortality rate from coronary artery disease in France compared with that in the United Kingdom and the United States, despite the high consumption of saturated fats and similar serum cholesterol concentrations.
In addition, other risk factors such as blood pressure, body mass index, and cigarette smoking were equivalent in France to what they were in other industrialized countries. In 1992, Renaud and associates introduced the term French Paradox to underscore this low mortality rate among people in France despite the high amount of saturated fats in their diet. They attributed this unusual occurrence to red wine consumption based on the findings of the MONICA (MONItoring system for CArdiovascular disease) project, a worldwide program organized by the World Health Organization.
France’s wine consumption average is 67 L/capita/year, which is much higher than the United Kingdom or the United States, where consumption is about 12 and 5 L/capita/year, respectively.
The cardiovascular protective effect of red wine
• Patients were randomly assigned to 150 mL of mineral water, white wine, or red wine with dinner for 2 years. Wines and mineral water were provided. All groups followed a Mediterranean diet without caloric restriction.
This long-term randomized, controlled trial suggests that initiating moderate wine intake, especially red wine, among well-controlled diabetics as part of a healthy diet is apparently safe and modestly decreases cardiometabolic risk. The genetic interactions suggest that ethanol plays an important role in glucose metabolism, and red wine’s effects also involve nonalcoholic constituents.
Effects of Initiating Moderate Alcohol Intake on Cardiometabolic Risk in Adults With Type 2
• Although not without exception, current evidence from epidemiologic and experimental studies suggests a protective effect against the development of CVD with moderate consumption of red wine. The exact nature of the protective effect remains to be established. However, mechanisms including LDL oxidation and alterations in hemostatic variables are being increasingly recognized as contributory. Key components of red wine thought to be responsible for the protective effects include phenolic compounds and alcohol content.
Alcohol, Red Wine and Cardiovascular Disease
• To evaluate prospectively the health risk of wine and beer drinking in middle-aged men in the area of Nancy, France, a total of 36,250 healthy men who underwent comprehensive health appraisals in a center of preventive medicine between 1978 and 1983. We recorded mortality from all causes and specific causes during a 12- to 18-year follow-up.
Result: Moderate daily intake of wine (22-32 g of alcohol) was associated with a lower risk of death due to CVDs (40%), cancer (22%), other causes (42%), and all causes (33%). A moderate intake of
alcohol from beer was also associated with a lower risk of death from CVDs but not from cancer and all causes, despite the consumption of some wine in 86% of beer drinkers.
Wine, Beer, and Mortality in Middle-aged Men From Eastern France
• In a Mediterranean cohort study, we followed 18 394 Spanish participants up to 12 years. We developed a score assessing simultaneously seven aspects of alcohol consumption to capture the conformity to a traditional Mediterranean alcohol-drinking pattern (MADP). It positively scored moderate alcohol intake, alcohol intake spread out over the week, low spirit consumption, wine preference, red wine consumption, wine consumed during meals and avoidance of binge drinking.
During the follow-up, 206 deaths were identified.
Better adherence to an overall healthy alcohol-drinking pattern was associated with reduced mortality when compared with abstention or departure from this pattern. This reduction goes beyond the inverse association usually observed for moderate alcohol drinking. Even moderate drinkers can benefit from the advice to follow a traditional MADP.
Mediterranean alcohol-drinking pattern and mortality
• After studying the recent available clinical trials, it is evident that not only healthy food, but also moderate consumption of wine, has a link to cancer prevention. Biological mechanisms for oncological prevention are associated with the consumption of antioxidants and polyphenols that are contained in fruits, their products, such as wine, and vegetables. A moderate consumption of wine is recommended daily, mainly with food.
Epidemiological studies have shown that five to seven portions of fresh fruit and vegetables and two glasses of wine a day can lead to a longer and healthier life. The beneficial effect of wine is attributed mainly to its antioxidant properties of the large number and amount of polyphenolic compounds present in red wine
Contribution of Red Wine Consumption to Human Health Protection
• The people of southwestern France and Sardinia, are distinguished by drinking red wine produced with a traditional method, and are distinguished by their good health and longevity.
Red wine procyanidins and vascular health
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, it is not right to generalize in this matter. Wine prolongs life. A small glass of wine a day.. is beneficial, not harmful. The phrase that is said when drinking is true: “To your health!”
This is a sub-issue of our main study.. that the founders of religion are human beings, who were not inspired from outside the planet. If some of their decisions are right, that does not change anything from that fact. Their prohibition of wine was not because it was harmful to health, but rather for the purpose of military discipline; The work to establish a state and war plans and their implementation required vigilance and attention, constant caution against stalkers, discipline of individuals’ behavior and prevention of inaction (as chapter 17 shows). As for after death, there is no need for all that; They took advantage of people’s love for wine and their desire for it to tempt them and entice them to embark on fighting and conquest in order to drink it in the alleged imaginary “paradise”. By depicting the Quran, wine is one of the drinks of Paradise:
{.. rivers of wine, delicious to those who drink; ..} 47:15 H
That is, the poor Muslim worships during his life and obeys orders and prohibitions.. so that he drinks it after his death.
They were mere humans, from whom an idea may be taken and another rejected. Their religion may have been appropriate for them and their time. Now, in the 21st century, we must establish a new
religion (concepts and laws) in the light of modern sciences and the cumulative knowledge that we have had that the people of past centuries have not.
The outcome of this research encourages me to drink a small glass of red wine with dinner every day. “To your health!”
[1] Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016 – The Lancet
[3] Study Causes Splash, but Here’s Why You Should Stay Calm on Alcohol’s Risks – The New York Times
[4] A Link Between Alcohol and Cancer? it is not Nearly as Scary as It Seems – The New York Times
[5] Dietary Guidelines for Americans
23. It Shall Stay .. the Fathers’ Way
The people’s tendency towards religions and devotion in the past, came within a stage of human development, as a result of feeling weak and powerless, and the widespread belief in the need to seek the help of a powerful being, to face fears, and to request material and moral support, and to control the behavior of individuals and crowds. Religion was a method for managing life, enduring hardship and patience in calamities, and it included motivation and empowerment with positive beliefs, and deterrence and intimidation from disliked actions. The method benefited some people and was relatively successful in the scales of its time; but it is related to ignorance and primitiveness, based on deception and superstition, since people had not yet been able to make a breakthrough towards discovery and knowledge. After a long time, with the evolution of science and awareness, people have devised new ways to manage their affairs, which lead them to power, capability, wealth, and material and intellectual advancement.
Politicians and clerics have utilized religion to subdue us, to enslave us, and to recruit us to implement the wishes of the powerful, as one of the most powerful ways to apply the policy of enticement and intimidation (stick and carrot), by inaugurating a great superior god that people fear and hope for his generosity, just as the mother entices her stubborn child with a toy or a candy or a nice fictional character (Santa) and intimidates him with a scary fictional character (bogeyman). The problem is in the religions not in those who exploit them. The Europeans have not become free from the domination of politicians until they became free from religion; and the Arabs have not grovelled to the politicians until they submitted to religion. What the founders of Islam did was nothing but an expansionist political activity. Therefore, we must give priority to criticizing religions, so that people can see their flaws, and get rid of them and of those who utilize them.
There are always people who plan and work secretly and implement conspiracies and intrigues, so the results of this seem supernatural as if they were from a being stronger than humans. If the atomic bomb was not announced as man-made.. people would have thought that an angry god dropped it.
History has repeatedly demonstrated that people can be enslaved in this way (fear and greed). As a recent example, we recall the story of Juhaiman.. when rumors spread that there was a person in whom the characteristics of the anticipated Imam Mahdi were fulfilled; so this led to the recruitment of a militia who occupied the Great Mosque of Mecca, believing that they were Mujahideen (warriors engaged in a jihad) who were enabling al-Mahdi to reign, and people began to pledge allegiance to him in the mosque. Then the operation ended with killing many people, including the alleged Mahdi. This “Mahdi” is a microcosm of the alleged prophets and messengers, especially those who extended their influence by the sword and violence. The only difference is that the scientific and industrial revolution in the twentieth century enabled the modern countries to fight and defeat those Mujahideen or Jihadists, Juhaiman, al-Qaeda, ISIL and others.
The persons who refused to follow Muhammad’s religion argued that they were adhering to the religion of the fathers; so the authors of the Quran responded with a deprecative question:
{When it is said to them: “Come to that which Allah has sent down, and to the Messenger”, they reply: “Sufficient for us is what we have found our fathers upon”. Even though their fathers knew nothing and were not guided?} 5:104 Q
They also said in response to their opponents:
{Yet of this they have no knowledge; they follow mere conjecture, and conjecture does not help against the truth.} 53:28 Q
Now, we are more entitled than them of expressing this deprecation, as Islam is the belief of our fathers, and the windows of science, knowledge and enlightened intellect have become open to us, so scientific evidence and logical proofs have become present with us, while the religious people follow inherited conjectures. The blame is not on the people of past centuries, for they were victims
of ignorance; rather the blame is on the new religious people who see evidence and proofs and ignore them or deny them, and insist on being reactionary.
We have to choose between religion and science.. between belief in the divine unseen and myths, and awareness and knowing the facts. Passion is brute, and mind is its leash. We and our fathers and ancestors have long been enslaved to a mythical being; is not it time for us to be free from this delusion?
As in the old adage, the fool.. is the one who wants to help you but then harms you. The problem is not with the adherents of religions; it is with every fool who has a tendency to violence, to harm others, or to dominate them in order to impose his belief and law on them. If he contemplated deeply in his soul, he would find that he does not know whether this is beneficial or harmful.
“If you do not know, then it is a calamity, and if you know, then the calamity is greater.” No one defends religion.. except those who do not know that this is a false religion, entailing that they have a problem in their mind (ignorance of the evidence or inability to understand it), or those who know, entailing that they have a problem in their conscience (insistence on falsehood).
He who has established himself as a guardian of religion.. does not defend religion as he claims or imagines; rather he defends a structure founded on the system of possession, which the founders of the religion have strengthened and affirmed to fulfill their own greeds and their followers’. Whoever defends and attacks for the love of possession.. I hope that his conscience will wake up.. and that he’ll give that up.
Perhaps many people are aware that the religion of their fathers is based on superstition and deception, but they ignore this and deny it in public, for fear of terrorism, harm, punishment, and rejection by family and friends. Even if they write with a false name, they may cling to religion as a precaution for their families from chaos and disorderliness, or to preserve the benefits that the religion grants through the system of possession, and a glorious identity (expired) in which there’s pride and superbia, and to stand up for their individual and collective self against the criticizers of their religion, or so that they do not face the latent fear and bear the responsibility associated with freedom; (therefore, it’s become common to depend on a god;) as religion may include a state called
“spirituality”, which is tranquility that relieves the soul from anxiety with the concerns of death, annihilation, injustice and misery.
All of this pushes them to defend religion, even if their souls have become sure that it is false, a defense to the extent of prosecuting the opponent and implementing the law of killing the apostate or other justifications for banishing and getting rid of him, because he threatens this structure which is built on falsehood. This is in addition to misleading people with religious publications and speeches which are edited with selectivity and keenness in presenting desirable and attractive texts and blocking repulsive and reprehensible texts, and publishing the falsities of “miraculousness”. Why is all this keenness to spread and reiterate what supports the faith of people, and to block all what calls for doubt? For the interest of whom is this guile and misrepresentation?
To many people, including Muslims, priority is not for substantiating the truth or being guided to it.
Rather, most committed Muslims do not want to substantiate the truth. If they were, we would have found the door of discussion and argument in beliefs widely open without terrorism or harm. He only wants to defend his entity. He is also an enemy of freedom; he demands for himself and for the followers of his religion only, and fights it if it is for others. This is not fair; and he has no right to demand something his religion opposes.
Even if we look at the field of values, morals and discipline of individuals, in general, we find degradation of the level for the followers of religions which have a law, compared to the liberal people; and that’s because the law has replaced the conscience.
This underdevelopment and degradation is only due to the absence of freedom of belief; as better alternatives exist; and we lack only a secular system that guarantees freedom of belief, criticism and questioning of the prevailing belief, and spreading ideas and the sayings of the wise, and calling for alternatives and discussing them openly to show their benefits and harms and choosing the best of them.
Bequeathal of beliefs is injustice and a sin exercised by humans against their own children. Freedom of belief and choosing it without inheritance, indoctrination, embarrassment, maltreatment, or threat.. is among the most important human rights.
If there was a god who rewards those who believe in him and punishes the others, it is not fair to have this belief by hereditary; fairness is that each person becomes guided (or not) individually.
One of the most dangerous disadvantages of this malicious religion is raising people on the principle of persistence until death, fear of dissuasion from religion and keenness to preserve it and guard it.
How can we see truth as truth so we follow it and see falsehood as falsehood so we avoid it, if we were programmed from a young age to persist and guard a belief that we inherited from our ancestors? Thus, leaving this illusion.. requires the ability to be conscious, by spreading and communicating proofs (with this book or other), and receiving it and assimilating it.
Not knowing all the answers is better than taking wrong, delusive ones. The basis for this is that the human being takes the natural right to freedom of discovery, testing, knowledge and choice.
24. Duty Calls .. to Tear Walls
Thanks to the Invaders
During a quarter of a century since the entry of the Internet and satellite channels to the countries of the Arabs.. the spread of cultural and cognitive means has granted many people access to hidden things that were blocked on them when governments controlled the media and education; among those hidden things.. that religions are made by man and are a phase of his development; that is, he created the god; as the Egyptian adage says, “There’s no afreet but man.”
The conservatives used to chant the words “intellectual invasion”. It is an old phrase in their dictionary, even before that period.. by which they meant some newspapers, magazines and radio stations and even foreign programs in Saudi TV.
The people of those countries, in the past centuries, were subject to deliberate “ignorization” policy (keeping them ignorant).. which included -for example- banning books and magazines, jamming radio stations, and preventing females from learning to read.
I am among the thankful for those invaders who launched satellite broadcasts and the Internet.. and I consider them liberating conquerors. And what a great liberating conquer it was, that which they achieved.. from it stemmed the openness of many minds and souls to life, knowledge, and cultures, instead of the culture of reclusion and death. Their invasion is benign, unlike the invasions of the Arabs, which were waged to take the lands of others and their wealth.
Praise and thanks to the minds that created this technology, so they brought us out of the darkness of the ignorization.. to the light of self-education from the sources of knowledge.
Accordingly, I can assume the following hypothesis:
A big proportion of people do not believe in the belief of their fathers.
With the absence of freedom of safe expression no one will be able to prove the hypothesis wrong; as in these deserts, one hides their lack of faith (precaution = hypocrisy), either because they’re beneficiary of the situation, or for fear of their family, government, and terrorism. Even with writing under a pseudo-name.. many of us do not feel safe from consequences, and many of us do not dare to break the illusive barrier.. fear of “Allah”, implanted in us since childhood, and the barrier of dismay from seceding the herd. Even in virtual reality.. many of us are keen to gain followers and likes; this requires conformity with the prevailing views and the trending ideas at the moment, among which are inherited beliefs that do not change except with difficulty and over a long time.
Positive news has emerged of increases in the percentage of irreligionists in recent years. It is a matter of time. Although Muslims multiply like rabbits.. the progress of advancement in knowledge and means of its publication foretells that in the current century thereis a historical transition phase comprising the complete abandonment of old religions by future generations, especially the Abrahamic ones, and the limitation thereof in museums and anthropology.
Religions are man-made. The arguments and the proofs documented in this book.. implicate the three Abrahamic religions, as they have the same flaws. These religions are the most widespread, and have the most men who get enthusiastic for them, and spend time and money in defending them and inviting people to join them, and issuing countless publications in glorifying them, commending them, and prospecting in the merits of their characters and “holy books”.
The most important thing that the founders of these religions called for was belief in the unseen and believing in the claimant of prophethood; and they used encouragement and intimidation to push people to do so, as it is the best way to blind obedience and subjugating others to carry out orders and desires. They corrupted the minds of most people by making believing claims without proof (faith) a good position that deserves honor and favor, and denying them a bad position that deserves punishment and torment. While the opposite is true according to knowledge, reason, logic, and conscience; as following evidence is the guarantee against lying and misleading, in order to be guided to the truth. It is not appropriate for a Creator to ask us to do what contradicts these standards, if he is the one who put them in our brains and in our world.
Just as a person who commits one dishonorable crime loses his eligibility to hold a leadership position, one mistake in the foundation of religion is enough to lose sanctity, integrity, and eligibility to follow it and believe that it is the truth.
There is no need to waste time engaging in Judaism and Christianity, as this is the role of those who left them, who have not fallen short in exposing their fakeness. And the Bible is like the Quran: One error is enough to prove its falseness, which is true in the first text in the bible is enough to prove its falseness, which is of the “Old Testament”, which represents both religions. It also represents Islam, because it is a religion that considers this book true except what has been distorted of it; and this part talks about the universe and the genesis, no motive and no interest for anyone to distort it:
{In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”
And there was evening, and there was morning – the first day.} Genesis 1:1-5
Day light is not an independent being, as it emanates from the sun; and it did not originate after the Earth, as the sun was burning, illuminating, before the Earth formed. The authors of the book of Genesis were unable to know simple facts, such as the fact that the day light is from the sun, and it pertains to planet Earth and the rest of the solar system’s planets, and that there are countless solar systems and lights, and that the light and the darkness are not two things that may be separated, as the darkness is not a thing, but rather, it is the absence of light or its blockage.
Therefore, these authors were merely ignorant persons who did not receive revelation from outside the planet.
And since the New Testament tells that Yeshua, the alleged Messiah believed what they wrote, including its scientific errors, and the claim of the Children of Israel that God the Father ordered them to exterminate the people of Palestine.. he is like them.
As for the claim that prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled in the story of Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus), researchers have refuted it a while ago, with their conclusion that the story of Yeshua were written in the books of the New Testament with false details (falsified narratives), so that they appear to validate those prophecies, for the purpose of summoning people to faith and subordination to Church, and to get rid of the law by putting words in the mouth of the alleged Messiah. [1]
Among what confirms the fakeness of Christianity.. is the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, a huge number of manuscripts, belonging to a community that lived in Palestine, where the bible says that Yeshua lived, died, and rose, and his twelve disciples went forth to invite people to faith in him.
Those manuscripts were written in an era that extended after the alleged time of Yeshua by tens of years, even so, they do not contain any mention of him nor his disciples, not as commendation nor as condemnation. [2] The critics of the bible have not fallen short from exposing its errors and flaws, enough to spare us from getting involved in it.
Christianity has caused many crimes against humanity, and the killing or imprisonment of scholars and the destruction of their books because they contradicted its book, and the keeping of people away from the path of knowledge and awareness.
These accumulated religions began when the leaders of the children of Israel fabricated stories in order to have people believe that their tribe.. has a god greater than the gods of all tribes, named Yahweh, and that their genealogy is noble, extended through a golden chain of prophets and saints, from Moses, who talked with Yahweh, through Jacob, who wrestled with Yahweh, and Abraham the friend of Yahweh, up until Adam, who Yahweh created with his own hands, and that he granted them the land of Palestine, and ordered them to exterminate its people to take it.
The Abrahamic religions were (and still are) a brute power that kept people in ignorance and degradation until they became liberated from them. These religions can be represented with a tremendous monster; Judaism is its head, Christianity is its trunk, Islam is its tail, with which it whips left and right, and their men are its legs. Inevitably, it will perish, no matter how old it gets, then it will be embalmed and erected in a museum.
[Image 1]
Inherited religions have become a major cause of dividing us, cruelty and killing among us, oppression, tyranny, banning the right of expression, and wasting time and money. Let’s be honest with ourselves; do we want to substantiate the truth, or to be fanatic for our religion? Are these Abrahamic religions valid for every place and time? Are they of nature in any way? And is it right to follow them and defend them in the presence of the scriptures that prove their spuriousness and the
ignorance and savagery of their founders? This type of religions is the opposite of nature, science, peace, love, and beauty.. the opposite of humanity.
The founders of these religions were killers, mass murderers. Do you understand what this means, reader? It is not appropriate for a person with full awareness to glorify and follow those people.
Imagine yourself or a loved one, becoming convinced that the belief of Islam is a fallacy, and rejecting it, so the person gets taken and gets beheaded; or being forced by need to steal, so the person gets taken and his|her hand is cut off at its joint. And until this time, bloodshed, amputation, tearing of bodies, massacres, and the assassination of peaceful opponents continue by some Muslims who have committed to their religion and wanted to do what it incites them to do as its founders did, in hope for illusive goodness that it promises them to gain after death. Islam is not the answer; it is the problem. As people become more committed to it, their condition becomes worse.
The Abrahamic religions in themselves and in their origin are extremism. Extremism is that we build our principles and lives on claims without evidence. Most people judge an idea as extremist in comparison to their own ideas or their society's ideas; the right thing to do is to judge it in comparison to what is in accordance with nature, science and logic. If we realize and comprehend the facts, we can see that merely following these religions is extremism, since their structure is based on extremist ideas (the assumption of the existence of an invisible being who deserves our servitude, in return for a wage that he gives us after we die, and permits us to do bad and criminal acts -as the previous chapters show- and misleads whomever he wants among us, then tortures them for being misguided with fire, and continues to torture them by burning them and changing their skins endlessly.)
As to moderation.. it is to be compatible with science and logic, to be natural, to be mindful of and to care for our own nature and the nature of what is around us, and to build our principles and our lives on clue and evidence, and benefit and harm.
Since the proofs on the falseness of these religions are ample and clear.. other weaker religions.. are less likely to be divine. But we do not talk about them and we do not judge what we do not know; and they do not concern us, as we have not received an invitation nor assault from them. Our talk is always concentrated in the Abrahamic religions, especially Islam, due to our suffering from its tyranny, oppression, and imperiousness on us from cradle to grave, and based on our study of it and knowing enough to judge it.
Religions and slavery are a phase of history that has expired. Humanity is in the phase of science and technology. Religions and slavery are backwardness and reactionary.
Antireligion
Irreligion is a choice for human beings (not to choose). From its name it is understood that it is simply.. opposition to religion. Some of us are active dissidents who speak, write, criticize and discuss, while the others (the majority) keep their opposition dormant, occupied by their own affairs or non-religious affairs.
Opposition to religion is like political opposition. And there is nothing like Islam in the world.. in that it is political in its origin and nature, imposing itself on people in various ways: by coercive force (invasion and “surrender to be safe”), as well as marketing by invitation (propaganda and advertisement) and preachers (sales representatives).. to achieve political and personal purposes for its founders and its men.
I have not heard of a religion other than this one.. that calls on opposition like a political opposition, and even an armed opposition. Yes, some of its followers denounce and condemn the war by many entities against it, and overlook or ignore that this is a militant domineering religion:
{And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshiping others
besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. ..}
8:39 H
And it coerces its opponents to fight it, as the first generation did.. Quraish’s lords, and the Umayyad dynasty who built their state and their glory on opposing the Imam Ali (Muhammad’s cousin son-in-law) and the Imam al-Hussein (Muhammad’s grandson) and battling them and killing them.
Our specialization and activity in the internet have become concentrated in opposing Islam and its injustice, aggression, and oppression.. even combating it, like any malignant disease, because of what it does via Mutawas, Mullas, Taliban, the Islamic State group, and others who apply its original teachings, and because it enslaved us, and because for 14 centuries.. it has enticed people to renounce life, and to work for what’s after death instead of working for life (for the purpose of taking their money, recruiting them and having them fight bravely – as shown in chapter 17), and it has made them despise it, and it gave them the delusion that in the post-death is an eternal great life; this has led them to apathy, neglect of life, and not implementing the reasons for its prosperity and the comfort of living in it, by work, thinking, creativity and seeking knowledge; this is the main cause of underdevelopment and weakness; and because we’re still burdened with its oppressive authority, and do not enjoy in our countries a full established secular system, and because we do not accept that a wrong remains met with silence, so how about it if it is common, terrible, and disastrous, and for the truth not to stay in the enclosure of secrecy.
And with the absence of freedom of expression and belief, and because we’re aware of the value of life and we do not want to commit suicide nor be exposed to murder or lashing and imprisonment, or harm from Muslims, persecution, and casting out.. this virtual world and the means of communication are the appropriate way to oppose religion, like the political opposition in the countries of tyranny.
The activity of the opposition to religion is to discuss religions, and remove their influence. Its objectives are:
• Demolition of the old rickety construction, and emptying the place and freeing it up to grow fruitful trees, (i.e., cleaning the mind from the accumulated inherited remains, so it can see things clearly and find a better alternative for the sake of the happiness of the human being)
• Stopping wasting time, money and energy on meaningless customs and rituals, some of which were ordered by warlords to train soldiers and prepare them, as chapter 17 shows (construction of air-conditioned mosques, 5 prayers per day, fasting, night prayers, pilgrimage and Omrah, etc.)
• Liberation of soul, mind and subconscious from illusive shackles.. to head for awareness and openness to life
• Liberation of the irreligionists from persecution and terrorism, enabling them to live their lives as they want, normal, public, without doubleness
The problems from religion are not only in enmities and fighting. In it is wasting times, efforts and funds. All those resources could have been exploited by people in things beneficial to them and to the future generations. In it is non-useful work (bowing, kotowing, and repeating hollow words) for the sake of an unreal paradise, instead of useful work by growing a real paradise. (Religion is the opium of peoples.) In it is “ignorization” and fighting science. And this is why scientific progress had been obstructed for many centuries. In it is aversion of life and disrespect to it, due to the illusion of an unreal eternal life after death. This is the cause of civilizational backwardness. In it is restriction of freedoms, harassment and continuous inconvenience, etc.
Response to the argument “It does not harm us to remain in our religion to be saved from the torment of the Hereafter”:
• Evidence has confirmed with certainty that this is a false religion; and falsehood must be avoided.
• No sane person with dignity would accept to submit to a deceit carried out by a criminal gang in the seventh century to enslave and recruit people.
• There is no need for this slavery, strict restrictions, and deprivation of normal life and its pleasures and joys, just because some ancients wanted that.
• We must get rid of a religion that causes intellectual backwardness, hinders the mind, and prevents people from the path of awareness and enlightenment, and from receiving the words of enlightened sages that contradict this Middle Eastern legacy.
What about the alternative? It is not of our responsibility to call for an alternative, nor of our right to determine it for people. After a person is liberated from the bondage of illusion, fear of slaughter and resurrection to the torment of the burning fire.. he|she becomes free, feeling free to look at cultures, philosophies and beliefs with an open detached unbiased mind, and to choose from them whatever he|she pleases, or to choose not, staying on nature and pure spontaneity. This is freedom.
This book leaves it open to choosing the alternative after leaving religion. But it is appropriate here to address some alternatives.
Osho
Osho (Rajneesh) is described as never born, never died; only visited this planet between 1931 and 1990.
For 20 years, he extemporarily spoke -in English- to audiences with words wiser than the words of any speaker I have ever heard and any religious text I have ever read.
A resort was constructed for him in India, in which his spiritual psychiatric treatments are applied (practical activities of active meditation, preparatory psychotherapy, and discipleship). Thousands of people traveled to him, he used to call them “friends”, and among them were some of the wealthiest and most successful of Europe, the USA, and Japan. Apparently, they all loved him, and probably thought of him as the best spiritual leader. Thousands of hours of his talks were recorded, and are available as video, audio, and transcripts. [3]
The main topic of the talks is the mind as a mechanism for survival, and as a hindrance to consciousness, (with useless thoughts, false beliefs, morality, and identity, and ego, residues of the past and obsessions of the future,) and how to drop the illusions, disguises, and addictions, live authentically in the present, and transcend the mind, and combining the consciousness and spirituality of Buddha with the zest and liveliness of Zorba. [4]
He was calling people to self-experience as observers of what is around them, with mental independence and moral separation from it, and ability to receive the truth from cosmic awareness, rather than relying on the words of current or former people. And he had the view that the final goal of each individual should be.. breaking the cycle of birth and death (reincarnation) and exiting it. [5]
Rajneesh and his staff moved to the USA and set up an entire town in Oregon, and thousands gathered, and lived there in a natural healthy way according to Rajneesh's vision. But the citizens of the state were of conservative Christian mindset, so they fought them with terrorist bombings, media campaigns, and legal battles in which the federal government intervened, which led to their displacement from it after 5 years. The governments of several countries banned him from entering them. His physical health deteriorated, and he said he believed that the Americans stuck in arsenic poison for him when he was detained by them. [6]
The resort which is in India still operates, and it has many branches in the world.
In 1990, researcher David Icke announced that he started to receive messages from hidden creatures, and that he woke up spiritually, and began his awareness-raising activity; this has been by writing books and giving lectures and interviews, and producing video materials with his sons and others, and publishing them on his websites and in his account on the X platform (davidicke), which is still active until the time of preparing the 2024 edition of this book. He got banned by several entities; among them are the YouTube platform, Australia and 29 Schengen states. Here are some ideas in his statements (as I understood them): [7]
• The universe consists of energy, with vibrations of different speed. It also consists of awareness, ranging from absolute to lower levels. Each level is the outcome of the trials and experiences of the beings of the lower levels. The more awareness of the being, the greater the speed of its vibration.
• In the universe there are rational beings and many worlds, which we do not feel (hidden), because their vibrations are faster than the vibrational range that we can receive with our five limited senses.
• All things, beings and thoughts are parts of one energy and one awareness. The components of the material field are energies with very slow vibrations suitable for our senses.
• A human is part of the eternal cosmic awareness, and it goes through a limited short experience by being embodied in a soul, occupying the body, and upon death, it is transmitted from the body with its full awareness to another world (astral), then it is dissolved in a new body (fetus).
• The reincarnation of the soul in a new body will be based on persuading it by beings that appear in the astral world that the purpose is to enforce the Karma law and raise the levels of awareness by attaining experiences and volatility between positive and negative experiences.
• For every human (and everything) is a distinctive magnetic aura, resulting from receiving and emitting cosmic magnetic energy after changing its nature by affecting it with the pattern of the person’s energy, the pattern that represents his feelings, thoughts and spiritual condition. This aura is the secret of the law of attraction; as it attracts or gets attracted to its counterparts, whether in people, things, places, or conditions. This means that a person's life is a material reflection of the thoughts and perceptions of his subconscious mind about himself and the world, and that he creates his own reality, and that changing his life begins with changing his feelings, thoughts, perceptions and spiritual state. This description applies also to the collective level.
• Our health and the rest of the organisms', (as well as our planet's,) depends on the balance of energy, its vibrations and paths, and can be used for healing, instead of chemical medicine that profits from treating symptoms of diseases and ignores their causes.
• It is possible to obtain free energy that is enough to free us from needing the current primitive method (which polluts the environment and disturbs the structure of the earth) with a small device that extracts it from the fields of the planet's energy.
• The global system is unable to survive. The normal situation is that life is enjoyable for everyone.
This will be achieved when our connection to cosmic awareness returns, and positive feelings and ideas become common (superior energy), and falls the system of meeting greed (with an unjust consumption of the planet resources and its pollution to grow large companies while most people struggle), and established is the system of meeting the need (with a local, not global economy, and with cooperation, not competition).
• Feeling of guilt and fear are negative feelings (inferior energy) that make society a negative one that does not stimulate activating the unlimited potential capabilities of humans. To create an ideal society, this must be replaced by the optimal basis, which is the positive feeling (superior energy) of respect.. self-respect and respect for everything.
• Most rational beings act in favor of the (harmonious, balanced) system of the universe, and a minority act against it, as they rebelled (demons) and have low vibration, and feed on inferior energy (low-vibrational) which strengthens them. Some beings come to our world (or live in it) and convey messages to humans of strong sense, for positive and negative purposes; and they are the ones who
some of which were taken as gods.
• Some visitors from outside the planet came with advanced science thousands of years ago, so ancient civilizations rose, including the lost civilization of Atlantis, whose disappearance was a turning point from the path of sophistication to degradation. There are age-old societies that have been inheriting some of this science secretly, and they have underground scientists and laboratories that produce things with technologies more advanced than what is available openly.
• Our world is subject to an ancient demonic conspiracy, to control our senses and perception of existence, and to keep up isolated from contacting higher levels of consciousness (by broadcasting jamming vibrations.) There is a global network of secret societies, with a hierarchical structure, whose leaders practice black magic, and work to appoint politicians and others to control us, control economy, medicine, media and education, and to mislead us (towards asceticism or towards nihilistic materialism,) and to distract us and harm us (with diseases, religions, stirring up strifes and conflicts,) and to enslave us, hinder our consciousness and our potential abilities, and finally, to use artificial intelligence, satellites and vaccines to completely control our minds. Their purpose is money and domination (by establishing a global government;) and the purpose of their gods (demons) is the generation of inferior energy resulting from negative feelings and thoughts.
• The plot is older and deeper than that; as this world is not the real reality; it is a low-vibrational three-dimensional simulation, limited by the speed of light, created for us by those demons. And we are eternal unlimited souls, i.e., we are pure consciousness; and we are not souls, as the soul is a limited identity that is also in this world and the astral world; and our bodies are biological computers with five senses that process the data generated from this simulation, and we are stuck in it and in the cycle of death and reincarnation, for the purpose of generating inferior energy. We can break this cycle (loop) and get out of it and go beyond it to what is superior to it, by understanding that and being convinced of it, and taking the firm decision -based on it- not to belong to the world, and to become observers of it, with mental independence and moral separation from it. (Osho has already said such words.)
Agnosticism & Atheism
Agnosticism: It is not to believe in anything without real proof; to know that you do not know, and to avoid illusion and stubbornness, so you become open-minded to awareness and to receiving and knowing the truth. It is a term, and does not mean “I do not know anything.” Its meaning is specific, which is admitting that we have not reached enough knowledge to prove or deny that the universe has a maker, or that it is self-existent; i.e. we do not know (and the followers of the Abrahamic religions too, have delusions and do not know) about the existential facts which we have no way to prove, such as the origin of life and the universe and their essence and whether they have a creator or not.
Atheism.. has two types [8]:
• Positive (Firm): The belief in the nonexistence of a deity for the universe, because in the universe there are signs and clues sufficient to deny it.
• Negative (Unprejudiced): The lack of belief in the existence of a deity for the universe, because the facts and evidence do not contain what it takes to prove it. It is considered of agnosticism.
One may find in atheism satisfaction and comfort, and may consider it a transitional phase until finding a better alternative.
In chapter 7 “Checking Every Verse .. About The Universe” there is what supports it.
The number of atheists is not small in the world. In addition to the irreligionists, Buddhists (half a billion) [9] and many Hindus (orthodox schools of Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa – a large proportion of a billion and a quarter) [10] are also atheists.
I have viewed published arguments for supporting the idea of theism (deism – existence of a deity who is the creator of the universe), and I have not been convinced. And in my opinion, a belief in a deity without a religion.. is futile, as such a deity, who does not intervene, speak, nor interact.. his|
her existence is as the lack thereof.
The existence of a creator deity is welcome.. if it is a fact, not a delusion. So far, it is just a hypothesis, some arguments support and some oppose it.
And since the artificiality of religions has been proven, this shows the lack of a creator deity, or that he|she does not want our worship, or that he|she is unable to enslave us.
There is no need for “faith in the divine unseen”, nor in the existence of a great eternal life after death, nor in the existence of a creator deity.. who has not declared himself and has not asked for our faith and has not obligated us to do anything. This extreme misguided thought makes some people despise life and the living (cockiness and arrogance), and deal with it on this basis, and the consequences become dire on them and on others.
On the other hand, it is of vanity and wishful thinking to believe that we are not merely living beings that die and decompose and turn into compost and then to new beings. Humans to the universe are tiny particles on a small planet among billions of planets. Even if the universe had a deity, he|she would not care about these particles, nor even notice their presence, let alone caring that they believe in him|her.
The Muslim who criticizes atheism.. I simply tell him: Never mind. No one invited you to adopt it.
You are the one obligated by your religion to advocate it and to fight so that it dominates people; and the evidence is on those who claim, not on those who deny. So it is worthier that you tell us.. why do you stick to this religion despite what is in the Quran of proofs that it is man-made and teachings that violate nature and humane values.
Buddhism
One of the immortal sayings of the Buddhist teacher Tek Nhat-Han: “The way out is in.” In my view, this means that your way out of misery is by being mindful first, facing your reality, and releasing negative energy, then entering deep within yourself, contemplating and liberating yourself from acquired identity, beliefs and influences, to reach your true self, where you can connect with the universal consciousness.
Some of the 14 mindfulness trainings (from the modern applied Buddhism) [11]: 1. Aware of the suffering created by fanaticism and intolerance, we are determined not to be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. We are committed to seeing the Buddhist teachings as a guiding means that help us learn to look deeply and develop understanding and compassion. They are not doctrines to fight, kill, or die for. We understand that fanaticism in its many forms is the result of perceiving things in a dualistic or discriminative manner. We will train ourselves to look at everything with openness and the insight of interbeing in order to transform dogmatism and violence in ourselves and the world.
2. Aware of the suffering created by attachment to views and wrong perceptions, we are determined to avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. We are committed to learning and practicing non-attachment to views and being open to others’ experiences and insights in order to benefit from the collective wisdom. We are aware that the knowledge we presently possess is not changeless, absolute truth. Insight is revealed through the practice of compassionate listening, deep looking, and letting go of notions rather than through the accumulation of intellectual knowledge.
Truth is found in life, and we will observe life within and around us in every moment, ready to learn throughout our lives.
3. Aware of the suffering brought about when we impose our views on others, we are determined not to force others, even our children, by any means whatsoever -such as authority, threat, money, propaganda, or indoctrination- to adopt our views. We are committed to respecting the right of others to be different, to choose what to believe and how to decide. We will, however, learn to help others let go of and transform fanaticism and narrowness through loving speech and compassionate dialogue.
One of the teachings of Buddhism is that there is no eternal bliss, and that happiness and misery are a duality that is never separated, and that misery is necessary for our development. In my view, if we lived in eternal bliss, we would get bored of it after a while, just as we get bored of a long vacation, and we would crave challenges and work to occupy ourselves with them and feel our value and activate our abilities and skills. Our freedom from the belief in eternal bliss frees us from dependence and motivates us to strive to make our world a paradise and a bliss for us and for the generations that follow us.
Humanism
Humanism.. is a general philosophical approach to life that emphasizes the potential and agency of human beings, individually and socially, and generally prefers looking to science and reason rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world. [12] It refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of human freedom and progress. It views humanity as responsible for the promotion and development of individuals, espouses the equal and inherent dignity of all human beings, and emphasizes a concern for humans in relation to the world. [13]
The international organization of humanists defines it as “a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.” [13]
It is enough to love life, respect it, and live it with passion and curiosity to know it and to know ourselves. This is the nature of how the human being is in childhood, and the followers of inherited beliefs deviate from it.
You have no right to condemn
everyone who's irreligious.
I guide you or you guide me.
This is the best of fields.
[1] Smith, Homer W. (1952). Man and His Gods. p.385
[2] The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament – Biblical Archaeology Society
[3] Osho World
[5] Osho’s discourses
[6] Netflix Documentary - Wild Wild Country
[7] Books & videos of David Icke
[8] Wikipedia Arabic – Atheism
[9] Wikipedia Arabic – Buddhism
[10] Wikipedia Arabic – Hindu Atheism
[11] The 14 Mindfulness Trainings - Plum Village
[12] Wikipedia Arabic – Humanism
Some words are magic, and surely this is the greatest deceit. With careful reading of the documented details, it becomes clear to us that the criticisms of the religion are not just suspicions, and that Muhammad was a priest.. who fooled some people, and they obeyed him, and that the source of the book named Quran is.. ignorant people who impersonated the characteristics of “omniscient”,
“expert” and “knower of hidden things”, just because they translated what they found of primitive knowledge and used it shrewdly and guilefully.. thieves who came up with texts they claimed to be from the “Lord of the Worlds” and raised the slogans of divinity and holiness, and with these things they dared to kill people, plunder their money, kidnap their women, occupy their lands, and steal the lives of their followers and the lives of many generations after them.
If they had refrained from getting involved in the matter of cosmic phenomena.. the argument would have been made that this refraining was for a wise reason; but they got involved in it, and they came with texts in the Quran that prove definitely and without room for doubt.. that its source is ignorant, not knowing.
Islam was built on falsehood, lies, deception and misguidance; and the purpose of its founders was the fabrication of an illusive divine authority, (by claiming that the ruling is for “Allah” while the truth is that it is for them,) and its exploitation in tyranny, militarizing people, raping the countries of others, their wealth and their women, the acquisition of them, and the enjoyment of that and of pride, glory, prestige and influence. This means that the doctrine of Islam is merely human ideas and perceptions, and that its law is man-mad like other governmental laws and regulations. Among the proofs of that is.. the ignorance of the source of the Quran of the following:
• Earth is a planet revolving around itself and around the sun, not the opposite (Chapter 2)
• The cause for the movement of the wind is the varying atmospheric pressure with the rotation of the Earth and the variation of the sun's heat (Chapter 2)
• Hail falls from the clouds, not from mountains in "Heaven" (Chapter 2)
• In the North Pole are millions of people, and there, are two problems that break two pillars of Islam (Chapter 4)
• Semen forms in the lower abdomen, not in the back (Chapter 5)
• How the fetus forms, and that the growth of its tissues is simultaneous (Chapter 5)
• The living beings, including man, evolved from one origin (Chapter 6)
• What keeps a bird hanging in the air is the air and the flying mechanism (Chapter 8)
• Micro-organisms are beings of great presence and influence (Chapter 8)
• The heart is the blood pump; as for understanding, belief, reason and memory, they are in the brain (Chapter 8)
• In the calculation of inheritance there are complexity and ramifications, which require reviews and amendments (Chapter 12)
After all of this, is there still any doubt in the invalidity of religion? Is there still any need to justify leaving it? Surely the moral obligation to justify is on those who follow a religion like this one. Is it appropriate of an honest sane person who has learned about these proofs and flaws and demerits.. to accept the presence of such a religion in our time? Let alone being dedicated to it, building his|her life on it, and defending it.
As to those who try to deny and repudiate these flaws and demerits, calling them suspicions, and work on the original texts by revising and filtrating them, and selecting from them what they like and what serves their purposes, those people are fabricating a fantastical religion other than what Muhammad and his aids came up with. And as to the merits of Quran and Hadith (narratives), they are the product of what the founders of religion wanted to delude people with; as the noble values are a truth by which falsehood was intended, so that people like religion and see it as good and
embrace it, and Mohammad’s character in the narratives -even if its origin was real, as a charismatic leader who claimed to be a prophet, so the naive people of Yathrib (Medina) enthroned him as a king upon themselves- is like the hero character in any novel or movie.. all his words and actions are likeable or agreeable, because he is the hero, and because the authors wanted to portray him like this, and because the audience also wants this.
I say this.. to substantiate the truth, and because what was built on falsity.. is false. Even if this building is ancient and sturdy, and inhabited by millions of people, it will inevitably collapse, sooner or later; I see it at present on the verge of collapse.
When the light of knowledge clears darkness off from insight, and this magic is nullified, and we realize the truth, and we get liberated from the domination of illusive divinity.. we become obliged of a duty toward our consciences.. to summon courage, and to be freed from the shackles of spurious religions that numb us and delude us with having sufficiency and freeness from need, and cause our destruction in conflicts, wars and diseases resulting from opposing the nature of life and neglecting natural life.
And when the conscience is free from the accumulated heritage, and dust and pollution gets cleared off from it, and time, mind, and will become available.. we must navigate the depths of the unknown in order to reach tranquility and enlightening of the insight. That we get to awareness and liberty late is better than never. But getting there early in our youth.. this is great luck, the worth thereof we must appreciate.
I do not claim that I have been guided to the truth, but I assure that I have become able to get close to it after being misled toward a direction I found to be wrong. Getting away from falsehood is getting closer to the truth; and I have become available to receive the truth after the film of the wrong belief over my mind got dispelled. Returning from the wrong route is necessary to take the right one. And I do not see anybody has the right to claim being rightly guided. Truth is like perfection.. a goal the free human being hopes to attain. It might be unattainable, and it might be what we see around us and discover little by little by science; while most believers imagine being rightly guided, yet they’re the most misled people. The absolute truth has nothing to do with the perceptions of persons. It is one and the perceptions are many. Even in one religion people have split into denominations and sects. Therefore liberty is the most important thing, and secularism prevents tyranny in the name of the alleged truth, and allows everyone to contemplate the universe and see it in their own perception, not the perception of someone else.
There is a hypothesis that life is a thinking, formless being, which has no way of expressing itself.
And one day, when circumstances coincided, it found an opportunity to express and embody itself in a material thing, by creating the single-celled organism, then evolving from it.. to what is more elegant and intelligent, and towards more expression and creativity. That’s why, living organisms die.. in order to make room for more advanced organisms. Diseases, disablements, and disasters indicate the absence of supreme control or divine providence, and that all whatis there, is this formless being that has become incarnate and evolving. The evolution of life, which took billions of years.. we humans are its current peak. We should be worthy of this status, and our knowledge and work should be for the benefit of this life, full of expression and creativity. Life is the reality that we live, embodied in us and in other beings, and evolving through us to its utmost.
This life is all we got on our day of birth; in it is the real paradise, and we must explore it and exploit it and live it with passion and enjoy its delights all our moments to the maximum extent possible, and live the moment and seek timelessness in it, and be natural, and go free in natural life, we and our children, agreeing with nature and its laws, not letting death and what’s beyond it be our concern, so that the human being among us becomes complete with body, thought, awareness, and communication. We have all the time to live it with all our senses and fulfill our natural needs, and
to go through experiences and their interactions; and with that, maturity and balance are achieved, and we rise with our humanity by sharing and giving.. to the maximum possible of satisfaction and felicity.
And we might receive some real spirituality. Spirituality is a state of mindlessness. Thought has structure, spirituality doesn’t. Belief is thought. So, one does not approach spirituality unless they get rid of thought and belief. Spirituality is to bypass thought, to connect with your own essence and the essence of life, and to know it.
Then it becomes our custom to strive for what is good for us and for others, and to make the paradise gardens a reality lived by us and those who come after us, and to fly in the space of awareness contemplating ourselves and the universe.. toward further development and enlightenment, for us and for the generations that follow us.
Satellite TV and blocked websites
awakened some of the Muslims from the coma,
and for their willpower not to remain robbed,
our conscience pushes to call the lie a lie.
How can a creed be liked,
if it has made the human being a puppet;
fabricated by a clan that transgressed without punishment;
they brought written fables and poems;
and phrased them to become attributed to “Allah”.
No way that this would be his style.
They were in deep ignorance of the obscure things of the universe,
and had knowledge about how one fights his wars,
and assassinates the opponent without difficulty,
and if he raids people at night, he incurs his wish.
Have the news come to you of the tribulated Sofiya?
He slaughtered her family and conjoined her, forced,
he who came with the slaughter and the smitten necks,
and scratched nails into the defeated eyes,
and amputated their limbs, then they were in the barren area,
no one of them finding water to drink.
He built his glory on looted moneys,
and left the land behind burnt and damaged.
What religion is this that the sword opens its paths?
It is time for you to wake up O people of Arabia.
Interpretations
The Arabic interpretations and commentaries (tafsir) are from the major books by prominent scholars:
Tabari
Qurtubi
ibn-Kathir
Translations
This translation is from Arabic, by the author with the help of Google Translate and almaany.com.
The Quran translations were selected on quranwow.com and islamawakened.com from whomever is most accurate of these interpreters:
I: Itani
H: Hilali & Khan
Q: Qaribullah & Darwish
D: Daryabadi
S: Shakir
The translations of the narratives of Muhammad (Hadith) are from sunnah.com and searchtruth.com.
Dear reader, please take a moment to rate the ebook or write a
review at goodreads.com
. and to help it reach more people via social media and by any means. Thanks.
About the Author
Shums Ladeen is a pen name (pseudonym). It is Arabic, and it means the
sun of irreligion, as opposed to Shamsuddeen, a male name that means
the sun of the religion. I use it for protection from harm. I'm an ex-
Muslim, agnostic irreligionist. I'm an Arab, from Najd, in Arabia, (Saudi
Arabia.) As the experience of leaving Islam was significant in my life, it
led me to write this book, which I believe is worth the risk involved in
challenging fanatic religious people who would kill for it, and a
government that would inflict a severe punishment. My interest is peace
and dignity for all people, which can only be achieved in a real secular
system. This system cannot co-exist with the real Islam, as it claims to be the religion of the god of the universe, who wants to enforce it with jihad on the whole world. This necessitates wide distribution of the
information contained in this book, to show the Muslims that the religion
is from men, not from a god.
