Why Islamphobia is not a phobia of Islam

---

This blog post has moved here

---

Quite frankly I am sick of the word "Islamophobia".  The reason is that it is completely the wrong term.  Burning down mosques, pulling off hijabs and indecent graffiti are not forms of Islamophobia but anti-Muslim.  It seems that users of the word "Islamophobia" think that an irrational fear is when you are able to put the words "irrational" and "fear" into a single sentence about a specific subject, but this is simply not the case.

An irrational fear (or phobia) is when the fear itself is irrational, not the process which leads to deciding if something is dangerous or not.  Given accurate and sufficient data to show that something is harmless, one may still fear that thing if they use an irrational or illogical process to evaluate the data and therefore incorrectly conclude that thing presents a sufficient risk.  This is not a phobia, this is and misconception, an erroneous conclusion, irrational thinking.

For something to be a phobia it is the fear itself which must be irrational, i.e. there is no way for the person experiencing the fear to justify the level of fear they experience.  For example, given the data that a plastic doll has never attacked anyone and reaching the logical conclusion that dolls are therefore harmless, it is still possible for someone to fear plastic dolls whilst at the same time knowing there is nothing to fear.  Knowing there is nothing to fear and yet fearing it anyway is what makes the fear itself irrational and therefore a phobia.

For Islamophobia to be a phobia of Islam one must genuinely believe that there is very little or no threat at all, whether or not this opinion is well informed, ill informed, or completely uninformed is irrelevant, the important factor is that despite concluding there is no threat the person continues to fear Islam (or disproportionately fear Islam if one decides it poses a small threat).

1. A fear of dolls is a phobia if you know that dolls cannot willfully harm you.
2. If a person knows that most spiders are not poisonous then fearing all spiders is a phobia.
3. If a person knows that few spiders are poisonous then a small amount of fear is warranted, but a high level of terror of all spiders is a phobia - because the fear is known by the phobic person to be disproportionately high for the threat.
4. If a person believes that all spiders are poisonous then fearing all spiders is not a phobia, it is an irrational/erroneous conclusion, possibly based on little or incorrect data.  If it is proven to the person that most spiders are not poisonous it should change their level of fear of spiders, if they remain desperately fearsome of all spiders then it becomes a phobia.

People who have a phobia tend to avoid exposure to that which they fear, or when forced to be exposed to the thing they fear they are uncomfortable and wish to leave.  People who have a spider phobia tend to run away from spiders rather than seek them out to kill them.  People who have a clown phobia tend to run away from clowns rather than to seek them out and attack them.

One cannot say that Muslims pose no risk at all, but only in the same way that one cannot say strangers pose no risk at all; but fear of what Muslims might do is related to how they look (visually identifiable as a Muslim) or when they are in a social situation which identifies them as a Muslim.  The risk of being killed or harmed by a Muslim is probably less statistically likely than being killed by a non-Muslim, a complete stranger, or even someone you know.  It seems that the level of risk of harm from Muslims is what is actually being discussed when people argue as to whether or not Islamophobia is a real phenomenon.  This however distracts from the fact that the conclusion one reaches is nothing to do with whether or not fearing a belief or believer is a phobia.

So what are we really dealing with if not a phobia of Islam?  First there is the case of people being anti-Muslim.  This is a case of guilt by association, blaming the whole for actions of a few or of bigotry towards those deemed to be the "most different".  In many cases it is racism towards non-white people which is openly displayed because racists somehow feel it is more socially acceptable to hate Muslims (claiming they deserve it) than it is to admit they hate Pakistanis, and by extension hating anyone who seems to sympathise with them by dressing as them.

This is particularly highlighted by the accusations made against Muslims.

1. Rape gangs: The circumstances of these actions were not permitted by Islamic laws.
2. Female genital mutilation: As far as I can tell this is a social phenomenon rather than an Islamic one.
3. Forced marriages: Although the female's consent is assumed she is permitted to object.

Regarding Islamophobia what can we conclude?

1. Whether the person has accurate, inaccurate or no information is not a factor.
2. Whether the person is rational or irrational in reaching their risk assessment conclusion is not a factor.
3. Whether or not Islam is in reality a threat is surprisingly also not a factor.
4. Only if the person fears Islam whilst believing that it is harmless or disproportionately fears Islam whilst believing it is of little risk makes their condition a phobia.

Racists and anti-Muslims might use Islam and Muhammad as topics of insult because they know it will emotionally hurt Muslims, but they're attacks are against the Muslims themselves.  The term Islamophobia is not only an incorrect description of hatred towards Muslims and/or the resulting attacks against them, it is also such a vague term them any valid criticism of Islam can easily end up with one being accused as Islamophobic, and thus by extension someone filled with hatred and a possible violent attacker.  One can be outright anti-Islamic yet at the same time believe Muslims to be equals worthy of the same rights as themselves.

Islam is an idea, disliking Islam means only that you dislike an idea.  The term "Islamophobia" is a strong tool for silencing criticism of a specific idea.  Not only does this word make criticism of Islam difficult it also serves as a gross injustice to the crimes being committed against Muslims today.  To attribute crimes of hate as an irrational fear / phobia of a specific idea belittles the severity of what is actually happening.  People are being attacked because they are Muslims.  The people being attacked are not collateral damage of people attacking their common idea, they are a social group that is being alienated and attacked and that is much worse than any attack against their beliefs.

Most Muslims you meet are more likely to offer you a free dinner than blow you up on a bus.  We must make sure we protect these Muslims rather than their beliefs.

Welcome to Ramadan!

---

This blog post has moved here

---

I'm waiting for a system update to complete, so seeing as I have some free time and it is the start of Ramadan I thought I'd write down something that I originally planned for a video but now find I don't have the time to create.

Perseids

The Perseids /ˈpɜrsiːɨdz/ are a prolific meteor shower associated with the comet Swift-Tuttle. The Perseids are so-called because the point from which they appear to come, called the radiant, lies in the constellation Perseus. The name derives in part from the word Perseides (Περσείδες), a term found in Greek mythology referring to the sons of Perseus....The Perseid meteor shower has been observed for about 2000 years, with the earliest information on this meteor shower coming from the Far East.^[1] Some Catholics refer to the Perseids as the "tears of St. Lawrence", since 10 August is the date of that saint's martyrdom.^[5]The shower is visible from mid-July each year, with the peak in activity being between August 9 and 14, depending on the particular location of the stream. During the peak, the rate of meteors reaches 60 or more per hour. They can be seen all across the sky, but because of the path of Swift-Tuttle's orbit, Perseids are primarily visible in the northern hemisphere. As with all meteor showers, the rate is greatest in the pre-dawn hours, since the side of the Earth nearest to turning into the sun scoops up more meteors as the Earth moves through space

Source: WikiPedia - More information on the NASA website

Shooting stars, Jinns, and the Quran

The Quran claims the heavens are guarded by shooting stars which shoot down devils (or "Jinn") that try to eaves drop on revelations from Allah.  The successful of these eavesdropping Jinns then descend from the heavens and reveal those stolen revelations, mixed with lies, to poets.

• 15.16-18 And verily in the heaven we have set mansions of the stars, and We have beautified it for beholders. And We have guarded it from every outcast devil, Save him who stealeth the hearing, and them doth a clear flame pursue.
• 67.5 And verily We have beautified the world's heaven with lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils, and for them We have prepared the doom of flame.

Quran 15.16-18 and 67.5

• Shall I inform you upon whom the devils descend? They descend on every sinful, false one. They listen eagerly, but most of them are liars.As for poets, the erring follow them.

 Quran 26.221-224

• 37.6-10 We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars,- (For beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits, (So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side, repulsed, for they are under a perpetual penalty. Except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they are pursued by a flaming fire, of piercing brightness.

Quran 37.6-10

• 72.1-9 Say: It has been revealed to me that a company of Jinns listened (to the Qur'an). They said, "We have really heard a wonderful Recital! ... There were persons among mankind who took shelter with persons among the Jinns, but they increased them in folly ... And we (The Jinns) pried into the secrets of heaven; but we found it filled with stern guards and flaming fires. We used, indeed, to sit there in (hidden) stations, to (steal) a hearing; but any who listen now will find a flaming fire watching him in ambush."

Quran 72.1-9

* Please do click the "Tafsirs" link after each verse to read the understanding of the verse from the point of view of the classical Muslim Quran commentators.

Muhammad's prophethood

Muhammad was born in 570CE and claimed prophethood in 610CE aged approximately 40.  According to Hadiths (stories from Muhammad's life) he used to spend days meditating/contemplating in the cave of Hira, and this is where it is claimed he was first visited by the angel Gabriel and given his first revelations from god (Allah).

Take the Julian date of August 610CE and convert it using a Julian to Islamic calendar converter and we find that it falls on Ramadan.  Muhammad's first revelations would have come during a period of intense meteor showers, which was thought to be missiles attacking eavesdropping Jinns, maybe suggesting to him that something extraordinary was happening in the heavens regarding revelations from Allah.

This perhaps is the rationale behind these verses in the Quran about revelations from the heavens and shooting stars being used to shoot down Jinn who try to eaves drop.

To all cultural/practicing Mulsims and apostates, have a happy Ramadan!

Does the Quran permit sex with slaves?

---

This blog post has moved here

---

After a short exchange with a guy named "Tanvir Chowdhury" on Twitter Tanvir wrote a detailed response as to why he thinks sex with slaves is not endorsed by the Quran.  I shall quote Tanvir's response and intersperse my comments.

Does #Islam permit a #Muslim man to have sex with his slaves in addition to his legal wives? Those arguing it does, frequently cite the #Quran, verses 23:5-6 as support for their position.
These verses as translated by Yusuf Ali reads:“Who abstain from sex,Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, for (in their case) they are free from blame”
The phrase “right hands possess” (arabic: Ma malakat aymanukum) used in verse 23:6 is presumed to mean “captives” (obtained through defensive war). And hence, many interpret this verse as permitting sex with one’s war captives or slaves.
However, the translation by Muhammad Asad reads slightly differently:“and who are mindful of their chastity[not giving way to their desires] with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock]: for then, behold, they are free of all blame”

Whilst I do like that you have chosen the nicest translation of the original text I find it unfortunate to say that this is a biased approach.  I would prefer it if the Quran said not to have sex with slaves, that is my preference, but it's a mixed blessing that reality doesn't conform to my preferences.

1. Ahmad Ali: Except from their wives and women slaves of old are free of blame, 
2. Arberry: Save from their wives and what their right hands own then being not blameworthy
3. Daryabadi: Save in regard to their spouses and those whom their right hands own: so they are not blameworthy
4. Khan: Except from their wives or the legal bondwomen that they possess, for then there is no blame upon them
5. Maududi: save from their wives, or those whom their right hands possess; for with regard to them they are free from blame
6. Pickthall: Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy
7. Qaribullah: except with their wives and what their right hand possess, and then they are not blamed.
8. Sahi Intl: Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed
9. Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
10. Shakir: Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable,

There is quite a bit of variation here.  Some interpret "Right hands possess" to mean slaves, some just quote it as it literally appears in the Quran.  Ahmad Ali adds the words "of old" which do not exist in the Quran, a good example of translating the text to mean what you want rather than translating what it actually says.  From this all we can conclude so far is that we need to work out the definition of "Right hands possess".

1. Except with your wives or (to put it another way) with those your right hands possess (through marriage).
2. Except with your wives or with those your right hands posses.

The words "to put it another way" and "of old" do not appear in the original Arabic so must be inferred from other parts of the Quran, as Tanvir has done.

Muhammad Asad’s rendering of this verse indicates that there is no blame if one has sex with whom they “rightfully possess” through wedlock (ie. marriage). The justification for this rendering is given in his commentary on this verse, reproduced below:
“Many of the commentators assume unquestioningly that this relates to female slaves, and that the particle aw ("or") denotes a permissible alternative. This interpretation is, in my opinion, inadmissible inasmuch as it is based on the assumption that sexual intercourse with ones female slave is permitted without marriage: an assumption, which is contradicted by the Qur'an itself (see 4:3, 24, 25 and 24:32)

I will address each referenced verse in turn.

4:2-3

• 4:2 Give unto orphans their wealth. Exchange not the good for the bad (in your management thereof) nor absorb their wealth into your own wealth. Lo! that would be a great sin.
• 4:3 And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess. Thus it is more likely that ye will not do injustice.

Various hadiths explain that 4:2-3 are verses about men marrying female orphans in their care.  Two things these verses forbid are

1. That the man mixes the wealth of the orphan with his own because she has more money (Mainly  described in 4:2)
2. If the man desires the orphan for reasons other than money he must ensure that he pays her a suitable Mahr (dowry), one that another suitor would have paid.  Giving her anything less than she deserves would be unjust

References

• http://www.thequrancollection.com/Hadith_Bukhari_55_26.htm
• http://www.thequrancollection.com/Hadith_Bukhari_47_12.htm
• http://www.thequrancollection.com/Hadith_Bukhari_55_26.htm
• http://www.thequrancollection.com/Hadith_Bukhari_65_4616.htm
• http://www.thequrancollection.com/Hadith_Bukhari_65_4617.htm
• http://www.thequrancollection.com/Hadith_Bukhari_67_2.htm
• http://www.thequrancollection.com/Hadith_Bukhari_67_30.htm
• http://www.thequrancollection.com/Hadith_Bukhari_67_36.htm
• http://www.thequrancollection.com/Hadith_Bukhari_67_76.htm
• http://www.thequrancollection.com/Hadith_Bukhari_90_12.htm
• http://www.thequrancollection.com/Hadith_Muslim_57_7713.htm

Of the two options 

1. Your wives
2. Your slave girls

Which of these make sense when applied to verses 4:2-3.  The term "right hands possess" doesn't seem to be referring to one's wives as it is advising on some kind of relationship.  It makes no sense to permit a man to marry those who his right hand possesses if that term means he is already married to them.

4:3 instructs the believing man that if he cannot treat the orphan justly (by means of not taking their wealth and by giving them a suitable dowry) they should instead marry 2,3 or 4 other women they like.  If they cannot do justice to so many women (i.e. they cannot afford a suitable dowry for that many) then have only one (because that is less expensive), or the captive(s) your right hand possesses.

The final point could either mean to have sex with slaves instead of getting married, or it could mean that a dowry for a slave is less or even non-existent, so a man who cannot afford a wife could choose a slave as a cheaper option.  Although this verse does not say "have sex with slaves" it does demonstrate that it is logically impossible for "right hand possesses" to mean one's wive.

4:22-25

• 4:22 Do not marry your father's ex-wives
• 4:23 Unlawful also are your mothers/daughters/sisters/aunts/nieces/foster mothers/foster sisters/mothers in law/ex-wives of genetic sons/women who are sisters/step daughters in your charge (unless not had sex with her mom)
• 4:24 Unlawful for men are already married women, except those he legally possesses.  All non-mentioned women are lawful if you pay a fair dowry.
• 4:25 If you cannot afford to marry a believing woman then believing women your right hands possess.

Could "right hands possess" be referring to women you already possess in marriage?  Again 4:24 rules this out.  Women forbidden to men are those whom are already married *except* if he rightfully owns her.  Possible variations here are whether right-hand-possesses means "slave girls" or "your married wives", and also whether the verse has switched the topic from "legal in marriage" to "legal for sex".  I will address every variation

1. Your wife, for sex
   This option makes some sense*
2. Your wife, for marriage
   This option makes no sense
3. Your slave, for sex
   This option makes sense
4. Your slave, for marriage
   This option also makes sense

* Although this seems to make sense the verse does say that women who are "already married" are unlawful to you.  This would mean that your wives who are married (presumably to you) are unlawful to you, which makes no sense.

The only two remaining options here that make sense are 3 and 4.  Without knowing if the verse has switched from marriage to sexual intercourse it is impossible to say what is being permitted, however the verses seem to be referring to a context of marriage (as does 4:26) so could very well be saying that a man is permitted to marry one of his slaves even if she is already married to someone else (presumably Jewish and Christian women, as Muslim women cannot have more than one husband).

Relevant hadiths which claim verse 4:24 came about as a result of victorious Muslim men not wanting to have sex with female captives because they were polytheists.

• Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace te upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:
  http://www.thequrancollection.com/Hadith_Muslim_17_41.htm
• http://www.thequrancollection.com/hadith_muslim_17_43.htm

The hadiths are both Sahih (strong), but as to their authenticity I cannot comment.  If not authentic then this at least demonstrates how easily manipulated (or "misunderstood") the verses are in order to permit state sanctioned rape.

24:32

And marry such of you as are solitary and the pious of your slaves and maid-servants. If they be poor, Allah will enrich them of His bounty. Allah is of ample means, Aware

This verse says that Muslim men and women may marry slaves whom are pious/righteous. It uses different words for "slaves" than the other verses do for "right hands possess" which could mean there is a difference between those whom one's right hand possesses and one's slaves.  However it could also be the case that a different word was used because the slaves referred to are "righteous".

If this different word is used only for righteous slaves then I would expect to see other references in the Quran specifying that the slaves are in some way righteous.

Imai: Female slave

• 24:32 Slaves who are righteous
• 2:221 Don't marry idolaters until they believe, a believing slave girl is better

There are only two occurrences in the Quran for Imai, and both are referring to women slaves whom are better due to the fact that they are righteous/believers.

Ibadi: Male slave

• 2:23 Allah's slave (Muhammad)
• 2:90 Allah's chosen servants
• 2:138 Allah's worshippers
• 2:178 Slave's life for a slave's life
• 2:186 Allah's servants

All other occurrences may be viewed here, there are too many to list.  For the most part it seems to refer to Allah's slaves who would be considered more righteous than polytheists and non-believers.

To deal the final death blow to the idea that "right hands possess" means "possess through marriage" one only need look at the verse before this one, 24:31.  It reads

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their (right hands possess), or male attendants who lack vigour

The word used for the believing women's slaves is "ayman", which is the same word used in verse 23:6. So we have here another example of the exact same concept but instead from the point of view of a woman. If "right hand possesses" does in fact mean "your legally married spouse" then Allah seems to have forgotten that he had already said "their own husbands" and repeated it later in the same sentence; if (as Tanvir said) it is logical to list the same item twice "23:6 wives or (in other words) those whom their right hands possess (through marriage)" then 24:31 says a woman need not hide her private parts from "their women or (in other words) those whom their right hand possess (through marriage)".  A Muslim woman cannot marry another woman, so clearly this verse, which takes the same form as 23:6, cannot possibly be referring to her spouse.

Based on the various hadiths cited, the logical/illogical variations of meaning, and the fact that verse 23:41 seems to contradict the suggested meaning of 23:6 I can only conclude that "right hands possess" means one's slaves/captives of war.

I'd continue, but this is big enough as it is and I think I have already made my point.

Hamza Tzortzis will not debate me

After over a year of insisting that I am the one creating obstacles to prevent us debating, the possibility of a debate between Hamza Tzortzis and myself seems to have come to an abrupt end.  Hamza and I had finally agreed on terms under which we were happy to debate Islam when Hamza suddenly told me that if I wish to proceed I must ask iERA for permission.  Although I wasn't after an iERA affiliated event, just an informal one-on-one chat about Hamza's beliefs and the credibility of the claims for Islam, I thought I'd go through the next step of the process (obstacle) and all would be fine.

I was pleased at first to discover that despite Hamza's suggestion he might not be available until some point in 2014 his event coordinator confirmed Hamza only had prior engagements booked for April and May of 2013.  I received the occasional contacts from the event coordinator apologising for the delay and assuring me he'd have an answer for me that day / the next day.  Approximately 3 months later I received his tweet from Yusuf Chambers of iERA.

"Sincerity is measured as a mark of the importance of privacy to a given situation. Do we need cameras?"

I actually disagree. Sincerity of conviction to a publicly aired opinion is measured by one's willingness to be challenged openly; not by agreeing to a challenge but keeping the details secret... but I digress.  Although I am I open to change my mind (and indeed enjoy doing so) I doubt that Hamza or I would were likely to change each other's positions, the purpose of such a discussion is always for the benefit of presenting the audience with opposing arguments, so I replied to Yusuf Chambers letting him know it was pointless to have an unrecorded debate with Hamza.

Eight days later I received the following email from the events coordinator at iERA. (This has been posted publicly by Hamza via his Twitter account so is already within the public domain).

I hope you are well, 

At this moment in time Hamza Tzortzis is not available to participate in a recorded debate/discussion. We have received requests from various people to share a public platform with our Speakers but we unfortunately cannot say yes to all of these as in this day and age debates and discussions - to be popularised - requires influentials in the area. 

I understand Hamza reopened the invitation to yourself for a public discussion, but this was not within Hamza's remit to do so without prior permission from the iERA. You are more than welcome to discuss with Hamza at anytime though and I could arrange that. 

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

All the best

It seems like a somewhat odd response to me.  To be permitted to debate with Hamza as Hamza had already agreed (and insisted I was introducing obstacles to avoid it) I have to be an "influential".  A discussion about the Kalam argument and the miraculous nature of the Quran with me is not going to happen, but a debate partly on the miraculous literary nature of the Arabic in the Quran is a good subject to debate with cosmologist Lawrence Krauss?  Since when have cosmologists been interested in classical Arabic, and since when has fame been more important than Dawah?

I have not asked iERA to "popularise" this event nor do I necessarily require iERA to be affiliated with it in any way.  The request Hamza insisted I made (I thought) was merely professional courtesy towards his employer to let them know that Hamza and I were going to have a non-iERA-affiliated discussion.

Paricularly strange is Hamza's claim that despite being the number one debater of small operation such as iERA he has no power to influence iERA's decision about with whom he debates.  Even more strange is the offer at the end of the email; apparently Hamza is not available for a recorded discussion with me because it wouldn't be popularised, but I can have the same discussion with him at any time on condition that it is not recorded, which of course would not be popularised at all.

I have felt that Hamza has been running away from this agreed debate ever since the day we crossed each other on The Magic Sandwich Show and I gave him a grilling about hell. So to answer my Muslim nuisance caller with a London accent's question "Why don't you come out of hiding and debate Hamza you coward?" the answer is.....I tried; and to answer my critics I am not calling Hamza a coward, although I feel it would be "intellectually dishonest" of me to say that I think iERA aren't doing a good job of making him look bad.

To coin a phrase...."Allah knows best"

Whosoever kills a human being - Rupert Murdoch's Quran rant on Twitter

---

This blog post has moved here

---

Rupert Murdoch has recently upset many people by having a rant about the Quran on Twitter.  He discusses a verse in the Quran commonly cited by Muslim apologists such as Mehdi Hassan, Ajmal Masroor, and even President Obama to show how peaceful the Quran is.  This verse is never given in its entirety and that is why I think it's a good thing Murdoch has brought attention to it.  The narrative will go something like this

The Quran says "whosoever kills a human being..it shall be as though he killed all mankind", it also says "and whosoever saves a life, saves the entire human race".  

I'm really wasn't sure how someone who believes the Quran is the word of the all-knowing creator of the universe can actually quote mine their own religious book.  It's bad enough when people quote mine at all but to quote mine the beginning and end of a sentence simply in order to miss out the bit in the middle seems quite shocking.

Here is the entirety of Quran verse 5:32
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

As Murdoch says the next verse seems to go on to define"corruption in the land" as people who "wage war against Allah and his messenger". It seems to be saying that the exception to killing people is to kill them in self defense which is entirely reasonable in my opinion.

What do the classical scholars say about this?
Maududi shows how the text is in the Jewish Talmud but not in the Bible.  He says that this scenario is only applicable within an Islamic state and that it is a verse explaining the sanctity of human life. Al Jalalyn say that corruption in the land includes unbelief (apostasy I presume) and fornication. Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs says that corruption in the land even includes idolatry.

As for the next verse 5:33 we have the following scholarly commentaries.

Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi tells a story of how Muhammad chased down two murders and had their hands and feet cut off, gouged their eyes, and then left them to die.  This verse allegedly came to Muhammad after the fact to tell him what he had done was wrong and to prescribe the correct punishment.

Maududi Seems to go on to confirm that it is an attack against an established peaceful Islamic state that is being discussed, but then goes on to say that it is not only armies who fight against Allah and his messenger but also murderers and criminals, and that "any attempt, big or small, to undermine or overthrow such an established system, is in reality a war against Allah and His Messenger". Which is perhaps why open apostasy is seen as such a serious matter in some Islamic states today, because discussing reasons for leaving the religion might cause doubts in the minds of believers and steer the state towards becoming non-Islamic?

Al Jalalayn specify which of the punishments apply to which crimes "death is for those that have only killed; crucifixion is for those that have killed and stolen property; the cutting off [of limbs on opposite sides] is for those that have stolen property but have not killed; while banishment is for those that pose a threat"

Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs seems to corroborate the above tafsir (which isn't surprising as Al Talalayn based their commentary on that of Ibn Abbas) but also says "the punishment of someone who terrorises people as a highway robber but does not kill or take anyone's property is that he be imprisoned."

It would seem that the middle of verse 5:32 is omitted in order to have to avoid a lengthy explanation of the circumstances under which someone may be given the death penalty and how some states in the USA also prescribe the death penalty etc.

My advice is this.  When quoting a verse from the Quran do not snip out text in the middle because it makes you look dishonest.  If you don't have enough time to go into a full debate on the issue then use a verse other than 5:32.  I am sure there must be other suitable candidates?

QuranProject.org - An open letter

---

This blog post has moved here

---

Here is a copy of an email I just sent to QuranProject.org - I have emailed them in the past so they are aware of my ThisIsTheTruthUncut project.  I was surprised (kind of) to see that they kept the "scientific miracles of the Quran" section of their book after having a new print run off.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvOqQWedKzk

Bill Hay has a book out in which he describes how he was tricked into saying what he said and how he was then misrepresented.

"And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know"
http://quran.com/2/42

It really is time to remove the scientific miracles section from your book, you are spreading untruth!

iERA - Has evolution been misunderstood? A response to Hamza Tzortzis

---

This blog post has moved here

---

Has evolution been misunderstood?

This is a response to the article "Has evolution been misunderstood" by Hamza Tzortzis of iERA.

I was really hoping the document would say "By Hamza Tzortzis" beneath the title so that I could simply reply "Yes, it has. Science too!"

"Over the past few decades there has been a growing discourse on science, evolution and its compatibility with Divine revelation. This discourse can be summarised in the following way: the theory of evolution has been established as a scientific fact therefore a believer in a particular revealed text, such as the Qur'an, must reconcile evolution with their holy book."

A fact is a recorded piece of evidence. It should be possible for a third party to verify the accuracy of the fact by performing their own measurements, experiments, observations, etc.

A scientific theory is a logical model which explains observed facts and uses scientific laws to make testable predictions. When tested, these predictions either show the flaws in the model (scientific theory) or give us more confidence in its accuracy.

Evolution is a process of random genetic mutations (alleles) being passed on to offspring. Individuals pass on these alleles along with the alleles of those with whom they are able to mate (with consideration to physical compatibility, sexual preference, distance, etc). When obstacles prevent two animals from mating they are no longer merging their alleles into common offspring; any group of animals separated in this way experience average genetic shifts in different directions as they develop different random mutations. If the genetic drift between two groups reaches a point where their DNA varies too much then the two groups are no longer able to create [fertile] offspring with each other and they effectively become different species – this is called speciation.

When laypersons talk about evolution, what they are usually referring to is the scientific theory of evolution driven by natural selection. This scientific theory (or model) takes the facts of random mutation, allele propagation, and speciation, amongst many other facts, to propose a model by which the least beneficial mutations are eradicated from the DNA pool via natural causes. The important thing to note here is that random mutation is an empirically observed fact, speciation is an empirically observed fact, and natural selection is the driving force which eliminates unsuccessful mutations, leaving other mutations to spread . Survival of the fittest means most adaptable or fit for purpose, not "strongest".

A common mistake entails confusing these concepts. Evolution is a fact, not only observed but even reproducible (e.g. the Lenski e-coli experiment [1][2][3][4][5][6]) and so too is speciation (e.g. the Ensatina Salamanders[7] and also Ring Species[7][8]). It is therefore a fact that evolution is deductive, observed, and reproducible.

"If there is no hope for reconciliation there are three main outcomes: the religious text is discarded, evolution is renounced, or a hope for a better understanding of the religious text and evolution in the future. However, in this growing discussion there is a hidden premise. This premise is that science produces certainty, evolution is fact and science is the only way to establish or verify truth claims. This premise is assumed in the popular discussion amongst many religious people, popular scientists and even the media, and by not bringing this premise to the forefront of the debate many Muslims (and fellow theists) have been left confused and disheartened."

There is no hidden premise that science produces certainty, in fact science never claims to produce certainty. Science works on a scale which produces a level of confidence based on a high or low probability. For example, we cannot know for certain that cutting off one's head would result in certain death unless we performed this irreversible action. However, based on our understanding of how the brain regulates our heart, how our heart pumps blood, how that blood carries oxygen, and so on (our logical model or "scientific theory" of human life), we can be very confident that the probability of one losing one's life along with one's head is very high indeed. Science doesn't say that it is a fact that you will die if your head is removed, but our current scientific model does say that we can be confident death will follow decapitation based on our scientific theory of how the head is necessary for independent human survival.

Science is not the only way to establish [obtain] truth; it is however the best method humans currently have of independently and objectively understanding the universe in which we exist and the only way to "establish" that it is true. Just like some religious beliefs a scientific theory will be revised if facts are discovered which seem to invalidate it, but unlike religion a scientific theory will be rejected outright if proven wrong. If we observe a living headless person then this new fact will be investigated as thoroughly as possible until rules (scientific laws) can be defined on which the scientific theory model can either be adapted to work with the new found empirically observable facts, or the model will be abandoned. It will not be deemed a one-off "miracle".

It is typically the cutting-edge of science where such revisions are made, instances where "the results aren't back in yet." For example the origins of the universe, what (if anything) exists beyond the observable universe, how life started, and so on. The root laws of a scientific theory in which there is a lot of corroborative evidence (such as natural selection guiding observed evolution) are the cornerstones of those theories which don't get refined. Human fossils are not found in the Precambrian era, nor are rabbits or any other mammals. If this were to happen then one of the core laws of how the diversity of life today occurred would be destroyed (so get digging!) and the theory of how natural selection guided random mutations to become different species would have to be completely reworked or, more likely, completely abandoned. However, this would not alter the fact that mutation has been observed and reproduced (Lenski), natural selection has been observed, and speciation is also easily observed. The fact that evolution and speciation occurs today is unquestionable.

The only people left confused and disheartened are evidently the ones who do not know the facts, do not understand the process, and seem to have confused themselves. The rest of the Hamza Tzortzis’ article reflects this position: Making errors such as confusing a certainty with a high probability and equating them to scientific facts.

"The philosophy of science - most of the time – does not produce certain knowledge"

Again, it doesn't claim to. A scientific theory produces confidence that with X% accuracy we are able to predict the outcome of an input, or based on the way the universe works given certain factors we can deduce what could have occurred in the past with a level of confidence beyond reasonable doubt.

"When the philosophy of science is understood and applied to evolution, the conclusion is that it is not a fact and has not reached the level of certainty."

I think it is already evident that the author doesn't understand the subject enough to identify which parts are scientific theory and which parts are observed facts so no more need be said on this kind of statement.

"Divine revelation is certain knowledge (this type of certain knowledge is known as al-‘ilm al-qat’i) which can be proven using deductive arguments."

Evolution has been proven with observation and thus is not only deductive but empirical and objective.  It has supporting evidence from multiple disciplines of science; DNA/virology[9], and even plate tectonics[10].

"Revelation is a source of certain knowledge."

Are you certain? If the only certain knowledge one may obtain is from a specific book then how does one know for certain which is the correct book from which to derive such knowledge?  To prove the source of the knowledge one must use information within the book and corroborate it with facts observed in reality.  If we are to ignore reality whenever it does not conform to the information within the book the we are setting up an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and as a consequence a useless one.

"In situations where science and Divine revelation are irreconcilable, revelation supersedes science"

Perhaps, but not at least until the accuracy of the revelation has been proven to a higher level of confidence than the scientific theory it competes against. Laws such as "Because Allah wished it that way" do not produce as much confidence as the various proofs for evolution of species via natural selection which explain the unusual facts of nature such as why are some fish born with eyes that dissolve and leave them blind before they are ever used?[11], Why are various flat fish born with one eye facing uselessly into the sand which later moves so that both eyes are on the same side of the skull and thus becomes useful[12]? Why are some legless animals born with limbs[13]? Why are some humans born with precursory tails[14]? Why do chickens contain disabled DNA capable of producing calcium teeth[14]? In the "divine revelation without evolution" scenario the all-knowing all-powerful creator must have had quite a number of strange vain whims.

"Science can only answer in terms of natural phenomena and natural processes. When we ask questions like, what is the meaning of life? Does the soul exist? The general expectation is to have answers that are outside of the natural world — and hence, outside of science"

Correct. Science is a tool and as such to expect this is illogical. It is akin to using a hammer to try to understand the beauty of a poem. Science however can help us to make decisions as to what would be the most likely consequences of actions taken given a specific scenario, or what is most likely to have caused a scenario to start with. As for the soul, no, science is only a useful tool for measuring the effects of a phenomenon able to affect reality in a measurable way.

"Only accepts idea that can be tested"

Incorrect.  A scientific theory can be built from which it is currently not known how to create effective tests or that we did not at the time have the technology to test (Higgs Boson, General relativity), but it is difficult to have full confidence in things until tests are devised and run; yet these still have more supporting evidence than various other hypotheses such as those proposing all kinds of ridiculous untestable ideas (pixies, unicorns, mermaids). This is a "results are not in yet" scenario, in the case of evolution the results were in long ago.  Science does also accept facts which have been observed repeatedly, independently, and can also be reproduced such as in the case of evolution.

"This means that what cannot be observed is outside the scope of science. For example, questions such as does God exist? and is there a soul? are outside the realm of the scientific method. This does not imply that such questions are meaningless, rather it exposes the limitations of the scientific process, as there are other methods that can provide answers to the above questions"

Science does not concern itself with things which either do not exist, or cannot/do not have any measurable effect on reality. An all-powerful entity could indeed make millions of pounds appear in my wardrobe during the night but this could be measured, however, if the entity were to do this on a regular basis but nullify the effect of its actions (remove the money) before it is observed then what is the purpose of such futility? Science is only concerned with phenomena that have effects.

"It is important to note that to claim that conclusions which have not been established via observation - and by extension science - are meaningless or false"

Said the theist to the world's evolutionary biologists :)

"Science cannot explain the past or the origins of things. For instance questions such as, what was before the Big Bang? and how did the first living cell emerge?"

Science can explain the past using evidence of the past, however, neither cosmology nor abiogenesis have anything to do with evolution. Science cannot tell you what is north of the north pole, does this mean that the mountains of evidence demonstrating speciation through mutation and natural selection should be ignored?

"What Darwin seems to be pointing out here is that our values would have no objective meaning from a scientific perspective, as we are just a by-product of a set of socio-biological circumstances. This is why the oft repeated statement you cannot get an ought from an is, is true. Science can tell us what is, but it cannot tell us what ought to be."

Nor can the tool of "hammer" or "screwdriver." Again this subject is an irrelevant distraction from the established facts of evolution (observed, reproducible facts).  Just because you don't like the conclusion of the truth does not make it untrue. If given sufficient intelligence to contemplate the subject should bees reject the concept of heaven because of the horrid idea that for eternity they wouldn't get to kill any males or their fertile daughters? Likewise liking something is no reason to believe it is true either. Reality doesn't alter to meet the fancies of humans, and why would you want it to?

"The problem of induction"

Observed mutations, selection, and speciation are deductive evidence. Irrelevant section on induction therefore ignored.  But on the subject of inductive and deductive reasoning.  Based on the deductive reasoning of factual evidence about our solar system I would gladly bet my house on the sun appearing to rise tomorrow morning - even though that bet would be based on inductive reasoning.  As Muslims cannot gamble I am instead willing to donate my house to charity on the first sign of the Earth not experiencing a new day.

"Science cannot prove other sources of knowledge. For example justified beliefs via ‘authentic testimony’."

Without a way to test the claims there is no way to have confidence that the "authentic" testimony is factual. It does not matter how authentic you believe your testimony is, if you tell me a man can live without a head then I will demand that you present proof that our biological scientific theories are incorrect. A man once quoted Galileo Galilei "In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual" - This was a statement he used when trying to disprove the "authentic testimony" of the majority opinion using proof and evidence that the Earth is not the centre of the universe. It was eventually accepted due to the merits of its evidence, despite the suppression of those who preferred to believe information passed down to them without evidence (authentic testimony.)

Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe has a cause

Please provide one example of something which "began to exist."

Summary

Hamza, your argument seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what a "scientific theory" actually is, which parts of it are empirical facts, and indeed what those facts are.  Evolution is an observed fact which is part of a scientific theory about natural selection. Eventually your “argumentation” culminates in "Ultimately we can't know anything to be true, so therefore the Quran is true."

One of the strongest tenets of the scientific approach is that it tries to disprove itself. The scientists don't try to prove themselves right, they try to prove themselves wrong to save someone else the trouble of doing it for them. If they fail to disprove something then they invite others to help prove their observations wrong. In a recent case when it seemed Neutrinos might be travelling faster than light scientists tried in earnest to disprove their own test results.  Only when they failed did they ask the world's scientific community to help.  Scientists were confident that the test results were inaccurate because it would contradict a core part of their physics models, but unlike religion they would genuinely have been pleased (to say the least) to discover they were wrong.

If someone were to find rabbit fossils in the Precambrian era, they would certainly win the Nobel prize and be a bigger name in history than Darwin.  A prize any scientist would aspire to and one which evidently isn't going to have your name on it this time, Hamza :)

If Allah truly exists and creates nothing in vain then it stands to reason that common ancestry of animals, evolution, and speciation must be true. There are too many animal appendages that serve no purpose which, if not for being evolutionary remnants, are created entirely in vain.

Would your all-powerful, all-knowing, merciful god not only ask you to believe statements in a book with less evidence than a scientific theory, but also cruelly and deliberately manufacture more evidence for the opposing scientific theory, and then expect you to dismiss that scientific theory out of hand in the hope that it will all make sense once you are dead?  Surely gullibility is not a prerequesite of reaching heaven?

Trying to convince Muslims to disbelieve everything which is testably true based on observable and reproducible evidence is too much.  Just like biological life, ideas and religions mutate over time which is why there are so many religions throughout the world and many sects within those religions.  Some "interpretations" will prove more successful than others over time, some will wither away and die, and some will hang around as a vestigial embarrassment.  If you wish for your efforts to be successful then take my advice. "Reinterpret" the Quran to show it is not mutually exclusive with what is probably the scientific theory with the largest amount of evidence than any other, otherwise you will find yourself talking to a minority group of beleivers with as much credibility as The Flat Earth Society.

1. Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli
   Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland, and Richard E. Lenski
   http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.abstract
2. Dynamics of adaptation and diversification: a 10,000-generation experiment with bacterial populations
   R E Lenski and M Travisano
   http://www.pnas.org/content/91/15/6808.abstract
3. Tests of parallel molecular evolution in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli
   Robert Woods, Dominique Schneider, Cynthia L. Winkworth, Margaret A. Riley, and Richard E. Lenski
   http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9107.abstract
4. Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli
   Jeffrey E. Barrick, Dong Su Yu, Sung Ho Yoon, Haeyoung Jeong, Tae Kwang Oh, Dominique Schneider, Richard E. Lenski & Jihyun F. Kim
   http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7268/full/nature08480.html
5. Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population
   Zachary D. Blount, Jeffrey E. Barrick, Carla J. Davidson & Richard E. Lenski
   http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7417/full/nature11514.html
6. (Article) The Birth of the New, The Rewiring of the Old
   Carl Zimmer
   http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/09/19/the-birth-of-the-new-the-rewiring-of-the-old
7. Incipient species formation in salamanders of the Ensatina complex
   David B. Wake
   http://www.pnas.org/content/94/15/7761.abstract?sid=0e059b3b-1750-47ef-b78b-5e65d8b3e6a6
8. Evolution and stability of ring species
   Ayana B. Martinsa, Marcus A. M. de Aguiarb,c, and Yaneer Bar-Yamc
   http://www.pnas.org/content/110/13/5080.abstract?sid=1ea407a5-02e4-4b89-b66a-2ab293ebea64
9. Endogenous retrovirus drives hitherto unknown proapoptotic p63 isoforms in the male germ line of humans and great apes
   Ulrike Beyera, Julian Moll-Rocekb, Ute M. Molla,b, and Matthias Dobbelsteina
   http://www.pnas.org/content/108/9/3624.abstract?sid=16f018d4-5246-4abb-ade9-aec012d1bb81
10. Afrotheria: Plate tectonics meets genomics
    S. Blair Hedges
    http://www.pnas.org/content/98/1/1.extract?sid=9eae1b27-bed2-47c2-b570-20aa8684a5d5
11. Developmental mechanisms for retinal degeneration in the blind cavefish Astyanax mexicanus
    Alunni, A., Menuet, A., Candal, E., Penigault, J-B., Jeffery, W.R., and S. Retaux
    http://www.life.umd.edu/labs/jeffery/Publications/PDF/Alunni%20et%20al.%20-%20J.Comp.Neuro.2007.pdf
12. Eye migration and cranial development during flatfish metamorphosis: a reappraisal
    B. Brewster
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1987.tb05281.x/abstract
13. Lessons To Be Learned From Atavistic Mutations
    Susumu Ohno
    http://www.ijhg.com/article.asp?issn=0971-6866;year=1995;volume=1;issue=1;spage=1;epage=5;aulast=ohno;type=0
14. Atavism: Embryology, Development and Evolution
    Jill U. Adams, Ph.D. & Kenna M. Shaw
    http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/atavism-embryology-development-and-evolution-843