The Lower Quote, As If You Didn't Know, Is By Richard Dawkins, Son.

Sunday, July 16, 2006

Oh, Right, Allah Is The Only True God

I followed a link from somewhere and ended up on watching a short lecture by Dr. Zakir Naik on how to talk to an atheist and convert them to Islam. It was quite entertaining as he is an engaging speaker, no matter how fucked in the head his ideas are. Allow me to give you a fer'instance:

Before he gets into the whole atheist thing, he talks about why implementing Shar'ia law is a swell idea. He says that the USA, although being one of the most developed and technologically advanced countries, is among the highest in the world for instances of rape. Now, try to follow his "logic" here - he says that if two women are walking down a street and one is wearing full Islamic dress (completely covered except the face and the hands up to the wrist), while the other is wearing "western dress" (so like a skank), and they come upon a bad guy, who is he going to mess with? Well it's obvious - the skank!

He says that men should lower their gaze if, when they look at a woman, they think unpure thoughts (fuck, I'd be looking at the ground 24/7). If they commit a rape even though the full coverage Shar'ia law is in place, then they should be killed. Capital punishment.

I'm sort of a "punishment should fit the crime" fella, and although Naik makes a good point about the double standard of the West with respect to being "barbaric", the system we have - however flawed - works fairly well. I'm just curious to know how many incorrect beheadings have taken place under Shar'ia.

Moving on to the "how to witness to an atheist" question, Naik starts out by pissing me off rather a lot. He says that when he meets an atheist, the first thing he does is, "congratulate them". Why? Condescention, mainly, but he says it's because an atheist "thinks". We have likely gone against what we have been brought up as and have come to our own conclusions about the world. Plus, we have, "done half of his work for him."

See, when the idiot witnesses to a Christian or a Jew, he has to start out by convincing that person that the god they believe in is a false god, a...douchebag god. With an atheist, we already reject all gods, so all Naik has to do is convince us that Allah (jizz be upon him) is the one fantasy retard that is real.

He uses the basic "intelligent" design argument of, "if there's a machine, then only the creator/designer/producer/manufacturer can tell you how that machine works". He then goes on to give innumerable examples of how today's scientific knowledge is actually explained and revealed in the Koran 1400 years ago. Example:

He says that he would ask the atheist how the Universe began and then assumes (correctly in most cases) that we would say, "...with the Big Bang or some other similar event." He goes on to say that this is mentioned in the Koran in Chapter 21, verse 30. Allow me to show you what that verse actually says:

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of Creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

So, there's the Big Bang complete with cosmic background radiation and inflation. Can't you see?! Damn, for that verse to be interpreted as the Big Bang, you'd have to do some rearranging that would make John Hogue embarrassed.

Then there's the "Moon has reflected light" bit. Naik references chapter 25, verse 61:

Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light;

Sooo...this means that the Moon's light is reflected? Maybe my Koran translation (by Abdullah Yusuf Ali from Wordsworth Classics of World Literature) blows dogs, but isn't that the problem? There's so many translations and so many ways to translate it (obviously) that there's not one version out there that is the "go-to". Same as the damn Bible.

Naik goes on and on with the same sort of examples, most of the ones I've checked have been equally vague. I mean, if he really believes that these weak-ass "arguments" will convince an atheist who has thought about why he or she rejects gods, he is deluded (not that this point isn't made clear by his rationale for making all women wear a fucking burkha).

Keep talking Dr. Naik. Keep on talking...

11 Barbaric Yawps:

At 16/7/06 1:47 pm, Anonymous Babbler said...

Where will I get the 4 good Muslim men to prove my female relatives rape? There was a report on the CBC about the difficulty of proving rape in Pakistan because of ... wait for it ... sharia laws. Statistics for rape in the US (and probable the rest of the West) is higher, because of the far more liberal attudes towards women and rape. I guessing that areas with high religious aherance would have less rapes reported, since women are gaged from reporting it. I didn't pay attention afterwords, since I already knew the man was a moron.

In short - go back to your own country! We got enough fundie morons to deal with!

At 16/7/06 1:56 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"if there's a machine, then only the creator/designer/producer/manufacturer can tell you how that machine works".

What if I take apart and examine this machine? Should give me a good idea how it works!

Plus, if this is one of those "who created the universe and wrote all it's laws" arguments then I just say "then who created the universe and wrote all the laws where the creator/designer/producer/manufacturer is?"

At 16/7/06 1:57 pm, Anonymous schani said...

He doesn't make a good point about the double standard. It's easy to see this when looking at another, not so emotionally wrecking crime as rape.

Let's say somebody stole my camera. If you asked me how he should be punished I'd tell you that he should at least be beaten up pretty badly and that he should be forced to wear a rather large anal plug for at least a year.

If that same guy stole somebody else's camera, though, I'd should much more compassion and clemency. Why? Because I wouldn't be emotionally involved.

Therefore: No capital punishment for rapists and no anal plugs for camera thiefs!

At 16/7/06 2:18 pm, Anonymous ATM said...

Good point schani.

I found the statistics involving rape in a number of countries from:

The USA ranked at #1 weighing in at about 89,110 rapes in 1998-2000.

At 16/7/06 10:37 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Per capita is a bit more illuminating.

New Zealand (my country) goes from #30 to #9 on a per capita basis, unfortunately.

At 16/7/06 10:39 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoops I meant #30 to #12.
The US goes from #1 to #9

At 17/7/06 4:49 pm, Anonymous ATM said...

Thanks anonymous, the per capita system is far better. Canada (my country)went from #3 to #5 while South Africa went from #2 to #1. My thought on South Africa going this way leads to speculation on the rape of virgin girls to cure HIV. Has anyone else thought this?

At 18/7/06 10:56 am, Anonymous sconzey said...

Arguably, the Bible has remained fairly true to the original manuscripts, over 2100 years, this is how much the book of Isaiah changed:

"Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The three remaining letters comprise the word LIGHT, which is added in verse 11 and which does not affect the meaning greatly..."

Whatever you think of it, scholars widely regard the Bible as far closer to the original than many of it's contemporary manuscripts, such as Plato's Republic.

At 19/7/06 10:10 am, Anonymous modusoperandi said...

Of course "fairly true to the oringinals" still doesn't make it holy. It just makes it old.

You'll know that you've found the one and true word of god when it means the exact same thing, no matter how badly mangled or mistranslated it gets.

I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen (except perhaps writ in the stars...)

At 20/7/06 12:01 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps Sconzey, but i think your wrong, they have found entire paragraphs added later.

And the Koran is very reliable against original manuscripts. This would be a loser in a head to head comparison.

At 20/7/06 3:43 am, Anonymous modusoperandi said...

um, anonymous? Read my previous post and substitude "is very reliable against original manuscripts" where it says "fairly true to the oringinals".

Oringinals...giggle. Me fail English? Unpossible!

Whether a book is true to the original text is a moot point when the text is advocating intolerance. Particularly when it's god advocating intolerance. If the one true god wants me to kill all of the infidels (Christian, Muslim, Jew, Other), he can damn well kill them himself. Which he won't, probably because the one true god is a fairy tale made up by militant tribal cultures many, many moons ago to assuade their fear of death and their other fear that their enemies weren't dying fast enough.

Paranoia and thuggery just don't have the same appeal today as they apparently did before we started to figure out how the universe really works.


Post a Comment

<< Home