I took so long reading your article, as you
know leaving a religion is not an easy thing.
It is matter of life and death. I must be completely
satisfied from each and every angle before I
take a step like this.
Ali I have some confusions and disagreements
with your last e-mail, I hope that you will
try to remove my confusions from them by explaining
In first Para, you mentioned that we should
not follow any human being, and we must choose
our own way. Don’t you think that these humans
who claims to be prophets and so on, have spent
their whole life in search of the truth. Don’t
you think it is good if we choose one among
them and follow his words and then build our
life on this foundation! For example determining
and studying religion is a full time job, people
spend their whole life solely in this. Now if
Humans have to study it only, then who will
advance in other fields; like of science and
In next Para you talked about Jews’ children
becoming Jew and so on for the Muslims. I don’t
think that without this the religions would
have ever continued. And their would have been
more Atheists then of any religion. Its objection
is same as of the previous one.
In third you said that your mission is to cause
doubt, don’t you think that this isn’t polite?
It means that you only cause confusion. I strongly
believed that you talk about and believe in
unity and peace while confusion is what is against
it. I hope that you will be able to explain
your theory of doubt. Also if your mission is
to pull people out of the religion then you
must not leave then in some pathless way, you
must guide them to some place, some religion,
some destiny and some understand able God, to
some laws to be followed and to some code of
conducts to be followed for life. And your laws
must also explain ones destiny not until death
Then you believe that these God, Allah and Yahweh
are out dated, what about the researches that
goes on (scientific), which proves the religious
transcripts to be true. As I was a Muslim and
so is my family I studied number of books that
proved each and every Ayah of Quran to be scientifically
right. For an example see below:
O company of jinn and men, if ye have power
to penetrate (all) regions of the heavens
and the earth; then penetrate (them)! Ye will
never penetrate them save with (Our) sanction.
(Q. 53: 33)
above it is clear that one need power to penetrate
through the earths’ field…
about the place where you said that you do
not deny the divine reality. I just would
like to know how do you explain “Rational
thinking”? As for me this is how it is to
I will take one definition from a respected
academic in this field. Jonathan Baron in
his book "Thinking and Deciding" [Jonathan
Baron, Thinking and Deciding, Cambridge University
Press 1994] chooses to define being rational
"the kind of thinking we would all want to
do, if we were aware of our own best interests,
in order to achieve our goals."
He then goes on to categories thinking as
being about decisions, beliefs or about the
Language and choices of definitions of its
words can of course be highly subjective matter
but I find this definition particularly inadequate
because the choice of goals is entirely left
to irrational and subjective choice and can
easily be wrong. For example my goal could
be to justify the equation 1=0 for which I
would have to use very irrational arguments.
If we build in the requirement that the goals
are being, or have been, rationally set then
we have a circular definition where any irrational
goal would lead to completely irrational thinking
which might, for example, be quite illogical.
Then, this type of thinking would reinforce
the irrational goal!
We cannot use this as a definition- at least
until we have some clear refinement of it.
Baron acknowledges this further on
"When I argue that certain kinds of thinking
are "most rational" I mean that these help
people fulfill their goals. Such arguments
could be wrong. If so, some other kind of
thinking is most rational."
If we are to understand from this that `people'
means any person and therefore any goal then
we still have the same problem. However, his
arguments make sense because they appeal to
the fulfillment of goals that people generally
have. In other words if he uses the word people
here to mean `people in general' then rational
thinking is defined (at least in so far as
goals are set) as being what people generally
This is a fairly major weakness in this attempt
to define rationality in purely objective
terms. You cannot describe rational thinking
and forget that the criteria are themselves
a matter of value judgment, such as the judgments
made when setting goals. If one leaves the
subjectivity of such value judgments in place
then the objective approach fails.
Taking Baron's definition of rational from
a different angle we could well ask what does
it mean to be "aware of our own best interests"?
This, in contrast to the above description,
presupposes that there is such a thing as
`best interests', which for all intents and
purposes we can take to include the goals
we set. This is closer to the position I shall
take. There are such things as our own best
interests, which include what our goals should
be. We may not know perfectly what they are
but we must assume that they are there, for
without them any attempt to define rationality
The goals we set, and therefore the very definition
of rationality is governed by moral choices
- by what our goals should be.
"Unlike many other fields of psychology, such
as the study of perception where the emphasis
is on "how it works", much of the study of
thinking is concerned with how we ought to
think, or with comparing the way we usually
think with some ideal."
The study of thinking is the area in which
the `Is-Ought' problem is closest to being
resolved. For to study thinking we must study
what is `good thinking'. The Is-Ought problem
can be stated as "It is impossible to infer,
by any logical means, a normative statement
from a descriptive statement." i.e. you cannot
infer from any statement of the form "A is
the case" the conclusion that "John ought
to do X.” i.e. "Is" and "Ought to”. If we
want to break out of this we must make value
judgments. Using statements of value we can
infer normative statements. For example, if
I said "It is raining outside. Therefore you
ought to take an umbrella." it would be an
illogical inference. However, if I say "It
is raining outside. It is good for you to
avoid getting wet by taking an umbrella. Therefore
you ought to take an umbrella." it is clear
that the 3rd statement follows from the first
two. The Is-Ought problem can therefore be
seen as a matter of value judgments; how do
we judge that something is good for someone
- or for ourselves?
Now in next Para, you do not agree with me
that God was introduced by religion. Ok forget
it for now, but I have a question. Do you
believe in a God or multiple gods?
towards proving my point. If you don’t believe
on a religion, then you should not even believe
on the existence of God. Because I don’t think
that going through the intellectual maturity
man came to know God, once in for while. According
to me, he must have questioned someone, and
someone might have said, God. Now who that
person was, God himself or another man. If
another man then of course he is meant to
be not another usual man as he solved a great
mystery. And lets take an example; if you
live in Iran you cannot meet president, as
you have to follow some rules and protocols.
Now as you believe in divine reality then
how can u see or talk to that divine reality
without following a perfect protocol? Moses
was asked by is people to show God to them,
he first tried to scare them off, but on continuous
insisting he took them to a mountaintop. God’s
one glimpse caused them all to faint and a
whole mountain converted into scrap. Muhammad
met Allah and talked to Him through a curtain,
In next Para you talk about the Baal and Yahweh.
Now you are aware that Elijah was a man (human),
on proving himself right he ordered the execution
of Baal’s followers. It was normal for a Human
being of that time, and even for now. As for
Yahweh, the Lord, He is believed to be very
loving to His creatures, how could He kill
them all, when He loves them?
You think that people use religion. Of course
they do, but not everyone. There is always
good with bad. Nothing is perfect and if something
is, then we don’t know it yet. Therefore in
such case, isn’t this good if we limit our
criticizing to them, about which we know well.
It’s just like that there are sites like yours,
working on revolutionary cause and some sites
like Warez, killing developers.
Then you talk about the boundaries of religions.
God is not believed by one nation but now
it is globally. For example, concept of Allah
started from Arab, and now we see Muslims
in India, Iran, Afghanistan, Malaysia and
so on. Well we don’t see any one saying that
do not pray to Allah, He is of Arabs only.
Samuel said to his people to return to his
Lord, as according to his ideology he wanted
his people to only pray in from that Lord
who created the Heaven and the Earth. It in
no way explains that he said that they are
also right too and my lord is afraid of them
so pray my Lord only.
And I have another question. As you talk about
maturity, do you think that man has reached
a mature enough state to understand the origin,
existence and everything about Allah/God/Lord/etc?
don’t you study Allah, according to Quran
and tell me about that in more detail.
Can you give me more information on the books
“Katib al Waqidi” and “Tabari”? Well if this
is true about Muhammad, then why don’t you
see this conversation in this way that one
day the dispute of LAT, OZZA, and MANAT will
be over, and it is clear now? We see no follower
of LAT, OZZA or MANAT today.
The translation you gave to me was little
confusing so I found its translation from
three different books; kindly see them too.
ye seen Lat an Uzza
And another the third (goddess) Manat?
What! for you the male sex and for Him the
Behold such would be indeed a division most
These are nothing but names which ye have
devised ye and your fathers for which Allah
has sent down no authority (whatever). They
follow nothing but conjecture and what their
own souls desire! Even though there has already
come to them Guidance from their Lord!”
ye thought upon Al Lat and Al Uzza
And Manat, the third, the other?
Are yours the males and His the females?
That indeed were an unfair division!
They are but names which ye have named, ye
and your fathers, for which Allah hath revealed
no warrant. They follow but a guess and that
which (they) themselves desire. And now the
guidance from their Lord hath come unto them.”
ye then considered Al-Lat and AL-'uzza:
And Manat the other third?
What!-Unto YOu the males and Unto Him the
That indeed is a division unfair!
They are but names which ye have named, ye
and your fathers, for which Allah hath sent
down no authority. They follow but their fancy,
and that which pleaseth their souls; whereas
assuredly there hath come Unto them from their
Lord the guidance.”
And as you claimed that Muhammad was misogynist,
then please I admire him on this thing that
he provided more freedom to women then any
other religion. In above the third and fourth
lines are about the Arabs who wanted to have
only boys and used to burry their girls alive.
Allah asked them that this is most unfair
division that you say that girls are for Him.
the Q.53: 27:
“Those who believe not in the Hereafter name
the angels with female names.”
is even obvious from the LAT, OZZA and MANAT.
hope that Ali you will clear my points soon.
From: "Ali Sina" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:12:08
Subject: Re: Thanks for the link but.....
> From: "Usman Malik" <email@example.com>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Thanks for the link but.....
> Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 11:47:28 +0500
> Dear Usman.
> Thank you for reading that article. What
Religion to Chose? Now I can write
> a letter answering your questions without
referring you to another article
> because your questions are new. :-)
> You wrote, “First I took you as my solution,
but now I am so confused that I
> don't know what to even say....”
> The whole purpose of my writing is to
make people think on their own and do
> not follow another person as their solutions,
guru, imam, prophets or
> marja’e taqleed. If someone after going
through all my writings decides that
> I am intelligent and sharp to the extent
that he can trust whatever I write,
> follow me or look unto me as his solution,
then I have failed.
> The whole idea behind this exercise is
to stimulate people to become
> freethinkers. Freethinkers are independent
thinkers. Freethinkers listen to
> the words said but not to the person
who says it. If a person according to
> you is right in almost everything; that
does not mean that he is right in
> ALL things. My message is: Do not follow
another person, become a skeptic
> and accept only what makes sense to YOU.
Re-analyze everything that you were
> taught as a child and believed to be
true. You believed those things because
> you trusted the medium. That medium that
could have been your own loving
> parent could have been honestly wrong.
People do not teach their kids,
> falsehood deliberately. They educate
them to the best of their ability, yet
> since they themselves are misinformed,
they pass that misinformation to
> their children and perpetuate the cycle
of ignorance. Thus we have the
> children of the Jews becoming Jews, the
children of the Christians becoming
> Christians and the children of the Muslims
turning Muslims, and so on so
> My hope is that after reading my writings
people start to doubt everything
> and find their own lights. Please read
the words of Krishnaurti 'Truth is a
> pathless land' once more.
> Now as for your question about God:
> Actually I did not say I do not believe
in any God. In the same article that
> you read (What Religion to Follow) I
> “I do not discard the Divine reality.
Just like Galileo who did not reject
> the Earth but people’s understanding
of it, I do not reject God but people’s
> understanding of it”.
> In other words, I do believe in the spiritual
reality underlying this
> universe. I call that the Single Principle.
But I cannot believe in the
> absurd notion of the deity invented by
the primitive man and now passed to
> us by their primitive religions. Those
religions do not answer the
> intellectual quest of the modern wo/man
and their god is outdated and
> rationally untenable. So when I talk
about feeling God, I am not talking
> about Allah or Yahweh. These are figments
of human imagination in the early
> stages of its maturity. They have no
place in our modern world. They are
> stupid gods that cannot stand the test
of reason. The Single Principle
> underlying the creation, that eternal
spiritual reality permeating every
> atom of this universe is not what our
prehistoric ancestors invented and a
> bunch of charlatans calling themselves
prophets have echoed and perpetuated.
> It is not true that religions were the
first to introduce the concept of God
> to humankind. The notion of God is evolved
with the intellectual capacity of
> human brain. People believed in spirits
and assumed that behind every
> natural phenomenon there is a deity that
makes it happen. There was a god
> for thunders, a god for winds, a god
for fertility and a god for creation, a
> god for death and a god for birth. Gods
were abounding and they were all the
> products of human’s imagination.
> People prayed to these gods and offered
sacrifices in their altars. They
> sought their protection and invoked them
in their wars. Shamans and medicine
> men came along and took advantage of
the credulity of people. They posed as
> the mediums between men and gods and
robbed them with their lies.
> To enforce their hegemony over the people
they claimed to be the prophets
> and messengers of these gods and demanded
absolute obedience and payment of
> money in exchange for salvation. No one
could see these gods but them and
> they were the vicegerents of these deities.
Of course rivalry arouse between
> the prophets, each claiming that their
gods is superior and more powerful. A
> contest of power is reported between
Elijah the self acclaimed prophet of
> Yahweh and the followers of Baal in a
very naïf tale in the Bible. In this
> story Elijah challenges the power of
Baal by asking his followers to bring a
> bull, place it on the altar and ask the
Baal to set it to fire. The
> followers of Baal pray all day and nothing
happens. But when Elijah prays to
> Yahweh (Lord), the bull is immediately
consumed in fire. Then Elijah having
> proved the superiority of Yahweh over
Baal, orders the execution of Baal’s
> followers. (Which makes one wonder why
Yahweh himself who was so powerful
> did not kill them?) This story is narrated
in 1Kings 18: 21-40.
> Naturally, no rational person can believe
in the accuracy of such an absurd
> tale. If it was so easy to prove the
existence of God, then I challenge, the
> Jews, the Christians and the Muslims
to invoke their god and ask him to
> perform the same miracle in front of
TV cameras, (without any tricks) to
> settle this controversy about his existence
once and for all. With the
> promise that if they end up making fools
of themselves at the end of the
> day, like the followers of the Baal in
the above narrative and their god
> does not respond, their lives will be
spared, thanks to our Universal
> Declaration of Human Rights that allows
people the freedom to believe even
> in false and impotent gods like Yahweh
> In the old days there were many gods.
All these gods had prophets,
> intermediaries and messengers. This was
then, as is now, a very lucrative
> and enticing business. It gave the prophets
immense prestige and a lot of
> power. In the above story it is said
that Baal had 450 prophets.
> Then Elijah said to them, "I am the only
prophet of the LORD [Yahweh] who is
> left, but Baal has 450 prophets. 1Ki
> In those days people prayed to several
gods. At first there was little
> religious hostility between them. They
simply prayed to each other’s gods,
> just in case, and if their prayers were
answered, they attributed it to the
> power of that god and promoted him amongst
their own people. However, the
> prophets and the priests of these gods
were not happy of such an
> arrangement. They wanted control over
people. If they believed in other gods
> then they would also take their offerings
and sacrifices to those gods. This
> would have damaged their [the prophet’s
and priests] business and meant lost
> of income. So it was imperative to dissuade
people of praying to other gods.
> Thus we hear such harsh condemnations
like the following.
> Again the Israelites did evil in the
LORD's sight. They worshiped images of
> Baal and Ashtoreth, and the gods of Aram,
Sidon, Moab, Ammon, and Philistia.
> Not only this, but they abandoned the
LORD [Yahweh] and no longer served him
> at all. Jud 10:6
> Actually even the famous biblical figure
Solomon, (whom Muhammad called his
> “brother” in the episode when he said
that he had caught the Satan wanting
> to tie him down to a post and Solomon
prevented him), “worshiped Ashtoreth,
> the goddess of the Sidonians; Chemosh,
the god of Moab; and Molech, the god
> of the Ammonites” 1Ki 11:33 and 1Ki 11:5
Solomon even built shrines for
> these gods. 2Ki 23:13
> In fact it was not just Solomon, but
most of the Israeli’s believed in a
> pantheon of Gods as is clear from this
King Samuel rebuking of the Jews. .
> Then Samuel said to all the people of
Israel, "If you are really serious
> about wanting to return to the LORD [Yahweh]
, get rid of your foreign gods
> and your images of Ashtoreth. Determine
to obey only the LORD; then he will
> rescue you from the Philistines." 1Sa
> More confirmation that the Israelites
were worshipping other gods can be
> found in the following verses.
> They abandoned the LORD to serve Baal
and the images of Ashtoreth. Jud 2:13
> Before long Israel was joining in the
worship of Baal of Peor, causing the
> LORD's anger to blaze against his people.
Nu 25:3 -
> See also. Nu 25:5 , 1Sa 7:4 and ' 1Sa
> One wonders if these gods really did
not exist, what is the big fuss. Why
> should Yahweh and his priests and functionaries
be so jealous of gods that
> really do not have any existence? The
answer is that the authors of the
> Bible really believed that other gods
do exists, but they did not want the
> Israelis to worship them for several
> If Israelis believed in other gods than
Yahweh, (the gods of other nations)
> they would feel friendly with their neighboring
nations, associate with them
> in amity, marry amongst each other and
the rulers will not be able to secure
> the integrity of the Israeli nation.
To have a sense of nationality, you
> have to have something that binds you
with other members of your nation,
> something unique that is not shared by
other neighboring tribes. Israelites
> were a small nation among many other
nations clustered in a small area.
> Intermixing and intermingling was inevitable.
A common religion, unique to
> the Israelis would have given them a
common cause and a sense of belonging.
> The kings needed an excuse to secure
the allegiance of the nation and
> instill in them the hatred of the enemy.
The religion with a different god
> would have provided such an excuse. A
god that was superior to the gods of
> their neighbors; a god that was mightier
than all other gods and above all a
> god that was jealous and vengeful that
would not tolerate betrayal.
> The priests also liked the idea of a
single god. So when the nation of
> Israel was released from the bondage
of Nabuchadnezar and by the leave of
> Cyrus returned to Jerusalem to rebuild
their temple and worship their own
> god, (Ezra 1) the priests of that time;
Jeremiah, Ezra and two unknown
> priests named by biblical scholars as
J and E, (not necessarily contemporary
> to each other) regrouped the Israelis
that were split in two separate
> nations, Judah and Israel, each having
a different country, a different king
> and a different deity, into one nation.
They blended their bibles (religious
> lore) and amalgamated their gods, El
and Yahweh [Lord], into one single god.
> They instigated in the people the hatred
of other gods and claimed their
> sufferings; exiles and captivities were
caused because Jews had forsaken the
> Jewish god El/Yahweh, (now posing as
a single god). And as Samuel promised
> them, if they returned to Yahweh they
would be victorious over the
> Philistienes. 1Sa 7:3
> This story obviously makes little sense.
Why should god be the god of the
> Jews and not of the Philisteienes? But
it made perfect sense to those living
> in 700 BC. For them, there were many
gods and each nation had its own
> patron. Yahweh was the god of the Jews
and other nations had their own gods.
> This is clear from the Psalms 82 where
Yahweh has a conversation with other
> gods rebuking them for their ineptitude
and lack of concern for their
> subjects. In this assembly of gods Yahweh
admonished his colleagues and
> reprimands them for not being good gods.
In fact he reminds them to he the
> sons of the Almighty, which makes us
believe that Yahweh himself is not the
> supergod but still there is one superior
to him and other gods.
> Naturally Jews wanted to think that their
god is the best. He had to be the
> most powerful of all gods. But not that
they denied the existence of other
> gods! That is the whole reason for which
Yahweh is so jealous. You cannot be
> jealous of something that does not exist.
> Amazingly even Jesus believed that other
nations have their own separate
> gods. The concept of monotheism was evolved
gradually and perhaps the over
> zealot Christian missioner Paul the apostle
is to be credited for it, though
> he must have done it unwittingly. It
was he who compromised his faith to
> sell his religion to the West. I have
explained this subject in my article
> The Evolution of Monotheism.
> Interestingly Even Muhammad had the slip
of the tongue when one day next to
> Ka’ba while discussing religious matters
with some prominent men of Quraish
> reveled this verse:
> And see ye not LAT and OZZA,
> And MANAT the third besides?
> These are the exalted Females,
> And verily their Intercession is to be
> This story is reported by both Katib
al Waqidi p. 89; and Tabari, p. 140.
> This open concession and the acceptance
of Lat Ozza and Mnat, surprised and
> pleased the Quraish who unanimously bowed
in prostration when Muhammad ended
> his speech with these words: “Wherefore
bow down before God, and serve Him.”
> Quraish were happy for this concession
and wowed to end hostility.
> Some narrators say that on the very night
of that day, Gabriel had appeared
> to Muhammad and said: “What is this that
thou hast done? thou hast repeated
> before the people words that I never
gave unto thee.” (Muir p. 151) And
> Muhammad realizing that these verses
were put into his mouth by Satan, he
> retracted from what he said, disowned
the whole proceeding, and called those
> verses “Satanic Verses”.
> However, the fact that the tidings of
the reconciliation between the Muslims
> and the Quraish reached Abyssinia and
many of the immigrants returned to
> Mecca makes us deduce that Gabriel did
not appear to Muhammad on the same
> night and this state of peace between
the Quraish and the followers of
> Muhammad went on for a while. Until Muhammad
realized that by accepting the
> three goddesses, the daughters of Allah,
he is shooting in his own foot and
> making superfluous his own raison de
etre. So he claimed that Satan put
> those words into his mouth and the real
verse as revealed by Allah should
> have been:
> “And see ye not LAT and OZZA,
> And MANAT the third beside?
> What! Shall there be male progeny unto
you, and female unto him?
> That were indeed an unjust partition!
> They are naught but names, which ye and
your, Fathers have invented, &c.”
> (Q.53: 20-22)
> These verses were not only more in line
with the misogynist nature of the
> prophet, but also reaffirmed himself
as the sole intermediary between Allah
> and man.
> In conclusion the concept of God did
not descend from religions. Both
> religion and god are the inventions of
man. They both evolved as human
> intellect kept growing. But today we
have advanced to a stage that we no
> more can accept those antiquated and
unverifiable dogmas of our forefathers.
> We can easily and logically disprove
the existence of the god given to us by
> our ancestors and then enforced by the
religions but there is not a shred of
> evidence that can prove the existence
of such deity. (For further
> explanation on this subject please refer
to several articles in the chapter
> dedicated to God. This is a subject that
I have talked about extensively and
> I am not going to repeat. I invite you
to read them and then express your
> disagreements if any. Thank you).