Fabrication of Islam

Reading the book What the Koran Really Says by Ibn Warraq is amazing. In this book he has taught me many new ideas about Islam that I had not known up until now. But for me what grabbed my attention was the short line in the beginning part of the book as written below

… the traditional historical framework fabricated by Muslim tradition.

So what proof or evidence does he provide?

  1. The exile myth
  2. Pre-Islamic Arabian Poetry was a fabrication by later day Muslims to give outside credence to Koran according to Taha Husayn
  3. 23 years by Ali Dashti
  4. Koran Surah 6, verse 96 contains a non-Arabic word Husban which is originally a Hebrew word
  5. Islam was the result of disputes amongst monotheist in the region of Palestine, Syria and Iraq according to Hawting
  6. Taking oath of Mecca and the Cross as in the case of ‘Adi bin Zayd during 600 CE
  7. Meccans were trinitarian Christian according to Lulling
  8. Quraysh means shark according to Cook

There is much more in the book about various other things about Islam, Muhammad and Koran but the above points were the ones that got my attention. Although I have not done justice to the book since it mentions a lot of others that someone else might find interesting and might have been more profound in its implication.


Welcome Back Fascism

US election result

Democrat results so far

  1. Hillary Clinton – 1712
  2. Bernie Sanders – 1011

Republican results so far

  1. Donal Trump – 736
  2. Ted Cruz – 463
  3. John Kasich – 143

By the way the above results can change in the coming days.

What is Fascism?

At this point it is important to define the word fascism. Fascism etymologically means a bundle of rods (twisting the rods together was the symbolic way that fascism conveyed its message).

Historians have made a few points on the nature of fascism (read the wikipedia page on fascism),

  1. negation of anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism
  2. nationalist authoritarian goals of regulated economy
  3. political aesthetic such as romantic symbolism, mass mobilisation, positive view of violence, promotion of masculinity, youth and charismatic leadership.
  4. populist ultranationalism
  5. rebirth myth
  6. myth of decadence
  7. promotes radical politics in order to bring an end to decadence
  8. not restrained by ethics or laws
  9. obsessive preoccupation with humiliation, victimhood and community decline
  10. racism

Placing these points we can make a very good case that both parties are fascist to a large extent. I will not go point by point on each point to make the case since it is obvious. However fascism does not come over night, it always comes as a result of a populist movement that talks about getting things done and they also hint that they will do the things they promise and they give the people the feeling, by the way every candidate has been doing this since a long time. However the USA has slowly been turning into an authoritarian state, where each president has done its part. Theodore Roosevelt was the president that turned the office of the executive into an imperial presidency, he is where executive order mania started for all the presidents that were to come after him.

So while we fear a certain fascist might come and take power, the media has remained complicit and infact helped the state become the autoritarian state that it has become. Think about it for a minute. Assume that an evil individual sits in the White House, what will stop them from making evil decisions and what mechanism are there in place to stop the will of the president to come to reality? Think back how many times has the president been stopped. Fascism isn’t coming, fascism is already here its only getting the crown that it has been waiting for.

“It is of course true that one can walk down the street, the individual can go into his workshop and he can go out again: here and there he can go to a meeting. In a word, the individual has liberties. But in general, if he is wise, he will keep his mouth shut. For if in former times extraordinary care was taken that no one should let slip anything which could be treated as lèse-majesté, now a man must take much greater care that he doesn’t say anything which might represent an insult to the majesty of a member of Parliament.” Adolph Hitler Speech on April 12, 1922.
The worlds worst tyrant always use the language of everyday people and tyranny is only a small fraction of their thinking.

Did Muhammad Exist?

How do we know that Muhammad really existed? Because of all the historians that reported him in their books that are recorded. So lets go to these sources one by one. Years are given in common era.

Urwah ibn Zubayr (d.712): Son of Asma bint Abi Bakr and Zubair ibn alAwwam. He wrote a biography of Muhammad which he subsequently destroyed after the Battle of Harrah. How do we know all this? Through ibn Khallikan (d.1282) and ibn Hajar alAsqalani (d.1449). (Comment: This is not acceptable based on common sense.)

Aban bin Uthman bin Affan (d.723): Son of the Umm Amr bint Jandab and the 3rd Caliph Uthman. He wrote the Maghazi of Muhammad. How do we know that? Why its our good old friend ibn Hajar alAsqalani (d.1449). (Comment: This is not acceptable.)

 Wahb ibn Munabbih (d. 725-737): Son of Munabbih ibn Kamil. He wrote Qisas alAnbiya. How do we know that? That’s right, our man ibn Khallikan (d.1282) and ibn Hajar alAsqalani. (Comment: Really, again, another guy not acceptable. His death must be painful or the writers just couldn’t make up their mind.)

ibn Shihab alZuhri (d.741-2): Wrote the Sira of Muhammad. How do we know that? Well now we can rely on someone different this time, namely ibn Sa’d (d.845). (Comment: I don’t find it acceptable.)

ibn Ishaq (d.770): He never wrote the Sira of Muhammad rather his student alBakkai who committed to writing what he had learnt from ibn Ishaq but later ibn Hisham edited the work of alBakkai, more on that below. (So another iffy writer.)

Malik bin Anas (d.795): He wrote alMuwatta which is still in circulation. [Note from this point onwards we have the books of the authors]

Hisham Ibn Al-Kalbi (d.819): He established that Muhammad was from the children of Ishmael and subsequently all the Arabs are the children of Ishmael.

alWaqidi (d. 823): He wrote Kitab alTarikh wa alMaghazi.

Ibn Hisham (d. 835): He wrote the Sira of Muhammad which was actually just an editing od alBakkai’s work. This work survives.

Ibn Sa’d al-Baghdadi (d.845):  He wrote Kitab Tabaqat alKubra which contains material on Muhammad and his companions. This work has survived.

Khalifah ibn Khayyat (d.854): There are only two works of his that survive, one is Tabaqat and the other is Tarikh, an 11th century copy was discovered in Rabat, Morroco. He was also the teacher of Bukhari and Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855): He wrote the famous Musnad.

alDarimi (d. 869): He wrote the Sunan alDarimi.

Muhammad alBukhari (d. 870): He wrote Sahih alBukhari, part of Kutub alSittah.

Muslim ibn alHajjaj (d.875): He wrote Sahih Muslim, part of Kutub alSittah.

ibn Majah (d. 887-9): He wrote Sunan ibn Majah, part of Kutub alSittah.

Abu Dawood (d. 889): He wrote Sunan Abu Dawood, part of Kutub alSittah.

Muhammad ibn Isa at-Tirmidhi (d.892): He wrote Jami alTirmidhi, part of Kutub alSittah, amongst other works.

anNasa’i (d.915): He wrote asSunan asSughra, part of Kutub alSittah.

Conclusion: One must bear in mind that Muhammad died in the year 632 of common era and the first three people on the list above were claimed to be historians by people in the 13th century and later. No one who witnessed Muhammad wrote about Muhammad. The fact of the matter is that generally there are 3-7 people in the transmitters of any tradition. Lets keep in mind that this is the time when most people had very low education, infact most people had no education and they believed some of the most laughable things like 360 angels carrying the moon and the sun everyday.

One more thing that needs to be said about this is the fact that the Muslim calender starts right about when the Persian-Byzantine war came to an end with the victory of Byzantine. At that point both the empires were tired making them easy pickings by the two large local factions which were Lakhmid and Ghassanid. Islam will only make sense when historians pay a closer attention to the two Arab tribes.

Fixed Standard or Felxible Standard

I find having absolute standard has benefits and also drawbacks. One major advantage is the fact that I know exactly what I have to do and this allows me the freedom to not have to think what is the right thing to do in this situation or in that situation. An example is appropriate here, lying, hurting, stealing stc are all wrong. However fixed standard comes crasing in real world. There are good people who do bad things and bad people who do good things and people do bad things in certain situation but would never do bad things in other situations. Again I guess an example would make more sense. A salesperson might lie in order to sell but the same person might never think of lying to their partner. In order to complete an example is the cruel dictator who is loving to the little kids he might see in a school.

Well that brings me to the other side of the coin, flexibel standard. The idea here is to change your behaviour that suits the situation, I must assert that I am not saying that we should become morally flexible, but rather to make the appropriate decision after understanding the situation ion which you are making decision. While having a felxible standard for yourself you can feel the satisfaction that the decision you make are appropriate for the situation however this requires time and information which might both be lacking in the situation.

So how do you decide what to do? {I forgot what I was going to type. Ah yes} The way to make the right decision is to follow the fixed standard that you have determined, however make sure to allow yourself the room to be able to observe the results and only be flexible if you know the situation in detail.

To some it up, if you have little information and you have to make a decision on that then stick to the fixed standard you have however if you have information and/or you have a reasonable assurance that more information will come by then wait for that information in order to make the fianl decision. {Its clear I am out of my depth here.}


Projection is perception. The title may make some mad.

Reading several blogposts by self-appointed saviours of other women I came accross a blog that started out good only to end in recomendations that would totally reverse the civilisation.

1. Innocent Until Proven Guilty

It’s not relevant outside of court of law.

People do things, and it is the community’s responsibility to hold members accountable for their actions and to protect themselves and their members from harm and to support those in need. That’s what a community is for.

Make them [accused] respond to accusations instead of making the victims hide in shame.

There is a fallacy that these self-appointed social justice warriors (or Social Justice Stormtroopers) have not looked into. They believe that rights come from the government, that rights are a privileges granted to you from above. This kind of reasoning leads to tyranny. Two things that the author clearly didn’t realise while writing, the writer talks about how innocnet until proven guilty is something that is only valid when inside the court and outside the court you can do the reverse, followed by demanding that the community enforce the punishment based on accusation. if the job of enforcing punishment goes to the community instead of a competent court you are asking for a mob-rule, call it whatever you want. The author’s reasoning is counter to the common understanding held by people and legal experts and that is that all our rights come from our humanity. According to the UN charter innocent until proven guilty is a human right.

3. No to Vigilante Justice

Again. We’re not talking about criminal cases here. We’re talking about social responsibility.

I don’t even want to go on what the social responsibility is, but a rape is a criminal case where the duty is to report it to the authorities and the duty of the people is to not jump to conclusions on the event but rather to provide her with any justified assistance to the victim, don’t let the case get contaminated by emotions of vindictivness. As a side there is a thing called the bond-vigilantes who are not wearing spandex doing their job.

5. Ruining a person’s life

Rape does ruin the life of a woman and we as society individuals need to have a debate about how best to provide the highest quality of couselling and legal service that will help the victims of rape get back on life and gwt the highest quality of justice. I can’t say much about rapists having an easy life and if the justice system is broken then as a society an individual we need to identify the specific areas and find a solution that is ethical and fix it as soon as possible.

6. People will just “cry rape” willy nilly

Under this heading the writer has made it clear that they are not interested in making a society a better place for all but rather because they are living in fear that everyone deserves to live in fear. This is mean-spirited and sadistic.

7. Right to privacy

Your privacy in society is a privilege, not a right. That privilege can be taken away when you violate others’ rights, like by raping someone or by posting pictures of underage girls as “fop” material on Reddit. It is, by the way, an inalienable right to not be raped. Each of us OWNS our body. It’s ours, and it can only be entered with given and maintained consent. Period.

Privacy according to the US constitution is argued to be not a right and Late Antonin Scalia explains. However an individual can lose their right if there is evidence that a person has commited a crime and then they do lose rights either as part of investigation to be done by competent people or as punishment.

There was one feeling that I consistently felt through out reading the literature of the Feminist-Marxists and it was hoe morally bankrupt their arguments are at the heart of it. Farxists are so wrong wrong in their reasoning that they don’t realise how far removed they have descended downwards from the moral high ground. The second thing I began to understand is how convoluted their understanding of the Law is. I will have to write more on this.

By the way just because someone is a victim of a crime does not make them an expert in the crime.

Life’s not fair!

I always heard my younger brothers complain “That’s not fair!” every time I announced my decision after hearing their case. The funny thing about my decision was that we all knew I was wrong including myself but I justified myself by saying “Life’s not Fair!” Something that made the younger of the two brothers always get in trouble while the older one (but still younger then me) take advantage of the rules I implemented. That way the two brothers learned an important lesson that when justice is arbitrary then you learn the rule and live life accordingly. Which reminds me of the Melian Dialogue

“… the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept.” [Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 5, 89]

In short might makes right. That’s how the society has been since time immemorial. Those in power have decided what is right but every so often the powerful group makes enough people angry that there is a revolt and the old powers are liquidated. At the end of the Peloponnesian War the Athenians lost to Spartans but the Spartans didn’t last long either since the Athenian culture subverted the Spartan culture a kind of Pyrrhic victory or a cosmic justice to the two powers.

So what do people who knowingly or unknowingly commit injustice justify themselves? Well I pointed to the results of my policy with my brothers. I pointed to the decline in complaints as well as the two brothers learning a useful lesson. However I always managed to make sure that the two brothers didn’t fight too much and I also managed to catch the right culprit from time to time and giving them punishment by giving them time, each point was a minute on their favourite PC game. But I also instituted simple tasks that made them earn their points back. So my reasoning was utilitarian. I know its not honourable and its a slippery slope when used in global politics. In global politics I wish the politicians were deontological or to put it simply ethical principles. In global affairs the decision must be based on ethics before results.

In conclusion I’d like to say that we live in a universe full of anarchy where the rule is only the rule of physics and everything else goes. In this giant universe we are the only species so far that I know of that is conscious of ethical issues and can debate them. All of us have unique situation that has shaped each one of us. For me I believe that we should try to make decision that will balance the result with ethical concerned being met but I tilt towards ethics taking the prime concern because only that way we can ensure a long happy life.  Continue reading Life’s not fair!

That’s not Fair!

“… for though the law of nature be plain and intelligible to all rational creatures; yet men, being biased by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases.”   John Locke, Two Treatises on Government, § 124. [Download Book]

“It is in the nature of men to rise against the injustice of which they are the victims.” Frédéric Bastiat, The Bastiat Collection, The Law [Download Book]

I chose these two quotes because these gentlemen wrote centuries ago and yet manage to be relevant after all the time. there we have in a nutshell why we hear individuals complain “That’s not fair” because on the one hand we are very selfish and on the other hand we have a sense to resist injustice. Being selfish is not wrong in itself in fact being selfish is a good thing as long as you remain in your limits.

One of the things that is puzzling is that how can putting thieves, rapists, murderers, terrorists and various serious criminals concentrated in one place suppose to achieve. Another thing is what is the objective of punishment? Is it to hurt or reform the criminal? But many law makers talk about stricter punishment as a form deterrent to future criminal which seems to remain since recorded history. So tougher punishments as deterrent seems not to work.

It seems that hurting the criminals does not produce the desired result in fact it makes the person commit crime since coming out of prison he has to carry the title of being in prison and reducing his employability and this prevents the criminal from setting a life even if the person is reformed. Which makes sense since most criminals make a re-entry into prison.

Up until this point it has been assumed that the way to deal with any criminal is to hurt the criminal because that is what he has done by committing crime. But if justice means hurting the criminal because they have hurt someone how better are we then the criminal for believing in this system.

I think its time to think outside the box when giving punishment.