Control or Educate?

[Sam Arcot]

I am not sure whether 'Atheist vs Theist Debates' is the right forum for this topic. I am not a vegan (sorry about that) but I still have something in common with you guys- being an atheist! But me being atheist is a bit different than yours. I am an atheist among the people who are insular, preposterous and blind to reasoning. While you are an atheist among the people who, though might be staunch believers, respect your opinion. You can have harsh arguments with them on their blind beliefs but still at the end of the day, go and have a coffee with them. While the people here go berserk when they see you not nodding to them when they preach. In the beginning days of my atheism, I used to hate them for this. But now I merely pity them. They are living just quarter of the life of a free man. Their religious theories restrict them from almost everything that is fun. From music to dating. With a promise of an eternal reward .

It’s a bit shocking to learn that even after living a life of a medieval desert dwellers, they never seem lugubrious but are instead content and happy. It’s like the belief has taken away their cognitive abilities. But then you find them scoring higher grades in academics. Even in the field of medicine, which emphasizes on the role of evolution on man’s biology, they seem to get along well. The reason is, they study it for the sake of raising their status in this world. The scriptures have told them that they are to succeed in both this life and the after one. They see the academics as a platform created (indirectly) by god for them to make use of it and progress. So, the question is- How far are they going with this? Far enough to make themselves doctors and engineers. But not even close to creating something new or discovering. It is quite amazing to see that people who contribute in the form of discovery, invention or research are mostly the ones who are skeptical and not bonded into restrictions. The theists may reach a certain level through their hard work but they won’t be able compete in this field. That is because they don’t think! Imagine if Newton was a believer. What could possibly be the reason behind things falling down? God knows the best for we are merely his creation! Over.

Sometimes I just wonder, isn’t it advantageous to have theists around? Lesser competition and predictable opponents. I question myself, do I actually want them to come to reasoning? Or am I happier to know that I am better than them?

So this brings an Idea in my mind. Why not let them be? Infact, I must not be the first one to think of this. Take a look in the middle-east. They are hopeless without the support of foreign aid. Please do mind that these people once built empires that stretched half of Asia and Europe. But their faiths have made them savages today. Instead of making failed attempts to coax them, why not control them with the religions? I know how fascist I might sound right now, but I am talking about the extreme case scenario. I am aware that there are atheists in the Muslim countries who are trying hard to… survive? I hope we can work for them as a community. But to the majority of the people, instead of trying to educate, why not simply deprive it. Because these people, as far as I know them, will study everything but not rationalism. They skip the pages of a book that talk about humanism to the parts that teach them about newer ways of world dominance. By giving them education you are only making the enemies of freedom more powerful. Jihad is not just fought by arms. There are several ways of it as I have learnt when I was researching the subject. The strongest being the outnumbering the infidels by population. You may not find mass immigration of Muslim populous into the west harmful as they seem secular. But just think about it. Do they allow you to marry their daughters? The otherwise is acceptable to them because of their male dominant social structure. Many of the terrorist funding was done by the immigrant Muslims of the western countries. When they (immigrants) return for a visit, we find them even more Islamic than before. Do they ever thank these nations for providing them education? I never found or heard or read anyone of them doing so. Instead of feeding the enemies, why not control them?
-Sam Arcot, www.samarcot.weebly.com

[brimstoneSalad]

Newton was a believer, but he also had heretical views and did not follow the teachings of the church.

You can read more about Newton's religious views on the Wikipedia article Here.

What does rejecting the established church in Islam mean (as comparable to Newton)?

Well, that's pretty easy: It means rejecting the authority of Hadith, and the consensus of 'Islamic scholars', and instead thinking for themselves and reading the Qur'an as Newton read the Christian bible.

If you can get that far, and free the people from the Caliphs (which is not slavery to Allah as the Qur'an commands, but slavery to the Caliphate), then you free people to follow the Qur'an and the commandments of Allah with their own sense, reason, and conscience- and to have their own opinions about it.

This may or may not lead them to question the Qur'an and the existence of Allah itself, that depends on whether they have faith that those things can stand on their own without being propped up by the Islamic state with official interpretations that have been prepared for them by 'scholars' -- but it does largely free them from the monstrosity that is the worst of mindless fundamentalism.

If you want to talk with believers about this, don't push them to atheism- in their eyes, you're pushing them off a cliff. Instead, encourage them to question the authority of Hadith. Show them Hadith they can not accept. Show them Hadith that contradicts itself and other Hadith. Show them Hadith which contradicts the words of the Qur'an. Show them prohibitions on Hadith, recorded from Muhammad.

"Do not write anything from me; whoever has written anything from me other than the Qur'aan, let him erase it and narrate from me, for there is nothing wrong with that."

Hadith apologists pull out some bullshit about the prohibition only applying to when the Qur'an was being transcribed to avoid confusion- this is because they hold the Hadith higher than the Qur'an itself, and don't believe the Qur'an alone is useful (which is strictly against Muhammad's teachings).

Ask them which is more important- the Qur'an, or Hadith.
Most Muslims pretend it's the former, but in fact, and in practice, it's the latter. Some fundamentalist "Muslims" will even admit that- they don't care about the Qur'an.

Propping up the Hadith like that is un-Islamic. It is shirk of the Qur'an, arguably kafir, and denial of the work of the prophet in favor of the work of 'ordinary' men who recorded hearsay, which they were told not to do (anybody who was loyal to Muhammad would have obeyed that request, and not quoted him except as the Qur'an).

Tell them this. See how they respond.

Without the absolute authority of Hadith, and with only the Qur'an, Islam is a religion that can potentially live in peace in the modern world and beyond as Christianity largely has since the fall from political power of the Catholic church.
Of course I'm not saying that the Qur'an is true, but it is much less specific and demanding than the sum of the Hadith, and allows for much more reasoned and conscientious individual interpretation (much as the Christian bible can pretty much be cherry picked to support anything, it re-introduces choice and 'free-will' into religious belief -- and that's a good thing for society).