Religion seems to be under a sustained attack recently, especially in media and popular culture. From books such as God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins to films such as Religulous by comedian Bill Maher released on October 3, more and more people seem to be saying that - in the 21st Century - religion should be discarded in exchange for rational thinking.

Bill Maher, in fact, told the New York Times in a recent article, "It's just the ultimate hustle. It's just selling an invisible product, and so if I can be Toto in The Wizard of Oz pulling back the curtain, which is how I see religion, great, that's fine, I'll do that and get off the stage."

Even as a religious person, I can understand this disdain for religion. Throughout history, truly horrible crimes have been committed in the name of God. Since ancient times, people have been butchered, raped, pillaged, burned alive, and torn to pieces to fulfill the "will of God." During the Crusades, where the blood of Jews and Muslims was knee high to the horses in Jerusalem, the battle cry of the Christians was "God wills it." And in modern times, terrorists -- who also claim that "God wills it" -- have no hesitancy to kill themselves and scores of innocent people with them, whether it be with a bomb or a passenger plane, like the Al Qaeda terrorists did on September 11, 2001.

It is quite easy to look at all this pain and suffering committed in the name of religion and conclude that religion itself is the problem. It is quite easy to conclude that, if only religion were eliminated, the world would be a much better place. Yet, this criticism misses the point.

Religion is not the problem: It is the so-called "religious" who are.

Religion is a set of principles, guidelines, and doctrines that seek to guide human conduct on earth. It is a tool, among many other tools, that help human beings navigate earthly existence. Yes, religion has been used by countless people to spread evil and mischief across the earth, and this is the thing to which its critics point to claim that religion is itself evil. Yet, these critics frequently fail to acknowledge the tremendous good that religion has inspired throughout the centuries of human history.

All true religious traditions have a common basic message: There is a transcendent power open to humanity providing meaning to life; there is a great purpose to life. The moral message of religion states that a person should live a good life, doing unto others as he would have them do unto him. Religion teaches us that we are our brothers' and our sisters' keepers, that compassion for humanity is not a sign of weakness, but, in fact, great strength.

Religion inspires billions of people around the world today to live honest, decent, law-abiding lives. Faith-based charities of every religious tradition have brought comfort, hope, and healing to millions of people who would otherwise starve, lay homeless, and be left to fend for themselves. Religion gives comfort and consolation to so many who have faced adversity in their lives, whether it be suffering from illness, natural disaster, or the loss of someone whom they loved.

Religion has done as much, if not more, good throughout human history, and this reality cannot and should not be dismissed by the critics of religion.

Yes, various religious traditions have their stories about the origins of existence and other mysteries of life on earth, and as a follower of the Islamic tradition, I have them as well, including the story of Adam and Eve, Moses and the staff, Jonah and the fish, and others. Yes, some followers of the various faith traditions interpret these stories in a literal manner, and they are ridiculed by the non-religious.

But, as far as I understand it, these stories have a larger moral lesson, and that is the most important thing that should be taken away from them. It is as the Qur'an itself says: "Verily, in their stories is a lesson for those of deep understanding…" (12:111).

For instance, it may be true that Adam was tempted by a "talking snake" in the Garden of Eden, but the story of the fall of Adam is one of hope and the soothing mercy of God. That is its most important lesson. Yes, Moses may have turned his staff into a serpent in front of Pharoah, but the story of Moses is one of the triumph of good over evil, even if that evil seems to be completely overwhelming. I have suffered personal adversity in my life, and it was precisely those stories in my religious tradition – of Moses, of Joseph, of Jonah, and others – that helped me cope and ultimately made me a much stronger person. That is the value religion brings.

I do not dismiss the horrific crimes that have been, and continue to be, committed in the name of religion. I condemn them with all my heart, all my mind, and all my soul. It is, in fact, my deep religious faith that motivates me to speak out against the terrible injustices that are done in the name of God. Yet, let us not "throw out the baby with the bath water," as the proverbial expression goes. In the wrong hands, religion has been a force for tremendous terror, pain, and madness. In the right hands, however, religion has been, and can continue to be, a force for tremendous and overwhelming good. In fact, if someone simply made religion disappear, evil would still exist, because evil people would still exist. It is those people that need to be changed and opposed, and religion, in fact, can be an excellent tool for that fight. Like any other thing that is associated with fallible human beings, religion is not the problem. It is the so-called "religious" who do evil its name that are.

Atheism is the opium of European nihilism. The only atheist writer worth reading is George Santanya. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Maher are third rate polemicists and snake oil salesmen. Dawkins maybe an evolutionary biologist but he is not a Darwinian. Dawkins is a geneticist (The Selfish Gene) which stems from Ethology (Konrad Lorenz - imprinting - used by the national socialist atheism of Hitler to justify ethnic cleansing of Jews and gypsies) and is potentially neo-racist - people are born to be as determined by their genes. Genetic determinism is a pseudo-scientific exposition of God. So is the concept of Intelligence, which stems from the Spanish Christian concept of Blue Blood - used to preserve the white Christian aristocratic supremacy over the Moors. Look at Sir Cyril Burt, the father of ’scientific intelligence’ and knighted by British aristocracy for providing ’scientific evidence’ for their privileged position but since shown to have been a fraud.
The character of the crowds he speaks to doesn't surprise me. Here in the states, Dawkins-style selfish-genery is often taken up by free-market lovers to give their philosophy of radical individualism a scientific patina. People need to wisen up and start reading their history books.
Its interesting that Bill Maher picks an anti-Zionist rabbi for ridicule in "religulous." Watch him get his zionist behind handed to him :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tv82Gwo7i0

Well, what I find scary about Dawkins is his mantra about children being raised without any religious identity. That calling a child a 'Muslim Child' is somehow brainwashing and illegal in that the child has no choice in choosing his/her faith. Seems to me to be some kind of Nazi-like social experiment in the making. The natural conclusion to this experiment being that eventually someday, the state will simply take the child from the womb and raise it herself in order not to 'brainwash' them. I mean why rely on the parents to feed and clothe the child either, right? They may feed/clothe him/her polluted Chinese merchandise for Christ's sake. Grrr.

Obviously, Dawkins thinks that in so doing, 90% of the children will end up being athiests instead of choosing a religion!!! How convenient! Although personally, after watching some of his videos with masses of drooling confused college kids, I got the impression that ultimately more people will end up being religious from the empty moral-less shell that his brand of athiesm has to offer. He is almost creating 'recruits' for the "supreme religion" (whatever that may be, Islam or otherwise) by wiping out the parental moral compass from the brains of his disciples.

>Well, what I find scary about Dawkins is his mantra about children being raised without any religious identity.<

I don't see that happening since that would involve interfering in the private lives of people. The very idea though shows that militant secularists and atheists are not content with keeping religion out of just the public sphere. Dawkins has also called religion a form of "mental illness"(an absurd attempt at a clinical diagosis considering he isn't a health care professional) and his followers as "brights." Very cultish. Dawkins to me is a paper tiger who often uses the most ignorant or extreme theists to tout the superiority of his atheism(suffering from narcissistic personality disorder). He and others cite several conflicts and claim they are being fought mainly over religion completely ignoring the political and economic factors that are the main reasons for these wars. A gross over simplication if you will.
I guess thats why he'll slander Haroon Yahya, but refuses to debate him. Many of the "new" atheists are idiots who neither understand science or theology, simply babbling whatever they can remember from Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens as if its gospel(pun intended). They particularly loath Islam, using the medieval Christian polemiscim and zionist claptrap for their straw men. Funny thing is many of them believe in UFOs.

People who aren't religious still kill other people. Getting rid of religion, or the religious, wouldn't make the world any more peaceful. R. Stephen Humphreys pointed out in his book, Between Memory and Desire, than religion, in particular Islam, has only been used as an ideology and reasons for killing in the modern era. The ideology before the 70's in the Middle East was pan-Arabism. I thought that was pretty interesting.

>> Between Memory and Desire, than religion, in particular Islam, has only been used as an ideology and reasons for killing in the modern era. The ideology before the 70's in the Middle East was pan-Arabism. I thought that was pretty interesting.<<

Its clear to me that religion like nationality, or racial pride, or ummah fervour, or really bad football etc. can be used to whip people into mad frenzies. But there are political objectives in the use of all of these social constructs by power brokers in society. People have real political aims, and they sometimes even achieve those aims.

But one thing is certain ~ if we keep on encouraging the elements that latch onto our religion and foster group-think, perpetuate double standards and promote violence, we would be failing our religion and our greater obligation to it. Dawkins may be a very brash personality, but there are realy issues that we face and if we allow those issues to linger, we will empower his debate. It will be a judgement on our collective/individual effort as an Ummah and on Ummah.

I think the major problem facing religion in general is that people take the name of Allah. That creates a link in the eyes of observers between the human beings action and God. Some worshippers also have a tendency to exculde themselves from exercising and developing their own judgement as a matter of faith, because they deem their judgement as being the basis on which they will be judged. What they ignore is that even if you act blinldy but faithfully, you are still exercising your judgement but now you've impaired that judgement.

>> Genetic determinism is a pseudo-scientific exposition of God. So is the concept of Intelligence,

Why do you say that genetic determinism and scientific-intelligence are expositions of Allah? Is the concept of "intelligence" itself atheistic?

>>> Dawkins-style selfish-genery is often taken up by free-market lovers to give their philosophy of radical individualism a scientific patina <<<

I don't understand what you mean by "free-market lovers" being drawn to atheism.

>> For instance, it may be true that Adam was tempted by a "talking snake" in the Garden of Eden, but the story of the fall of Adam is one of hope and the soothing mercy of God. That is its most important lesson. Yes, Moses may have turned his staff into a serpent in front of Pharoah, but the story of Moses is one of the triumph of good over evil, even if that evil seems to be completely overwhelming. I have suffered personal adversity in my life, and it was precisely those stories in my religious tradition – of Moses, of Joseph, of Jonah, and others – that helped me cope and ultimately made me a much stronger person. That is the value religion brings.<<

There is enough in these assertions to have judgements of takfeer passed on a person. While ironic, I think it also points to the extent we need to foster in development in our society, or atheists like Dawkins will be waiting to "save" us when our communities crumble under the weight of dogma. I'll point to personal experiences in my community where it is openly said that "kaafeers are worst than murderers and rapists". There is the religion and there are the religious. There is our personal philosophy applied to the religion and the dogma we derive. The conclusion of these dogmas ~ no kaafeers, no atheists, no problems ... I think Dawkins is on exactly the same trip.

>Why do you say that genetic determinism and scientific-intelligence are expositions of Allah? Is the concept of "intelligence" itself atheistic?<

I said "genetic determinism" is a pseudo-scientific exposition of God, and a poor one at that. I believe this was a deliberate attempt to poison the discourse beyond repair. I don't think there's anything atheistic about intelligence whatsoever, rather the opposite.
Then there's Psych. The term psychology (-ology - study of the psyche)is pseudo-science as witnessed by Sigmund Freud, the charlatan who reinvented the Christian tripartite soul - Id (The son), ego (the man) and super ego (the parent or god - See Eric Berne - Sex and Human loving and Games People Play.


>I don't understand what you mean by "free-market lovers" being drawn to atheism.<

I was referring to radical individualists which is what most atheists are. Nor is it a surprise that Ayn Rand's "virtue of selfishness" nonsense is gospel for them as well.

>> I said "genetic determinism" is a pseudo-scientific exposition of God, and a poor one at that.

I think genetic determinism is a term used to denote different things but I've encountered these same arguments with many atheists. They have trouble defining their position (outside of criticising theists ~ sound familiar?). Any scientific exposition of Allah is going to be a "poor exposition" and "pseudo-scientific". I think that from a scientific position there are ways to define what God is to people, but you can never really have an exposition of God.

That said, I hardly think that Freud can be considered a charlatan. He was a psychologist and pscyhology is not a pure science. But neither is social science or political science or legal science etc. And like all these semi-sciences, they used scientific tools. Freud was a very influential academic and I think its very difficult to dismiss his contribution to psychiatry off-hand because you want to dismiss the atheist. They're people too you know lol

Also .. Just because its a pseudo science doesn't make psychology any less valuable learning for humanity at large. The practice of psychology actually helps many people.

>> I was referring to radical individualists which is what most atheists are. Nor is it a surprise that Ayn Rand's "virtue of selfishness" nonsense is gospel for them as well.

Still, while I haven't read this "virtue of selfishness", why must it be so quickly dismissed. Many atheists I think are responding to the history of and role of religion in Christian Europe. I think that Islamically, if we approach their arguments with some sensitivity, we can open them up to the truth inherent in the Deen. I believe that the Mercy for mankind is a blanket mercy.

For myself, the most damaging element of debating atheism is how abstract the arguments tend to present our relationship with Allah(SWT). Its our relationship/understanding with our Creator, that seemingly unjustified by physical evidence, is both personal and positive and needs to be maintianed. Speaking of Allah in these abstract terms in these debates is what hardline atheists really enjoy doing because they want to cut us off from our Imaan.

Still, it seems that the Sahabah and taabieen and many muslims after that encountered this minority (atheists) and debated with them very willingly and clearly and without profanities. Some of the discourses are even presented as having happened in the holy cities.

>Freud was a very influential academic and I think its very difficult to dismiss his contribution to psychiatry off-hand because you want to dismiss the atheist. They're people too you know lol<

Freud influence has waned considerably, and its about time. He elevated quackery to a whole new level. Phrenology, animal magnetism, and the like have been consigned to the dustbin of history, but you'll still find people praising Freud's "contributions."
In 1896 he published three papers on the ideology of hysteria claiming that he had cured X number of patients. First it was thirteen and then it was eighteen. And he had cured them all by presenting them, or rather by obliging them to remember, that they had been sexually abused as children. In 1897 he lost faith in this theory, but he'd told his colleagues that this was the way to cure hysteria. So he had a scientific obligation to tell people about his change of mind. But he didn't. He didn't even hint at it until 1905, and even then he wasn't clear. Meanwhile, where were the thirteen patients? Where were the eighteen patients? You read the Freud - Fleiss letters and you find that Freud's patients were leaving at the time. By 1897 he didn't have any patients worth mentioning, and he hadn't cured any of them, and he knew it perfectly well. Well, if a scientist did that today, of course he would be stripped of his job. He would be stripped of his research funds. He would be disgraced for life. But Freud was so brilliant at controlling his own legend that people can hear charges like this, and even admit that they're true, and yet not have their faith in the system of thought affected in any way.
But I digress..atheists can't be defined by one man. Atheism to me is a very convenient escape mechanism for most who profess it.

>Still, while I haven't read this "virtue of selfishness", why must it be so quickly dismissed<

Start reading then. Rand's "virtrue of selfishness" and hatred of altruism and other far-Right "pearls of wisdom" are widely read and appreciated. My "feelings" about Rand are irrelevant. A more appropriate question for her fans to ask is why does Rand hate the "lower" classes; the "second handers"? Her books are full of insane greed worship and arrogant, hateful elitists---to the point where the "heroes" murder those they disagree with. As literature, her books are below comic book level. So, her unoriginality combined with a cheap pulp style, amounts to a big "so-what."

>> Phrenology, animal magnetism, and the like have been consigned to the dustbin of history, but you'll still find people praising Freud's "contributions."

But you're then probably also aware that his major contribution to psychiatry has been his propositions on the working of the unconscious mind. You really do need to constantly re-define non-Muslim contribution in unflattering ways.

>> Start reading then. Rand's "virtrue of selfishness" and hatred of altruism and other far-Right "pearls of wisdom" are widely read and appreciated.

I think her views probably have more of a context than you present. But the atheist view I've encountered is not always so bent on individualism as you insist.

Those who do have a disdain for the "lower" classes, tend to show a disdain for the actualisation of the politics of those social groups. The same way you associate evangelism with right-wing warmongering and severe repression (and then issue insults as a consequence). Similarly, atheists associate the poverty and difficulty of the poor as a self-imposed difficulty and an actualisation of their world view. And just as you do, noone holds their own group/philosophy/selves equally to account by using the same moral standard they do in criticising their adversaries.

>But you're then probably also aware that his major contribution to psychiatry has been his propositions on the working of the unconscious mind.

This is what most people unfamiliar with the nitty gritty of Freud's "contributions" think. There is no “id,” “ego,” or “superego,” the concepts being either superfluous or unverifiable. In reality, there is no “Oedipal complex,” the tomfoolery used by Freudian quacks to mean a boy wants to have sex relations with his mother and despises his father as a rival.
Empirically moot.

>You really do need to constantly re-define non-Muslim contribution in unflattering ways.<

This has nothing to do with Muslim vs non-Muslim contributions. Linus Pauling's work on molecular biology and cancer prophylaxis is something I can respect as being decades ahead of its time, and even critique(kidney clearance of vitamin c) as opposed to Freudian psychobabble nonsense.