|
by Ali Dashti Although I had the sense throughout that 'Ali Dashti was tempering many of his scholarly conclusions to suit the easily outraged, his text still comes across as blisteringly blasphemous. It is not surprising that 'Ali Dashti "disappeared" in his home country of Iran when considering the unorthodox approach he takes by interpreting much of the Qur'an as a product of the Prophet Muhammad's psychology. While Dashti doesn't explicitly renounce Islam, he vigorously attacks precepts which he sees as hideous relicts of the age the Prophet Muhammad lived. While other biographers of the Prophet, especially those writing to proselytize, might be expected to gloss over the Prophet's assassinations, mass slaughters of prisoners, and otherwise Machiavellian behavior Dashti puts it to the light. But at the same time, he doesn't neglect to mention the more positive aspects of the Prophet's personality while attempting to cut through the underbrush of the deification of the Prophet. All in all a refreshing read, though certainly one would do well to
read several biographies in comparison.
This book has sky-rocketed to the height of popularity amonng the kuffar, and will probably go down as a cult classic among those who sought to call the haram halal, and the halal haram. This book is probably the finest introduction to using the kufr-ilhad one-two shot against Muslims. Undoubtedly the book as set a new tone in skeptical scholarship of Islam, and Warraq, the number one kaafir folk-hero, will be mimicked by many of the world's future infidels. Warraq's many topics are wide and varied. Some of it seems to be the basic polemics that one might find any Christian missionary using,
but other parts make for a great introduction to other writers, such as
Noldeke, Cook, Crone, and other blasphemers whose works are unknown to
the average kaafir. The section on wine, pork, and homosexuality
makes for a very entertaining read, and the section on the Qur'an is a
very good introduction to the problems surrounding this text. The
most interesting of all was the section on blasphemers, apostates, and
other assorted zanadiqa that serve as role models for us here at
the Freethought Mecca.
While this volume was a collection of scholarly essays, most over seventy or eighty years old, some parts of the essays have a continued relevance in refuting fundamentalism, besides being a portrait of the state of textual criticism of the Qur'an in the earlier part of the 20th century. The essays taken as a whole provide sufficient evidence to doubt the orthodox account of the Qur'an's origins, even though each individual scholar's take on a sometimes murky subject is open to question. One self-evident shortcoming in the collection is a lack of modern essays (though I suppose the subtitle might have served as a disclaimer) to shed light on the current state of scholarship, but in the Introduction Ibn Warraq does make reference to some of the movers and shakers, so an interested reader can track down works by Cook and Crone, et al. (As I recall there was a Atlantic Monthly article which reported on developments, though I haven't had a chance or desire to seek out the seminal works for myself). But most of the material seems to be from the sources that Ibn Warraq
drew upon in composing Why I am not a Muslim, a title echoing Bertrand
Russell's enjoyable collection of essays in Why I am not a Christian.
In terms of locating the source of some of the obscurer passages in the
Qur'an in the Jewish midrash, Christian apocrypha, and even from Zoroastrianism,
I found it useful, though not likely to appeal to a very wide audience.
Of Warraq's first three books with Prometheus, this is by far the finest of the lot. Why I Am Not a Muslim served as a basic introduction for those who seek to criticize Islam, and Origins of the Koran was a slight step up in the level of difficulty (dare I say, "intermediate kufr"?). This book would have to be considered advanced level scholarship as far as Prometheus' Islamic studies section goes. Warraq's introduction gets into the world of the ahadith and sira literature, the only information on the "historical" Muhammad. This makes for a great information on the problems with the reliability of these sources, such as the fact that many of the more respective compilations came about centuries after the time Muhammad allegedly lived. The second chapter of the book is an essay by Ibn al-Rawandi, it is a brilliant and sharped-tongued attack on Islamic historical sources that compliments the book perfectly. The rest of the book, like Origins of the Koran, is a compilation
of scholarly essays from other sources. Some of it is rather old, but the
more recent works are highly entertaining. The best of the essays, in my
opinion, is Lawrence Conrad's Abraha and Muhammad, which exposes
the weakness of the Islamic calendar, causing many events measured by it
to also come into question.
In this postmodnik "classic," Said deconstructs the mustashriqeen (Orientalist) façade, and finds no scholar is safe from the heinous sin of "hegemonic discourse." By default, the big "names" of Orientalism are racist schmucks, the pawns of imperialism. How the sins of the Orientalists pardon Islam from its legacy of imperialism, subjugation, and persecution remains a mystery that Said cares to keep secret from the beginning of his attack to the end. Although because of its prominence, undeserved or not, I suggest that anyone with a great deal of interest in Islamic studies read Said's polemic, I would caution against uncritical acceptance of its major premises, as well as theses. Were I not to know better, thanks to the sharp minds of academia, I would find the sludge of verbiage that make up the contents to be sport for mockery. And indeed, one modern Orientalist criticized by Said does mock Said's pretensions. Bernard Lewis in his book Islam and the West begins a chapter about anti-Orientalism with a parody of Said's style (those anti-Greek classicists!), notes Said's historical errors, and makes salient points about Said's selective use of evidence (i.e. ignoring the greater German contribution to Orientalism in order to better buttress his theories about the colonial powers of France and Britain; corny passages with sexual connotations reminiscent of the almighty Foucault). By far the most amusing part of Said's book is the notable absence of any definition of Islam- explaining what precisely this particular Orientalist or that one got wrong. He rules it out by claiming Islam is not "essentialist," but that such a vision is imposed by the wicked imperialists on the oppressed "Other." The Orientalist "obsession with textuality" is another of the deadly sins, even if the Qur'an happens to be the most revered book in the world. Which leads me to another thought experiment I would suggest for Said- deconstruct the Qur'an. Allah's supremacist rhetoric would surely make for great fun with the lingo of postmodernism. But until then, I suggest that the reader deconstruct Orientalism as the seminal manifestation of an academic fad which answers little about how we are to analyze the religion and culture of Islam (other than to be cowed by what the "Other" claims Islam to be).
 by Ken Smith Smith's Guide shows that the bible can be fun to read- in abstract, with all of the "violence, sex, absurdity, and weirdness" arrayed before your eyes. Rather than stumbling through "begats" Smith provides the juicy tidbits which make a mockery of the moral "guidance" provided by the Holy Writ, especially important in Smith's view when political action groups claim a divine mandate for their social views. At the same time, he provides a good overview of the progression (or jumbled mix as the case may be) of the bible, and the thematic content of each book (a Cliff Notes with Spunk of Sorts). For instance, he mentions an incident where the Prophet Elijah has a bear maul forty-two children who laughed at him, and then the irony of pro-fetus advocates utilizing the bible as any basis for rejecting abortion as sinful (especially in the light of other incidents in which heathen are dispatched with little ado by the Sky God- children and all). For each incident worthy of comedy, Smith has created several categories, so that when he cites chapter and verse, he has an icon to show whether he lists it because it is an example of weirdness, divine wrath, holy distortion, blood 'n' guts, arrogant pretensions, "family values," gender bashing, sex, etc. Another aspect that was entertaining was the use of classical paintings
and prints with biblical themes- one of my favorites being a picture of
the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse, with the comment "Hi-ho Pestilence!
Awaaay!"
Though a work of fiction, this is one of the funniest books I've ever read. I'd have to say that this book is much more of an insult to Christianity than the Satanic Verses was to Islam. Gore Vidal, a self-proclaimed "very strong Atheist," is a brilliant writer. I especially enjoyed his work Julian (JVLIAN), which was about Julian the Apostate, the only Roman emporer to leave Christianity in favor of the pre-Nicean pagan temples of Rome and their respective gods. Live from Golgotha, like Rushdie's "Satanic Verses," takes the basic characters and story line from a major religion, and alters it to make it comedy, making a sort of mockery of that respective faith. The author makes fun of Jesus, his disciples, and the apostle Paul. Jesus is badly overweight; a big fatty with an eating disorder. Paul is a notorious homosexual, and possibley even a child molester, not to mention a former hitman for Mossad. The early disciples and church fathers are either greedy Jewish gangsters or bisexual Greek converts. Both Jesus and Paul, the founders of Christianity who never met each other, have a tendency to lie and rewrite Christian history in order to make themselves look good (as Jesus gets older, he keeps lying about his age; at 40 he tells people he's only 33). The story is a wonderful read, and though Vidal makes a mockery of the story of Christianity, he is thoroughly familiar with its tenets. The story touches on the possible troubles between James' Jewish church, and Paul's gentile church, and how both had different interpretations of the message brought by the most subversive self-hating Jew of them all, Fat Jesus. As a teaser, I'll leave you with Paul's account of when he met Jesus post-crucifixion, which is found both on the back of the book, as well as in the fourth chapter: "So there I was. A hot day. Palm trees. A mirage shivering in the middle
distance. A camel. A pyramid. Your average Middle Eastern landscape...
Suddenly, HE WAS THERE... Wide as he was tall, Jesus waddled toward me...
That face. Those luminous eyes hidden somewhere in all that golden fat.
That ineffable smile like the first slice from a honeydw melon. Oh delight!
He held up a hand, a tiny starfish cunningly fashioned of lard. He spoke,
His voice so high, so shrill that only the odd canine ever got the whole
message... 'Why,' shrilled the Son of the One God, 'dost thou persecuteth
me-th?'"
While this book is not that popular or well known, it should be the handbook for destroying Christianity. Remsberg lists over six hundred contradictions in the first four gospels alone! The book was actually written at the very beginning of the twentieth century, but is still a powerful tool to be used in debates with Christians. The minutia involved is of great pleasure to anyone who wants a knowledge of numerous curiousities in the story of Jesus. Remsberg also makes a strong case for the very non-existence of Jesus.
The historicity of this mythical character is a subject that is difficult
to argue, but Remsberg's book is a great reference for understanding why
the "sources" that support Jesus' existence are unreliable. From Pliny,
to Tacitus, to Josephus, to the Bible, Remsberg thoroughly discredits every
source, often exposing many as blatant interpolations.
In this commendable continuation of his "Don't Know Much About" series, Davis manages to appeal to a broad readership while remaining faithful to a degree of biblical criticism. Though it is apparent in a few passages that Davis wants to bring out the best in the Bible- when it comes to matters of genocide, infant sacrifice, subordination of women, child abuse, etc., for the most part he avoids apologetics, leaving the judgment to the reader in dealing with the difficulty. In general, while he seeks to derive timeless themes from the Bible, he acknowledges the work of many, often anonymous, human hands in the Bible's creation, and in so doing avoids making the Bible into a science textbook, or an unquestionable fountain of morality. And because he is freed from such solemn bibliolatry, Davis is able to make amusing quips in his quest to bring up the incongruent elements of the biblical narratives censored in Sunday school, while attempting to retain the nugget o' knowledge hidden therein. There are two or three places, where I spotted a factual slip-up, one
having to do with his treatment of early Islam nearing the end (a outre
statement about Hassan and Hussayn), and another in reference to the Gospels
when he cites the possibility that it may have been a rich man entering
heaven when a cable enters the eye of a needle rather than a camel (from
another reading, there was a Jewish oral tradition from the Talmud which
had a parallel statement, except with a different animal). But given
that his work is not directed at specialists, and given the rather weak
defense he gives at the end for believing in the God of the Bible (it's
about the capital F- Faith! Eternal life sounds better than the rest egh?
So you betta' believe it!), one shouldn't expect anything more than a distillation
of the work of other authors, bound to have a few slip-ups due to unfamiliarity.
 by Michael Martin In my opinion, this is undoubtedly one of the strongest defenses of Atheism ever written. Martin gives information on both "negative" and "positive" Atheism. These two distinctions are as follows: "negative" Atheism is simply non-belief in any particular god, while "positive" Atheism is the firm belief that no gods exist. It may sound like there is no difference at all, but it mostly has to do with how strong one's Atheism is. Martin, a professor of philosophy at Boston University, destroys numerous
modern incarnations of common theist arguments, including William Lane
Craig's twist on the Kalam cosmological argument. The one draw back
to this book is that it might make for rough reading for those who are
not familiar with the symbolization and syntax of sentential logic. Such
readers may have a tough time with Martin's arguments which, at times,
resemble mathematical equations.
George Smith is one of the more popular modern writers to cover the topic of Atheism. This book actually makes for a great introduction to the basics of Atheism and Atheistic criticism of Christianity. Smith does an excellent job of explaining the basic theist arguments for God's existence, and then explaining why these arguments are not acceptable. Surely this makes for a great present to give to a loved one at Christmas or any other respective Pagan holiday that includes gift-giving as one of its rituals. While Smith's book is a great read, a jaded kaafir such as myself
was a bit sour with the fact that the book never acknowledges Islam. Smith
himself says that his book is a criticism of the God of Christianity, and
that is perfectly fine considering that Jesusism is the most dominant religion
in the west. Still, one gets the feeling that much of Smith's work could
already be found online. A highly recommended book, but a little redundant
for those of us who are seeking to move beyond the basic Christian-bashing
techniques.
I came across this one at a local book store in my neighborhood, and
it was a very good find. I had never heard of this book, nor do I recall
any other Atheist sites that list it, yet I rate it with Martin's Atheism:
A Philosophical Justification as one of the better books on the subject.
The author does not cover the basics anywhere near as thorough as Smith
does, but the book is a nice introduction to Atheological arguments. Attempts
are made to discredit the existence of God, and the very concept of some
of His attributes (such as omnipotence, omniscience, et cetera). Most entertaining
of all, Gale touches on the question of things God can and cannot create
(such as four-sided triangles, et cetera). While these are questions that
many theists have tried to wave off as absurd or even sophomoric, Gale
does a great job of giving them a more sound quality.
Stein is the editor of numerous anthologies and encyclopedias of skeptical nature, but this is by far his best. There are so many topics available to the reader, making for a smorgasbord of Atheist material. The book includes sections on Atheism in the history of many of the world's great nations, such as Russia, China, India, et cetera. There is copious amounts of information on those who chose to utter blasphemy against the faith they were raised in (such as apostates from Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, et cetera). The contributing authors include some big names, such as George A Wells
on the topic of Jesus historicity, James Randi on the topic of hoaxes and
frauds, and numerous other highly regarded experts in their respective
fields. All in all, this is an impressive compilation of essays by the
finest skeptics in the world today.
 Flim Flam!
by James Randi The founder of James Randi Educational Foundation offers a wonderful book that exposes the numerous frauds being perpetrated by quacks, shamans, psychics, and other shady characters who fake paranormal powers by use of fraud. Randi, a man with an international reputation as a magician and escape artist, is very familiar with the art of deception, and has built a career exposing numerous frauds. He's even exposed top-notch self-proclaimed Messiahs such as Uri Gellar. Randi, years ago, set up a challenge to anyone claiming paranormal powers.
Psychics, spoon-benders, faith-healers, and other assorted weirdos turned
up for the challenge and a chance at its $10,000 reward (which has since
been raised to $1 million). All of these phonies were exposed, and Randi
documents many of his more humorous conquests in this book. So, the next
time some theist talks about miracles in our own time, direct him or her
to Randi's book or web site.
How
We Believe
It is certainly perplexing that despite the ascendancy of science, religion still finds it place among the large majority of the American population. Well, on second thought, it is not surprising, as irrationality is part and parcel of the human condition, but it is disheartening. John Lennon's "Imagine There is No Heaven" seems far from fruition, despite the prognostications of nullifidian luminaries of yore. Shermer attempts to explore the persistence of religion in the midst of empirical data that contravenes the cosmogony of the Bible. To do so he uses statistics from surveys to construct a sociological portrait, paying special attention to the beliefs of scientists and readers of Skeptic magazine. Perhaps more important then gauging levels of belief, however, he asked for respondents to relay why they believed in addition to why others believe, noting the tendency for people to attribute more positive motivations to themselves. The answers fell into a few categories: supposed design of the universe, "experience of God," the bible says so, credo qua(?) consolans, etc. The reasoning of some of the most celebrated theologians has been little better, and Shermer dissects some of the most common sophistry aiming to "prove" what Shermer considers insoluble. From Aquinas' "Prime Mover" to Pascal's Wager, I found his refutations both succinct and suitable. But beyond reviewing argumentation for theism, I found of great interest his mentions of the anthropological study of religious origins, and his references to the partially heritable nature of religiosity. I further enjoyed the mentions of temporal lobe epilepsy and spiritual experiences, in addition to the ongoing research about a hypothesized "God module" in the brain. In the latter part of the book, when he reviews mythic archetypes like the "Messiah" and the "apocalypse" there's some good parallels he draws between such diverse groups as the Nation of Islam (who happen to have a half-assed theory about a "Mother Ship" from outer space coming down and destroying the world's devils) and Native Americans in the later part of the 19th century who were "Ghost Dancers." About the only part of the book I disliked was the mention of Gould
and his Separate-Worlds model of science and religion. But that was
just me cringing at the very thought that religion has any better claim
to morality and meaning than science or philosophy, not really Shermer
himself.
Blasphemy
Were it not for the digressions into post-modernist chic, I might be able to give a more resounding endorsement. Nevertheless, Levy did successfully acquaint the reader with the common court precedents for blasphemy in British law, while furnishing modern examples such as the 1976 blasphemy trial of a homosexual poet. Though the traditional branding, mutilation, and execution of
blasphemers has stopped in modern-day Britain, Levy points out that the
Anglican Church has argued for an extension of the outmoded blasphemy laws
to other religions in the wake of the Rushdie affair. Rather
Needless to say, the lack of separation of Church and State in Europe, and the diluted freedom of speech provided by speech codes (e.g. laws against the expression of unpopular speech, such as Holocaust denial) surely constitute an important area of debate as far as the limitations of freedom. At present, the only US equivalent I can think of is the attempts to
mold hate crimes legislation. Though certainly justice demands proper sanctions
for those who violate the rights of others, this acts to punish criminals
on the basis of their beliefs rather than actions. What next?
Love crimes legislation that reduce a person's sentence if the jury thought
they were acting for a more socially acceptable cause?
Paul Kurtz, professor of philosophy, publisher of Prometheus Books, and editor of Free Inquiry, wrote this volume in the early 1980s, when the Moral Majority were on a war path against the "religion" of Secular Humanism. Though many of his articles are redundant, Kurtz's book being a compilation, his rebuttal of much of the Religious Right's paranoia is as refreshing today as it was then. If the Secular Humanists were such a power block, it would stand to
reason that such organizations would have far more than a few thousand
members each. What the Falwells of the world are reacting to, lumped together
under the S.H. bogeyman, is the influence of a broader humanism, which
is attractive to many religionists who see little contradiction with their
beliefs. The clock can't be turned back.
|
