Monthly Archives: March 2011

Heaven or Hell? Where Will Atheists Go?

 How is it fair that atheists who lead good ethical lives and don’t hurt anyone are destined for perdition, whereas, a theist-no matter how sinful they may be-are admitted into Paradise? Or, is it the case that all people are saved at the end of time? Perhaps religion is a man-made fantasy created to appease people’s desires and help us cope with the inevitable-when we die, that is it! A theist would refute this, and hold that your eternal fate is determined by the life you live now.

The human being was created with the ability to freely carry out actions and choose which path it takes in life. The ‘thing’ that dictates a human being’s intentions is the soul. Science, after all, cannot explain why the human brain forms intentions. The soul was created for a divine purpose, and has a divine secret within it. However, this secret, ingrained deep down within the soul, was forgotten by the human being upon birth. At the essence of all humanity is a soul created in submission to its Creator. Whether the soul acknowledges this on a conscious level or not is a matter of grace (1).

The word in Arabic for disbelief is ‘kufr’ which can mean disbelief, ingratitude, or an arrogant rejection of the truth, but has other nuanced meanings in the Islamic tradition (2). Kufr is also a response to the truth which involves concealing or covering up the truth. Many Islamic thinkers, however, have equated disbelief with ignorance which, in turn, leads to a denial of God. The Quran mentions that when one is troubled by the truth, one begins to think about, and decide what the best position is to justify a rejection of the truth. Here’s an example. I told an atheist friend of mine who I regularly debate with (many of you will know who I am talking about) about what many famous and honourable people have said about the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and his impeccable character. Logically speaking, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) must have either been a prophet-like he said he was, or a liar-which many claim he is. My friend had another alternative, he said there must have been something “psychologically” wrong with him.

Disbelief can have many permutations, as some types of disbelief are worse than others. For example, some may know the truth, but they can’t bring themselves to embrace it, maybe because they are scared of what family/friends might say-this particular example is not just about atheists but about a person of religion not being willing to embrace another religion.  A worse permutation of disbelief is when one knows the truth but conceals it because of envy, pride or their attachment to this world. Many atheists are intelligent and very capable people but what is interesting is Aristotle’s definition of an intelligent person. Aristotle said intelligence was the mean between stupidity and cleverness or craftiness (3). Intelligence can therefore be used as a means to reject the truth.

It may seem as if many atheists are doing good in their life, but what is often present, though, is a spiritual sloth. This spiritual sloth is insidious because it is often veiled with a cloak of useful worldly activity such as partaking in charitable works. Furthermore, the term ’good’ which has been debated within meta-ethical language for many years, is not defined by us, but by our Creator. Righteous deeds are not enough without faith, likewise, faith is not enough without righteous deeds. It is a two way process. Therefore, a believer who abandons doing good as he/she thinks faith is enough, is missing the whole point.

God brought everything into existence in an act of divine love-this includes all human creation. This means that it is never the sinner that one should scorn but the sin which emanates from the person-something Martin Luther King also preached. Belief in God shouldn’t give a theist a superiority complex and think of those who are yet to believe as lowly or despised in the eyes of God. If God says he does not love the arrogant or the oppressors, it is arrogance and oppression that one must loathe. We must be careful not to deny the humanity that is inherent in the person as God’s love and mercy is open to all.

God is not unjust in the slightest, his mercy overpowers his wrath. God will not put anybody into Hell unless they deserve to be there-and this, of course, is based on God’s perfect judgement. If one refuses to believe in God, they, in effect, become their own God, in the sense that whatever suits them is good and whatever harms them is bad therefore, this person creates their own morality. Interestingly, Karl Marx said that his idea of misery is ”submission” and this is, of course, the purpose of our life-to submit to God. Is this the reason why disbelievers refuse to believe in God? Because they do not like the idea of submitting to any other entity than themselves?

Every single human being commits sins daily, and the difference between a believer in God and an atheist is that the believer’s heart is permeated with contrition upon sinning but the atheist remains in a state of heedlessness. Furthermore, not only are they remorseless, but the atheist is not grateful for all the bounties God bestows upon them in their life. A true believer, however, is ever-grateful for all that they have.

Finally, one may now ask: why should I believe in God when there is no proof? There is plenty of proof. But I would be digressing if I delved into the evidences of God. So where is the disbeliever’s ultimate destination? Only God knows our inward state and why we are the way we are. A disbeliever who claims to be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh but who conceals the truth about God to themselves will be in Hell, likewise an atheist who refuses to believe in the truth will also be there too. Hell is not eternal for everyone and this is important to remember. One will only be subject to the fire of Hell for as long as they deserve, even if it is for a second in order to purify them before they are admitted eternally into God’s Heaven.   

Omar Shahid

(1), (2), (3) http://www.sandalaproductions.com/UploadedResources/Who%20are%20the%20Disbelievers.pdf

Comment below

About these ads

South Korea’s Weird Obsession with Plastic Surgery

I’m in Dubai International Airport, sitting in the lounge area waiting for my flight back to London when I meet Davina Spencer [name changed to hide identity], a South African teacher who regularly teaches in Seoul, South Korea. My conversation with her was, erm, weird but also intriguing.

To say that the culture of South Korea is different to ours in Britain is a complete understatement. “If a child performs well at school, their parents will reward them with money for plastic surgery,” Spencer tells me. If the prospect of children as young as 14 getting plastic surgery doesn’t freak you out, maybe it’s because I haven’t told you what type of surgery they receive. Spencer further tells me: “Because they [South Koreans] generally have round faces,  the plastic surgeons break their jaw on both sides to make their face longer so that they can look more western.” Ouch. That is, of course, just one of the many procedures that they go through in an attempt to look –in their opinion — more aesthetically pleasing.

In Britain, plastic surgery is, generally speaking, a rarity but in South Korea it is a norm. Their desire to look better borders on an obsession. And for teenage girls their primary concern is their eyes. The mentality is ‘the bigger my eyes, the more attractive I am.’ A girl’s dream can come true via a $800 operation whereby a small incision is made above the eye which creates an artificial double lid – this operation has come to be known as ‘an eye job’.

A nose job is not particularly unusual, many celebrities get it, but what is weird are calf and thigh operations. Many girls in South Korea get liposuction on their calfs, or worse, get the entire muscles extracted. “This is because Korean girls often have very muscular legs, and they don’t think it suits them,” Spencer tells me as I ponder whether I want to hear anymore.

It is not just looks that the Korean race are obsessed with, it is also their intellectual ability. All the school children are so clever and they are in constant competition with one another. It is not unusual for the whole class to excel academically, but when a student fails to, say, get an A or A*, they become depressed. But why are all the children so clever?

South Korea is one of Asia’s biggest economies, behind, of course, the titans China and Japan who have the first and second largest economies respectively, and, in an attempt to compete with their rivals, education is seen as key. The meritocracies send their children to the elite schools, and the parents and grandparents who cannot afford to do this, make sure their children miss no opportunity during the course of the week to be schooled. Sleep is seen as a weakness. And as such, children are schooled from around 9am till 7pm on a week day, this is followed by a couple of hours break before another couple of hours of private tuition until the early hours of the morning. The weekend is by no means a time to relax either.  “Children come into school even if they are really ill,” I am further told.

Although I don’t agree with the obsession of aesthetic beauty, I’m not sure if constant schooling is necessarily a bad thing. Sure, it does have its defects, in that children are over worked and may not have the chance to enjoy the younger years of their life. However, if the entire nation is being stripped of ignorance and all ultimately become intellectuals – and if they become great scientists helping humankind; is this a bad thing? Surely not. One thing I kept thinking was: South Korean children – a future ‘super race?’ Hmm quite possibly.

by Omar Shahid

 

The Global Conspiracy:9/11, America, Israel & The Middle East

The intervention in Libya, is, without doubt, yet another conspiracy. The latest in a world replete with conspiracies and corrupt governments. But what is the global conspiracy? Well, tackling this issue in its entirety in a blog post is hard, let alone impossible. Why is it that government’s pour billions of pounds into wars that aren’t even explained or justified while neglecting those who are suffering in places like Congo? It is questions such as these that will be at the heart of this brief post. Let’s look at the facts.

Let’s first look at the recent uprisings in the Middle East. Some say it started when Mohammed Bouazizi lit himself on fire in Tunisia, others like Robert Fisk, would say it was only a matter of time until the whole region imploded after years of brutal dictatorships, while some cynicists will say it is was all inspired by America or the CIA. The third option, in my opinion, seems the most unlikely, but what is interesting has been the reaction of some of the worlds most powerful countries.

The Egyptian and Tunisian regimes of Hosni Mubarak and Ben Ali have been toppled respectively, and it is still unclear how many more Arab dictators will follow in their footsteps. While America eventually criticised Mubarak and Ben Ali for their vicious crackdown on protestors, they have yet to speak out against the Bahraini, Yemeni and Saudi governments. These three regimes have found themselves exempt, at least partially, to such criticism from the White House.

Bahrain is a strategic place for America as it holds the US fifth fleet and a military base. Ali Abdullah Saleh, Yemen’s President, has been given a role by America to suppress the Al Qaeda members in the country. And then there is Saudi Arabia. The country that provides vast amounts of oil to the West. Do you really think America, or any western country for that matter would dare criticise them?

America have propped up dictators, armed them, funded them and then killed them. Saddam Hussein is a prime example. When the West have had enough of them they violently turn on their ‘allies’ invade their country and kill them. The most recent example, of a crack-pot the West have supported is Colonel Gaddafi. But his time is now up. John Pilger has spoken of the dozens of governments America has attempted to overthrow, many of them, of course, democracies- many of them in Latin America.

The UN backed intervention in Libya only serves to remind us of the hypocrisy of many Western countries. Where have they been for the last 42 years of Gaddafi’s oppressive reign? And all of a sudden they want to suddenly hold the moral high ground? Why is it only now when Gaddafi is suggesting he may give his oil to India and China and not Europe, that the West intervenes? But, no, we are lead to believe the intervention-or bombings should I say-are to save the people of Libya.  

According to renowned journalist Helen Thomas, the Zionist lobby and the gun lobby are the two most powerful forces on the American government. Likewise, in Britain, the Conservative Friends of Israel group is described by British political analysts as “beyond doubt the most well- connected and probably the best funded of all Westminster lobbying groups,” according to an article on PressTV. Is it any wonder then that Israel have continued to get away with their ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian race for all this time? It is important, however, not to conflate the terms Zionist and Jew. The Jewish religion is good, the Zionist ideology is not. And this is exactly why, organisations like Jews Against Zionism, not only condemn the Zionist dogma, but also denounce what the state of Israel (run by a Zionist regime) are doing in Palestine.  

What’s worse, though, is the Arabs league’s failure in being able to do anything about the massacres in Palestine since the organisation’s inception. Why can’t these 22 countries which was founded over 60 years ago, who have wealth, intelligence and resources at their disposal stop one tiny state (Israel) from committing, what many people around the world regard as the genocide in Palestine?

Let’s talk about 9/11. Was it orchestrated by the American government, or did it happen just the way we were told? I would say somewhere in the middle. Keith Seffen, a senior lecturer in Cambridge’s engineering department conducted research which dismissed claims that the twin towers couldn’t have collapsed in the way they did. Nevertheless, there still seem to be some anomalies in the story we are told. Whatever the case, 9/11 has been used as a means to justify the famous “war on terror” which is nothing more than a euphemism for “lets invade Muslim countries.” The meretricious cowboys that took their countries to the “War in Iraq” (it wasn’t really a war, it was an invasion) are now reaping the effects though. 4,400 American soldiers have died in Iraq thus far-more, of course, than those that died in 9/11.  Nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University’s Linda Blimes, in 2007, put the cost of the Iraq war at $3 trillion-60 times the amount Bush et al said it would cost originally.

If America can afford to funnel so much money into Iraq-and let us not forget Afghanistan where it costs $1 million to keep a soldier there for one year-then why are they so lackadaisical when it comes to ending poverty? I’ll tell you why. Although governments do give some of their wealth to poor countries, their primary motives extend only as far as their own interests are concerned. Helping starving people in Asia or Africa does not serve their interests. This is not to say, however, that all western governments are selfish.

So what is the global conspiracy? There are probably many conspiracies that exist within the world, but im not sure if there is one conspiracy that is responsible for the way the world is. Wikileaks is an interesting example. Why are governments so opposed to transparency if they’ve got nothing to hide? Why are America currently torturing Bradley Manning?

 But hold on, some of you may say, what about the bilderberg group-the most powerful and elite people on the earth who meet up to shape the world. Well, there certainly is an organisation called the bilderberg group. Do they control the world? Maybe to an extent. But seeing that im a theist, I would prefer to say something higher is in control of the world.

Omar Shahid

‘Don’t let Cameron divide us’-Multiculturalism & Islamic extremism

David Cameron’s party has a propensity to divide and rule, to blame the poor and to cause rifts within the various ethnic cultures which exist within Britian, so said George Galloway at a talk about multiculturalism I attended yesterday.

I heard David Cameron’s talk last month on February the 5th about multiculturalism where he said that “state multiculturalism has failed” and mentioned ”the existence of an ideology-Islamic extremism” and, to be honest, I was not shocked by it, neither did it make my blood boil. The reason for this was not because he was right, or what he said resonated with me, but because I have become accustomed to this sort of rhetoric in order to gain political points. His singling out of Muslims did not surprise me either – especially when Islamophobia is now ubiquitous, or in the words of Baroness Warsi: “Islamophobia has now become acceptable.”

Martin Smith from the Love Music Hate Racism campaign argued at the rally last night that Mr Cameron chose to give his speech about multicultalism in Munich, the hub of anti Muslim sentiment, “the day after Labour went above Mr Cameron’s party on the polls, and the same day the EDL marched in Luton. He is copying [Angela] Merkel, [Nicolas] Sarkozy and the Swiss government in their attacks against the Muslim community.”

One theme prominent throughout the night was the idea that a lot of the backlash we face within our country is a result of the demonisation of Muslims and the continuing bombing of their countries. Therefore, is it really a surprise when a small minority become angered and fight back? As George Galloway said: “If you go to war with Muslims abroad you will make war with Muslims at home.” The 7/7 London bombers said explicitly in their videos that what they are doing was because of foreign policy.

What particularly angered many people – not just Muslims, about Mr Cameron’s speech –  was the fact that it was held on the same day as the EDL march against Muslims. Cameron’s speech, ironically, ended up strengthening the likes of the EDL and the BNP; and once you increase the popularity of these xenophobic, far right groups, multiculturalism will further disintegrate. Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, gloated after Cameron’s speech that his party’s ideas are now entering the mainstream.

I am certainly not one to call Mr Cameron a fascist, a racist nor a xenophobe-like some of the speakers did at last night’s rally-but he, along with previous governments, have been much more tolerant of the different cultures and religions which exist within our society- as compared to other European countries. What I do take objection to, however, is the singling out of specific communities.

Islamic extremism does exist. But these irregular acts need to be treated as isolated incidents of criminality and not acts of terror by a religion as a whole. When the shootings in Arizona took place recently it was treated as an act of ‘insanity’ and not terrorism. Why should attacks by Muslims be treated any different?

As Mr Cameron closes libraries in areas which are predominantly black and asian, in the name of governmental cuts and multiculturalism, and as he continues to sell arms to autocrats who, as a result, suppress democracy, and oppose pluralism, he further espouses his double standards on multiculturalism.

One speaker from the East London Mosque said at the rally last night, that when his family first came to England, they suffered from an identity crisis-they didn’t know where they belonged. Wherever there lived, white people would move out, and when they did live amongst white people, they were often subject to ridicule and abuse. And therefore the asian and black community often lived with each other for safety reasons.

There is no doubt that Mr Cameron speaks from a position of vested interests, and if he was using multiculturalism as a euphemism for a attack on the Muslim community – as one speaker made clear – he was wrong in doing so. ‘Don’t let David Cameron divide us’ was the overall theme of the night. I agree. Our Prime Minister needs to be more careful in the future, if he is not, the cultural apartheid which still exists in our society today, will only be accentuated.

Omar Shahid

My Theory on the Soul (part 2)

My first post on the human soul outlined what the soul is, what its basic functions are, the link between the soul and God as well as the soul and the body. The following analysis is a combination of ancient Greek philosophy, Islamic philosophy and, of course, my own thoughts.

The soul’s dimensions can be categorised into three. The first is the ‘satisfied soul’. This level is reached once the soul enters a state of calmness and tranquillity. And this is attained by distancing oneself from the onslaught of passions and desires. The second dimension is the ‘self accusing soul’. This is a state where the soul is in conflict and disharmony. The soul knows that it should worship its master, the divine, and although refrains from indulging in bodily passions, it has not yet entered a state of calmness. The third dimension of the soul can simply be called the ‘evil soul.’ This is where the soul abandons its fight to resist the call of passion and Satan and becomes a complete slave to itself.

The soul is naturally something high and ascendant, after all, it originates from God’s essence. This does not mean, however, that it is incorruptible. As I mentioned in my previous post, the soul was bestowed with free choice, and if this free choice is abused and used to do injustice, the soul becomes low and despicable (in the sight of God).

Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher, propounded his theory on the ‘World of Forms’. This theory denotes that everything in this transient life is a mere shadow of the true reality in the World of Forms. Say, for example, milk, water or wine-these drinks which we consume in this life, are a shadow of what they truly are like, or taste like, in the other realm.

The soul has a secret within it. And it is this secret, which is ingrained deep down within it, which a human being should struggle to discover. The soul was in the presence of the divine before it descended into this lowly life, or the ‘dunya’ in the Islamic faith, which, consequently, caused the soul to foget this secret. While the soul was in the divine presence, it testified to the Oneness of its master, but forgot when it was placed within the human body.

The soul is immaterial, and cannot be destroyed. It predates the human body, and will continue its life for eternity once it departs from this world. The fate of the soul is determined by the decisons it made in this world. If it wronged itself, it will face God’s wrath, if, however, it followed the ‘straight path’ it will live with God’s pleasure for eternity.

Omar Shahid

Why attack will be the best form of defence for Arsenal against Barcelona

On Tuesday night, football fans from around the world will watch two teams, Arsenal and Barcelona-widely regarded as two of the most elegant football club’s on the planet-battle it out at the Nou Camp. Barcelona were left with a bitter taste in their mouth after giving away a 1-0 lead at the Emirates two weeks ago, but, if last year’s showing which saw the Catalans destroy Arsenal 4-1 is anything to go by, they wont have much to worry about.

Arsenal will be boosted by the announcement that Cesc Fabregas and Jack Wilshere look fit to play, and Robin Van Persie has been included in the squad. Barcelona, however, will contend without the their captain Carlos Puyol, or fellow full back Gerard Pique-both essential at the heart of Barcas defence. Without their two best defenders, Arsenal should look to exploit the Barca defence, as not only will it now be weak and shacky, but will also lack the calming influence of their two experienced defenders.

Despite how much Arsenal fans may dislike Nicklas Bendtner, he may be a worthy choice against a Barcelona defence which could be fragile and lacking organisation. Bendtner may not be the best technically, but his physical presence could be enough to unsettle the Barcelona backline. It is unlikely that RVP will start the game, but this does not mean Arsene Wenger should resort to playing Maroune Chamakh up front with Bendtner. Arsenal need a player who will cause problems. Alas! Andrey Arshavin is the man. Gunner’s fans have also been frustrated with him this season as well, but, he made a difference in the first leg, scoring the winner. The risk could be worth it.

Alex Song will miss the game through injury, but Wilshere and Fabregas, who are both good with the ball, could be Arsenal’s most important players in the game. Fabregas, the captain, will need to control the game and look to play the defence splitting through balls he so often pulls off. Wilshere, who will be just as important, if not more, will have to sit slightly back, and keep the ball moving around the pitch.

Arsenal’s defence will need to be strong, resilient and cannot afford to lose concentration for a split second. Laurent Koscielny put in a good performance in the first leg, and will need to do the same on Tuesday. Johan Djourou will need to use his athletic ability against the likes of Lionel Messi and David Villa who are quick and have great acceleration. And, of course, Wojciech Szczesny, will possibly confront the most difficult time of his career.

Any opportunities Arsenal do have, they will need to capitalise on-failing to do so will lead to none other than a humiliating defeat, as, rest assured, Barca will not miss theirs.

Arsenal’s two biggest problems can be split into two. One is dispossesing the Spanish Champions, they are of course, great passers and movers. The second is, simply, Messi. If Arsenal let him run riot, like they did last season, Arsenal will go back to London in the same way as they did last year.

Attack, attack, attack. And of course injuring Messi in the first minute might work.