Featured Post

SalaamOne NetWork

SalaamOne سلام   is   a nonprofit e-Forum to promote peace among humanity, through understanding and tolerance of religions, cul...

According to Bible, Islamic Halal Food is Kosher for Christians!

.

A British Christian group argues that the mainstreaming of Halal across the world constitutes part of a global Islamization drive. A Malaysia-based body called the World Halal Forum held a European-focused meeting in London in November, under the theme “Halal Products and Services – Going Mainstream.” The British Christian group has launched “Operation Nehemiah” , they say it has no objection … Continue reading »



Disenchantment with Islam



Those who call themselves Muslims while simultaneously disowning political aspects of Islam are in a strange dilemma: they do not want to leave the fold of Islam and they do not want to fulfill its rights. Instead, they choose to talk around the matter and find a way out of their collective obligations as Muslims … Continue reading »



Anti-Americanism in Muslim World, Helpful tool for Corrupt Rulers



By Dr. Muzaffar Iqbal
Anti-Americanism is a global phenomenon: from the proverbial Arab street to the remote regions of Chile—the loneliest country of the world, as Pablo Neruda called his homeland—and from the tree-lined streets of Paris to those of desiccated Qandhar, there is no place on earth where Americans are not passionately hated. There is nothing sensational in this statement and Americans are the ones who are most aware of this global reality. Consequently, they have devised mechanisms to deal with it. Read more >>> 

Valentine's Day - A Social Cultural or Religious Phenomena?

During last few years, celebration of Valentine's Day has become a social and cultural phenomena among Muslim societies. People have found it to be an easy way to express love to their near and dear one's. They consider it to be a simple  social phenomena which has nothing to do with religion. Youngsters think that the oldies and religious scholars are in habit of resisting every thing which is enjoyable. There is a need to look at this issue rationally. Enjoyments and pleasures are not forbidden in Islam,  >> keep reading >>> 

Atheism, Humanism or Religion?

مذہب اور الحاد
 عملی منطقی گفتگو
پروفیسر احمد رفیق اختر



Humanism is the retort by desperate pragmatic Christian scholars [Unitarian Universalists], to the mythical, unscientific and illogical traditional Christian Doctrines, however they have gone far away from one extreme to another. A balanced, scientific and rational solution is available, while maintaining the unity and existence of God, who has not created any thing without a purpose. 

The Humanists intend to serve the humanity, but with atheist concepts, devoid of accountability upon resurrection, it will remain a distant dream because people will lack inner motivation. People who suffer in this life being poor, or due to birth defects, incurable diseases, or fall prey to calamites [both natural or man made] can never be happy unless they hope to be compensated in hereafter. No system can work if it is without checks and balances, which do put some limits on the freedom. Islam is the only faith which provides guidance for successful way of life for both worlds, not restricted to rituals and dogmas but actions and performance of good deeds, while avoiding evils. Every noble act done for the betterment of humanity is considered as worship because it pleases the God. The history is witness that Islamic civilization and society even partially based upon Qur’anic principles ensured attainment of the good life in a harmonious society, each individual seeking to contribute to the welfare of the community. In Islam human values are given high priority for peaceful coexistence in this and hereafter. Equality of humanity and justice disregarding race or colour is hallmark of Islam. There is no restriction in attaining scientific knowledge, rather Qur’an encourages it by drawing attention to explore the signs of wonders the in the cosmos and in human self. The affairs in Islamic state are to be conducted through mutual consultation (shura, a form of democracy). The materialistic approach of Humanism discarding spirituality is deemed to failure like the communist ideology. Spirituality and belief in One Supreme Being is part of human nature, Humanist while advocating ‘nature’ in the same breath go against it - a paradox, self-denial.
Finally just for the sake of argument. if hypothetically one may consider the Humanism viz Monotheism, and grant probability of either being right or wrong as 50:50 [irrespective of strength of arguments of monotheist]. If 50% probability of Humanists being false materialise the Humanists are big losers because they have to suffer in hell fire for ever being unbelievers, while the true monotheists believers will ultimately be in a state of promised pleasure. In other situation assuming, if 50% probability of Humanists being ‘true’ materializes, the monotheists have nothing to loose, they had lived as good human in this world, performed good deeds to please their God and fellow human by establishing an equitable society. Hence believers are at win-win situation. Humanists and atheists need to give serious thought to this aspect, because the risk is too high to accept any error of judgement which shall result in timeless sufferings.  

************************
Don't base your opinion upon conjecture, discover yourself ! 
The book revered by 1.5 Billion people, the most read book in the world “The Holy Qur’an” translated in to English by a European scholar with commentary. The Message of The Qur’an’, has been acclaimed as one of the best, English translations and commentary of Qur'an by Leopold Weiss’ [Muhammad Asad]. It is based on his own knowledge of classical Arabic and on the authoritative classical commentaries.
3 in 1 - English Translation and commentary of Holy Qur’an by M.Asad, with "Quick Guide for the Study" and "Topical Index", in PDF , Size: 8 MB, Download Now absolutely Free Click here >>>>>
http://faithforum.wordpress.com
.............................................................................................

Atheism: Video Playlist

Embed code:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/videoseries?list=PL7980D4C29D4F9AC7&amp;hl=en_GB" frameborder="0"allowfullscreen></iframe>

No Need to Panic About Global Warming- Wall Street Journal Report

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.
Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

Related Video

Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.
Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.
Editor's Note: The above has been signed by the 16 scientists listed below: 
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.