Is Namrud the father of all atheists?

Religions > Atheism > Is Namrud the father of all atheists?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"jane abraham"
Date:	29 Nov 2006 01:11:27 AM
Object:	Is Namrud the father of all atheists?

UmeyyeYazicioglu
University of Virginia
Have you not heard of that [king] who argued with Abraham about his
Sustainer, [simply] because God had granted him kingship?
Lo! Abraham said: "My Lord is He who grants life and deals death."
[The king] replied: "I [too] grant life and deal death!"
Said Abraham: "Verily, God causes the sun to rise in the east; cause
it, then, to rise in the west!" Thereupon he who was bent on denying
the truth remained dumbfounded: for God does not guide people who
[deliberately] do wrong (Qur'an, 2: 258).
A prophet is sent to a people from among themselves, calling them to
faith in one God only and to abandon their idols and their wrong
practices. The prophet is insistent in calling them again and again,
pleading with them, bringing eloquent arguments, showing them signs,
and refuting their objections. The audience of the prophet usually
divides into two: those who accept the prophetic message and reform
their lives, and those who reject the message and become hostile to the
prophet.
The opponents suspect, challenge and speculate, and the prophets listen
and reply. The prophets insist that their message is meaningful,
consistent and fortified with evidences, and that their opponents lack
evidence.1 Yet, the opponents are not a static. Sometimes believers
emerge from their ranks, such as Pharaoh's sorcerers, while others
admit that they are wrong even if they might not become believers.2
Yet, at other times, the opponents are simply silenced before the logic
of the message.
Verse 2:258 of the Quran analyzes the debate about God between Abraham
and a conceited king, in which the king is just unable to justify his
competition with God. This passage provides valuable insights about
prophetic logic and how it is heard or unheard by the prophet's
addressee
To begin with, it seems to me that Abraham's message to Namrud is not a
top-down statement. Abraham is not talking on behalf of an alien being
who is imposing its demand of a slice from the earthly pie.
Rather, Abraham is calling Namrud to think of the one who creates and
sustains the earthly pie to start with. By defining his Lord as "the
one who gives life and death," Abraham is starting from the seen acts:
whoever is performing these acts of life-giving and death-giving is my
Lord.9 Abraham is calling to the One whoever creates and maintains the
order.
But, why does Namrud not "hear" Abraham's reasonable call? The clue is
in the phrase that introduces the episode; Namrud argues with Abraham
"because God has granted him kingship." To be sure, there is no
necessary link between being a king and arguing against God.
The King Solomon (p), for instance, stands in clear contrast to Namrud
as a powerful king in submission to God. Namrud, on the other hand,
argues with Abraham about God because, engrossed in his kingly power,
he had forgotten that the power was given to him. In other words, he
had confused his access to the kingship with his independent ownership
of the kingdom. He misinterpreted his obedience to God's order with
control of that order. This is probably why he replied Abraham by
claiming that he also can give life and death.
It is clear that Namrud was confusing his use of the order with
creating the order. Within the given order, if we cut someone's throat
that person ceases to live; just as if we balance the surface area with
density, the ship floats; or if we provide the necessary temperature
and pressure, the egg hatches. Namrud, on the other hand, is strangely
reversing this relationship, and claiming to be the giver end, despite
the fact that he is the receiving end. Simply because the bestowal of
the thing/ gift/ power has been extremely ordered and patterned, he
claims that he is producing that thing/ gift/ power. His stance
resembles a tenant taking the house for granted simply because the
landlord lets him use it day after day.
Namrud does not hear Abraham because he has forgotten the given-ness of
the power at his hand. He disillusioned himself to believe that he has
access to these things because he owns them. However, when Abraham
reminds him that he does not really own them, Namrud is extremely
worried. For in his equation, this can only mean that he should give up
all his access to the kingdom, since he does not conceive of the
alternative of having access to the kingdom as a gift from the One who
owns it. Hence, his first reaction to Abraham is to desperately claim
that he too has ownership over at least some of the things. In other
words, Namrud does see that Abraham's is an absolute claim about God's
ownership -since like all other prophets Abraham's task is affirming
tawhid-, and Namrud interprets this as absolute deprivation for
himself. He hears Abraham as the one who wants to take away his
kingdom. Hence, he hastens to make a piecemeal claim, by trying to
carve out a space for himself where he can be independent and continue
to have access to power. Namrud's reaction is not an exception and it
fits a pattern in the Qur'anic discourse: when the prophets come, many
affluent ones become his primary enemies10, primarily because they hear
the prophetic message in terms of sharing the pie. They see the prophet
as threatening their access to power by reaffirming God's absolute
ownership over everything.11
Even when the opponents of the prophet understand that the prophet is
not after personal gain, they think of God, in whose name the prophet
speaks, as the alien power hostile to their access to power. That is
why these opponents, even if they accept that there is a God "out
there," wish to limit God's authority to certain spheres of life only.
Since they appropriate the given-ness of their present situation, they
hear the prophet's message as an intrusion. This is why these people,
who hear the prophetic message as intrusion and as a strange
interruption, want the prophet to perform wonders and interruptions in
the physical realm also, so as to demonstrate the truth of his message.
Here are some Qur'anic descriptions of this attitude of demanding the
prophet to be a wonder maker:
And so they say: "we shall not believe thee till thou cause a spring to
gush forth for us from the earth, or thou have a garden of date-palms
and vines and cause rivers to gush forth in their midst in a sudden
rush, or thou cause the skies to fall down upon us in smithereens, as
thou hast threatened us or [till] thou bring God and the angels face to
face before us, or thou have a house [made] of gold, or thou ascend to
heaven - but nay, we would not [even] believe in thy ascension unless
thou bring down to us [from heaven] a writing which we [ourselves]
could read!" Say thou, [O Prophet:] "Limitless in His glory is my
Sustainer! Am I, then, aught but a mortal man, an apostle?" Yet
whenever [God's] guidance came to them [through a prophet,] nothing has
ever kept people from believing [in him] save this their objection:"'
"Would God have sent a [mere] mortal man as His apostle?" Say: "If
angels were walking about on earth as their natural abode, We would
indeed have sent down unto them an angel out of heaven as Our
apostle.12
In turn, the prophets repeatedly denounce that they are talking about
an intrusion.13 In the Quranic discourse, the prophets insist that
their message does not require them to be unusual, precisely because
their task is to re-claim the ordinary life for God.
Their apostles said to them [the unbelievers]: "True, we are human like
yourselves, but God doth grant His grace to such of his servants as He
pleases. It is not for us to bring you an authority except as God
permits. And on God let all men of faith put their trust."14
Say [O Prophet!]: "I am but a man like yourselves, (but) the
inspiration has come to me, that your God is one God. Whoever expects
to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of
his Lord, admit no one as partner."15
For, to repeat, the prophetic message is not about a god who can
disturb an otherwise self-sufficient system, and Abraham is not calling
to an alien being who is demanding a slice from the earthly pie.
Rather, he is calling to the One who makes and maintains the whole pie,
whereas Namrud's claim to have his own slices from the pie is deeply
mistaken, because he is disguising the gift of the slice as his.
Abraham's reply to Namrud's claim, then, is meant to correct this
illusory vision of Namrud. The only way to wake the king from his
slumber is to challenge him to bring a decisive proof of his own power
over the order. In other words, Abraham is saying to Namrud: "If the
order is in your hands, if life and death is in your hands, if your
dealing life and death is not in fact benefiting from the consistency
of creation and the rules already have been (and being continuously)
established therein by its creator, then you should be able to reverse
a pattern in creation." Abraham's demand that Namrud raise the sun from
the west can be read as such.16 Faced with Abraham's challenge, Namrud
is silenced; it is as though his dream has been shuttered. The end of
the verse signals that logic is not on the side of the prophet's
opponent, "because God does not guide people who [deliberately] do
wrong" (2:258).
Implications for Today
What does Abraham's debate with Namrud tells us in the modern age? What
does it mean for us to read this passage in the shade of modern
technology, while downloading the verses from the internet to our
laptop in a room cooled by A/C? In an age where air, sound, water,
electrons, cells.etc. all seem to be under our service (control?), we
may be disillusioned to think like Namrud. Having learned new ways of
exploiting the existent patterns/ rules/ laws in nature, we think that
we are not dependent any more on the One who creates those patterns.
As modern Namruds we reason, for instance, as the following, "In a time
when people did not know enough embryology and physiology, when the
technology was not developed enough and the babies grew only in the
mothers' wombs, we were somewhat obliged to have recourse to prayer and
to God, etc. But now, lo and behold, we have more control over these
things and less recourse is needed to God, because now we grow the
babies in tubes and clone embryos. So, if God is creator, we also
create, if God fashions and gives life to babies, we also do..."
Yet, the Qur'anic account of Abraham challenges us to differentiate
between receiving the gift and owning it, detecting the pattern and
making it, and using the order and sustaining it. Abraham would ask,
for instance: "are you able to do these new things because you have the
power to create the patterns on your own or because you spent enough
time in the lab to master the details of the patterns and utilize them?
If you claim that you govern the process, then reverse a given pattern.
For instance, my Lord creates the stem cells under 5% percentage of
carbon dioxide and at 37 degrees centigrade. If you can create too,
then reverse this pattern, don't waste your time minutely researching
how things are carried out 'normally.' Immerse your stem cells in cold
plates and with abundant carbon dioxide and make them grow well."17
Abraham's call is not about whether we should be cloning or not. Rather
his call is about our attitude in doing so. He cautions that we do not
rebel to the Benefactor simply because we became beneficiaries in new
ways. The right stance is the attitude of gratitude and awareness and
acknowledgement of God's power. To be sure, this shift in our reasoning
and attitude will have practical implications, such as humility and
justice before other creatures. As benefactors, we cannot say, like the
opponents of another prophet in the Quran says, "we can do with our
property whatever we please."18
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Is Namrud the father of all atheists?	02 Dec 2006 07:52:38 AM

"jane abraham" <arah1958@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164784287.230726.6510@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...

UmeyyeYazicioglu
University of Virginia

Have you not heard of that [king] who argued with Abraham about his
Sustainer, [simply] because God had granted him kingship?

Have you not heard that talking to and about imaginary friends as though
they
were real can be a symptom of schizophrenia?
Your Gawd buddy exists only in your imagination, and Gawd-addiction is
a terrible choice. Find a new & better addiction, Jane.
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: Is Namrud the father of all atheists?	29 Nov 2006 09:54:17 AM

"jane abraham" <arah1958@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164784287.230726.6510@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...

UmeyyeYazicioglu
University of Virginia

Have you not heard of that [king] who argued with Abraham about his
Sustainer, [simply] because God had granted him kingship?

You didn't honestly expect me to read all that *****, did you?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.

User: "Syd M."
Title: Re: Is Namrud the father of all atheists?	29 Nov 2006 11:50:20 AM

Robibnikoff wrote:

"jane abraham" <arah1958@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164784287.230726.6510@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...

UmeyyeYazicioglu
University of Virginia

Have you not heard of that [king] who argued with Abraham about his
Sustainer, [simply] because God had granted him kingship?

You didn't honestly expect me to read all that *****, did you?
--

Few. I started to, but recognized it as the load of propoganda that it
was.
I might be stupid, but I'm not THAT stupid.
PDW, still at work, so everyone whisper! ;->
.

User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th"
Title: Re: Is Namrud the father of all atheists?	29 Nov 2006 04:18:42 PM

"jane abraham" <arah1958@gmail.com> wrote in news:1164784287.230726.6510
@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:

UmeyyeYazicioglu
University of Virginia

Have you not heard of that [king] who argued with Abraham about his
Sustainer, [simply] because God had granted him kingship?

It would be a good idea to first demonstrate that Abraham existed. Once you
have done that do the same for "God".
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.

User: "Dubh Ghall"
Title: Re: Is Namrud the father of all atheists?	30 Nov 2006 01:27:09 PM

On 30 Nov 2006 11:18:42 +1300, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:

"jane abraham" <arah1958@gmail.com> wrote in news:1164784287.230726.6510
@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:

UmeyyeYazicioglu
University of Virginia

Have you not heard of that [king] who argued with Abraham about his
Sustainer, [simply] because God had granted him kingship?

It would be a good idea to first demonstrate that Abraham existed. Once you
have done that do the same for "God".

Mmm
I would suggest that you reverse the order.
Prove "God", and Abraham becomes irrelevant.
.

User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th"
Title: Re: Is Namrud the father of all atheists?	30 Nov 2006 02:52:34 PM

Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in
news:4qbum29l9r40fppetl0aea0intn9kjff4q@4ax.com:

On 30 Nov 2006 11:18:42 +1300, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:

"jane abraham" <arah1958@gmail.com> wrote in news:1164784287.230726.6510
@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:

UmeyyeYazicioglu
University of Virginia

Have you not heard of that [king] who argued with Abraham about his
Sustainer, [simply] because God had granted him kingship?

It would be a good idea to first demonstrate that Abraham existed. Once
you have done that do the same for "God".

Mmm

I would suggest that you reverse the order.

Prove "God", and Abraham becomes irrelevant.

Well I was trying to be fair. Proving Abraham existed should be the
somewhat easier of the two tasks ;-).
Klazmon
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Is Namrud the father of all atheists?	30 Nov 2006 02:11:31 PM

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:27:09 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
- Refer: <4qbum29l9r40fppetl0aea0intn9kjff4q@4ax.com>

On 30 Nov 2006 11:18:42 +1300, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:

"jane abraham" <arah1958@gmail.com> wrote in news:1164784287.230726.6510
@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:

UmeyyeYazicioglu
University of Virginia

Have you not heard of that [king] who argued with Abraham about his
Sustainer, [simply] because God had granted him kingship?

It would be a good idea to first demonstrate that Abraham existed. Once you
have done that do the same for "God".

Mmm

I would suggest that you reverse the order.

Prove "God", and Abraham becomes irrelevant.

Prove either of them and the entire universe becomes irrelevant.
I'm not holding my breath though...
--
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Is Namrud the father of all atheists?	04 Dec 2006 01:18:20 PM

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 06:41:31 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:27:09 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
- Refer: <4qbum29l9r40fppetl0aea0intn9kjff4q@4ax.com>

On 30 Nov 2006 11:18:42 +1300, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:

"jane abraham" <arah1958@gmail.com> wrote in news:1164784287.230726.6510
@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:

UmeyyeYazicioglu
University of Virginia

Have you not heard of that [king] who argued with Abraham about his
Sustainer, [simply] because God had granted him kingship?

It would be a good idea to first demonstrate that Abraham existed. Once you
have done that do the same for "God".

Mmm

I would suggest that you reverse the order.

Prove "God", and Abraham becomes irrelevant.

Prove either of them and the entire universe becomes irrelevant.
I'm not holding my breath though...

What relevance does the universe have?
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Is Namrud the father of all atheists?	04 Dec 2006 04:04:40 PM

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:18:20 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <c3t8n2hqnkfa4e0kj991q6geoal4eiv7jp@4ax.com>