A DEFINITIVE REPLY TO EVOLUTIONIST PROPAGANDA

A SERIES OF BLUNDERS REGARDING


MONKEY INTELLIGENCE





National Geographic TV broadcast two documentaries in April 2003 in its Europe edition. Called A Tale of Three Chimps and My Favorite Monkey, these documentaries bore clear similarities in terms of the message they sought to give. The consecutive broadcasting of these documentaries by National Geographic TV, their subject matter, and their timing indicated that deliberate evolutionist propaganda was going on. This channel, which in March 2003 brought us the fairy tales of "the dog that entered the sea and became a whale" and "the fish that left the sea and grew legs" in its Great Transformations, this time offered us another story and tried to inculcate the suggestion of the alleged evolution of man.

The documentary "A Tale of Three Chimps" dealt with chimpanzees working in a circus, and "My Favorite Monkey" was about the tailed macaque. Throughout both of these films frequent examples were given of what appeared to be intelligent behavior in monkeys, and the impression was given that since monkeys are so-called close relatives of man, their intelligence is correspondingly high. The aim of this article is to reveal the twisted Darwinist interpretations given in both documentaries.





Claims That Chimpanzees and Man

are Brothers or Genetic Relatives are Untrue



Right at the beginning of the film there is talk of chimpanzees' being a "brother species" to man and it was said that scientists realized the similarities between the two species before their genetic proximity was confirmed.

National Geographic TV's view of monkeys as a "brother species" to man is nothing more than Darwinist prejudice and rests on no scientific findings. There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. In the face of the picture presented by the fossil record, evolutionist paleontologists admit that they have abandoned hope of finding a missing link between man and the chimpanzee.

The claim that a "genetic proximity" between man and ape has been confirmed is a deception, pure and simple. Genetic proximity is a scenario produced as the result of a distortion of data regarding human and chimpanzee DNA with the aim of supporting Darwinism. However, this scenario is rotten to the core, because it claims that DNA emerged by means of so-called random evolutionary mutations. The fact is, however, that the effects of mutations on organisms are inevitably harmful, and may even have fatal results. DNA contains meaningful information recorded in a special encoding system. Random mutations in genes cannot possibly add new information to the DNA of the organism and turn it into a new species. All experiments and observations on mutations demonstrate this.

Moreover, the invalidity of the figures put forward in this genetic proximity propaganda has also emerged in new scientific discoveries in recent months. The findings of a California Institute of Technology geneticist have revealed that the genetic difference between man and chimpanzee was three times greater than had been claimed.1 It was revealed that there is absolutely no scientific proof of a point that is so frequently stressed in evolutionist propaganda. (For more details about the scientific discoveries which have undermined the scenario of human evolution, see Darwinism Refuted, by Harun Yahya at www.harunyahya.com under the subtopic "Refutation of Darwinism.")

The National Geographic TV documentary, "My Favorite Monkey," states that man and apes possess a similar physiology, and this is portrayed as evidence of evolution. Space is devoted to the comments of a veterinarian regarding a monkey which was brought to him for treatment. The veterinarian states that some of the medicines he used for the monkey were actually human medicines, and cites this as evidence that the two species are related.

The fact, however, that medicines can prove to be effective in both species provides no evidence for the theory of evolution whatsoever. The comparison is merely one made in line with Darwinist prejudices. It is quite natural that similar chemicals should benefit both man and apes. Both species share the same biosphere and the same carbon-based organic molecules. This common structure applies not just to man and apes, but to the whole of nature. For instance, human beings produce medicine from the blood of the horseshoe crab. Yet this does not mean that man and the horseshoe crab are related. On the other hand, kidney transplants carried out from chimpanzees to human beings represent a serious blow to the claims of similar physiology. Dr. Keith Reemtsma of Tulane University carried out more than a dozen such transplants from chimpanzees to human beings in 1963, but all the patients died.2 That is because the chimpanzee metabolism worked faster, for which reason the cells in the tissue of the chimpanzee kidney rapidly consumed the water in the bodies of the human recipients.





National Geographic TV's Propaganda Tactics



The propaganda tactic so often resorted to in documentaries on National Geographic TV consists of showing examples of intelligent behavior by apes and then drawing comparisons between them and human beings. This tactic can be seen in expressions like "they are intelligent animals," "their needs closely resemble those of human beings," and "like us, they feel the need for personal bonds and interpersonal relationships."

The commentary in My Favorite Monkey mentions that apes produce creative solutions in the face of problems in nature and that they are intelligent problem-solvers. It says the line between human and ape behavior may be very unclear.

In another narration, it is stated that they resemble us physically; we use them in space and medical research. Also, they resemble us socially, but we keep that to ourselves. Family life is very important among members of the macaque species and we are so closely related that …

Yet the inconsistency of constructing an evolutionary link between man and ape in respect of intelligence and interpersonal relationships is quite evident. There are other animals far superior to apes when it comes to intelligence and relationships. Bees, for instance, are able to employ the kind of architecture in building their combs that only a mathematician's calculations could match.3 A geometrical plan can be seen in the comb, one that allows the least possible material to be used in the construction but the greatest possible amount of area for storage. (In the identification of such an "optimal" design the area and circumferences of different geometrical shapes need to be calculated, and the geometric shape with the highest area/circumference ratio should be selected.)

In the same way, beavers are able to build their nests against the current in the middle of rivers, employing the kind of engineering abilities used by man in constructing dams.4 Termites build magnificent towers capable of comparison with our own skyscrapers, and set up air-conditioning systems, special storage chambers and agricultural areas inside them. The fact, of course, that they display a visibly sensitive mathematical and geometrical knowledge in their buildings and use engineering techniques does not imply that we are related to bees, beavers, or termites.

Neither is the fact that monkeys feel the need for interpersonal bonds and relationships evidence for evolution. Creatures that have no possible relation to human beings also enjoy similar bonds and relationships. Penguins, for example, raise families full of love and loyalty. Dogs are much more faithful and friendly in the relationships they establish with human beings. Doves enjoy close relations with their mates. Budgerigars exhibit enormous interest and devotion to one another, and also to human beings. Yet these features do not make penguins, doves, budgerigars, and dogs our relatives.

On the other hand, these animals do reveal the invalidity of the theory of evolution's claims regarding the origin of their intelligence and behavior. Despite the fact that the creatures we have just listed are located on branches of the imaginary evolutionary tree far more distant from man than are chimpanzees, they are still able to display behavior much closer to human intelligence than that of chimpanzees.

Honeybees reveal yet another contradiction which the theory of evolution is quite incapable of accounting for. The theory seeks to account for level of intelligence by the development of the nervous system. For instance, it links the fact that man is the most highly developed living thing to his having the highest brain/body ratio. According to this logic, chimpanzees, with a much more complex nervous system than that of bees, should be far superior to them. Yet the truth is actually the exact opposite. The fact that a creature much further away from man on the imaginary evolutionary tree than the chimpanzee is able to display the kind of complex behavior seen in man, despite its being a simple organism, – the way it calculates the surface area and circumference of the hexagon and measures internal angles, for instance – definitively invalidates the evolutionist claims with regard to ape intelligence.





Beware the Monkey Culture Distortion



In the documentary My Favorite Monkey it is suggested that the tailed monkey known as the macaque possesses the ability to develop complex behaviors, and to teach them to individuals and so hand them on to subsequent generations. This is described as a kind of "monkey culture," on the grounds that such learned behavior falls within the meaning of culture.

It may be suggested that the behavior models peculiar to one living species are an indication of "culture." However, as we have stated above, "human-type" behavior or the demonstration of a "human-type" culture in certain aspects by a living being is again no evidence for the theory of evolution.

National Geographic TV engages in two major distortions here. First, the example is given of a macaque washing the sand off a potato in the sea before eating it. Second, an adult macaque is shown forcibly taking the stones a younger monkey is playing with out of its hand.

It is stated that the washing of the potato in water is behavior that was first developed by one macaque in the group and then taught to the others. This is taken to be a sign of culture. The taking away by the adult of the stone the younger macaques are playing with is compared to the way that children playing in a nursery take each other's toys. It is suggested here that the way the adult engages in a display of strength by taking it away from the younger animal shows that macaques imbue the stone with a kind of social significance.

The fact that a monkey engages in "humane" cleaning and displays a "toy" culture cannot be put forward as evidence for evolution. Evolutionists persistently fixate on monkey culture, and are accustomed to portray this as a whole entity, based on particular communication between monkeys. The aim here is to install the idea in people's minds that human culture is a phenomenon which emerged with evolution, and that among animals the nearest level to human culture is that exhibited by monkeys.

Yet the wild bee known as schwarzula or the leafcutter ant exhibit an even more complex culture – that of agriculture. Schwarzula engages in "livestock rearing" by making use of secretions from a species of larva it gathers up and collects in its nest. Leafcutter ants engage in "agriculture" by growing fungus.5 Another species of ant collects resin from trees and uses this as an antiseptic to purify its nest from germs. This is a sign of a "culture of medicine." The way that creatures which (according to evolutionists) are "simpler" than apes and much further removed from man than apes, are able to display such complex examples of culture is enough to invalidate the evolutionists' claims of a link between "monkey culture" and man.

As we have seen, National Geographic TV's distortions are insufficient to account, according to the theory of evolution, for behavior and culture among animals that are similar to those in man. Moreover, the examples we have cited of behavior and culture in bees, ants, beavers, dogs, and doves raise certain questions that can never be answered in terms of the theory of evolution: How did these creatures come by the necessary information to accomplish such complex behavior? How are they able to interpret such information? How is it that tiny insects are able to display more complex behavior than apes, alleged to be man's closest relatives?

You can ask these questions to the evolutionist of your choice. It is absolutely certain that the reply will demonstrate the total quandary they find themselves in. Those with rather more experience will try to gloss over the matter by saying such behavior depends on "instinct." Yet that fails to save the theory that is deadlocked. "Instinct" is nothing more than a name generated for this evolutionary quandary.

It is obvious that instinct does not stem from the living thing itself, but is inspired by a superior intelligence. It is God Who inspires the behavior in bees, beavers, dogs, doves, and chimpanzees. Every living thing displays the characteristics God set out for it. The fact that the chimpanzee is an animal, which man finds amusing and which is able to obey his commands, stems from the inspiration God places in it. The truth of this can be seen in the verse of the Qur'an; "Your Lord revealed to the bees…" (Qur'an, 16:48)



Monkey Blunders from National Geographic TV



The claims put forward in the comparisons between the tailed macaques and man in the documentary "My Favorite Monkey" are so utterly inconsistent that the film gives the impression of having been prepared as an entertainment for children. For instance:

The experimental monkeys sent into space are referred to as heroes, and we are told, had it not been for them man could never have taken the giant leap into space that he did. This is a totally baseless comment: The monkeys sent into space did not "succeed" in doing anything. The rockets they were placed into were controlled from earth, and the monkeys were just tightly strapped into the cabins and used as experimental subjects. Furthermore, even if we do allow a measure of heroism in the experimental animals used in space research, then rats and dogs must also be included, since these too were used in craft sent up into space.

It is also stated in My Favorite Monkey that apes have been of major use to man in the medical field. We are told how, as a result of research on rhesus monkeys, the Rh tests were developed. Obviously, though, the use of an animal in medical research does not make it a relative of man, in the same way that the use of bacteria in the development of antibiotics does not make them relatives of man.

In that same documentary, a comparison is made between the way that monkeys groom each other to remove fleas and parasites and the way that human beings go to the hairdresser, and it is suggested that going to the hairdresser is parallel social behavior to being groomed for fleas.

This claim must represent a "shining example" of the way in which National Geographic TV's Darwinist fantasies know no limits. Maybe in future programs this creative imagination could be used to engage in speculation regarding the origin of the human habit of going to the theatre by showing two groups of apes, the one watching the other group playing. That is, of course, if termites are not rediscovered with their construction abilities and put forward as man's nearest ancestors!

Macaques' jumping onto jet skis, skiing, or sitting and eating in restaurants with their owners does not make them relatives of man. It is clear that such behavior does not have its roots in ape etiquette or culture. Such behavior is the result of punishment and reward training, and has no more significance than a circus show. Indeed, dogs, birds, and dolphins are also used in such shows and demonstrate impressive abilities. National Geographic TV is using and distorting such images of monkeys to implant in people's minds the idea set out in evolution that the monkeys are man's closest relatives.





Conclusion



These documentaries broadcast on National Geographic TV once again show that the channel is a blind and dogmatic supporter of Darwinism. The claims put forward about animal behavior and intelligence make no scientific statement at all. This channel, which declares the apes sent into space to be heroes and tries to establish an evolutionary link between monkeys grooming each other and human beings going to the hairdresser, is trying to cover claims that even children would find laughable with a scientific veneer. We recommend that if the channel is to defend the theory of evolution, it should try to find more rational and logical arguments with which to do so.

1. "Chimps Humans only 95% Similar," http://www.cnn.com/2002/ TECH/science/09/24/humans.chimps.ap/index.html

2. Daniel Q. Haney, "Scientists choose a transplant donor that's smart, plentiful and kind of cute," Associated Press, 08.04.2001. http://www.boston.com/news/daily/04/pig_transplant.htm

3. The Miracle in the Honeybee, Audio Book: 3. http://www.harunyahya.com/m_audio.php#a8

4. Harun Yahya, For Men of Understanding, Ta-Ha Publishers, January 2001

5. Harun Yahya, The Miracle in the Ant, Goodword Books, 2001





THE SMUGGLING INCIDENT NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TV DECLINED TO COVER





Two documentaries called Dinosaur Dealers have been broadcast on National Geographic TV. These dealt with the trade in fossils and fossil smuggling, and described the adventures of a paleontologist who followed in the tracks of a number of stolen fossils, or fossils smuggled out of Australia. The trail was followed detective-style, and the program showed the negotiations carried out in order to trap the smugglers. In this way, the impression wasgiven that National Geographic is an idealistic body, chasing hot on the heels of smugglers and striving with all its might to destroy this illegal trade. However, the TV channel failed to mention that just a few years ago it too was involved in smuggling an Archaeoraptor fossil (and the fraud that accompanied it). In fact, it said not a word about it.

Let us recall the details of that smuggling operation.

Archaeoraptor liaoningensis was a forged dino-bird fossil. The remains of the creature, alleged to be an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds, had apparently been unearthed in the Liaoning area of China and were published in the November 1999 edition of National Geographic magazine.

Stephen Czerkas, an American museum administrator, had bought the fossil from the Chinese for $80,000, and then showed it to two scientists he had made contact with. Once the expected confirmation had been received, he wrote a report about the fossil. Yet Czerkas was no scientific researcher, nor did he hold a doctorate of any sort. He submitted his report to two famous scientific journals, Nature and Science, but they both declined to publish it unless it was first vetted by an independent commission of paleontologists.
Czerkas was determined to have this fantastical discovery published, and he next knocked at the door of National Geographic, known for its support of the theory of evolution.


Under Chinese law it was definitely forbidden to remove fossils unearthed within its borders from the country, and fossil-smuggling could be severely punished, even by death. Despite being well aware of this, National Geographic accepted this fossil which had been smuggled out of China. The fossil was presented to the media at a press conference staged in the National Geographic headquarters in October 1999. An illustrated seven-page article describing the dino-bird fairy tale formed the cover story in the November edition of National Geographic magazine. Moreover, the fossil was exhibited in the National Geographic museum, where it was presented to millions of people as definitive proof of the theory of evolution.

The truth emerged in March 2001: no such intermediate species as Achaeoraptor had ever existed. Computer tomography analyses of the fossil revealed that it consisted of parts of at least two different species. Archaeoraptor was thus dethroned, and took its place alongside all the other evolutionist frauds in history. Darwinism—whose claims have never been empirically verified in the past 150 years—was once more associated with specially manufactured fossil forgeries.

As we have seen, National Geographic was once party to that very fossil-smuggling which it now purports to oppose. Naturally, the fact that in its latest documentaries it devotes space to bringing fossil smuggling out into the open may be regarded as a positive sign that it will not tolerate similar abuses in the future. However, if the TV channel does oppose fossil-smuggling, then it must also deal with such well-known smuggling incidents as Archaeoraptor in its programs. No matter how much of a violation of its Darwinist broadcasting policy it might be, admitting its past mistakes and taking the side of the truth would be commendable behavior in the sight of all its viewers.

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TV’S UNDERSEA FAIRY TALES






A documentary called Built for the Kill has been screened on National Geographic TV. Its aim was twofold. On the one hand, the program described some of the techniques used by sea creatures to hunt or evade capture. On the other, it sent out a Darwinist message by describing some creatures as "programmed to kill" or "ruthless killers."

The flawless design in the creatures described in the documentary were portrayed as mechanisms "developed for survival," although no evidence of this was offered. This is a technique frequently encountered in broadcasts by National Geographic TV and similar Darwinist institutions. However, it is obvious that these descriptions lack any scientific basis, since looking at the features possessed by the creatures and saying "they developed these in order to survive" or sticking an evolutionary label on the design in living things is itself of no scientific value.

For instance, attempting to account for the shiny skin on the underside of the blue shark and the dark skin on the top by means of evolution, while failing to provide any evidence, merely reveals National Geographic TV's prejudices. Another fish, looking down, cannot make out the shark against the dark tones of the sea bottom thanks to the dark color of the shark's skin. The shark will similarly be camouflaged against the brightness of the sea surface stemming from the rays of the sun. If this is to be explained by evolution, then it must also be explained how the information for this camouflage design emerged by chance in the creature's DNA, and scientific proof must be given. Maintaining that this information came about by natural selection and random mutations, in the absence of any scientific evidence whatsoever, is merely Darwinist dogma.
On the other hand, this feature of the shark can be perfectly convincingly accounted for by intelligent design: the information regarding which areas of the shark's skin are to be which colors is present in its DNA. It is utterly rational and scientific to maintain that the encoding of this information came about not by chance but by conscious intervention.


The fundamental factor, which reveals the invalidity of the evolutionist claims put forward in the film, is the exceedingly complex nature of the design in the creatures discussed. The dolphin sonar dealt with in the documentary is one instance of this. Dolphins possess a special organ in their heads that allows them to send out sound waves and sense the echoes that reflect from physical bodies. These sound waves can penetrate some 30 cm beneath the sand and can be picked up in an amazing way by the dolphins as the environment changes (from water to sand and back from sand to water). In this way the dolphin plots a sort of map of what lies beneath the sand.

Another aspect indicative of the perfection in dolphin sonar is the way the U.S. Navy has imitated it in its own development of sonar. Since existing forms of sonar were unable to locate mines buried in the sand during the Gulf War, the U.S. fleet lost a number of ships. It then set out to use the dolphin wave range in the research it supported and to employ the dolphin's sensory technique in its own vessels.

Whitlow Au, a researcher from the Hawaii Marine Biology Institute in Kailua, together with his colleagues, managed to come up with such a sonar system four years ago. A computerized sonar device which monitored and decoded the echoes of the waves it sent was added to this artificial dolphin sonar. This sonar, developed by scientists, was subjected to a number of tests and produced very positive results, registering a 90% success rate in locating mines buried 40 cm under the sand.1

As we can see, an advanced computer needs to be used in order to imitate the action of dolphin sonar. This animal's sonar faculty, which does what an advanced computer can do but in an even more efficient manner, and which is also far more compact than a computer, is a miracle of engineering. To maintain that such an organ emerged by mutations—which evolution depends on—is just as illogical as maintaining that a computer could emerge from the soil as a result of natural phenomena such as wind and rain. No rational person would obviously ever believe such a claim. Yet National Geographic TV glosses over this complex organ during its account of dolphin sonar by calling it "a product of evolution," without offering the slightest evidence.

Another creature whose complex design leaves the theory of evolution floundering is the angelfish. Thanks to its flat body, this animal buries itself in the sand to wait for its prey, and keeps a lookout with two eyes which protrude like periscopes. One of the creature's most astonishing aspects is that it can also detect the approach of prey thanks to an organ which senses electrical signals. When the moment comes, it suddenly lunges out of its hiding place and swallows its prey in a single gulp.

National Geographic TV employed the expression "it developed a sixth sense" during its description of this sense possessed by the creature. This sensory system contains a most complex design: the animal possesses an organ that perceives electrical impulses, nerves which carry the signals received by that organ, and, most important of all, a brain capable of transforming these signals into a meaningful map. Highly effective connections transmit the signals between the nerve cells. These connections have been designed to prevent the signals from being lost or diminished in any way. In short, there is a very detailed design and organization in the sensory system. Since even a simple ammeter for measuring electric currents requires a specific design, it is clear that this much more complex sensory system was also intelligently designed.

After describing all these complex systems, National Geographic TV claimed that they all emerged "by evolution," without feeling the need to offer any evidence for this. Yet again, this shows how dogmatically devoted National Geographic TV is to the theory of evolution. It feels no need to test the foundations of the theory. On the contrary, it seeks to account for the whole of nature in the light of the theory after having swallowed it verbatim.
Nor do the descriptions of some creatures in the program as "ruthless killers" actually reflect the truth. This expression is employed to impose the Darwinist dogma that there is a ruthless struggle for survival in nature and that living things are aggressive, selfish, and ruthless. Yet, the hunting that goes on among living things is not "ruthless killing." Animals kill only for food or self-defense. The method they employ is usually the swiftest, and thus the method that inflicts the least suffering. (For instance, a lion kills its prey by biting its throat.)




Scr 29

Jesus@Nabi Isa (as), Seorang Utusan Tuhan dan bukanlah Anak Tuhan ( Sudah tentunya Tuhan lebih dari itu )

Image via Wikipedia

All Translation is based on the work of Harun Yahya

All translations from the Qur'an are from The Noble Qur'an: a New Rendering of its Meaning in English by Hajj Abdalhaqq and Aisha Bewley, published by Bookwork, Norwich, UK. 1420 CE/1999 AH.

Translated by- Kamarulzaman Bin Jamlus

Edited by-Kamarulzaman Bin Jamlus

Isi Kandungan

1. Kesilapan Penganut Kristian Tentang Idea & Konsep Trinitas
2. Al-Qur'an menolak kepercayaan terhadap Trinitas
3. Kepercayaan terhadap Trinitas muncul 1 abad selepas Jesus as diangkat disisi Tuhan.
4. Jesus as adalah seorang utusan Tuhan dan bukanlah Anak-Nya ( sudah tentunya Tuhan lebih daripada itu )
5. Kristianiti sejati didalam Perjanjian Baru @New Testament
6. Jesus as adalah utusan Tuhan seperti yang dinyatakan didalam Perjanjian Baru
7. Penulis atau pengarang Gospel yang terdiri daripada empat bahagian itu sebenarnya tidak pernah berjumpa langsung dan tidak mengenali Jesus as secara fizikal.
8. Kenapa atau mengapakah agaknya penganut Kristian membuat tuntutan dan kenyataan yang tidak dapat diterima akal ini?
9. Sebilangan penganut Kristian menolak kepercayaan tentang Trinitas daripada persidangan Nicaea sehingga kini.

Kesimpulan.

Penipuan Hebat Tentang Teori Evolusi**

KEPADA PEMBACA

Satu bab khas telah diperuntukkan untuk menerangkan tentang kejatuhan teruk teori evolusi. Ini adalah keranateori ini sebenarnya membentuk satu asas tunggal kepada segala bentuk falsafah anti-kerohanian & keagamaan. Memandangkan Darwinisme juga menolak fakta penciptaan serta kewujudan tuhan sejak 140 tahun yang lalu telah menyebabkan ramai orang meninggalkan kepercayaan & keimanan mereka serta ada juga yang menjadi ragu-ragu tentang kewujudan tuhan. Oleh yang demikian, adalah sangat penting satu usaha dilakukan untuk mengembalikan kepercayaan serta menyedarkan semua pihak yang teori ini sebenarnya adalah satu penipuan serta fitnah yang amat jahat yang dimanipulasi oleh satu entiti gelap yang bersifat memusnahkan & memecah-belahkan. Memandangkan sesetengah pembaca mungkin hanya berpeluang membaca hanya satu atau dua dari buku-buku yang diterbitkan oleh penulis, kami merasakan adalah lebih baik jika kami abadikan satu bab khas didalam setiap terbitan untuk membuat kesimpulan bagi subjek yang amat penting ini.

Semua buku oleh Harun Yahya menceritakan tentang isu-isu kepercayaan dan keimanan dengan kehadiran ayat ayat dari para Al-Qur'an , mengajak pembaca untuk mempelajari dan mendalami kalamullah serta hidup berpandukan Al-Qur'an dan Sunnah. Semua subjek tentang Tuhan dan Firman-Nya diterangkan serta dihuraikan dengan jelas adalah untuk tidak langsung meninggalkan ruang bagi keraguan untuk wujud didalam fikiran pembaca. Kejujuran, keikhlasan serta kelancaran dalam terjemahan buku ini adalah untuk memastikan semua manusia dari segenap peringkat umur dan semua kumpulan kumpulan sosial mendapat pemahaman yang mendalam dengan mudah ( insha'Allah ).Ini termasuk juga golongan-golongan orang yang dengan mudah & sewenang-wenangnya menolak segala aspek kerohanian juga akan terpengaruh dengan fakta-fakta dokumentari buku ini dan memastikan mereka tidak dapat lagi untuk menafikan kebenaran tentang buku ini dan isi-isinya.

Buku ini serta setiap buku yang dihasilkan penulis boleh dibaca secara individual atau dibincangkan didalm kumpulan. Para pembaca yang ghairah untuk mendapatkan petunjuk & kebaikan daripada buku ini akan tentunya mendapati perbincangan secara kumpulan adalah amat berguna, membiarkan mereka menghubungkaitkan pemahaman serta pengalaman sesama mereka. Ia juga akan membawa makna yang amat besar dalam memperjuangkan agama Islam serta secara tidak langsung dapat menyumbang kepada penerbitan buku-buku ini yang semestinya ditulis semata-mata hanya untuk mendapatkan keredhaan Tuhan. Semua buku-buku ini adalah sangat menyakinkan. Atas sebab ini juga komunikasi tentang kebenaran agama sejati kepada orang lain adalah satu cara yang sangat efektif bagi menggalakkan mereka membaca buku-buku ini.

Kami juga berharap agar para pembaca akan membaca komentar dan sinopsis tentang buku-buku lain dikulit bahagian belakang buku ini. Sumber fakta material lengkap tentang perkara-perkara berkaitan kepercayaan adalah amat berguna dan menyenangkan apabila dibaca. Tidak seperti buku-buku lain dipasaran, tidak terdapat satu pun prejudisme atau pandangan peribadi dari penulis pada mana-mana bahagian buku, huraian dari sumber yang diragui kredibilitinya, ketidakpekaan serta ketidakhormatan terhadap subjek-subjek suci ( insha'Allah) juga persoalan pesimistik yang boleh menimbulkan keraguan didalam minda yang memesongkan hati seseorang manusia.

Tentang Pengarang

Ketika ini beliau menulis menggunakan nama pena HARUN YAHYA, dilahirkan di Ankara pada tahun 1956. Beliau menamatkan pendidikan sekolah rendah dan menengah di Ankara. Beliau juagmempelajari Kesenian & Falsafah di Universiti Mimar Sinan Di Istanbul, Turki. Sejak tahun 1980, beliau telah menerbitkan banyak jenis buku tentang politik, saintifik dan kepercayaan. Harun Yahya amat dikenali sebagai penulis yang mendedahkan skandal penipuan tentang Teori Evolusi oleh Charles Darwin, tuntutan-tuntutan mereka, tentang konspirasi gelap antara darwinisme dan juga idealogi yang membawa kepada pertumpahan darah seperti Fasisme dan Komunisme.

Segala karya-karya Harun Yahya telah diterjemahkan kepada 57 bahasa seluruh dunia, menghimpunkan koleksi lebih dari 45,000 mukasurat dengan 30,000 illustrasi. Nama pena beliau adalah gabungan nama Harun as ( Aaron pbuh ) dan Yahya as ( John pbuh ) adalah sebagai memperingati dua orang Nabi yang hebat menentang Ateisme. Cap mohor nabi-nabi pada setiap kulit buku beliau adalah merupakan satu simbolik dan dihubungkankaitkan dengan isi-isinya dengan mewakili Al-Qur'an & Nabi Muhammad saw iaitu Nabi yang terakhir. Dengan kebenaran ajaran Al-Qur'an dan Sunnah, penulis menjadikannya satu tujuan abadi untuk menyangkal dakyah-dakyah yang diperjuangkan oleh ideologi anti-agama dan mempersembahkan "kata-kata putus atau terakhir & muktamad" yang bertujuan menolak sepenuhnya bantahan-bantahan yang dibangkitkan orang-orang yang menentang agama Tuhan yang benar. Beliau menggunakan cap mohor Nabi Terakhir saw yang mempunyai kebijaksanaan yang unggul dan kesempurnaan moral sebagai lambang, tanda tentang tujuan beliau ini.

PENGENALAN

Islam & Kristianiti, dua agama samawi yang terbesar didunia, mempunyai banyak persamaan didalam kepercayaan seperti kewujudan Tuhan, Keabadian-Nya, Penciptaan-Nya keatas alam semesta yang bermula daripada kekosongan dengan Kekuasaan-Nya kepada semua jisim melalui Keagungan Abadi-Nya. Muslim & Kristian menentang kesilapan intelektual yang serupa iaitu iaitu penentangan terhadap Ateisme, Rasisme, Fasisme dan keruntuhan moral dengan menggunakan cara yang hampir sama untuk menyampaikan mesej tentang kewujudan Tuhan. Persamaan tujuan ini adalah untuk menyasarkan untuk membantu semua orang mengenali Tuhan agar mereka dapat hidup dalam dunia yang penuh dengan keadilan.

**NOTA PENTING**


Nabi Jesus (saas) yang di rujuk didalam teks ini ialah orang yang sama dengan Nabi Isa (as) yang disebutkan oleh Al-Qur’an. Perkataan “Tuhan” digunakan bagi memudahkan penerimaan teks ini oleh orang yang bukan Islam memandangkan ianya ditujukan khas untuk mereka.


Katakanlah (wahai orang-orang yang beriman): “Kami beriman kepada Allah, dan kepada apa yang diturunkan kepada kami (Al-Quran), dan kepada apa yang diturunkan kepada Nabi Ibrahim dan Nabi Ismail dan Nabi Ishak dan Nabi Yaakub serta anak-anaknya, dan juga kepada apa yang diberikan kepada Nabi Musa (Taurat) dan Nabi Isa (Injil), dan kepada apa yang diberikan kepada Nabi-nabi dari Tuhan mereka; kami tidak membeza-bezakan antara seseorang dari mereka (sebagaimana yang kamu – Yahudi dan Nasrani – membeza-bezakannya); dan kami semua adalah Islam (berserah diri, tunduk taat) kepada Allah semata-mata”. Surah Al-Baqarah ayat 130

"Demi sesungguhnya, kafirlah orang-orang yang berkata: “Bahawasanya Allah ialah Al-Masih Ibni Maryam) katakanlah (wahai Muhammad): “(Dakwaan itu tidak benar) kerana siapakah yang dapat menahan (seksa) dari Allah sedikit jua pun kalau Ia mahu membinasakan Al-Masih Ibni Maryam beserta ibunya dan orang-orang yang ada di muka bumi semuanya?” Dan (ingatlah) bagi Allah jualah kuasa pemerintahan langit dan bumi dan segala yang ada di antara keduanya. Ia menciptakan apa jua yang dikehendakiNya. Dan (ingatlah) Allah Maha Kuasa atas tiap-tiap sesuatu." Surah Al-Maidah ayat 17






Kesilapan penganut Kristian mengenai Triniti

Menurut fakta sejarah, Tuhan telah mengutuskan Nabi-Nabi & Rasul-Rasul-Nya untuk memimpin kaum masing-masing serta berperanan membantu menyedarkan mereka tentang kepercayaan yang salah dan seterusnya mengajak mereka menuju kearah monoteistik dengan menyampaikan wahyu Tuhan kepada mereka. Walaupun diketahui yang setiap agama ada hokum, pemerhatian dan amalan masing-masing tetapi asasdnya adalah sama iaitu ‘Tauhid’. Perkataan tauhid menurut Al-Qur’an adalah mempercayai Tuhan Yang Maha Esa adalah Tuhan sekalian alam, mempercayai bahawa manusia dan semua hidupan didunia ini memerlukan Tuhan untuk terus wujud . Dala, ertikata lain, Kristianiti dan Judaisme walaupun dalam keadaan sekarang yang terpesong dari ajaran monoteistik sebenar,ia telah dibentuk atas konsep monoteistik yang sejati.

Penganut-penganut dua agama ini sememangnya percayakan kewujudan dan Ke-Esaan Tuhan dan mereka juga harus mengikuti dan mempercayai amalan-amalan agama yang Tuhan wahyukan kepada Nabi Ibrahim (saas). Menurut Al-Qur’an, agama yang dianuti baginda adalah agama yang benar dan suci. Baginda juga telah diperintahkan oleh Tuhan agar patuh kepada-Nya dan apa yang diwahyukan kepada baginda.

“Sesungguhnya Nabi Ibrahim adalah merupakan “satu umat” (walaupun Ia seorang diri); ia taat bulat-bulat kepada Allah, lagi berdiri teguh di atas dasar tauhid; dan ia tidak pernah menjadi dari orang-orang yang musyrik.Ia sentiasa bersyukur akan nikmat-nikmat Allah; Allah telah memilihnya (menjadi Nabi) dan memberi hidayah petunjuk kepadanya ke jalan yang lurus.Dan Kami telah memberikan kepadanya kebaikan di dunia; dan sesungguhnya ia pada hari akhirat adalah dari orang-orang yang soleh.Kemudian Kami wahyukan kepadamu (wahai Muhammad): Hendaklah engkau menurut ugama Nabi Ibrahim, yang berdiri teguh di atas jalan yang benar( haneef); dan tiadalah ia dari orang-orang musyrik”.

Surah Al-Nahl ayat 120-123

Perkataan ‘haneef’ bermaksud yang berdiri teguh di atas jalan yang yang lurus dengan perasaan yang rendah diri dan bersungguh-sungguh mematuhi perintah Tuhan. Ini adalah antara salah satu sifat terpuji yang ada pada baginda ( Nabi Ibrahim saas ) yang telah disebutkan dengan terang dan jelas didalam ayat di atas. Ia juga merupakan satu metafora yang cukup indah diterangkan oleh Tuhan dengan perkataan-perkataan yang amat halus dan penuh kebijaksanaan. Nabi Ibrahim saas telah dan penuh kebijaksanaan. Nabi Ibrahim saas telah berjaya menjauhkan dirinya dari kepercayaan tahyul dan karut kaumnya dan berpaling kepada Ke Esaan Tuhan. Baginda juga telah menasihati kaumnya supaya meninggalkan kepercayaan tahyul terhadap tuhan-tuhan pagan dan penyembahan berhala. Agama yang diwahyukan kepada Nabi Ibrahim saas masih lagi diamalkan oleh keturunannya sehingga hari ini.

Apakah maksud kesilapan Triniti kepada penganut Kristian?

Agama Kristian lahir dikalangan orang Yahudi di Palestin satu ketika dahulu iaitu kira-kira 2000 tahun yang lepas. Hampir kesemua pengikut Nabi Jesus saas pada ketika itu adlah terdiri dari orang yahudi yang hidup berlandaskan undang-undang Mosaik ( Musa ). Salah satu ciri-ciri fundamental Judaisme ialah amalan monoteistik yang tiada kompromi. Walaubagaimanapun selepas Nabi Jesus saas diangkat kesisi Tuhan, Kristianiti telah mula beralih ke arah yang berlainan dari ajaran awalnya mula tersebar didunia orang yahudi dan dunia paganisme. Sifat monoteistik tradisionalnya yang berlandaskan undang-undang Mosaik telah melalui satu perubahan yang besar iaitu beralih kearah Triniti. Akibat fahaman Triniti juga, Nabi Jesus saas telah dianggap sebagai satu keajaiban dan keabadian tuhan ( sudah pasti Tuhan itu lebih hebat dari anggapan buruk dan kata kata mereka ). Pada mulanya konsep Triniti yang dianggap pelik sedikit demi sedikit telah mula mendapat perhatian istimewa oleh orang-orang yahudi ketika itu. Idea fahaman ini ialah mereka menanggap tuhan mempunyai 3 entiti iaitu ‘Si Ayah, Si Anak Dan Roh Suci’. Ia juga telah berkembang dan menjadi sumber kepercayaan Kristian tradisional selain perselisihannya dengan konsep awal monoteistik Kristianiti yang menegaskan bahawa ‘Tiada Tuhan melainkan Dia (Tuhan Yang Maha Esa)’. Ia juga boleh dihuraikan begini;

F menurut kepercayaan Triniti, tuhan telah menjelma kan diri-nya dalam 3 bentuk dan identiti iaitu ‘Ayah, Anak dan Roh Suci’ tetapi ketiga-tiga entiti ini adalah sama. Dalam ertikata lain, Ayah, Anak & Roh Suci itu sebenarnya Tuhan. Menurut kepercayaan yang salah dan menjengkelkan ini, setiap entiti diatas mempunyai kuasa yang sama hebat dan kuat ( sudah tentu Tuhan adalah lebih hebat dari itu ).

F Idea Triniti juga berpendapat bahawa Nabi Jesus saas merupakan seorang anak kandung tuhan dan memiliki & mewarisi setiap aspek fizikal dan spiritual yang ada pada tuhan. Idea ini timbul memandangkan anak seorang manusia selalunya mewarisi sifat-sifat ibubapa mereka melalui DNA. Kepercayaan ini juga dikenali sebagai homooussian.

F Mereka juga percaya yang Nabi Jesus saas bukan dicipta oleh tuhan tetapi telah menjelma dari keabadian menjadi manusia untuk menyelamatkan manusia melalui peristiwa ‘pembunuhan’ baginda ( seperti yang dipercayai oleh agama Kristian ). Kepercayaan ini juga dipanggil ‘inkarnasi’.

Kepercayaan terhadap Triniti adalah sesuatu yang terang dan nyata terpesong dengan mentafsirkan tuhan berlandaskan kepercayaan karut dan tahyul, mereka-reka tentang keabadian Nabi Jesus saas yang sebenar-benarnya adalah utusan Tuhan seperti nabi-nabi sebelum baginda. Walaupun Triniti bersifat anti monoteistik tetapi ia tetap tumbuh subur dihati penganut-penganut Kristian. Sebagai tanda percaya, penganut Kristian menggunakan Triniti sebagai ‘ujian kertas litmus’ bagi tujuan menguji sejauh manakah ima seseorang itu. Tetapi sjrah telah membuktikan bahawa ada juga kalangan penganut Kristian yang menolak kepercayaan karut ini dan masih mengangga[ Nabi Jesus saas adalah hanya seorang utusan tuhan. Atas sebab itu, mereka telah dilayan dengan amat buruk sekali dan juga ditindas. Bukti-bukti yang mereka tunjukkan dalam kitab Pesanan Baru dan fakta tentang kehidupan Nabi Jesus saas selalunya diabaikan dan penganut Kristian dilarang bercakap mengenainya. Seperti yang akan dinyatakan didalam bab seterusnya oleh para anti-triniti Kristian bahawa mereka yang percayakan trinity telah menyekutukan Tuhan yang sebenar. Mendengarkan hal ini, pihak gereja Kristian yang mempunyai autoriti telah menangkap mereka dan mencucuh mereka dengan perkataan kafir, kufur dan musuh agama. Disebabkan takut keselamatan mereka terjejas, para anti triniti telah melarikan diri dan hidup sebagai pelarian di negara lain. Ada juga yang digantung, dibakar hidup-hidup, disalib dengan kuasa Inkues Mahkamah. Tindakan kejam pihak gereja ini sebenarnya sedikitpun tidak dapat mengurangkan jumlah anti-triniti dan penyebaran idealisme mereka. Ada juga para penyelidik yangh neutral telah sebulat suara melaporkan perkara itu di Zaman Kegelapan Eropah.

Paderi-paderi dan juga pendeta Kristian telah menfatwakan yang Triniti adalah merupakan Penebusan Dosa sedangkan ia lansung tidak dinyatakan didalam mana-mana bahagian didalam Pesanan Baru atau pada mana-mana skrip awal Kristian atau pada bahagian yang tidak dimasukkan didalam kitab Pesanan Baru. Akibatnya adalah sangat buruk, sebahagian besar penganut Kristian kontemporari telah sebulat suara menolak Triniti. Kebanyakan mereka menekankan kesalahan didalamnya adalah menyekutukan Tuhan. Pada hari ini kita boleh melihat ada pergerakan anti triniti dikalangan penganut Kristian yang tidak terikat pada mana-mana gereja atau pertubuhan Kristian. Sebagai contoh,di Amerika Syarikat, para anti trinity berkembang pada setiap hari dan ada peningkatan yang ketara berbanding abad yang sebelum ini. Antaranya ialah The Worldwide Church Of God yang diasaskan oleh Herbert W Armstrong menegaskan bahawa kepercayaan Triniti adalah tahyul semata-mata dan muncul akibat budaya paganism Greek purba yang amat popular ketika kemunculannya. The Seventh Day Adventist Movement juga adalah merupakan salah satu pertubuhan anti trinity. Perkataan Adventist bermaksud; orang-orang Kristian yang oercayakan kedatangan Nabi Jesus saas buat kali kedua. Mereka telah mendirikan mazhab Protestant diatas nama pertubuhan Aryan ( Arius adalah paderi muda di gereja Alexandria dan merupakan orang penting pada abad ketiga) telah secara terbuka menolak konsep triniti tetapi telah dilabelkan oleh pihak gereja sebagai menyimpang dari ajaran Kristian. Keputusan itu telah disokong oleh banyak gereja-gereja yang menyebabkan pengikut Aryanisme meninggalkan ajaran beliau dan terus memeluk kepercayaan triniti. Perubahan yang bertentangan aliran ini juga diakui oleh banyak ahli-ahli gereja ketika itu.

SAlah satu daripada fakta menarik tentang perkara ini ialah Triniti itu sendiri yang tidak tertulis didalam Bible ( samada Pesanan Baru@Lama, ataupun mana mana skrip awalnya ). Ia sebenarnya telah diilhamkan oleh seorang pendeta Kristian yang bergelar Theophilus of Antioch pada akhir kurun kedua. Penerimaan terhadap kepercayaan trinitio hanya berlaku beberapa lama selepas itu. Diatas fakta ini, para anti triniti telah mengemukakan persoalan kepada gereja-gereja Kristian yang pro trinity. Soaln tersebut adalah seperti berilkut:

Jika kepercayaan ini benar, mengapakah ianya tidak tercatat pada mana-mana bahagian didalam Bible atau pun mana-mana skrip awal Kristian? ( selain dari tulisan Theophilus of Antioch ) dan mengapakah penganut Kristian terdahulu lansung tidak mengamalkan atau tahu-menahu tentang triniti?

“ Tiada kepercayaan yang tidak dinyatakan dengan jelas didalam Pesanan Baru dimana kepercayaan tersebut tidak diketahui oleh penganut-penganut awal Kristian. Ini adalah satu kesilapan besar yang berlaku selepas pemergian Nabi Jesus (saas)”.

MASONIC HUMANISM: THE WORSHIP OF HUMANITY

The internal publications of the Masons describe in detail the humanist philosophy of the organization and their hostility to monotheism. There are countless explanations, interpretations, quotations and allegories offered on this subject in Masonic publications. 

As we said at the beginning, humanism has turned its face from the Creator of humanity and makes the mistake of regarding man as "the highest form of being in the universe." In fact, this implies the worship of humanity. This belief, that began with the Kabbalist humanists in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, continues so irrationally today in modern Masonry.

One of the fourteenth century's most famous humanists was Pico della Mirandola. His work entitled Conclusiones philosophicae, cabalisticae, et theologicae was condemned by Pope Innocent VIII in 1489 as containing heretical ideas. Mirandola wrote that there is nothing in the world higher than the glory of mankind. The Church saw this as a heretical idea that was nothing less than the worship of humanity. Indeed, this was a heretical idea because there is no other being to be glorified except Allah. Humanity is merely His creation.

Today, Masons proclaim Mirandola's heretical idea of the worship of humanity much more openly. For example, in a local Masonic booklet, it says:

Primitive societies were weak and, because of this weakness, they divinized the power and phenomena around them. But Masonry divinizes only humanity.45

In The Lost Keys of Freemasonry, Manly P. Hall explains that this Masonic humanist doctrine goes back to Ancient Egypt:

Man is a god in the making, and as in the mystic myths of Egypt, on the potter's wheel, he is being molded. When his light shines out to lift and preserve all things, he receives the triple crown of godhood, and joins that throng of Master Masons, who in their robe of Blue and Gold, are seeking to dispel the darkness of night with the triple light of the Masonic Lodge.46

According to the false belief of Masonry, human beings are gods, but only a grand master reaches the fullness of this divinity (Surely Allah is beyond that). The way to become a grand master is to fully reject the belief in Allah and the fact that human beings are His servants. Another writer, J.D. Buck, touches on this in his book Mystic Masonry:

The only personal God Freemasonry accepts is humanity in toto . . . Humanity therefore is the only personal god that there is.47

 Evidently, Masonry is a kind of religion. But, it is not a monotheistic religion; it is a humanist religion and, therefore, a false religion. It is a perversion that enjoins the worship of humanity, not of Allah. Masonic writings insist on this point. In an article in the magazine Turk Mason (The Turkish Mason), it says, "We always acknowledge that the high ideal of Masonry lies in 'Humanism' doctrine."48

Another Turkish publication explains that humanism is a religion:

Far from dry sermons on religious dogmas, but a genuine religion. And our humanism in which the meaning of life takes root, will satisfy the longings that youth are not aware of.49

How do the Masons serve this false religion they believe in? To see this, we must look a little more closely at the messages that they disseminate to society.

HUMANIST MORAL THEORY

Today, Masons in many countries are engaged in an effort to introduce themselves to the rest of society. Using press conferences, Internet sites, newspaper advertisements and statements, they describe themselves as an organization solely dedicated to the good of society. In some countries there are even charitable organizations supported by Masons.

The same thing is said by the Rotary and Lion's Club organizations, which are "light" versions of Masonry. All of these organizations insist that they are working for the good of society.

Certainly, to work for the good of society is not an undertaking to be discouraged, and we have no objection to it. But, behind their claim there is a deceptive message. Masons claim that there can be morality without religion, and that a moral world can be established without religion. And, the intention behind all their charitable work is to spread this message in society.

HUMANIST MORAL THEORY

Today, Masons in many countries are engaged in an effort to introduce themselves to the rest of society. Using press conferences, Internet sites, newspaper advertisements and statements, they describe themselves as an organization solely dedicated to the good of society. In some countries there are even charitable organizations supported by Masons.

The same thing is said by the Rotary and Lion's Club organizations, which are "light" versions of Masonry. All of these organizations insist that they are working for the good of society.

Certainly, to work for the good of society is not an undertaking to be discouraged, and we have no objection to it. But, behind their claim there is a deceptive message. Masons claim that there can be morality without religion, and that a moral world can be established without religion. And, the intention behind all their charitable work is to spread this message in society.

We will see shortly why this claim is so deceitful. But, before that, it will be useful to consider the views of Masons on this subject. On the Masons' Internet site, the possibility of "morality without religion" is described in this way:

What is human? Where does he come from and where is he going?... How does a person live? How does he have to live? Religions try to answer these questions with the help of moral principles that they have set. However they relate their principles with metaphysical concepts like God, heaven, hell, worship. And people have to find their principles of life without being involved in metaphysical problems, which they need to believe in without comprehending. Freemasonry has been declaring these principles for centuries as freedom, equality, brotherhood, the love of working and peace, democracy, etc. These release a person totally from the religious creeds but still give a principle of life. They search their bases not in metaphysical concepts but inside a mature person living on this earth.50

Masons who think in this way are totally opposed to a person believing in Allah and performing acts of charity to gain His approval. For them, everything must be done only for the sake of humanity. We can clearly discern this way of thinking in a book published by the Turkish lodges:

Masonic morality is based on love for humanity. It totally rejects being good through hope for the future, a benefit, a reward, and paradise, out of fear of another person, a religious or political institution, unknown supernatural powers… It only espouses and exalts being good in relation to the love for family, country, human beings and humanity. This is one of the most significant aims of Freemasonic evolution. To love people and to be good without expecting something in return and to reach this level are the great evolution.51

The claims in the above quotation are highly misleading. Without the moral discipline of religion there can be no sense of self-sacrifice for the rest of society. And, where this would appear to be accomplished, relationships are merely superficial. Those who have no sense of religious morality have no fear of Allah or respect for Him, and in those places where there is no fear of Allah, human beings are concerned only for their own gain. When people think that their personal interests are at stake, they cannot express true love, loyalty or affection. They show love and respect only to those who may be of benefit to them. This is because, according to this misconception of theirs, they are in this world only once and, therefore, will take as much from it as they can. Moreover, according to this false belief, there is no retribution for any dishonesty or evil they commit in the world.

Masonic literature is full of moral sermons which try to obfuscate this fact. But, actually, this morality without religion is nothing but sham rhetoric. History is full of examples to show that, without the self-discipline that religion confers upon the human spirit, and without Divine law, true morality cannot in any way be established.

A striking example of this was the great French Revolution of 1789. The Masons, who fomented the revolution, came forth with slogans shouting the moral ideals of "liberty, equality and fraternity." Yet, tens of thousands of innocent people were sent to the guillotine, and the country soaked in blood. Even the leaders of the revolution themselves could not escape this savagery, but were sent to the guillotine, one after the other.

In the nineteenth century, communism was born from the error of the possibility of morality without religion, and with even more disastrous results. Communism supposedly demanded a just, equal society in which there was no exploitation and, to this end, proposed the abolition of religion. However, in the twentieth century, in places such as the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, China, Indo-China, several countries in Africa and Central America, it subjected people to dreadful misery. Communist regimes murdered an incredible number of people; the total number nears about 120 million.52 Moreover, contrary to what has been claimed, justice and equality have never been established in any communist regime; the communist leaders in charge of the state comprised a class of elites. (In his classic book entitled The New Class, the Yugoslavian thinker Milovan Djilas, explains that the communist leaders, known as "nomenklatura," formed a "privileged class" contrary to the claims of communism.)  

Also today, when we look within Masonry itself, which is constantly pronouncing its ideas of "service to society" and "sacrifice for humanity," we do not find a very clean record. In many countries, Masonry has been the focus of relationships for ill-gotten material gain. In the P2 Masonic Lodge scandal of Italy in the 1980's, it came to light that the Masons maintained a close relationship with the mafia, and that the directors of the lodge were engaged in activities such as arms-smuggling, the drug trade or money laundering. It was also revealed that they arranged assaults on their rivals and on those who had betrayed them. In the "Great Eastern Lodge Scandal" of France in 1992, and in the "Clean Hands" operation in England, reported in the English press in 1995, the activities of Masonic lodges in the interests of illegal profit became clear. The Masons' idea of "humanist morality" is only a sham.

That such a thing should happen is inevitable, because, as we said at the beginning, morality is only established in society by the moral discipline of religion. At the basis of morality lies the absence of arrogance and selfishness, and the only ones who can achieve this state are those who realize their responsibility to Allah. In the Qur'an, after Allah tells of believers' self-sacrifice, He commands "…It is the people who are safe-guarded from the avarice of their own selves who are successful." (Surat al-Hashr: 9). This is the true basis of morality.

In the Sura Furqan of the Qur'an, the nature of the morality of true believers is described in this way:

The servants of the All-Merciful are those who walk lightly on the earth and, who, when the ignorant speak to them, say, "Peace";

those who pass the night prostrating and standing before their Lord...

those who, when they spend, are neither extravagant nor mean, but take a stance mid way between the two;

those who do not call on any other god together with Allah and do not kill anyone Allah has made inviolate, except with the right to do so, and do not fornicate...

those who do not bear false witness and who, when they pass by worthless talk, pass by with dignity;

those who, when they are reminded of the Signs of their Lord, do not turn their backs, deaf and blind to them. (Surat al-Furqan: 63-73)

That is, the basic duty of believers is to submit to Allah in humility, "not to turn their backs, as if they were deaf and blind when they are reminded of His signs." Because of this duty, a person is saved from the selfishness of the ego, worldly passions, ambitions, and the concern to make himself liked by others. The kind of morality mentioned in the verses above is attained by these means alone. For this reason, in a society lacking in love and fear of Allah and faith in Him, there is no morality. Since nothing can be determined absolutely, each determines what is right and wrong according to his own desires.

Actually, the primary aim of Masonry's secular-humanist moral philosophy is, not to establish a moral world, but to establish a secular world. In other words, Masons do not espouse the philosophy of humanism because they grant a high importance to morality, but only to transmit to society their notion that religion is not necessary.

THE MASONIC GOAL:

TO ESTABLISH A HUMANIST WORLD

As we have already seen, Masons are tied to humanist philosophy. That is why they reject faith in Allah, and the worship of human beings, or the veneration of "humanity" in His place (Surely Allah is beyond that). But, this raises an important question: do Masons reserve this belief for themselves only, or do they wish it to be adopted by others as well?

When we look at Masonic writings, we can clearly see the answer to this question: the goal of this organization is to spread the humanist philosophy throughout the world, and to eradicate the monotheistic religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism).

For example, in an article published in the Masonic magazine Mimar Sinan, it says, "Masons do not search for the origin of the ideas of evil, justice and honesty beyond the physical world, they believe that these things arise from a person's social conditions, social relationships and what he strives for in his life." and adds, "Masonry is trying to spread this idea throughout the whole world."53

Selami Isindag, a senior Turkish Mason, writes:

According to Masonry, in order to rescue humanity from a morality of the supernatural based on religious sources, it is necessary to establish a morality that is based on love for humanity which is not relative. In its traditional moral principles, Masonry has taken into account the tendencies of the human organism, its needs and their satisfaction, the rules of social life and their organization, conscience, freedom of thought and speech and, finally, all the things that go into the formation of natural life. Because of this, its goal is to establish and foster human morality in all societies.54

What Master Mason Isindag means by "rescuing human beings from a morality based on religious sources" is the alienation of all people from religion. In the same book, Isindag explains this goal and its supposed "principles for the establishment of an advanced civilization":

Masonry's positive principles are necessary and sufficient for the establishment of an advanced civilization. They are:

-The acceptance that the impersonal God (the Great Architect of the Universe) is evolution itself.

-The rejection of the belief in revelation, mysticism and empty beliefs.

-The superiority of rational humanism and labor.

The first of the three articles above entails the rejection of the existence of Allah. (Masons do not believe in Allah, but in the Great Architect of the Universe, and the above quotation shows that with this term, they mean evolution.) The second article rejects revelation from Allah and religious knowledge based on it. (Isindag himself defines this as "empty beliefs.") And the third article ignorantly exalts humanism and the humanist concept of "labor" (as in Communism).

If we consider how entrenched these perverted ideas have become in the world today, we can appreciate the influence of Masonry in it.

There is another important thing to take note of here: how has Masonry put into motion its mission against religion? When we look at Masonic writings, we see that they imagine they can destroy religion, especially on the societal level, by means of mass "propaganda." Master Mason Selami Isindag throws a lot of light on this matter in this passage from his book:

…Even overly repressive regimes have not been successful in their attempts to destroy the institution of religion. Indeed, the harsh excesses of political methods, in their attempt to enlighten society by rescuing people from empty religious faith and dogmas produced an adverse reaction: the places of worship they wanted close are today fuller than ever, and the faith and dogmas that that they outlawed have even more adherents. In another lecture we pointed out that in such a matter that touches heart and emotion, prohibition and force have no effect. The only way to bring people from darkness to enlightenment is positive science and the principles of logic and wisdom. If people are educated according to this way, they will respect the humanist and positive sides of religion but save themselves from its vain beliefs and dogmas.55

In order to understand what is meant here, we have to analyze it carefully. Isindag says that repression of religion will make religious people more highly motivated and will strengthen religion. Therefore, in order to prevent religion from being strengthened, Isindag thinks Masons should destroy religion on the intellectual level. What he means by "positive science and principles of logic and wisdom" is not really science, logic or wisdom. What he means is merely a humanist, materialist philosophy that uses these catch-phrases as camouflage, as in the case of Darwinism. Isindag asserts that, when these ideas are disseminated in society, "only the humanist elements in religion will gain respect," that is, what will be left of religion will be only those elements approved by the humanist philosophy. In other words, they want to reject the basic truths that lie at the foundation of monotheistic religion (Isindag call

them vain beliefs and dogmas). These truths are the ultimate realities such as that man is created by Allah and is responsible to Him.

It is clear that Isindag and the Masons who share his ideas are in a state of serious error.

In short, Masons aim at destroying the elements of faith that constitute the essence of religion. They want to reduce the role of religion as merely a cultural element that in their view should express its ideas on a number of general moral questions. The way to accomplish this, according to the Masons, is to impose atheism on the society in the guise of supposed positive science and reason. Ultimately though, their goal is to remove religion from its position as even a cultural element, and establish a totally atheist world.

In an article by Isindag, in the magazine Mason, entitled "Positive Science–The Obstacles of Mind and Masonry," he says:

As a result of all this, I want to say that the most important humanistic and Masonic duty of us all is not to turn away from science and reason, to acknowledge that this is the best and only way according to evolution, to spread this faith of ours among people and to educate the people in positive science. The words of Ernest Renan are very important: "If the people are educated and enlightened by positive science and reason, the vain beliefs of religion will collapse by themselves." Lessing's words support this view: "If human beings are educated and enlightened by positive science and reason, one day there will be no need for religion."56

This is Masonry's ultimate goal. They want to destroy religion completely, and establish a humanist world based on the "sacredness" of humanity. That is, they want to establish a new order of ignorance, in which people reject Allah Who created them, and consider themselves Divine… This goal is the purpose for the existence of Masonry. In the Masonic magazine called Ayna (Mirror), this is called a "Temple of Ideas":

Modern Masons have changed the goal of the old Masons to build a physical temple into the idea of building a "Temple of Ideas." The construction of a Temple of Ideas will be possible when Masonic principles and virtues are established and such wise people increase on the earth.57

To further this goal, Masons work tirelessly in many countries of the world. The Masonic organization is influential in universities, other educational institutions, in the media, in the world of art and ideas. It never ceases in its efforts to disseminate its humanist philosophy in society and to discredit the truths of the faith that is the basis of religion. We will see later that the theory of evolution is one of Masons' principal means of propaganda. Moreover, they aim to build a society that does not mention even the name of Allah or religion, but caters only to human pleasure, desires and worldly ambition. This will be a society formed by people who have "made (Allah) into something to cast disdainfully behind their backs" (Surah Hud: 92), similar to the people of Madyan mentioned in the Qur'an. In this culture of ignorance there is no room for the fear or love of Allah, doing His will, performing acts of worship, nor is there any thought for the hereafter. In fact, these ideas are thought to be old-fashioned and characteristic of uneducated people. This deceptive message is being constantly used for indoctrination in films, comic strips and novels.

In this great enterprise of deception, the Masons continually play a leadership role. But, there are also many other groups and individuals engaged in the same work. Masons accept them as "honorary Masons," and count them as their allies because they are all one in their shared humanist philosophy. Selami Isindag writes:

Masonry also accepts this fact: In the outside world there are wise people who, although they are not Masons, espouse Masonic ideology. This is because this ideology is wholly an ideology of human beings and of humanity.58

This persistent battle against religion relies on two basic arguments or justifications: the materialist philosophy and Darwin's theory of evolution.

In the following chapters we will examine these two justifications, their origin and their relationship to Masonry. Then, we will be able to understand more clearly the behind-the-scenes of these lies that have influenced the world since the nineteenth century.

Glad Tidings of The 21st Century

In this book, we have examined atheism's collapse during the past 30 years, the increase of faith in God throughout certain parts of the world, and the growth of religion. We also showed that the most important factor in this growth is being played by Islam. We considered the rising rate of conversion, and the interest expressed by government officials, politicians, and the media in Islam. Putting all of this information together, it becomes apparent that there is a strong movement toward Islam in many countries, and that Islam is increasingly becoming the most important topic of world interest. These developments indicate that the world is moving toward a totally new era, one in which, God willing, Islam will gain in importance and the Qur'an's moral teachings will spread like a rising tide. It is important to realize that this highly significant development was announced in the Qur'an 14 centuries ago:

They desire to extinguish God's Light with their mouths. But God refuses to do other than perfect His Light, even though the unbelievers detest it. It is He Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the True Religion to exalt it over every other religion, even though the idolaters detest it. (Qur'an, 9:32-33)

The Qur'an also that indicates that Islamic morality will spread throughout the world, for God wills the following:

God has promised those of you who believe and do right actions that He will make them successors in the land, as He made those before them successors, and will firmly establish for them their religion, with which He is pleased, and give them, in place of their fear, security. "They worship Me, not associating anything with Me." Any who disbelieve after that, such people are deviators. (Qur'an, 24: 55)

It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the True Religion to exalt it over every other religiond, even though the idolaters detest it. (Qur'an, 9:33) 

The spread of Islamic morality is one of God's promises to believers. In addition to these verses, many sayings of our Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, assert that the Qur'an's moral teachings will prevail. In the last days before the end of the world, humanity will experience a period in which wrongdoing, injustice, deceit, fraud, wars, strife, conflict, and moral degeneration is wide-spread. Then will come the Golden Age, in which these moral teachings will begin to spread among people like a rising tide and finally prevail throughout the world. Some of these sayings, as well learned commentaries upon them, are given below:

During this [period], my ummah [people] would lead such a comfortable and carefree life which they never led like that. [The land] would bring forth its yield and would not hold back anything and the property at that time would be a stack. (Sunan Ibn-i Majah)

… The dwellers of the heavens and the earth will be pleased. The earth will bring forth all that grows, and the heavens will pour down rains in abundance. From all the good that God will bestow on the inhabitants of the earth, the living will wish that the dead would come to life again. (Mukhtasar Tazkirah Qurtubi, p .437 )

The earth would turn like the silver tray growing vegetation... (Sunan Ibn-i Majah)

The earth will be filled with equity and justice as it was pre viously filled with oppression and tyranny. (Abu Dawud)

... There will be no injustice or oppression. (ad-Dani)

Rather We hurl the truth against falsehood and it cuts right through it and it vanishes clean away! Woe without end for
you for what you portray!
(Qur'an, 21:18) 

God has written: ‘I will be victorious, I and My Messengers.’ God is Most Strong, Almighty.
(Qur’an, 58:21)

Based upon these statements, the Golden Age will be an era in which justice, plenty, abundance, well-being, security, peace, and brotherhood will prevail among humanity, and one in which people will experience love, self-sacrifice, tolerance, compassion, mercy, and loyalty. In his sayings, our Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, says that this blessed period will be experienced through the mediation of the Mahdi, who will come in the end times to save the world form chaos, injustice, and moral collapse. He will eradicate godless ideologies and bring an end to the prevailing injustice. Moreover, he will make religion like it was in the days of our Prophet, cause the Qur'an's moral teachings to prevail among humanity, and establish peace and well-being throughout the world.

This difficult responsibility requires serious effort. It is highly probable, as some Islamic scholars point out, that the Mahdi, who will realize this goal, is a spiritual being who will rule in the last days (God knows best). When the time comes, this spiritual being will use its foundation of Islamic morality to lead humanity to a modern enlightened world in which peace and well-being prevail. This is what doing the work of the Mahdi means. However, every spiritual movement needs to have a leader. The Mahdi is that leader who will come in the end times.

The rise of Islam being experienced in the world today, as well as Turkey's role in the new era are important signs that the period announced in the Qur'an and in our Prophet's sayings is very close. It is our heartfelt desire that God will let us witness this blessed time.

BELIEF IN THE TRINITY EMERGED CENTURIES AFTER PROPHET JESUS (PBUH)

Christians believe in the Holy Bible, which consists of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Although these texts have been corrupted, one can still find in them some facts about Christianity, rules about how they are to live, and examples of Christian moral values. However, no Biblical passage mentions belief in the trinity, and neither this word nor one similar to it appears in the New Testament. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that the trinity was unknown to the first Christians and only assumed this form in the fourth century:


It is difficult, in the second half of the 20th century, to offer a clear, objective, and straightforward account of the revelation, … and the theological elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, present a somewhat unsteady silhouette… There is recognition on the part of exegetist and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition - that when one does speak of unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'one God in three persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought. 2

Trinitarianism only became Church dogma in the fourth century. Before that time, there had been lengthy debates between its proponents and its detractors. These debates came to a head at the Council of Nicaea in 325.

The Council of Nicaea (325), the largest gathering of Church officials until that time, brought together more than 300 clergy members from Rome, Asia Minor, Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, and Egypt. It was called by Roman Emperor Constantine I, who wanted to end this divisive debate for the sake of Byzantium's future and security. At this Council, the belief that constituted the basis of Christianity would be defined for the security of the Empire, according to a decision to be taken by human beings. Saint Gregory of Nyssa describes the ensuing debates in these terms (Surely God is beyond the expressions employed in this extract):

Every corner of Constantinople was full of their discussions: the streets, the market place, the shops of the money-changers, the victuallers. Ask a tradesman how many obols he wants for some article in his shop, and he replies with the disquisition on generated and ungenerated being. Ask the price of bread today and the baker tells you: "The son is subordinate to the father." Ask your servant if the bath is ready and he makes an answer: "The son arose out of nothing." "Great is the only Begotten," declared the Catholics, and the Arians rejoined: "But greater is He that begot."3

Constantine permitted the Empire's Christians considerable freedom of belief and worship, despite the fact that he was not a Christian and continued to protect Rome's traditional pagan beliefs. In his quest to further the empire's interests, he worked for a compromise between, or even a coming together of, all of its various religions, particularly between the cult of Sol Invictus, based on Sun worship, and Christianity. Concerned over how the Christians had embarked on an internal theological debate just when he was trying to bring the religions together, he convened this council. One side were those who believed that Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was God made flesh on Earth. (Surely God is beyond that!) The leader of this group was Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria. On the other side was the celebrated Egyptian priest Arius.

Arius was the son of an Egyptian family of Libyan origins who grew up in Alexandria, one of the most important cities of the time, and joined the Church, becoming a priest in 312. Arius believed in God's oneness and preached that the current Church view of Prophet Jesus (pbuh) as God was mistaken. He said that the title the Son of God used to describe Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was a metaphor and had nothing to do with his supposed divinity. To prove this, he pointed to: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God (Matthew 5:9). He emphasized that this title applied to everyone who behaved according to God's wishes, and thus could not be limited to Prophet Jesus (pbuh). In one of his works, Arius wrote: "We can all become the sons of God."4 He also pointed to the prayers of Prophet Jesus (pbuh) in the New Testament, which began with "My God," and said that such prayers showed that Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was devoted to God and, like other people, His helpless servant. Arius also noted that in the New Testament Prophet Jesus (pbuh) frequently referred to himself as the son of man, and emphasized that this indicated Prophet Jesus' human nature.

As the priest in residence at Baucalis, a district of Alexandria, Arius communicated these ideas to a wide audience. Due to the consistence and convincing nature of what he said, and also to his modest and simple lifestyle, those who listened to him easily accepted his ideas. However Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, who was loyal to the Church in Rome which regarded Prophet Jesus as the son of God, not in the metaphorical sense, but as a true deity (Surely God is beyond that), became uneasy with such ideas. After failing to convince Arius to alter his opinions, he initiated a fierce assault against him. He described this in his own writings:

This movement has spread ever wider, to all of Egypt, Libya and Upper Thebes. At this, we too met with the bishops of Egypt and Libya, and cursed this movement and all its followers at an assembly of around a hundred people…5

The condemnation was not solely verbal. In 318, Arius and his followers were excommunicated. Arius, his two closest assistants (Bishop Theonas and Secundus), and 12 priests were exiled to Palestine. Before going into exile in Palestine, Arius collected his ideas in a lyrical book called Thalia.

However, here too Arius found sympathizers. And so his movement, which strongly opposed many of the ideas of the Roman Church, continued to spread. When reports of this reached Constantine, who had taken the Church of Rome under his protection in order to build religious unity, he realized that he was dealing with a major problem: internal division of the Church. He therefore decided to re-establish unity without further loss of time. This was why he convened the Council of Nicaea, one of Christianity's major turning points.

The Council of Nicaea


Constantine first sought to resolve the conflict by sending letters to both sides explaining that unity was more important than anything else. When he saw that his letters were not having the desired effect, he decided, at the suggestion of Bishop Hosius, to call a World Church Council, or synod, at Nicaea to give an exact definition of the trinity. Those who rejected this belief were declared heretics.

Although the council members sought to give the impression of a democratic forum, in reality the emperor brought enormous pressure to bear on the participants. Not surprisingly, the side that he supported, the Church of Rome, emerged victorious. Of the 300 or so participating priests, only around 20 were close to Arius. One reason that there were so few priests from the Arian-influenced Eastern Church, was that the council was moved to Nicaea, instead of held in Ankara as originally planned, which was further to the north-west.6 In addition, the council took place in the emperor's summer palace located in Nicaea. For that reason, the emperor attended all of the council sessions, and his authority was naturally reflected in the decisions taken.

The Nicene Creed, the clearest and most concrete expression of the alleged deification of Prophet Jesus (pbuh), says: (Surely God is beyond all the expressions follow!):

We believe… in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.7

The first paragraph clearly denies Arianism. The Church of Rome, which awarded itself the title of Catholic (Universal) Church, declared the Arians and those who shared the same views to be heretics.

From this time on, the Nicene Creed became the basis of the Christian faith, and those who opposed it were considered heretics. The Roman Catholic Church declared that "God has manifested His will in this council" for which reason the Nicene Creed was regarded as a sacred and infallible text, just like a revelation. But in reality, this was nothing more than the Church of Rome asserting its will.

Following the council, the Arianis came under great pressure, and supporters of Arius who refused to sign the Nicene Creed were anathematized. However, they held out for another 50 years or so, before gradually withdrawing from the stage of history toward the end of the fourth century due to continued Church repression. Yet objections to the official Nicene Creed continued, which meant that more councils had to be held to debate the new ideas being put forward. Despite all of the arguments, however, the superstitious belief in One in Three and Three in One was never attacked. (This superstitious belief referred to God having three different identities, all of which were equal, infinite and in common.) During Constantine's reign, not only were such beliefs as the Nicene Creed expanded, but the New Testament also assumed its current form. No complete version of the New Testament in our possession today is any older than the time of Constantine.8

Throughout the 50 years that followed the Council of Nicaea, Athanasius defended and further developed the Nicene formula, because the belief in the trinity had not yet assumed its final form. The third member of the trinity, the Holy Spirit, remained vague. In the fourth century, a second general council chaired by Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople, met in the city (modern-day Istanbul). At its conclusion, the council declared that the Holy Spirit was the third member of the trinity, and that all three members were equal in terms of greatness.9 (Surely God is beyond all that!) Therefore, trinitarianism assumed its final form only four centuries after Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was raised to God's presence. At this council, another belief not found in the Bible was put forward: homoousion, that the trinity's three members had the same essence and equal powers. (Surely God is beyond that!)

Another important matter is how belief in the trinity was first put forward.

Among Christians, belief in the trinity is generally seen as being difficult to comprehend and impossible to understand, but one that must absolutely be accepted. The reason for this is that the proponents of the trinity also claim to be monotheists. Yet it is clear that no Christian has ever been able to explain how trinitarianism and monotheism can exist together. The questions arising in people's minds have not been satisfactorily answered. Neither is it possible for them to be. Therefore, they maintain that the trinity is an article of faith that does not need to be thought about or understood, for it must be accepted as it stands.10 For hundreds of years, this has prevented any serious discussion on this belief's clear errors and inconsistencies. To summarize: Belief in the trinity is a matter of blind faith concerning which any debate or discussion is prohibited.

Many Biblical scholars describe the period between Prophet Jesus (pbuh) being raised to God's presence and the Council of Constantinople as the deification of Prophet Jesus (pbuh), the messenger of God. This theological concept went through a number of specific stages, at the end of which it was assumed that Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was divine. (Surely God is beyond that!) This process will be examined in more detail in later chapters.