General Issues / Questions

If you have read the online book on the Arab Conspiracy, then know that I am making a reference to that artiel when I ask the question below. What about the Surah Fil where it talks about the attack by the army of Elephants? Isn't it referring to the attack on Mecca? So why was God protecting Mecca if there is no holy mosque there?

Peace family. I've just seen something on the nightly news today; The actor Mel Gibson has spent $25 million of his own money to put together a movie that it is supposed to be (according to him) the true and detailed account of the "Crucifixion" of Jesus. Mr. Gibson believes his account to be both true and accurate because as he puts it "I get my facts directly from the Bible." Apparently Mr. Gibson is one of those people who do not beleive that there is any inaccuracy or contradictions whatsoever in the Bible. Another thing that I've learned tonight is that Mr. Gibson belongs to a Catholic denomination that recognizes neither the Pope nor the Vatican Authority. In fact, this Catholic denomination does not even rocognize the Pope or the Vatican as even being legitimate, let alone authoritative. Already there is much controversy and much "heated" debate concerning the film mainly due to Mr. Gibsons interpretation (and thus, his account) but also because of what many consider to be not only violent but a "source" for fresh debates and "re-newed" feelings of Anti-Semitism. Supposedly Mel Gibson, in this film, portrays the Jews as being the enemies of "Chrisianity" in a subtle way throught this film, which is supposed to hit the theaters by the way once it is completed. This movie is reported to be about the final 12 hours of Jesus' life and struggles with the Jews, particularly the Jewish Rabbis or Pharisee's. There has been objections and ridicule from both the Jewish community as well as from some Christians who, I suppose for their own denominational reasons, also disagree with Mel Gibsons story of Jesus. By the way, Mel Gibson denies any ideas or notions of the Bible not being true and accurate. He believes in it Heart and Soul. I will keep my eyes and ears open on this one. Believe me, we haven't heard the last of this..... On a closing note, I was informed that the sunni muslim world now has a Biography of Aisha, the wife of Prophet Muhammad. If I was told correctly, this book is supposedly 200+ pages. If that's the case, then I'm sure they had to fabricate some newer hadith to fill in the gaps that the older hadiths have left. Think about; 200 and something pages....About Aisha!!! That's a lot of hadith because I'm willing to bet that you'll find not one single verse from the Quran in this so-called Biography. A sunni muslimah has the book and has volunteered some information concerning it. There is a detailed account of how Muhammad had first met her and there are chapters/accounts going into the proposal and the wedding ceremony itself. I would like to see this book for myself because even though I'm not surprised that tradtional muslims could put together such a work, it is truly amazing that it can be the size that I was informed that it is. Remember, there are biographies of Prophet Muhammad that are that size. It's truly a shame that we have people in the world who have made concience decision to take GOD for a joke and work hard to have the rest of mankind do the same. I pray to GOD Almighty that he will make the GOD Alone movement triumphant very soon. Peace y'all, be good. Damon.

I'm not an Arab and therefore don't know Arabi but in light of recent events, I really need to learn it. Is there a good book for learning Arabic? I don't want a book that translates words so they can match up with the Arabic Relgion. Any recommendations? How many of you were born speaking or have learned Arabic? Just wondering.

Peace everyone... Buddhism it turns out is NOT a religion. Its a way of looking at the world. I find the ideas quite compelling...in fact it would be easier for various sects to first become buddhist in their outlook...and then accept God's message...here are the basics from buddhanet.net. Introduction to Buddhism This short essay is intended to give a brief introduction to Buddhism. It will discuss the way Buddhists perceive the world, the four main teachings of the Buddha, the Buddhist view of the self, the relationship between this self and the various ways in which it responds to the world, the Buddhist path and the final goal. - Mike Butler The Three Marks of Existence Buddhism has been described as a very pragmatic religion. It does not indulge in metaphysical speculation about first causes; there is no theology, no worship of a deity or deification of the Buddha. Buddhism takes a very straightforward look at our human condition; nothing is based on wishful thinking, at all. Everything that the Buddha taught was based on his own observation of the way things are. Everything that he taught can be verified by our own observation of the way things are. If we look at our life, very simply, in a straightforward way, we see that it is marked with frustration and pain. This is because we attempt to secure our relationship with the "world out there", by solidifying our experiences in some concrete way. For example, we might have dinner with someone we admire very much, everything goes just right, and when we get home later we begin to fantasise about all the things we can do with our new-found friend, places we can go etc. We are going through the process of trying to cement our relationship. Perhaps, the next time we see our friend, she/he has a headache and is curt with us; we feel snubbed, hurt, all our plans go out the window. The problem is that the "world out there" is constantly changing, everything is impermanent and it is impossible to make a permanent relationship with anything, at all. If we examine the notion of impermanence closely and honestly, we see that it is all-pervading, everything is marked by impermanence. We might posit an eternal consciousness principle, or higher self, but if we examine our consciousness closely we see that it is made up of temporary mental processes and events. We see that our "higher self" is speculative at best and imaginary to begin with. We have invented the idea to secure ourselves, to cement our relationship, once again. Because of this we feel uneasy and anxious, even at the best of times. It is only when we completely abandon clinging that we feel any relief from our queasiness. These three things pain, impermanence and egolessness are known as the three marks of existence. The Four Noble Truths The first sermon that the Buddha preached after his enlightenment was about the four noble truths. The first noble truth is that life is frustrating and painful. In fact, if we are honest with ourselves, there are times when it is downright miserable. Things may be fine with us, at the moment, but, if we look around, we see other people in the most appalling condition, children starving, terrorism, hatred, wars, intolerance, people being tortured and we get a sort of queasy feeling whenever we think about the world situation in even the most casual way. We, ourselves, will some day grow old, get sick and eventually die. No matter how we try to avoid it, some day we are going to die. Even though we try to avoid thinking about it, there are constant reminders that it is true. The second noble truth is that suffering has a cause. We suffer because we are constantly struggling to survive. We are constantly trying to prove our existence. We may be extremely humble and self-deprecating, but even that is an attempt to define ourselves. We are defined by our humility. The harder we struggle to establish ourselves and our relationships, the more painful our experience becomes. The third noble truth is that the cause of suffering can be ended. Our struggle to survive, our effort to prove ourselves and solidify our relationships is unnecessary. We, and the world, can get along quite comfortably without all our unnecessary posturing. We could just be a simple, direct and straight-forward person. We could form a simple relationship with our world, our coffee, spouse and friend. We do this by abandoning our expectations about how we think things should be. This is the fourth noble truth the way, or path to end the cause of suffering. The central theme of this way is meditation. Meditation, here, means the practice of mindfulness/awareness, shamata/vipashyana in Sanskrit. We practice being mindful of all the things that we use to torture ourselves with. We become mindful by abandoning our expectations about the way we think things should be and, out of our mindfulness, we begin to develop awareness about the way things really are. We begin to develop the insight that things are really quite simple, that we can handle ourselves, and our relationships, very well as soon as we stop being so manipulative and complex. The Five Skandhas The Buddhist doctrine of egolessness seems to be a bit confusing to westerners. I think this is because there is some confusion as to what is meant by ego. Ego, in the Buddhist sense, is quite different from the Freudian ego. The Buddhist ego is a collection of mental events classified into five categories, called skandhas, loosely translated as bundles, or heaps. If we were to borrow a western expression, we could say that "in the beginning" things were going along quite well. At some point, however, there was a loss of confidence in the way things were going. There was a kind of primordial panic which produced confusion about what was happening. Rather than acknowledging this loss of confidence, there was an identification with the panic and confusion. Ego began to form. This is known as the first skandha, the skandha of form. After the identification with confusion, ego begins to explore how it feels about the formation of this experience. If we like the experience, we try to draw it in. If we dislike it, we try to push it away, or destroy it. If we feel neutral about it, we just ignore it. The way we feel about the experience is called the skandha of form; what we try to do about it is known as the skandha of impulse/perception. The next stage is to try to identify, or label the experience. If we can put it into a category, we can manipulate it better. Then we would have a whole bag of tricks to use on it. This is the skandha of concept. The final step in the birth of ego, is called the skandha of consciousness. Ego begins to churn thoughts and emotions around and around. This makes ego feel solid and real. The churning around and around is called samsara -- literally, to whirl about. The way ego feels about its situation (skandha of feeling) determines which of the six realms of existence it creates for itself. The Six Realms If ego decides it likes the situation, it begins to churn up all sorts of ways to possess it. A craving to consume the situation arises and we long to satisfy that craving. Once we do, a ghost of that craving carries over and we look around for something else to consume. We get into the habitual pattern of becoming consumer oriented. Perhaps we order a piece of software for our computer. We play with it for awhile, until the novelty wears out, and then we look around for the next piece of software that has the magic glow of not being possessed yet. Soon we haven't even got the shrink wrap off the current package when we start looking for the next one. Owning the software and using it doesn't seem to be as important as wanting it, looking forward to its arrival. This is known as the hungry ghost realm where we have made an occupation out of craving. We can never find satisfaction, it is like drinking salt water to quench our thirst. Another realm is the animal realm, or having the mind like that of an animal. Here we find security by making certain that everything is totally predictable. We only buy blue chip stock, never take a chance and never look at new possibilities. The thought of new possibilities frightens us and we look with scorn at anyone who suggests anything innovative. This realm is characterised by ignorance. We put on blinders and only look straight ahead, never to the right or left. The hell realm is characterised by acute aggression. We build a wall of anger between ourselves and our experience. Everything irritates us, even the most innocuous, and innocent statement drives us mad with anger. The heat of our anger is reflected back on us and sends us into a frenzy to escape from our torture, which in turn causes us to fight even harder and get even angrier. The whole thing builds on itself until we don't even know if we're fighting with someone else or ourselves. We are so busy fighting that we can't find an alternative to fighting; the possibility of alternative never even occurs to us. These are the three lower realms. One of the three higher realms is called the jealous god realm. This pattern of existence is characterised by acute paranoia. We are always concerned with "making it". Everything is seen from a competitive point of view. We are always trying to score points, and trying to prevent others from scoring on us. If someone achieves something special we become determined to out do them. We never trust anyone; we "know" they're trying to slip one past us. If someone tries to help us, we try to figure out their angle. If someone doesn't try to help us, they are being uncooperative, and we make a note to ourselves that we will get even later. "Don't get mad, get even," that's our motto. At some point we might hear about spirituality. We might hear about the possibility of meditation techniques, imported from some eastern religion, or mystical western one, that will make our minds peaceful and absorb us into a universal harmony. We begin to meditate and perform certain rituals and we find ourselves absorbed into infinite space and blissful states of existence. Everything sparkles with love and light; we become godlike beings. We become proud of our godlike powers of meditative absorption. We might even dwell in the realm of infinite space where thoughts seldom arise to bother us. We ignore everything that doesn't confirm our godhood. We have manufactured the god realm, the highest of the six realms of existence. The problem is, that we have manufactured it. We begin to relax and no longer feel the need to maintain our exalted state. Eventually a small sliver of doubt occurs. Have we really made it? At first we are able to smooth over the question, but eventually the doubt begins to occur more and more frequently and soon we begin to struggle to regain our supreme confidence. As soon as we begin to struggle, we fall back into the lower realms and begin the whole process over and over; from god realm to jealous god realm to animal realm to hungry ghost realm to hell realm. At some point we begin to wonder if there isn't some sort of alternative to our habitual way of dealing with the world. This is the human realm. The human realm is the only one in which liberation from the six states of existence is possible. The human realm is characterised by doubt and inquisitiveness and the longing for something better. We are not as absorbed by the all consuming preoccupations of the other states of being. We begin to wonder whether it is possible to relate to the world as simple, dignified human beings. The Eightfold Path The path to liberation from these miserable states of being, as taught by the Buddha, has eight points and is known as the eightfold path. The first point is called right view -- the right way to view the world. Wrong view occurs when we impose our expectations onto things; expectations about how we hope things will be, or about how we are afraid things might be. Right view occurs when we see things simply, as they are. It is an open and accommodating attitude. We abandon hope and fear and take joy in a simple straight-forward approach to life. The second point of the path is called right intention. It proceeds from right view. If we are able to abandon our expectations, our hopes and fears, we no longer need to be manipulative. We don't have to try to con situations into our preconceived notions of how they should be. We work with what is. Our intentions are pure. The third aspect of the path is right speech. Once our intentions are pure, we no longer have to be embarrassed about our speech. Since we aren't trying to manipulate people, we don't have to be hesitant about what we say, nor do we need to try bluff our way through a conversation with any sort of phoney confidence. We say what needs to be said, very simply in a genuine way. The fourth point on the path, right discipline, involves a kind of renunciation. We need to give up our tendency to complicate issues. We practice simplicity. We have a simple straight-forward relationship with our dinner, our job, our house and our family. We give up all the unnecessary and frivolous complications that we usually try to cloud our relationships with. Right livelihood is the fifth step on the path. It is only natural and right that we should earn our living. Often, many of us don't particularly enjoy our jobs. We can't wait to get home from work and begrudge the amount of time that our job takes away from our enjoyment of the good life. Perhaps, we might wish we had a more glamorous job. We don't feel that our job in a factory or office is in keeping with the image we want to project. The truth is, that we should be glad of our job, whatever it is. We should form a simple relationship with it. We need to perform it properly, with attention to detail. The sixth aspect of the path is right effort. Wrong effort is struggle. We often approach a spiritual discipline as though we need to conquer our evil side and promote our good side. We are locked in combat with ourselves and try to obliterate the tiniest negative tendency. Right effort doesn't involve struggle at all. When we see things as they are, we can work with them, gently and without any kind of aggression whatsoever. Right mindfulness, the seventh step, involves precision and clarity. We are mindful of the tiniest details of our experience. We are mindful of the way we talk, the way we perform our jobs, our posture, our attitude toward our friends and family, every detail. Right concentration, or absorption is the eighth point of the path. Usually we are absorbed in absentmindedness. Our minds are completely captivated by all sorts of entertainment and speculations. Right absorption means that we are completely absorbed in nowness, in things as they are. This can only happen if we have some sort of discipline, such as sitting meditation. We might even say that without the discipline of sitting meditation, we can't walk the eightfold path at all. Sitting meditation cuts through our absentmindedness. It provides a space or gap in our preoccupation with ourselves. The Goal Most people have heard of nirvana. It has become equated with a sort of eastern version of heaven. Actually, nirvana simply means cessation. It is the cessation of passion, aggression and ignorance; the cessation of the struggle to prove our existence to the world, to survive. We don't have to struggle to survive after all. We have already survived. We survive now; the struggle was just an extra complication that we added to our lives because we had lost our confidence in the way things are. We no longer need to manipulate things as they are into things as we would like them to be. PS. Can we have links on the main index to discussions on other religions? Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Confucianism, etc. Please. ) Sha

I'm new to this whole idea of not actually bowing down. Did I misinterpret the articles on this website or is one actually not to bow down in prayer? Didn't the prophet used to do this? How am I supposed to pray?

Peace everyone... I am still working on this essay. Just thought I'll get some comments, opinions and suggestions from freeminders. So the first draft of the first section of this article is here. Enjoy! Freedom & Islam With Islam came the Scientific-Spiritual Age initiated by Muhammad, the last Prophet of God. It was a time of liberation, enlightenment and reason. Islam had not come as a religion but as a system that unchained man from dogma, economic servitude and social problems. By doing this it nurtured and propelled mankind?s mental, spiritual and material leap in time. This was made possible because ?freedom? happened to be the rallying cry of the Islamic faith. But the concept of freedom in Islam differs from what Western civilization has come to believe. In Islam, freedom is not an unattainable and utopian ideal but a reality based on solid foundations and rationale. As you will discover in the paragraphs to come, Islam was and is the true liberator. Spiritual emancipation Intellectual emancipation Physical emancipation Spiritual emancipation We begin by discussing the essence of the Islamic faith. The literal meaning of the word Islam is ?submission? or ?surrender?. The basis of this surrender is ?belief in One God?. In Islam, you believe in the one God and submit to God alone to the dismay of many gods. This concept alone forms the basis of freedom in Islam. In our search for freedom, there are four choices Must we surrender? The first choice is not to surrender. This is the present belief regarding freedom established by the Western civilization. Freedom and surrender, they will claim, contradict each other and therefore cannot co-exist. This argument is fine in refutation of the existence of freedom with surrender. But there is a presupposition Absolute freedom exists and it is possible. The question to be placed to this machine-age logic is Does absolute freedom exist? If it can be proven that absolute freedom is impossible and does not exist, would that imply that the next best thing to absolute freedom is maximum freedom? And if maximum freedom is the freedom we should aspire, and not absolute freedom, then what is this maximum freedom and how shall we achieve it? Let us look at a few examples. When you get up and drink a glass of water, you surrender to your thirst. When you eat food, you surrender to your hunger. When you obey your parents, you surrender to their desires. When you protect your country, you surrender to the King or the Parliament of the nation. Every action has behind it submission to some form of willpower. It could be yourself, your parents, your Parliament or your needs. If there is nothing that you surrender to nothing happens. So as far as absolute freedom goes, it does not exist. Since it does not exist you cannot achieve it. This is a logical fallacy which you cannot overcome. The best you can do is to aspire for maximum freedom and achieve it. And this is exactly what Islam promises a rational and achievable objective compared to the unachievable and utopian ideal professed by the West today. Surrender to yourself Since ?absolute freedom? does not exist, it is this second possibility which the West practically aspires to as their version of ?freedom?. Let us consider the actuality and affects of this kind of freedom. Before we do that please notice that we are ?surrendering?, even if to ourselves. So freedom, in its most basic, has to exist with surrender. The only question now is what or who to surrender to. Here we observe the bent of mind of a man, and a society, when he submits to his own desires. Surrendering yourself to your will gives you unlimited possibilities. You have become your own god. The only rule or law that you abide by is the achievement and accomplishment of your desire, through any and all means. Morality has no meaning since morality exists in a social context and you don?t care about the society, only about yourself. You are moral only as long as it fits your purpose. You abide by laws only as long as you fear being caught. The exhilaration of such freedom is enchanting. You can now lie, deceive, steal, cause pain and indulge at will. Nothing internal stops you from exploiting a dying man, disobeying and hurting your old parents, effecting financial fraud to the loss of many, killing a man for his gold watch, and so on. This is the maximum freedom you desired, the utopia you were promised and this is all you sought. It seems that you live in a perfect world. Since it is such bliss, let us say that everyone else also wants this kind of maximum freedom and the bliss that comes with it. And they attain with ease because they obviously don?t have to ask you or anyone else. They only have to follow their own desires to achieve it. Just like for you, neither morality nor law will stand in their way. So if everyone is free to do as their heart desires, what happens? You killed someone for his gold watch; someone will kill you for your gold watch. You organized a swindle to rob people of their wealth; someone will rob your wealth with an even better swindle. You disobeyed and disrespected your old parents; your children will do the same to you. You exploited a dying man; you will also be exploited as a dying man. Man?s base desires form the basis of all evil committed by man; submission to your own will is the same as surrendering to the devil. In a society of such men hunger prevails, exploitation is rampant, children die and women are raped. And all this is done mercilessly and unrepentantly. There is no end to the destruction caused by man?s submission to himself. Surrendering to himself, man achieves what he set out to achieve the end of civilization. In his search for freedom, man becomes a slave to his own cravings. If anything, this is slavery and not freedom. Submitting to yourself is definitely not the way to freedom. Islam, on the other hand, by telling you to surrender to God absolves man from the slavery of his own base instinct. Surrender to gods This is the route taken by most man-made religions or present-day distortions of Divine guidance. This is also the route taken by men who feel a moral obligation to their nation, their parents, their family and their friends. This moral obligation builds in them a desire to be ?appropriately inclined? towards most people they meet in life. They thus surrender to a ?higher morality? in their search for human happiness. The two cases are very different. Submission to gods, in the religious sense, causes you to accept the moral and social authority of Priests, Imams, Pandits and religious leaders by other names. Where a Prophet was involved, as he is in all Devine religions, humans have a tendency of placing their Prophet in the same league as God as far as obeying is concerned. This authority is first bestowed on the Prophet by the clergy, and eventually shared by the clergy along with the Prophet because of their so-called ability to interpret and explain what God requires from man for man?s salvation. The clergy first makes the Prophet, and then themselves, gods alongside God. Let us say that people surrender to a religious clergy and its interpretation of religion of what is right and what is wrong. This gives rise to competing clergies that want to have their way with your faith. And thus surface the religious sects we are so aware of. Present-day Islam is as much a victim of this same distortion as have been other Devine religions. When you obey God, the Prophet, the Priests/Imams of a bygone and revered era, and members of your present-day clergy, you are obeying a chaos of opinions and contradictions. You have surrendered to so many gods that it is humanly impossible to discern the truth from the falsehood. Faced with such impossibility, you stop thinking. And this is just what the greedy clerical order requires of you blind obedience to whichever school of thought you belong to. They control the gates of heaven and hell, and they care not what you do with your life as long as you revere them in the name of religion. Surrendering to many gods (dressed as religious leaders) results in the end of human reason faced with the ?divine truth? championed by the clergy; and it completes the subjugation of the spirit at the hands of forces suppressing light, truth and the right way. While your body is still free, slavery of the soul thus begins. To people who submit to a higher morality, the question of what this morality is difficult, if not impossible, to answer. What will be the guiding principles of that morality and who defines them is answered by each one according to his level of maturity and comprehension of the Divine principles. In their search for these principles, most of these people will read and refer to philosophers that have searched the secret to human happiness throughout history. The philosophers used reason and logic to discern these eternal principles and these submitters to a higher morality use human reason to discern the ?correct combination of principles? discovered by various philosophers. Submission to gods, in the philosophical sense, is as close to the concept of one God as you can possibly get, without getting there. Since the end objective is to find out what this ?higher morality? is, the submission to gods (human philosophers) is temporal it is part of the exercise of finding the one true God. The philosophers and their ideas become the means through which you reach to God?s System, the absolutely perfect set of laws available to mankind. So while this is not the worst kind of slavery, it is still a step behind complete emancipation. Surrender to God alone Islam literally means ?surrender? and is an invitation to God?s System, the absolutely perfect set of laws available to mankind. The creed of Abraham is sighted as the one to be followed. God tells us (2131) - When his Lord said to him ?Surrender?, he said ?I surrender to the Lord of the worlds.? (2135) - And they said ?Be Jews or Nazarenes so that you may be guided!? Say ?No, rather the creed of Abraham, monotheism; for he was not one of those who set-up partners.? Surrendering to God alone relieves you of the burdens, the shackles and the dogmas that have been placed by religious distortions of the clergy. (7157) - ?Those who follow the gentile messenger prophet whom they find written for them in the Torah and the Injeel; he orders them to goodness, and deters them from evil, and he makes lawful for them the good things, and he forbids for them the evil, and he removes their burden and the shackles that are upon them. So those who believe in him, and honour him, and support him, and follow the light that was sent down with him; these are the successful.? God considers no one but himself as the lawgiver, and no one but himself as the one to be obeyed. (2163) - And your god is but One god, there is no god but He; the Almighty, the Most Merciful. Since absolute freedom does not exist, surrendering to many gods leads to chaos and surrendering to yourself leads to slavery of the worst kind ? the only objective alternative is to submit to God alone as God suggests. Submitting to God alone means submitting to God?s System, the perfect system He has bestowed us with. Agreeing to this basic argument (the Oneness of God Almighty and obeying only His laws) till now, non-Muslims would wonder why they should submit to the God of the Muslims. Language plays tricks with our mind. The word ?Muslim?, even though used as such to depict the followers of various sects and man-made religions, is not a noun. It is an adjective with the meaning ?submitter?. Feel free to call yourself submitter or some similar word in the English language or any other. But we must all still submit to the ?Lord of the worlds?, and please notice that it is not ?Lord of the Muslim world?. To traditional Muslims would occur two problems at this point Fear of not loving their beloved Prophet enough and fear of not being blindly obedient as the clergy has taught them to be. To them I say if you want to follow hearsay and conjecture, be my guest. But if you want to discover the truth, you will have to think, question, and attempt to comprehend God?s System, its perfection and its universality. (1124) - The example of the two groups is like the blind and deaf, and the seer and hearer. Are they the same when compared? Do you not take heed? Surrendering to God alone leads you to true spiritual emancipation. You have no one to fear but He, no one to obey but He and no one to please but He. Focus relieves you of anxiety and ensures your commitment to God?s perfect system. There is one little condition God will guide you to His perfect system if only you take heed. So in Islam, belief is not blind or deaf. You are not expected to accept what you do not agree with. God reveals His System to you but your mind is perfectly capable of comprehending it and applying it in your lives. (1644) - With clarity and the Psalms. And We sent down to you the Reminder to make clear to the people what was sent to them, and perhaps they will think. By requiring you to think, to question and to see the truth Islam relieves you from adherence to dogma and servitude to the beliefs of your forefathers. This freedom becomes the cornerstone of your emancipation. For without it, you would be unable to unravel the mysteries of this universe. In reference to God?s system, one clarification must be repeated. Islam does not demand compliance to a system you inherently, deeply and intellectually don?t agree with. (223) - And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to Our servant, then bring a chapter like this, and call upon your witnesses other than God if you are truthful. Now here is the challenge to humanity. God is inviting you to test the validity of His wisdom and allow yourself to be persuaded only by the truth. If Plato, Aristotle and others can attempt to uncover eternal principles by use of the human mind, I am certain we can do much better given some Divine assistance. Spiritual emancipation in Islam, therefore, has a simple and sound basis belief in God alone.

peace i saw this thing when i clicked on people's profiles...personal gallery? what is that, and how do i tap in?

Peace everyone, I have been looking up Mutazalites and came across this article by Tarek Hagey. I think it gives a concise history of thought (or the lack of it) in Islam in a reasonable manner Islam Between Copying and Thinking By Tarek Heggy In the years between 1967 and 1973, when I was studying towards a degree in law and a Masters in comparative law, I acquired a rudimentary knowledge of the principles of Islamic jurisprudence. Later, while teaching at universities abroad, I set out to develop a wider knowledge of the subject. My readings took me beyond the circle of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence to those of the Shiites (the most important of which is the Ithna?ashariyya or Imammeya), and the four main doctrines of the Khawarij (the most important of which is the Abadeya school prevalent in a small region of Algeria and in most of the Sultanate of Oman), as well as to other schools, such as the eponymous Al-Tabri and Al-Laith interpretations. Nor did my readings stop there. I found myself exploring other worlds closely linked to the field of Islamic jurisprudence, the most important being the doctrine of the Mutakallimun, or dialectical theologians, and delving deeply into the philosophical teachings of the Mutazalites and the Ash?arites. There was also the world of the Bateneyites in the history of Islam, to which I was introduced by a close friend, Dr. Mahmoud Ismail, whose writings on the thinking of the Khawarij, the Qarametta and of what he calls the other ?secret sects? of Islam served as one of my primary sources while studying the history of Islamic jurisprudence. In the course of a journey extending for over twenty years, I developed a strong aversion for those I call "worshippers of the word" and "prisoners of tradition", and a profound admiration for the proponents of reason, most notably, of course, Ibn Rushd (Averoess), whose championship of the primacy of reason was adopted by Europe and rejected by the Muslim world. Europe?s gain was our loss in turning our backs on Ibn Rushd, we lost a historic opportunity for development. A close reading of all Ibn Taymeya?s works, as well as the works of his disciples, from Ibn Qaiym Al-Juzeya to Mohamed bin Abdul Wahab at the end of the eighteenth century, only deepened my aversion towards this trend and my admiration for the Mu?tazalites, who emphasized human responsibility in matters of religion, and for liberal thinkers who chose the path of reason over that of dogma, like Ibn Sinna (Avicenna), Al-Farabi and the leading exponent of this school, Ibn Rushd. When I compare some of the works of Al-Ghazali (Algazel), like "The Revival of the Religious Sciences" (Ihya? Ulum ad-Din), "The Criterion of Knowledge" (Mi?yar al-?Elm), "The Criterion of Work" (Mi?yar al-?Amal), "Salvation From Perdition" (Al-Monqeth Men al?Dallal), "The Essence of Orthodoxy" (Al-Mustafsah Men Elm al-Osoul) and the "Incoherence of the Philosophers" (Tahafut al-Falasifah), which are distinctly lacking in rationality, with the writings of Ibn Rushd, in which rationality reigns supreme, I am amazed that the battle waged between the exponents of these two distinct schools ten centuries ago should have ended up in a clear victory for Al-Ghazali and a crushing defeat for Ibn Rushd. Nowhere is the difference in the approach of the two men more evident than in their defining works Al-Ghazali?s "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" and Ibn Rushd?s "The Incoherence of the Incoherence". I was also amazed at how historians of Islamic thought concealed the fact that Al-Ghazali was unfailingly supportive of despotic rulers, contrary to Ibn Rushd, who was a constant source of irritation for despots determined to keep their subjects in a state of intellectual inertia, thereby guaranteeing the perpetuation of the status quo and their continued unchallenged authority. For an active mind is the source of questions and questions lead to accountability and, as an enlightened friend put it, questions have eyes and answers are blind! I spent years trying to understand why the Muslims had chosen to follow the line advocated by Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, the proponent of orthodoxy and tradition for whom knowledge meant only knowledge of religion and who cancelled the role of the mind altogether by denying the possibility of acquiring knowledge through intuition, over the line advocated by Ibn Rushd, who upheld the primacy of reason and sowed the seeds of a renaissance we chose not to reap. Why were Al-Ghazali?s ideas so readily accepted while Ibn Rushd?s were rejected? I believe the answer to this paradox can be summed up in one word despotism. At a time despotism in our part of the world was at its height, it is not surprising that Muslim rulers should have found Al-Ghazali?s ideas more appealing than those of Ibn Rushd. The orthodox line was also more appealing to their subjects who, under the yoke of tyranny, found it safer and less demanding to go along with the views of those who required nothing more from them than a suspension of their critical faculties. In Europe, where the forces of enlightenment were locked in a confrontation with the clericalism that stifled intellectual initiative and rational thought, despotism was in retreat. This explains why, in the thirteenth century, a prestigious centre of learning like the University of Paris supported the ideas of the Arab Muslim Ibn Rushd over those of the European Christian Thomas Aquinas, the scholastic philosopher famous for his two-swords doctrine. Meanwhile, the Muslim world continued to be ruled by despots who brooked no challenge to their authority and an equally despotic religious establishment which decried the use of reason and demanded blind adherence to the authority of tradition. Closely linked as to methods, motivations and goals, these two factors created an atmosphere that was inimical to the unhindered pursuit of knowledge. Still, things were not just black and white. True, the Muslims lost a historic opportunity to use Ibn Rushd?s ideas as a springboard that could have placed them on a path similar to the one which took Europe from the obscurantist thinking of the thirteenth century to the vigorous intellectual climate which encourages debate, free thinking, general freedoms and creativity in literature, art and science. But it is also true that Muslims have known two "Islams", as it were, one that can be described as the Turkish-Egyptian model and one as the Bedouin model. While the former cannot claim to have attained the level of enlightenment, progressive thinking and freedom that characterizes the ideas of Ibn Rushd, it was nevertheless a gentle and tolerant Islam that could and did coexist with others. Indeed, non-Muslims living in the Ottoman Empire enjoyed more protection that any other minority living anywhere else in the world at the time. Under the Ottomans, Christians of the Levant and Jews in Arab countries lived in conditions very similar to the ones in which the Muslim subjects of the empire were living. Even when they were persecuted by certain rulers, like Al-Hakem bi Amr Allah, it was part of a general policy that made no distinction between non-Muslims and Muslims. Although this model of Islam can in no way be described as secular, it adopted an enlightened approach to religion, dealing with it as a system of spiritual beliefs rather than as a system that ruled all aspects of life and governed the affairs of society. Meanwhile, an altogether different model of Islam was taking shape among geographically isolated communities living far from coastlines and hence from exposure to the outside world. Their insularity provided an ideal breeding ground for the ideas of Ibn Taymema, Ibn Qaym Al-Juzeya and, towards the end of the eighteenth century, those of Mohamed bin Abdul Wahab. A collision between the two models of Islam was inevitable, and, in the second decade of the nineteenth century, they confronted one another on the field of battle. Under the command of Mohamed Ali?s son, Tousson, then of his other son, Ibrahim, arguably the greatest of the Egyptian ruler?s sons, the Egyptian army, and with it, the more enlightened Turkish-Egyptian model of Islam, emerged victorious. But the winds of change were blowing throughout the region, and the years that followed were not kind to Turkey and Egypt. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I brought an end to Turkey?s ascendancy, while Egypt?s influence receded as its economy and educational system declined. Meanwhile, the proponents of the model of Islam which demanded a strict adherence to the letter of scripture and slammed the door shut in the face of rationality, suddenly found themselves in control of vast wealth unprecedented in history. This gave them an enormous edge over their moderate rivals and allowed them to extend their influence into the traditional strongholds of the Turkish-Egyptian model of Islam, where they waged a systematic campaign to co-opt establishment personalities and institutions. The success of this campaign found its most salient expression in the emergence of fanatical movements like the Taliban, who interpreted the doctrines of religion on the basis of tradition alone and imposed a scholastic, doctrinal brand of Islam that left no room for the exercise of reason. This sorry state of affairs could have been avoided if the majority of Muslims had supported Ibn Rushd or if conditions had not forced the retreat of the Turkish-Egyptian model. In numerous lectures I gave in Europe and America, I tried to familiarize people with what I call Egyptian Islam which, until the nineteen forties, stood as a unique example of tolerance and flexibility. Noted for its acceptance of the Other, it was not pathologically obsessed with the fine print of scripture. While recognizing the divine character of the prophetically revealed laws, it also recognized that some of their provisions were formulated in the context of a different time, place and circumstances. Thus divinity was reserved for religion and did not extend to how mortals understood or chose to interpret its strictures. It was tacitly understood that there is a subjective dimension to the interpretation of any text, and that interpretation is necessarily coloured by the interpreter?s cultural formation, knowledge and intellectual abilities. The voices now raised in the West in general and in the United States in particular to warn against the menace of "militant Islam" would do well to ask themselves a number of important questions ? Who shut their eyes for many years to a general climate which allowed the militant model of Islam to spread unchecked and forced the civilized, humanistic Turkish-Egyptian model to retreat in disarray as economic conditions and educational institutions declined, leaving the way open to an invasion by the militant model? ? Who turned a blind eye to these developments for close on thirty years and are today bemoaning the way things have turned out? ? Who in the nineteen fifties and perhaps even earlier invented the dangerous game of using political Islam to create a strategic balance with socialism? (In the seventies, Egypt played the same game with disastrous consequences.) ? Has the West only now realized that there is no room for freedom, democracy, human rights, women?s rights or civil rights in the militant model of Islam? Did it really believe this model to be a shining example of these noble humanistic values in the nineteen sixties, seventies and eighties? ? Why is the dossier of the honeymoon between the United States and the Afghan mujahedeen not being opened? Or, for that matter, the chapter of the close links which political Islam in pre-revolutionary Iran enjoyed with the West, particularly France? And, before that, the relations between political Islam in Egypt and Britain, the occupying power at the time, particularly during the two terms of the Mohamed Mahmoud government (1928 and 193? The critical mind, which is the pride of civilized humanity, imposes an obligation on all of us to answer those questions. It also requires all parties to assume a share of the responsibility for what happened and is continuing to happen. It requires us, further, to look closely into the two models of Islam referred to in this article and ask ourselves which is more capable of joining the march of civilization and living in harmony with the requirements of the age, without abandoning the positive features of our cultural specificity. Is it the model engendered by the school of traditionalists, victims of their geographical isolation behind high sand dunes, or the moderate, tolerant, liberal Turkish-Egyptian model? Better still, could we adopt the enlightened model of Ibn Rushd, which helped Western civilization move out of the Dark Ages into the Enlightenment? Will we really choose the thinking of his opponents, thereby allowing ourselves to fall prey to a culture which favours superstition, myths, ignorance and a rabid militancy over education, work, development and brotherhood? -end- I really liked "I developed a strong aversion for those I call "worshippers of the word" and "prisoners of tradition", and a profound admiration for the proponents of reason" as well as the title to Ibn Rushd?s "The Incoherence of the Incoherence". lol The question isn't what the West did, does, or will do. The real question is what we are doing and will do in the days to come. ! The capitalistic enterprise is definitely running out of steam fast. Sha

Salam, I read some interesting views on Homosexuality on this forum. I wrote an essay on the People of Lot, titled "Qawm ul Lut Reinterpreting the Story of Lot", which can be found in http//huriyahmag.org/afdhere/lut.html I would like some of you to respond to that. Insha Allah, I will be back, as I chose the option to let me know when there are responses. For those who don't know me, I'm the Editor of Huriyah, a queer Muslim magazine. your brother, Afdhere

Peace All wwhen members log on to the freeminds forum is it possible that the chat opption can be highlighted so that it can inform people that there are members in the chat room . also is it also possible to have voice . peace saleem

I will not be on this list very often at all, if at all for about 2 years. As the topic of the post shows i?m doing peace corps in the dominican republic, and after out 3 months training that is a 2 year commitment. If anyone would like to email me my address is akbari at blackplanet.com So far I?m hot, bothered and I don?t understand most of these people, they talk too fast. May God bless me in this and give me amazing skills, speaking and understanding from the experience. Please everybody pray for me and send God your pleas of support for me. I don?t know if my site will stay up, but I?ll try to keep it up and running, as best I can. My site?s address is pprogod at yahoo.com Godbless, Anwar and please pray for me, your prayers are what i need because you guys know who you are praying to, and you are praying to the right one, the indivisible, one god God. Thanks you guys for everything. )

theres a lot of interesting stuff in there and im anxious to ask some questions

Peace all, Peace brother Layth, in no way am I having a go at you, I'm making fun of ignorants who see it this way. It seems that when people refer to free-minds that Layth becomes our leader, and we are seen as a cult. How hard it is to understand that we don't want sepertation, but freeing of the mind (as the site header proposes). What I find even funnier is that the main culprits (who see us as a cult) are "muslims". Can anyone lend me patience as I am running very, very low.

First a little background information. I am interested in converting to islam but havent yet. I was sort of hung up on a few points that i was glad to find out were not in the quoran (thanks to this site). Anyways, i am in the process of reading the quoran and learning more about islam. on to my question. Based on islam, your beliefs/ideas, the quoran, or any other source you might have used, what is your description of God. I have seen people use quotes in the quoran to say God is sitting somewhere on a throne, i.e. seperate from creation and on the other hand seen people use quotes to point that he is everywhere. Other sources have suggested he is creation, as in every part of his creation is a part of him. etc. etc. Let me know where you stand.

Peace everyone, I just wanted to drop a note to the good folks here to say thank you, and let folks know how I'm doing. For those who chat with me from time to time on PalTalk, you already know that I have been having increasing problems with my hands due to severe carpal tunnel syndrome. The pain and associated problems have dragged on for many years now, as I've tried to find alternatives to surgery. This was, however, to no avail. Both of my hands need surgery (and quickly) before any permanent damage is done. I just got home from the hospital a few minutes ago -- I had the surgery done on one hand. I'll be back in for the other hand in about a month. Everything today went very well, and I'm now on the road to recovery. I thank God for my good friends here on Free-Minds, and for the strength and protection he has given me. I found great comfort in keeping the words to Sura 1 (Al-Fatehah) running through my head the whole time I was in the OR. Before I realized it, I was done, in the recovery room, and chatting with the docs about their home networks ) Peace, John

http//onlineislamicstore.com/razmusdol.html

Peace all What is the most prevelant problems you somehow faced or noticed when engaging in an interfaith dialogue with christians .. What I have noticed They can't stop comparing between jesus and mohammad they for some reason think that Mohammad's role is the same role that Jesus was doing, So I remind that mohammad is merely a messanger and a prophet who has certinaly been blissed in carrying the message from god and he is no superhuman being. How do you face people (anyone no matter, creed, colour, race or relegion) that Mohammad(pbuh) cannot be a messanger or a prophet because he is pedophilie and he suffers from abnormal sick mentality and he made alot of mistakes in his life ..... Another notice most people whom try to down islam use hadithic reference So saying that you only believe in the Qu'ran well sure help you alot . Any experiences from our brothers and sisters here that can be insightful. Noor al zaman wink

Salaam, In discussing/arguing the position of Hadith in Islam, my friend brought up verse 465 004.065 YUSUFALI But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction. PICKTHAL But nay, by thy Lord, they will not believe (in truth) until they make thee judge of what is in dispute between them and find within themselves no dislike of that which thou decidest, and submit with full submission. SHAKIR But no! by your Lord! they do not believe (in reality) until they make you a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them, and then do not find any straitness in their hearts as to what you have decided and submit with entire submission. KHALIFA Never indeed, by your Lord; they are not believers unless they come to you to judge in their disputes, then find no hesitation in their hearts whatsoever in accepting your judgment. They must submit a total submission. How to explain this verse to him?

Peace all Just a question that popped out in my mind Do any of you guys here believe that after the latest events that happened in the world ,Muslims will take the road in what one of the presidents of america (I believe he was nexon) called the spread of the LIBERAL ISLAM. any thoughts....

Below I have posted a debate between Faithfreedom's Ali Sina, and it seems a Quran only muslim, by the name of Dr. Nader Pourhassan, who has written a book called "Corruption of Muslim Minds". I'd give full points to Dr. Pourhassan, as Sina has continued on his ramblings about hadiths and whatnot. Sina fails time and time again in justifying the hadiths but yet his intellectual integrity comes to light in continual search for the hadiths. The details of this debate can be found on the following pages http//www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6380 Dear Dr. Sina, Thanks for your great response. You are obviously very knowledgeable and I appreciate that a lot! I have also searched many Moslem communities for scholars to debate with and once I had found them and debated with them I quickly realized that they are very ignorant about the Koran. You are not. You know the verses well. However in my opinion the reason you see so many contradictions in the Koran is because you are not allowing the Koran to be just a book of guidance, as it claims it wants to be. If we accept what the Koran says about the kind of book it is then everything will be clear. Let me add that the reason the world of Islam has become so ugly is because of the so-called scholars who are responsible for teaching things that are so far away from the truth (241-42,59,75, 78-79,140,146,159-160,169,174-176, 364,77-78,187, 544, 7169, and many more). (Koran; 7169) Then there came after them an evil posterity who inherited the book, ?Was not a promise taken from them in the book that they would not speak anything about God but the truth? And they have read what is in it; and the abode of the here after is better for those who guard (against evil). Do you not then understand? They either look at the Koran to be an absolute book of knowledge for all human needs for all eras or they think there are so many secrets that they should spend all their lives figure its myths (i.e. adding the number of different alphabets used in the Koran and maybe divide by the number of verses used and then make up some kind of sense out of it). Well this latter one makes Moslems of the world to become more superstitions than anyone. The Koran predicted that this would happen (2530, 1591). (Koran; 2530) The messenger will say ?My Lord, my folk have abandoned this Koran? (Koran; 1591) who have torn the Koran apart. Their assumption that the Koran has all kinds of knowledge goes against the verses of the Koran itself. The Koran introduces itself as a book of guidance only (21,91,181, 33,132, 752, 271-2, 311-2, and many more). One example from these verses (Koran; 752) And certainly We have brought them a book which We have made clear with knowledge of guidance and a mercy for a people who believe. Now when a country like Iran has a revolution and the supreme religious leaders take over the country, they promise the world to the people and they say if we run the country according to the Koran, we will be the greatest nation on the earth. However they will never be able to run a country with the Koran simply because Koran has no laws about how to run a country. For example there is nothing in the Koran teaches us how to write a constitution for a country, how to achieve and maintain a great economy, etc. This has been literally proven in the last 20 years in the so-called ?Islamic Republic? of Iran. If we do what the religious leaders tell us to do, that is if we blindly obey every rule they say is of the Koran, then we will descend ourselves to a life of 1400 years ago. And the Koran clearly warns its followers about this terrible mistake by repeatedly stating that many RULES of this book is for the ancient Arabs of Mecca and surrounding areas (692, 323, 427, 4344, and more), (Koran; 692) This is a blessed book We have sent down to confirm whatever came before it, so you may warn the mother of towns (Mecca) and anyone around her? (Koran; 323) Or do they say ?He has invented it!? Rather, it is the truth from your Lord so you may warn a people to whom no warner has come before you, so that they may be guide. (Koran; 427) Thus We have inspired you with an Arabic reading so you may warn the Mother of towns (Mecca) and anyone around her? (Koran; 4344) It is a reminder for you and your people, and you will be questioned. If these verses are ignored then we will take a country from today?s civilized world and push it back in time to the uncivilized eras. (Look how behind in every way ?Islamic? countries are today compared to advanced non-Islamic countries.) This is also true about the Bible and the Torah. So in this brief introduction I am trying to say that this is a book that talks about guidance - meaning doing good and not doing bad - and it gives many references to the other world. The language used about the other world is not understandable by the laws of this world (37) as the Koran itself claims that we were given very little information about the other world (1785) and that we just have to trust God (37). This kind of information about the other world can not be verified or proven by any physical evidence. Therefore debating about the validity of it will take us no where. One could speculate about very strange scenarios that are presented in the Koran or the Bible and no one can really disqualify them. Now, coming back to our debate, your view of the Koran is (at least as far as I see from your debate so far), is that this book is full of contradictions. You claim that there is so much false information in it. You then claim that Mohammad was full of lust and criminal activities and that he made up this book for all the wrong reasons. I consider you a man in search of the truth. And in your research you bravely talk about what your findings are. You are also reaching out to all the people who claim that they know the Koran to prove you wrong. These are all signs of your dedication to find the truth and willingness to put your theories to anyone?s challenge. This means that you are a great man and you are helping humanity in a great way. However in my humble opinion you are wrong about the Koran and therefore prophet Mohammad. As far as the Koran goes I will attempt to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that this is a great book as far as guidance to humanity. Having said that, I also believe that all the false claims you make about the Koran and the prophet Mohammad are not your fault. It is the fault of religious leaders who have degraded the Koran?s teachings. If I am right and you are wrong I still think you are going to be blessed by God tremendously because you are doing a great Jihad (struggle) to study all you can about the Koran, the ahadith, and many different aspects of Islam. Not even one out of one million Moslems do this. And this is the claim of the Koran That if in a given situation you do your best (2286, 2362) and use your mind (822) then you are blessed no matter what. (Koran; 2286) God only assigns a soul something it can cope with? (Koran; 2362) We only assign a soul something it can cope with? (Koran; 822) The worst creature before God are deaf and dumb, those who do not use their mind. Now I would like to attempt to prove you wrong about every thing you claim about the Koran. And this is why I am taking a lot of time and going through each one of your beliefs about the Koran and giving my views about them. After reading the Koran for the last 10 years over and over again, I have been taken from the darkness of what ?religious scholars? have created for today?s Islam, to the light that is shed from God through the Koran. There is nothing in the Koran that I am not able to understand or explain in a very simple and clear way. And this is not a credit to me in any way, but a credit to the Koran itself. An awakening about God is when you can see the answers to everything your mind brings to you about God and yourself. I am in total peace with my own awakening and feel that I can see the Koran for exactly what it is. And all this is not because I am a genius but because I was able to read the Koran for myself and drew my own conclusions without any prejudice. I did not go to the Koran to prove or disprove anything but rather to find out what it says. So let me first set the table straight before we jump into any conclusions about any of the verses of Koran. If you accept the Koran as it introduces itself to be, then all the mistakes made by religious leaders and those scholars who are sincere and honest like yourself, could clearly be explained and avoided. One must forget about all the things he/she was taught about Islam and Koran and let the Koran be the only source of telling what Islam and the Koran is. This is what we must keep in mind while we read the Koran to avoid all the confusions you have presented This is what the Koran says That this book was given to the Arabs of Mecca and the surrounding area (692, 323, 427, 4344, and more) so they would not say no prophet came to them or if it had they would have been better guided than the two factions before them (Jews and Christians) (6155-157). That this book also was sent to tell the Christians and Jews of what the falsehood inserted into their religion so they don?t claim in the other world that no one told them about it (2776, 515,19, 184, and more). The Koran claims to be clear (261, 3669, 3928, 432, 442, 4525, 467, 579, 585, and many more) , easy to understand (1997,4858, 5417,22,32,40), and a complete book for guidance (1689, 12111, 441-4, 3927, 545, 61, as it was the Torah, a complete book for guidance (6154, 7145 ) That in the Koran?s teachings, human was created and by that he gets a chance to pass or fail a test. A test that the parents of all humans, Adam and eve, failed but got a chance to redeem themselves. And that this test is to see who would be good and who would be bad. That God will not force you to pass this test but if you fail after this world you will pay the consequences. These all must be accepted by a person who wants to be guided by means of the Koran or for that matter even by means of the Bible or the Torah. That we go through two worlds. First this world, and after we die we will go to the other world. This world we live in today is governed by a certain set of laws that God commanded, and the other world with another set of laws. You can disobey God in this world but not in the other world. Now having said the above, we must observe the following few rules before we get to all its verses and try to blindly imitate a situation that is talked about in the Koran. This means in order to be able to use the Koran in the 21st century we must very carefully observe the following The Koran states that its contents are all verses (except a few decisive ones called the basic verses) that must not be taken literally (37) but must serve as moral lessons. The basic verses are the mother of all verses. Therefore to apply any of the verses of the Koran to a given era we must observe the basic verses. To see which verse is basic and which is not we must recall verse 7143, which unites all previous 3 religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). This particular verse states that all the guidance humans need are those of the 10 commandments. The last 3 rules are so crucial that I should emphasize it again Few of the verses in this book are the basis of all other ones (37), therefore all that is said in the Koran was for the Arabs of that time (692, 323, 427, 4344, and more). This is why the Koran says that for every time or generation, there is a book (133. This is clearly demonstrated when it says tell people not to yell at Mohammad (494), or when it says Mohammad tell your wives that they are not like other women (3332). If this simple fact that Moslems must not blindly copy everything that is said in the Koran is allowed to be explained to the world of Islam, then I believe Moslems of the world will be saved from their terrible conditions. If the Koran is accepted in this way there would be no need for interpretations of so called clergymen and no need for the corrupted ahadith. This is when the Koran would be at its best, making any generation better, allowing and requiring advancement of humanity in every direction, allowing women to have rights that God gave them, etc. The so-called scholars have perverted the message of the Koran and I will show you this very clearly. The Koran, by itself, is the most complete and powerful book for guidance of humanity as is the Bible and the Torah. These statements I make about the Koran I will prove to you beyond a shadow of doubt. But you must (with all do respect) debate with me about the Koran and not drift away from the subject. If the whole world of Islam could see the Koran as it is, then I am 100% positive that they would turn their worlds around and their societies would thrive. They would stop asking God for things through boring monotonous prayers. They would use their mind and their free will to accomplish the things they want in life. They would learn from the advancement of other countries instead of spending their lives bashing them. And last but not least, they would start to love and stop hating everything that God has created and treat others with respect. I think people like you are very rare. You have no fear of being politically incorrect (I don?t either) and this is great. This is one of the qualities of a truly Godly person. However when you talk about the prophet Mohammad, I feel a lot of tension, and this kind of tension will not help our intellectual research. It will only make us biased. For example if you were going to judge other prophets the same way you judge Mohammad, then you would have to say the same things about the prophet Abraham. You would have to say that he was so bad that he and his wife actually owned a slave. You would have to say Abraham was so bad that he actually slept with his wife?s slave. And by saying these things about any prophet, you would be disregarding everything about the customs of their times and you would expect them to be judged with the standards of today?s advanced civilizations. Going back in history 1400 years ago is never a scientific solution to any investigation about anyone or anything. In your own article you admit that the story teller was biased. Let us not get bogged down by this and move on to the Koran, the book that you and I have totally opposite views about. . I claim that the Koran is one of the greatest books to humanity for guidance. I claim therefore it is the word of God and we must cherish it. I also claim that its message has been greatly destroyed by religious leaders, and that all the followers of these leaders are very misguided. You do speak the truth about today?s Islam. But in my opinion you do not have any proof about the Koran being a weak book. I feel I can prove the falsehood of all your allegations about the Koran and I will share them gladly with you. You are making over 110 examples of what you think is right and you draw conclusions of your choice. You turn to hadith and you think you have successfully disqualified the Koran. Therefore you find it necessary to rely on the ahadith. You also think that without ?Sha?ne Nozool? for the Koran I am not able to understand the Koran. This is also the claim of all the religious leaders who brought all this darkness to the light of the Koran. I can prove the opposite. My friend I am asking you in order for us to have a great debate and allowing those who are following our debate a chance of truly see our points of view, that we cover only a few subjects at a time. Let us put our thinking to a true challenge by presenting one subject at a time and give each other a chance to really go back and forth until our point of view about each subject is clear. Before I take on all the points you have made about the Koran, please let me say that the approach that you and all the Islamic scholars have toward the Koran is wrong. The big difference between you and them is they altered the true Islam and made it into an ugly one. You just expose this ugly religion and prove they are full of contradictions therefore can not be from God. In my opinion you are blessed, they are cursed. Furthermore, the scholars think that the Koran?s laws must be followed blindly under any condition. They are wrong. I will prove it. I assume you accept their claim only to show how wrong the Koran is. However this is completely wrong because you do not gather all the verses about a given subject and put all those verses in to your judgment as a whole. Rather you take a few words or at most all the words of one verse and draw a conclusion. This is exactly what religious leaders have done. This is why I kindly ask you to bear with me and consider what I explained earlier about how the Koran can be used. If this way is not observed, then following the Koran will take any nation into darkest ages of humanity (i.e. Islamic Republic of Iran). This is also true about the Bible, and the Torah. Let us also talk about taking verses out of its context. I think you did this too many times during our last debate. For example consider that I tell you If a person is kind to me then I am going to be kind to him, however if that same person insist to kill me and my family, then I will have to try to kill him to defend myself. In the above statement I have told you I will kill and be kind to the same person. Does this mean I contradicted myself? Does this mean that I changed my mind according to what kind of mood I was in? Does this mean I was not consistence? The answer to all the above questions is NO. However you have done this over and over in your debate and with quotations of the Koran. Am I wrong about 2191 that you claim ?Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (Q; 2191)? I claim it gives permission to his followers to defend themselves against the aggressors. Take a look (Koran; 2190) And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely God does not love those who exceed the limits. (Koran; 2191) And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the sacred mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. I know when all is said and done we have to face our Creator. And if we are stopping the true path of God because of any reason but the true search for the truth, then we will be sorry. So if you still think I am wrong about this verse and this verse only (for now), please let your honorable members speak also so we can get a second opinion on this matter. Now about your last debate, since there were so many arguments about the Koran, I thought I would state what you said as a reminder by first writing in bold ?You stated?, and then label my answer by writing in bold ?My response?. You stated(#1) {Muhammad is the subject of our discussion. He claimed to be a prophet of God and made claims that Allah praises him. "And surely thou hast sublime morals" (Q. 684). ?Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow" (Q. 3321). We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures. (Q. 21107). Verily this is the word of a most honorable Messenger, (Q. 81.19) Since these claims are made in the Quran and since the character, honesty and state of the mind of Muhammad are key to giving any credibility to the Quran, we cannot ignore him and his character in our discussion of the Quran. Therefore I have to disagree with you when you say that the character of Muhammad should not be discussed. Those above verses are the claims of the Quran. Shouldn?t we analyze those claims?} My response(#1) The above verses from the Koran can easily be accepted if I can prove to you that the claim against the Koran is an invalid one. If I can prove that everything you say about the Koran is false then the above verses about Mohammad can easily be accepted. That is why I suggested for us to analyze the Koran together about any given subject you like. However you listed many subjects at one time. Also you have already accepted your claim about the Koran and find it necessary to turn to ahadith. I will attempt to prove to you that you are wrong about all your claims about the Koran and then there will be no need to talk about ahadith. Once I am able to do that, instead of relying on some historian?s account of Mohammad and judging him from the eras that we do not understand, we can simply rely on the Koran?s account of who Mohammad was. If I can not do this then what ever you say about Mohammad you are probably right. As I should keep an open mind about your views and truly try to understand what you are trying to say, I am sure that you will do the same toward my views. You stated(#2) {You take for granted that Muhammad was a truthful messenger of God and that Quran is the book of God even before we have a chance to study that book. The conclusion therefore is pre drawn. That is hardly a logical or a scientific approach.} My response (#2) You have taken one verse or part of a verse and have drawn a conclusion. This is hardly a logical or even a scientific approach. The scientific and logical approaches would be to be fair and list all the verses about that subject. Once we look at all the verses about a particular subject, then we can determine whether that subject has been defined incorrectly by the Koran or whether the Koran did a great job representing the subject. No case in the court of law in today?s civilized world can be ruled on until all the evidences have been presented. And the defendant and the accuser both get a fair chance to evaluate and present their views. You stated(#3) {Is the Quran clear? You quoted a couple of verses of Muhammad claiming that Quran is clear and easy to understand. I am familiar with those claims. However are they true? There are many contradictory verses in the Quran that can be quite confusing. This ambiguity has allowed Muslims to have their personalized ?divine guidance? based on their own preferences. Those who like tolerance or want to present Islam as a tolerant religion can quote parts of the Quran that advocates tolerance, while the hardliners, the fundamentalists and even the terrorists can quote those parts of the Quran that promote hate and killing of the disbelievers. Therefore ironically everyone can find what he is looking for in that book. And they call this the "miracle" of Quran!} My response is(#3) First of all I quoted a couple of verses and then stated that there are many more verses that claim this very thing. If you like I can quote you all the verses. (For example when I discussed the verse that stated the Koran is clear I mentioned that there are 35 more similar verses about this.) However you also (with all do respect) are taking the parts you like about the Koran that you feel justifies your views, and say the book promotes killing. But instead, the Koran clearly says kill if they want to kill you (i.e. 2190). When it says to be kind to those who are kind and be aggressive toward the ones who want to be aggressive, you easily dismiss the conditions under which the Koran is allowing defensive actions toward the enemy. And you say that God had a change of mood (therefore disqualifying Mohammad)? That is not fair. Anyone can pick sentences from any book and make up what they want. This is would not be a weakness of that book. You stated(#4) {Let us compare some of the contradictory verses of the Quran In Surah 7310 God tells Mohammad to be patient with his opponents, "Be patient with what they say, and part from them courteously". While in Verse 2191 God orders him to kill his opponents, "kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out." My response(#4) Again you are taking these verses out of context. (Koran; 731-10) (1) You are bundled up (2) Stay up all night, except for a little while (3) Half of it or a trifle less than that, (4) Or add some to it, and chant the Quran distinctly as it should be chanted. (5) We will cast a weighty statement on you! (6) The onset of night is more serious for impressions, as well as more effective for speaking in. (7) You have lengthy employment during daylight. ( Mention your Lord?s name and devote yourself to Him utterly! (9) Lord of the East and the West, there is no deity except Him, so accept Him as your defender. (10) Be patient about anything they may say, and steer clear of them in a polite manner In the above 7310 the opposition is not fighting him but rather they are saying things about Mohammad and therefore Mohammad is not commanded to fight (which would depend on whether he would be strong enough to fight). Verse 2191 is a completely different situation and comparing it with 7310 doesn?t work. The verse right before 2191, 2190, states clearly to fight those who fight you (which is again a defensive act) and 2191 is a continuation of that verse. When a person expressed his beliefs and people tried to destroy him because they didn?t like his religion, he could choose to fight or to run away. This is because he has a mind. And if he is smart, he should run until he is strong and able. Then when he is strong and able, if the opponent still wants to kill him, then he should defend himself. This all involves a human using his/her common sense. If a person fights when the enemy is for sure going to kill him, then he would be stupid. Mohammad was definitely not stupid (and you already agreed he was smart). For many years Mohammad chose not to fight back against the much stronger enemy. However the enemy was very unjust and oppressive and wanted to destroy Mohammad and his followers because they would not accept many gods. According to some historians Mohammad was offered a great deal of wealth to stop the promotion of his idea of worshipping only one God, but since he had no greed for wealth, he refused based on his belief in God. So Mohammad was forced to flee away. However when the enemy kept insisting to kill him and his followers, Mohammad, because he had become strong enough to fight back, bravely choose to defend himself. However he was still a big underdog in his first few wars, but the odds were not impossible. This is when he accepted the challenge of fighting those who wanted to kill him. This is a great example of Mohammad?s dedication to his teachings. He refused when he was offered all the wealth in the world to stop his prophecy. He was a great example of humility and patience when he chose to run away and used his mind to organize his followers. He was a great example of bravery when he accepted the challenge of his enemies and went to war even though he was the underdog. And lastly, he was a great example of forgiveness as he accepted the plea of his lifelong enemies for peace. His enemies wanted to fight when they were strong, but when they saw they were not as strong as before, (unlike Mohammad) they left their faith and accepted the enemy?s faith just to spare their lives. And spare their lives Mohammad graciously did. When capturing Mecca he did not kill even one of his lifelong enemies, even the enemy who was responsible for the death of many of his followers, including his beloved wife who he cherished and loved for over 20 years. Revenge for the sake of revenge was not on Mohammad?s agenda. As you can see my friend, if my account of history is right then you are looking at a very ugly and distorted history about Mohammad. In cutting him down you must be absolutely sure beyond a shadow of doubt about what you are saying. But me, about respecting and accepting some historians account of Mohammad?s greatness, don?t need to be absolutely sure. Because accusing is an action that requires certainty, but respecting a man of 1400 years ago does not bring any harm, especially if the message he brought to the world was nothing but love. You stated(#5) In Surah 2256 God tells Mohammad not to impose Islam by force, "There is no compulsion in religion", Then again in verse 193 He tells his messenger to kill whoever rejects Islam, "Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's". My response(#5) Again you are taking the verse out of its true context. And taking a few words from a given verse is not showing the true picture that the Koran presents about the subject. To be fair is to gather all the verses about a given subject and then draw a conclusion based on all the facts ? a trend that I followed in my book, ?The Corruption of Moslem Minds?. According to the Koran everyone must be free in this world to choose whether to believe in one God, many gods, or no god. However in the other world there will be consequences. If there were no consequences, then (at least to me) the world would seem wasted. Also I add again Koran 2190-193 is suggesting a defensive fight not an offensive fight. Q2190 And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely God does not love those who exceed the limits. Q2191 And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the sacred mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. Q2192 But if they desist, then surely God is forgiving, Merciful. Q2193 And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for God, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors. Verses 2190 to 2193, does not in any way say compulsion in religion is allowed. Do you see this? If we are going to be brave and speak out against Mohammad so freely, then we should also be brave and admit when we are clearly wrong. This would actually give us credibility not disqualification. You stated(#6) In Surah 2945 God tells Mohammad to speak nicely to people of the Book (Christians and Jews), "Argue with people of the book, other than evil doers, only by means of what are better! and say, we believe in what has been sent down to us and sent down to you. Our God is the same as your God, and we are surrendered to Him." But in Surah 929 Allah tells him to fight the people of the Book, "Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day... and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior". My response(#6) We must put everything Koran says in perspective of its time. Koran is a book to Arabs of 1400 years ago (692, 322, 425, 4343). And it tells them to fight with those who fight them and not everybody else 1338 very clearly says for any given time there is a book. (Koran; 133 ? For every era has a book. The righteous reaction could be very different depending on the era that you are living in and how much advancement the society has to enforce that kind of reaction. So when God tells Mohammad to tell the Arabs of barbaric eras to speak politely to the people of the book, He is teaching great manner to a people that kill their own new born baby because it is a girl. For that era this was a necessary teaching. Today we all know better. However when in verse 929 God commands them to fight he is talking about fighting against those who fight them first. (Koran; 913) Will you not fight a people who have violated their trust and intended to exile the messenger? They attacked you first! Are you afraid of them? You ought to be even more afraid of God if you are believers. So this is a mistake that all the so called scholars of Islam have made and you seemed to accept that (when I say mistake, I mean thinking that these verses are absolute, and they must be accepted and copied in all the eras after Mohammad; they accept that to oppress their followers, you accept it to show how wrong Koran is). And then once the so-called scholar of Islam make their followers to accept that verses of this book are absolute, then they quote any verse out of its context and make their followers kill unjustly for God. And also it gives the opposition to Islam a great tool to disqualify this religion as a compassionate religion. Well if we accept the whole Koran we will see that the Koran has disqualify this kind of usage of its verses because it clearly says this is not for all times to be copied (37- (Koran; 37- He is the One Who sent you down the book which contains decisive verses. They (form) the basis of the book; while others are allegorical. Those whose hearts are prone to falter follow whatever is allegorical in it, seeking to create dissension by giving (their own) interpretation of it. Yet only God knows its interpretation; whose who are versed in knowledge say ?We believe in it; it all comes from our Lord!? However only prudent persons bear it in mind. This verse is of great importance as it will show that we must not follow Koran blindly as the Koran contains many verses that are for Arabs of 1400 years ago. As a matter of fact everything in the Koran is for that time except the verses which is referred to as the basic verses. These verses are exactly similar to the ten commandment of the prophet Moses (7134) (Koran; 7134) And We wrote for him on the tablets of everything an admonition, and a distinguishing of everything ?So take it forcefully, and command thy people to take the fairest of it. I shall show you the home for immoral people. This verse claims that everything humans need for guidance was in the tablets that was given to Mosses. This means when Koran claims to be a complete book (1689, 12111, 441-4, 3927, 545, 61, and when it claims to be a book which has the knowledge of guidance (21,91,181, 33,132, 752, 271-2, 311-2, and many more), it is referring to those verses that explains virtually the 10 commandment. This is also very clear as we see Koran repeats many times that it contains nothing new from the other religions that God sent down (8718-19, 4143, 26195-198,426, 1510, 20133, 3362, 4213,469,4823). This by no means is referring that the situations that Arabs of 1400 years ago had was exactly like those of other prophets? eras. Nor does it not mean that these Arabic words used in the Koran are exactly duplicated in Arabic in the Bible or in the Torah. Some examples are (Koran; 4143) Anything that has been told you is merely what was told (other) messengers before you? (Koran;26195-196) (The Koran is) in plain Arabic language. (195) ? And most surely the same is in the scriptures of the early men. (196) And interesting enough it adds that if you have any doubt about it ask the people of the book before it (as you will find same things in their book). (Koran; 1094) If you are in any doubt concerning what We have sent down to you, then question those who have read the book before you? If this brief explanation is kept in our mind then many of the quotations you claim to be contradiction will no longer be that. Also one last thing I must say about 929 is that all the verses that urges Mohammad?s followers of his time to fight is a defensive fight and you must read few verses before or after to be able to see that. This is why in my book ?The Corruption of Moslem Minds?. In chapter 9.3 I have taken all the verses from the Koran where fighting is permitted to the Arabs of 1400 years ago and in all these verses you can clearly states fight with those who fight you (2190, 2240 and many more), with justice (499, 1733, 2568 ) and not to exceed God?s law (839)., and to accept peace immediately in any war (474, 490, 60. You stated(#7) {Muhammad gives no justification for this discrepancy in Quran and the change in Allah's mood from peaceful to militant, conciliatory to confrontational. Muslim apologists in the West present selectively the kinder verses of the Quran or what is known as the Early Revelation.} My response(#7) I already explain this in the SR (Stated/Response) number 6. However please also consider, that if I make the below statement ?If a person is kind to me I am going to be Kind to him and then if that same person wants to kill me I will kill him.? In the above statement I have told you to kill and be kind in the same statement. Does this mean I contradicted myself? Does this means that I change my mind according to what kind of mood I am in? Does this means I am not consistence? The answer to all the above question is NO. You stated(# While the Muslim clerics preach the violent verses to their only Muslim audience and claims that those softer verses of the Quran are abrogated and supplanted by the later revelation that contains the harsher verses. The reason given is, as Al Maudoody puts it, "Mohammad became strong enough to move from the stage of weakness to the stage of Jihad". My response(# If someone pulls a gun on you in the street and says Do not move or I will shoot, should you move? The smart answer is NO. In the same token if a man is going to for sure kill you and your family and let us say you have a gun and you get a chance to shoot him before he shoots you and your family, should you kill him? The smart answer is YES. Does the above answer ?NO? and the answer after that ?YES?, contradict each other? No one should fight back when they are not strong enough to fight. But if they are strong enough then depending on the situation of how harsh and persistence your enemy is maybe you should fight back (i.e. fight against terrorism). You stated(#9) For 13 years Muhammad preached in Mecca but less than 100 people accepted him. Meccans preferred Al Nadir, another storyteller to Muhammad?s boring warnings of hell. His irreverence to their gods angered the people. Eventually he migrated to Medina where he found a more receptive audience. His followers also joined him and he called them immigrants. At first they were poor and used to work as journeymen in palm plantations of the Jews living in Medina. They used to give some of their food to Muhammad, who often dined on nothing but few dates. The hardship of life in exile was unbearable to Muhammad. He was not interested in work. He had bigger plans. He started raiding the merchant caravans that were carrying goods from Damascus to Mecca. One of these raids that took place at Badr was a big success and the Prophet made a good fortune thereof. Then he planned other highway robberies. He distributed the booty, among those who took part in the battles and kept 20% for himself. He even made money threatening to kill his captives and released them only after receiving ransoms. He assured his followers that if they fall in the battles, they would get more rewards in Paradise. Gradually his fortunes changed. He was no more a weak neglected preacher but a successful marauding chieftain who commanded absolute power over his followers. With this change of fortune Muhammad's message also changed. Here is a comparison between some early verses he wrote in Mecca while weak and some that he wrote in Medina after becoming powerful. My response(#9) You see my friend, biased is biased and telling stories like above will not bring us to a realization of anything about the Koran. Your above story, or even a pro-Mohammad?s version, can not substantiate anything about Mohammad. So we should in my opinion avoid them. However to make this point clear and to show that your story can easily been written by a person opposite to you without changing the facts, I will act as that person and retell your story in a different way and just like your story I will not be able to draw any proof about whether Mohammad was a great man or an awful one. Here is the same story from perspective of a pro Mohammad person ?For 13 years Mohammad preached in Mecca. One hundred people immediately were braved enough to accept his invitation to accept only one God. Meccans preferred AL Nadir, another great storyteller who is known to remind people of the other world and consequences our actions will have in the other world. His denial to worship their many gods angered the people. Eventually he was kicked out and forced to move his followers to Medina, his crime was that he wanted to worship the one and only God. In Medina his message had a chance to be heard by so many many and therefore many brave man and woman of God accepted his message. His brave followers also moved to Medina, he called them immigrants. At first they were poor and used to work as journeymen in the palm plantations of the Jews living in Medina. They used to give some of their food to Muhammad, who often dined on nothing but few dates. The hardship of life in exile was unbearable to Muhammad. He was a working man as he worked long hours under the sun farming an occupation of prophets before him. However God had other plans for him. Eventually after many years of accepting oppression God gave permission to him and his followers to defend themselves from the aggressors who wanted nothing better than to kill them on the account of their religion. He foght back and he started to raid those who had raided him in the past for too long (give them a taste of their own medicine). One of these raids that took place at Badr was a big success and the Prophet made a good fortune thereof. As he had proven himself rejecting to accept any wealth in exchange for him stopping his prophecy. As all the prophets of God have other intention in their mind than wealth. Then he continued his hard work to stop the enemy with all his might. He distributed the goods, among those who took part in the battles fairly, and unlike the kings of those times, he gave the goods to those people who had risked their lives for God. The 20% that God told him to keep was also spent for building a mosque and was spent on the religion that God had commanded him to spread. He assured his followers that if they fall in the battles, they would get more rewards in Paradise, a promise that was given to all the prophets before him, a promise brought to his followers from God. Gradually his patience and struggles paid off and his fortunes changed. He was no more a weak neglected prophet but a successful man of God who God gave him absolute power over his followers. With this change of fortune Muhammad's followers increased, thus forming a great empire so new rules were required to run this great nation. As you see from the above story I just told, one can not prove or disprove of who Mohammad was. And this is true about your version of the story also. You stated(#11) 5045 We will know what the infidels say but you are not to compel them 9123 Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you. My response(#11) The above listed verses are misquoted. In your site you posted 3 translations but yet you did not use any of them. In those translations you do not see the word ?Murder?. You substitute the word ?fight? for ?Murder?. The below are the 3 translations you have provided on your site 009.123 YUSUFALI O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you and know that Allah is with those who fear Him. PICKTHAL O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him). SHAKIR O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). The above verses are similar in contents as the SR #5, which I already explained my views about them. You Stated(#12) 283 Speak good to men... 95 Slay the idolaters wherever you find them My response(#12) First of all I must say that Chapter 2 verse 83 was not early verses. This chapter was send to Mohammad on the 22nd year of his prophecy and the chapter right before that, in the same year was chapter 9. So you are wrong to compare them as early verses to latter once. However my view about them is explained in SR number 5, 6, and 7. You stated(#13) 20103 Therefore be patient with what they say, and celebrate (constantly) the praises of thy Lord 865 O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers for these are a people without understanding. My response(#13) My view about the above is explained in SR number 5, 6, and 7. You stated(#14) 569 Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabaeans, and those of the Christians, whosoever believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow. 929 Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day... and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior" My response(#14) The above verse 569 was the part of chapter 5 which was the last chapter that was revealed to Mohammad and chapter 9 was revealed about one year before that. So this is not a comparison of early verses to latter once. This one actually proves the opposite of what you are saying as 569 is when Mohammad was in absolutely his highest power, so he is talking about love and compassion at the height of his power. And I think 569 is makes us believe that the Koran is sent down by the same one that sent down the Bible, and the Torah. And it shows how God is trying to unite all people who believe in God and do righteous work without any regard of how they worship God or what religion they choose. And about 929 I explained earlier that the verse does not promote fighting with the non-believer of all times, it promotes defensive fighting against those who tried to kill Mohammad and his followers 1400 years ago. This is clearly shown if we read early verses before which is 913 and states Fight with those who first brought fight to you. You stated(#15) 1096 To you be your religion, and to me my religion" 385 Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him; in the next world he shall be among the losers." My response(#15) Verse 1096 tells Mohammad and even confirms it few more times (2256, 1099), that there is no compulsion in religion. Verse 385 says who ever desires any religion than Islam (bear in mind Islam is a religion brought by Abraham (227, and Moses and Jesus and his disciples are referred in the Koran as Moslems (352, 5111, many more)). Islam means submission (to God). So obviously not only Mohammad but all the prophets of God said to their people believe in God or suffer the consequences in the judgment day. And your previous quote (569) proof my point about what God meant by saying no religion but Islam is accepted (Koran; 569) Those who believe and those who are Jews, Sabeans and Christians-anyone who believes in God and the last day, and acts honorably, should have no fear nor will they be saddened. It is also very crucial that we note that for Mohammad?s time, no excuse will be accepted, however those who don?t believe in Islam today is mainly because it is made up to be a very ugly religion, so those who opposed like yourself is actually bear no guilt as the presentation of Islam to them have been far different than that of prophet Mohammad. This is also true about Judaism and Christianity. For today?s Judaism is presented a lot different to people than it was presented by Mosses himself with all his miracles. So a lot more is expected of them accepting the plea of God than of us. As they observed all Moses? miracles first hand, but more than 3000 years later we can not even verify those miracles with physical evidence. So not only Islam in the Koran is defined as believing in one God, but also the verse we are looking at is talking to Arabs of 1400 years ago. The Koran repeats more than 70 times that if you believe in God and do good you will go to heaven (225,62,82,277, 357, 457,122,124,173, 59,69,93, 742, 104,9, 1111,23, 1329, many more). You stated(#16) 262 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. 930 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them how they are deluded away from the Truth! My response(#16) This is absolutely not a contradiction, but it may appear to be if we disregard the rest of the Koran. So please allow me to explain In the Koran it says those who change the book and betrayed God?s writing they will be punished. This is only to those who did this not those who were fooled by this act. For example if someone lies and changes a persons will, he who changes that will be punished not those who respected the altered will and did according to it. This is explain in the Koran as such (Koran; 2181) Whoever then alters it after he has heard it, the sin of it then is only upon those who alter it; surely God is hearing, knowing. So one must bear in mind that God is not punishing the ones that are ignorant about the alteration of the book. Note the following verse cites one of the reason for sending of Mohammad is this fact that many people of book are following the fault that was presented into the book of God (Koran; 519) O followers of the book! Indeed Our apostle has come to you explaining to you after a cessation of the apostles, lest you say There came not to us a giver of good news or a warner, so indeed there has come to you a giver of good news and a warner; ? And the below verse makes it very clear that God is angry with those who lie about Jesus long time ago not the one that did not know about this alteration of the book. (Koran; 4157) and (also) for their saying. ?We killed God?s messenger Christ Jesus, the son of Mary!? They neither killed nor crucified him, even though it seemed so to them? Note in the above verse is not saying that the Christians of Mohammad?s time claim they killed Jesus, but about the people of almost 600 years before Mohammad?s time. Anyhow God is angry with those who alter the Book not the Christian that do good deeds but mistakenly think Jesus was son of God and as you can see God even praises them even though they say Jesus is son of God (3113-114) and this praise is because of their good actions (Koran; 3113) They are not all alike; of the followers of the book there is an upright party; they recite Gods? communications in the night time and they adore. (3114) they believe n God and the last day, and they enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong, and they strive with one another in hastening to good deeds, and those are among the good. In certain parts of the Koran, God also speaks very angrily toward the believers(1074-6) (Koran; 1074) So woe to the praying ones, 1075 Who are unmindful of their prayers, 1076 Who do (good) to be see (hypocrites), 1077 And withhold the necessaries of life (from needy once) You see the above statements are not contradicting to the verses that speaks good about the believers but rather shows that believers can also fall in the traps of the devil and become bad, but again this is not contradiction. You will also find in the Koran when it says the believers that do good deeds will find heaven as their eternal home (and it repeats this verse over 70 times, (i.e. 457)). (Koran; 457) And those who believe and do good deeds, We will make them enter gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them for ever; ? Of course saying God has a son is not accepted by God. This act is no good but the punishment for this act is of the people who initiated this and that is why God is very angry with those who changed the book of God note the following verses about this (Koran; 341) ? neither take a mean price in exchange for My verses? (342) And do not mix up the truth with the falsehood, nor hide the truth while you know (it). (Koran; 259) But those who were unjust changed it for a saying other than that which had been spoken to them, so We sent upon those who were unjust a pestilence from Heaven, because they transgressed. (Koran; 279) It will be too bad for those who write the book down in their own hand, then say ?This is from God!?, so they may sell it for a paltry price. It will be too bad for them because of what their hands have written. Too bad for whatever they earn! (Koran; 280) ? ?Say ? Have you taken it on oath from God? God never breaks His word. Or are you saying something about God which you really do not know?? (Koran; 2174) Those who hide what God has sent down in the book and barter it off for a peltry price only suck fire into their bellies. God will not speak to them on the resurrection day nor will He purify them; they will have painful torment! Verses like the above one are not rare in the Koran. It shows God?s anger with those who try to alter His book and those who write books to hide the Koran (i.e. Resaleh, or books about Ahadith, etc). So when God says the Jews, and the Christians are very wrong for saying God has a son and those are people that are deluded from the truth and adds the curse of God is on them, He is talking about the ones that knowingly lied about God. Again if we list all the verses that there is in the Koran about Jews and Christians we will see that the message you get is opposite of what your conclusion is based on couple of verses you quote. Please note the below verse (Koran; 515) O people of the book! Indeed Our apostle has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the book and will forgive many of you ? And as I showed above (1074-7) the believers can have also curse of God on them. We can see today?s Islam has the curse of God on them for leaving the Koran (in my opinion), but yet if any Moslem in any of these countries is a very good person he will definitely go to heaven as it is repeatedly stated in the Koran that ?believing in God and good deeds? is all that is required for entering heaven. You state(#17) 1099 If it had been thy Lord's Will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth! Wilt thou then compel mankind against their will to believe! 511 And as for those who disbelieve and reject Our Signs, they are the people of Hell" My response(#17) Again no contradiction is seen above. If God wanted them all to believe He could have forced them (but He let everyone be free to choose), now at the end of the world they will be judged and then go to Hell for not believing in God. This is the same in all the religions of God. But very crucial again is the disbeliever of Mohammad?s time or any time are the people who actually used their minds and came to the conclusion that yes Mohammad was the prophet of God and then said no to him. This is very clear if we look at the two verses about who God thinks is the disbeliever. (Koran; 822) The worst animals before God are the deaf and dumb, those who do not use their mind. (Koran; 855) The worst animals for God are those who disbelieve and do not even want to believe So as it is very clear if a man uses his mind and comes to the conclusion that there is no God and yet is a great man and does good deeds all his life then he is not accepted as disbeliever because those who reject God have certain qualities and God has made them clear. (Koran; 1071) Have you seen someone who rejects religion? (2) That is the person who pushes the orphan aside (3) and does not promote feeding the needy (3). And if someone does not believe but has good excuse (which is not accepted when prophets are alive and available to them), then they will be listen to by God (2124, 2764, 2875). (Koran; 2124) Yet do they still adopt other gods instead of Him? SAY ?Bring on your proof! ? (Koran; 2764) ? Is there any deity alongside God? SAY ?Bring on your proof if you have been so truthful!? (Koran; 2875) We shall drag a witness out of every nation and We shall say ?Bring on your proof!?? Looking at all these verses together, a person such as yourself who is against prophet Mohammad is blessed if you are honest in your search for truth. And those who say ?Salavat (peace be upon Mohammad and ?) are cursed for praising Mohammad if they are blindly following a certain path without using their minds. You state(#1 2945 Argue with people of the book, other than evil doers, only by means of what are better! and say, we believe in what has been sent down to us and sent down to you. Our God is the same as your God, and we are surrendered to Him. 928 O you who believe! Verily, the Mushrik?n (unbeleivers) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Har?m (at Makkah) after this year, ?? My response(#1 The 928 is said about the Moshrik that brought fight to Mohammad (see verse 913). As we can clearly see it is talking about those people of Mohammad?s time and obviously they did something terrible to Mohammad and his followers. The mistake you made on your conclusion about this verse could have been avoided if you would look at few verses before (i.e. verse 913). You stated(#19) 1585 Pardon thou, with a gracious pardoning.... 1417 Before him is Hell; and he shall be made to drink boiling water. My response(#19) God is a God of gracious and yet justice. Do good deeds and believe in God you will receive heaven. Do bad deeds and don?t believe in God and you will receive Hell. Do you actually see a contradiction here? This is the basis of all religions. And in religion we must either accept certain higher power or reject. Doing so is only through faith. If we do then we must accept what that super natural power is saying which is there is a judgment day and in it there will be a Hell and a Heaven. Mosses, Jesus, and Mohammad all clearly said the above verses in their books, the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran. You stated(#20) 3115 But if they strive to make thee join in worship with Me things of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration), and follow the way of those who turn to me (in love) in the end the return of you all is to Me, and I will tell you the truth (and meaning) of all that ye did. 533 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; My response(#20) This is similar to SR number18 and 19. You stated(#21) 6108 and insult not (Revile not) those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance. Thus we made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end they return to their Lord, and we shall then tell them the truth of all that they did 2219-22 But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads, Where by that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them) Taste the doom of burning. My response(#21) This is similar to SR number18 and 19. You stated(#22) 582 Thou wilt find the nearest of them in love to the believers (Muslims) are those who say 'We are Christians' 923 O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Infidelity above Faith if any of you do so, they do wrong. My response(#22) Where do you see a contradiction in the above two verses? I don?t see any. Also comparing verses from chapter 5 to that of chapter 9 is not comparing early verses to latter ones. You stated(#23) 608 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them for Allah loveth those who are just. 2552 So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a great endeavor. My response(#23) Similar contents as SR number 18 and 19. However you also made a mistake of thinking 608 is the earlier verses when Mohammad was weak and 2552 is latter verses when he was strong. Chapter 60 was revealed when Mohammad was in his fourth year in the Madineh (17th year of his prophecy) and chapter 25 was revealed to him on the 10th year of his prophecy when he was in Mecaa. You stated(#24) 1753 Say to My servants that they should (only) say those things that are best for Satan doth sow dissensions among them For Satan is to man an avowed enemy. 669 O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end. My response(#24) Verse 669 is telling the Prophet to strive against them, because as all the people of the world know, the disbelievers of Mohammad?s time were doing nothing but trying to hurt Mohammad and his followers. We all know about all the problems they always gave Mohammad and his followers, so for God to allow them to strive against them after all the mean and evil things they did against Mohammad and his followers, is not an odd thing. However this does not give anyone of Mohammad?s followers or after them all the M