Questions/Comments on the Quran

Peace All Based on the context given in al-quran, what constitutes the nature of 'the Messiah'. What is it, why is such a title given to Jesus? Joe

Peace All 2780 Lo! thou canst not make the dead to hear, nor canst thou make the deaf to hear the call when they have turned to flee; 2781 Nor canst thou lead the blind out of their error. Thou canst make none to hear, save those who believe Our revelations and who have surrendered. 2782 And when the word is fulfilled concerning them, We shall bring forth a beast of the earth to speak unto them because mankind had not faith in Our revelations. I'm starting to wonder if this beast/creature as propogated by Rashad and other Submitters/19ers is in fact regarding the advent of the computer. These people are fond of using the computer in their study of mathematical maricles, so I wonder what this creature could actually be. A computer does not make much sense. Take care. Joe

Salams, I'm new to this forum. I have read almost all the material on free-minds.org. I have a suggestion for a mini-article which would be useful when presenting evidence from the Quran itself in support of Quran Alone. The longest surah in the Book is The Cow. It takes its name from a story about Moses and his people. They were asked by God, through Moses, to kill a cow. No details about the cow were given. Instead of simply killing any cow, the Jews continuously asked Moses to keep going back to God to ask for more details about the cow. Eventually they killed a cow. The lesson from this story is that God does not wish to complicate our lives unnecessarily and if he does not give details about something then that is intentional. The Jews insisted on more and more details which God did not specify or require. This only complicated their own lives unnecessarily. The longest surah in the Quran takes its name from this story. It's a critical lesson for us. The same lesson can be used when talking to Traditionalists who say that there are certain issues which the Quran does not spell out in detail and that we therefore need to go to hadith in order to extract those details. In other words WE NEED MORE DETAIL THAN WHAT GOD HAS GIVEN US! God is very detailed when He needs to be, and very vague when He needs to be. He doesn't need us to remind Him and prompt Him to give us more detail. Just a thought, HR

Peace be on all readers, It has been a fair interval between posts for me but I have been working on several things lately. One thing that occurred to me is the Opening surah of the Quran. Since we recite it so often I wondered how many people had ever gone to the extent of trying to come up with their own personal understanding of the surah. I think it's worth doing this as it brings to one's mind what God is wanting us to be calling upon Him with. Because I think in English I think it is important for me and I think anyone else who has English as a first language to examine Al-Fatiha for themselves and find its meaning for themselves. Although all translations will share the core concepts, I will share my translation in English for your consideration. Chapter 1 - The Opening 1 In the name of GOD, the Most Powerful, the Most Merciful. 2 All praise is due to GOD, the Lord of all, 3 Most Powerful, Most Merciful. 4 Ruler of the Day of Judgment. 5 You alone we serve; You alone we ask for encouragement, 6 Guide us to the Straight Way, 7 The Way of those whom You bless with Your grace, and not of those who earn Your anger, nor of those who go astray. This has evolved over some years and is always changing subtly. I hope to have a perfect translation one day that brings even more of the impact of the original to English. My best wishes. PS Please share your own nuances in this thread as I'd be interested to learn what others call to God with. OO

Salam Layth, et al. I wonder why the chapters do not have titles such as surah al-fatiha (the key) etc.?

Peace to all readers, In another post I had written about some of my understaning and comparison of it with ayman's excellent article on names. See http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=994 I want to develop that a little further here. The centrality of this issue to modern quran interpretation cannot be overestimated. If the physical structure of the Kaaba in modern day Mecca is considered such a focal point of what Islam is about then I believe that the true meaning of "MASJID-AL-HARAM" has just as great an importance in our understanding of the spiritual message of the quran. Just to remind those not inclined to visit the other thread. Arabic's grammar is such that the addition of "MA" to a triliteral root gives us the implementation (place) of that concept. An example is DARS (root is DRS) is the concept of study gives MADARASA which many will recognise is the word for a university or higher institution of study. I believe there is sufficient evidence to make SJD the root commonly interpreted as "prostrate" to really mean "acknowledge". So that MASJID becomes the implementation of acknowledge acknowledgement. There is also the concept of 'understanding' in this which makes it difficult to give one single English word to mean SJD exactly. SJD = acknowledge MASJID = implementation of acknowledge = acknowledgement AL-HARAM = the forbidden therefore MASJID-AL-HARAM = acknowledgement of the forbidden now if we move on to MASJID-AL-AQSA we can see that this means AL-AQSA = furthest therefore MASJID-AL-AQSA = furthest acknowledgement or understanding. This means the furthest or highest acknowledgement and understanding of spirituality from a human perspective. It is one thing to acknowledge the law of God through the things He has forbidden and another to be taken to the highest understanding. The prophets are given this as a part of their role so that we see in Surah 171 the meaning is Subhana allathee asra biAAabdihi laylan mina almasjidi alharami ila almasjidi al-aqsa allathee barakna hawlahu linuriyahu min ayatina innahu huwa alssameeAAu albaseeru "Praise be to GOD who moved His servant at night from the acknowledgement of the forbidden to the highest understanding which We blessed throughout, in order that We might show him some of Our Signs for He is the One Who Hears and Sees." Quran 171 I'd be interested to hear what others think of this interpretation of MASJID-AL-AQSA. I strongly recommend reading ayman's article which although long has many of these ideas and more in somewhat different but yet similar ways. Regards.

Peace, The link to the latest QT is provided below...This file is what the printers will be using and the cut-off time is TOMORROW DECEMBER 16th. http//www.free-minds.org/QT.zip If you find any errors, report them now or forever hold your peace (at least till we do another major edit!). Layth

Peace, I have seen various discussions on this and checked the word "DaRaBa" in Hans Wehr. There is a foolish argument made by an anti-Islamic site which claims when "DaRaBa" meets a woman it means strike. But when its a road it means travel through the land. Especially, the interpretation of 3844 is hypocritical as we know the story of Job as in the Bible and this point is quickly dealt with with scant detail, I digress... I say no, it does not end with the object alone. Example I am hitting on her means I am trying to charm her. Meanwhile, the 434 translation and many root word comparisons can end up with big mistakes if we don't consider the "preposition" as well as the "object". Hans Wehr has a listing for leaving under "DaRaBa" and it goes with the preposition of "Ayn-Nun". Although a hateful bigotted site it is there seems to be a point in the argument "leave them" would mean "adribu ANhunna" instead of "adribuhunna". Does anyone have anything to challenge this view point? Thanks

peace all, Some of the analysis that goes on in this forum is superb. It truly is a gift from The God. I would like for this gift to be exposed to a wider audience. IF the footnote is Quran/logic based, and provides evidence on why we chose a certain word over the traditional-translated word for example, I dont see a problem with it. I can guarantee we are going to get people say "They just chose "separate" in 434 to make it sound better" (for example), when we know that this is the most accurate meaning of the passage, based on Quran/logical analysis. What do others think? Wakas

265 And you will surely discern those who would transgress concerning the rest period (Sabbath), as we have said to them "Be as despised apes." And we have made despised apes as an example to those who witness them and those in their trail, as an warning to the prudent. 263-64 And when we take your covenent and raise above you At-tooru, take what we have offered you with strength and mind all that is in it so that you may be prudent. Consequently, you will be mutual patrons and supporters after that. ANd if not for God's grace and mercy on you, you would be in the ranks of losers. 272-73-74-75 And in the instance you might slay a person and fall into dispute about him, God will bring out whatever you may be hiding. We have said, "Impose a tax to God concerning the dead person's portion. Thus we will bring to life the dead. God is showing you his words so that you might use logic and good sense. However, some of your minds and hearts after the above will become hard like rocks, or harder. Nevertheless, among rocks there are certainly those that rivers will bust out from, others that will split and leak water and yet others that will sink for fear of God. God is not unaware of your actions. So do you entertain hope then, that such people will be faithful to you? A party of them may hear God's words and distort them, knowingly, after logically understanding them. 278 These are in the ranks of lawless people. They don't recognize law, only their desires. They, really, only conjecture. I try to do this when I read the Quran but of late it has been difficult seeing that I do not have any good dictionaries at my side. Someone will have to helpme with at-tooru as I cannot remember its altertnative meaning, though I remember discovering one, which was based on the root taara or tawara, with a Taw. I believe it was in Hava that I found it. Godbless, Anwar

Peace all, O you who believe, if you are told Make room, you shall make room for each other to sit. God will then make room for you. If you are asked to get up and move, get up and move. God raises those among you who believe, and those who acquire knowledge to higher ranks. God is fully aware of everything you do Ya ayyuha allatheena amanooitha qeela lakum tafassahoo fee almajalisifaifsahoo yafsahi Allahu lakum wa-ithaqeela onshuzoo faonshuzoo yarfaAAi Allahu allatheenaamanoo minkum waallatheena ootoo alAAilmadarajatin waAllahu bima taAAmaloonakhabeerun When I read the verse above, I wondered if nushoozahunna in 434 means rebellion / disobedience, it is a kinda fuzzy The men are to support the women by what God Has endowed them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright women who are attentive, and keep private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those women from whom you fear rebellion, then you shall advise them, then abandon them in the bedchamber, then separate from them; if they obey you, then do not seek a way over them; God is High, Great. Alrrijalu qawwamoonaAAala alnnisa-i bima faddalaAllahu baAAdahum AAala baAAdin wabimaanfaqoo min amwalihim faalssalihatu qanitatunhafithatun lilghaybi bima hafithaAllahu waallatee takhafoona nushoozahunna faAAithoohunna waohjuroohunnafee almadajiAAi waidriboohunna fa-in ataAAnakum falatabghoo AAalayhinna sabeelan inna Allaha kanaAAaliyyan kabeeran I think this expression 'fa-in ataAAnakum' doesn't generally speak about obedience or the stop of the rebellion but it is a precise thing in close connection with the true meaning of the word 'nushoozahunna' Another verse where the same word is used in the same context 4128 128. And if a woman fears from her husband rebellion, or desertion, then there is no sin for them to reconcile between themselves; and reconciliation is good. And the souls are brought by need. And if you are kind and do right, then God is expert over what you do. Wa-ini imraatun khafat min baAAliha nushoozan AW iAAradan fala junaha AAalayhimaan yusliha baynahuma sulhan waalssulhukhayrun waohdirati al-anfusu alshshuhhawa-in tuhsinoo watattaqoo fa-inna Allaha kanabima taAAmaloona khabeeran The 'AW = OR' between nushoozan and iAAradan doesn't mean necessarily two distinct things I think 'nushoozan' and 'iAAradan' are close or equivalent or synonymous. It seems to me that 'nushoozan' is closer to desertion than rebellion / disobedience. Other translation for the word 'iAAradan' = indifference The verb aAArada = to turn away see also 635, 1783, 1857, 20100, 20124... Any comments appreciated ) Marie

On usage of words One of the phenomena specifically related to the Quran aloners is that most of them do not accept the simple fact that a word can have more than one meaning and/or many uses within the meaning. This stand is a very dangerous one and surely can only help prevent those who uphold it from getting to the so wanted true meaning of a word and the best possible understanding. Assertions such as; the word must have one meaning and usage and I do not think that God would want to confuse us by giving a word multi-meanings are of no use and very harmful for those who adopt it. It will just make their efforts in vain and their energy wasted for nothing until they discover this simple fact that, words do have multi-meanings and usages and that Arabic is not Gods language. What God states in the Book clearly that He sends messengers to their peoples in their own language(s). In the case of the revelation we have at hands, it is in Arabic, the language of human beings, Arabs. In the following lines we shall GW try to provide with one single example from the Book to illustrate whether this take is correct or not. At the end of the analysis we shall GW give few words for considerations. Interested can do their own study for those words. The example we provide here is so obvious that it is hard to escape the eye of an average reader not to mention someone who studies the Book. The word we are going to discuss here is mentioned within two verses that follow each other, that are in about ten lines and, almost in all copies of the Book, in the same page, 6 times out of which 4 times is the very same word, and other two derivatives of it. The word is Ha (as in halal and haram) Sad (as in sawm, siyam) and Na. HSN. The verses are 424, 25. 424, And (forbidden for you- see the previous verse) the already married (almuhsanati) from the women, except those whom your right hands possess; Gods scripture is over you; and permitted for you what is beyond this, if you are seeking with your money protecting (muhsineen) and not fornicating. As for those whom you have already had joy with them, then you shall give them their wage as an obligation. There is no sin upon you for what you agree to after the obligation. God is Knowledgeable, Wise. 425, And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the believing protected (almuhsanati) women, then from what your right hands possess of your believing girls. God is more aware of your faith, some of you to each other. You shall marry them with the permission of their people and give them their wage in kindness; protected (muhsanat), not fornicating or taking lovers. If they become protected (fa idha uhsina), and any of them comes with lewdness then they shall have half the punishment of what is for the protected women (almuhsanati). This is for those who fear hardship from among you. But if you are patient it is better for you, and God is Forgiver, Merciful. The above verses suffice for any comment. Please go to any translation you can get to and see if any, I repeat, any of them translate the very same word in these two verses following each other, giving it the same meaning? There is none. It would just cause a great confusion UNLESS one understands that words can have multi-meanings and/or multi-uses. Before going deeper into this let us go and check the meaning of this word and it usage in the Book. 55, Today, good and pure things are made law full unto you. And the food of those given the Book is lawful for you and yours to them and the unmarried (almuhsanat) believing women and the unmarried (almuhsanat) from those given the Book before you if you give them their wage, protecting and not fornicating nor taking lovers and who rejects faith fruitless is his work and in the hereafter will be among the losers. 1248 Then will come after that seven dreadful (years) that will consume all that you have laid in advance for them except for a little of what you have stored (protected). 2180, And we taught him the making of coats of mail for your benefit, to protect you in you wars, will you then be grateful? 2191, And the one who guarded her chastity so we blew into her from Our Spirit and made her and her son a sign for the peoples. 244, And those who accuse the chaste women and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes and reject their witnessing ever after, those are the wicked. 2423, Those who accuse the chaste (almuhsanati), indiscreet believing women, they will be cursed in this world and the Hereafter, and they will have a painful retribution. 2433, And let those who are not able to marry continue to be chaste until God enriches them of His Bounty. And if those whom your right hands possess seek marriage, then marry them off if you find that they are ready And give them from the wealth of God which He has bestowed upon you. And do not force your girls into prostitution when they desire chastity (tahasunan), in order that you may make a gain in the goods of this worldly life. But if anyone compels them, then for their compulsion, God is Forgiving, Merciful. 592, It is he who got out the unbelievers among the people of the Book from their homes at the first gathering, little did they you think that they would get out and they thought that their fortresses (husunuhum) would defend them from God, but God came to them (from the quarters) from which they did not expect, and cast terror into their hearts, they destroy their houses by their own hands and the hands of the believers, take head, then, o you with eyes. 5914, They will not fight you all together except in fortified townships or from behind walls. Their fight is strong among themselves, you think they are united but their hearts are divided that is because they are a people devoid of wisdom. 6612, And maryam, the daughter of Imran who guarded her chastity and we breathed into it of Our spirit and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and His scriptures and was one of the devout (servants). From verses 2180,91, 592, 5914, 6612, and others in the above line of verses, we see that the root verb of this word means; to Guard, to protect, to save. The noun muhsanat (from the adjective) is used for women in two cases. To point to the already married women, meaning that she is protected by marriage. So, the marriage is viewed in this sense as the protection for woman. Protection in the social, physiological, biological and other related senses. Points to unmarried but free women. Free in relation to those whom your right hands possess. The idea is that, woman in this sense is free as she is within the guarded free townships. Now, let us have the first two verses of our analysis in which this word occurs 6 times. 424, And (forbidden for you- see the previous verse) the already married (almuhsanati) from the women, (THEY ARE FORBIDDEN AS THEY ARE ALREADY MARRIED. SO THE TANSLATION HERE IS;ALREADY MARRIED WOMEN).except those whom your right hands possess (THIS GROUP HAD A SPECIFIC TREATMENT; EVEN IF THY WERE MARRIED MARRYING THEM WAS POSSIBLLE UNDER SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. MORE ON THAT LATER.) Gods scripture is over you; and permitted for you what is beyond this, if you are seeking with your money protecting (muhsineen) (TO PROTECT THEM WITH THE MARRIAGE TIE) and not fornicating. As for those whom you have already had joy with them, then you shall give them their wage as an obligation. There is no sin upon you for what you agree to after the obligation. God is Knowledgeable, Wise. 425, And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the believing protected (almuhsanati)(PROTECTED MEANING FREE IN THIS SENSE AS MENTIONED IN POINT 2 ABOVE) women, then from what your right hands possess of your believing girls (AMONG THOSE WHOM YOUR RIGHT HANDS POSSESS, OF YOUR GIRLS BUT BELIEVING GIRLS). God is more aware of your faith, some of you to each other. You shall marry them with the permission of their people (I BELIVE THIS REFERS TO THOSE UNDER WHOM THEY WERE TAKEN, OWNERS IS POSSIBLE TOO) and give them their wage in kindness; protected (muhsanat) (BY MARRYING), not fornicating or taking lovers (CONTRA TO MARRIAGE TIE). If they become protected (fa idha uhsina) (BY MARRIAGE), and if any of them comes with ewdness then they shall have half the punishment of what is for the protected women (almuhsanati) (HALF OF THOSE FREE WOMEN). This is for those who fear hardship from among you. But if you are patient it is better for you, and God is Forgiver, Merciful. So, this is how i view the issue and would like to hear your inputs adn comments. I did not want into details in this example as i am workiing on more 'detaily' text on these verses. will be sahred gw with you here soon. Peace

Peace All In the translations menstruation is often referred to as impure, harmful, etc. What makes it such? Any scientific analysis? Based on a scriptural standpoint, are there any clues as to why it is considered as such, or are the translations not true to the meaning of the arabic? Take care. Joe

Salam I have seen some errors in The Message Chapter 213 ..."Shall we believe as the fools believed!" This should have ended in a question mark(?) Chapter 21112..."My Lord judge with truth..." Should be "My Lord JUDGES with truth.." Peace.. Tony

Sura 1933 says "And salaam, peace be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!" Ok so Jesus will come back then. But when Jesus comes back, what is it he will do exactly? If I am correct, there are hadiths that mention that Jesus will fight the Dajjal. But what does Quran say Jesus will do? ?

Of mice and men Sense for sense and not word for word, negotiation is the key to good translation, says Umberto Eco Umberto Eco Thursday October 30 2003 The Guardian I frequently feel irritated when I read essays on the theory of translation that, even though brilliant and perceptive, do not provide enough examples. I think translation scholars should have had at least one of the following experiences during their life translating, checking and editing translations, or being translated and working in close cooperation with their translators. As an editor, I worked for 20 years in a publishing house. As a translator, I made only two translations, which took me many years of reflection and hard work; these were from the Exercices de Style by Raymond Queneau and Gerard de Nerval's Sylvie. As an author, I have almost always collaborated with my translators, an experience that started with my early essays and became more and more intense with my four novels. Irrespective of the fact that some philosophers or linguists claim there are no rules for deciding whether one translation is better than another, everyday activity in a publishing house tells us that it is easy to establish that a translation is wrong and deserves severe editing. Maybe it is only a question of common sense, but common sense must be respected. Let us suppose that in a novel a character says, "You're just pulling my leg." To render such an idiom in Italian by 'stai solo tirandomi la gamba' or 'tu stai menandomi per la gamba' would be literally correct but misleading. In Italian, one should say 'mi stai prendendo per il naso', thus substituting an English leg with an Italian nose. If literally translated, the English expression, absolutely unusual in Italian, would make the reader suppose that the character (as well as the author) was inventing a provocative rhetorical figure - which is completely misleading, as in English the expression is simply an idiom. By choosing "nose" instead of "leg", a translator puts the Italian reader in the same situation as the original English one. Thus only by being literally unfaithful can a translator succeed in being truly faithful to the source text. Which is (to redeem the triviality of my example) like echoing Saint Jerome, patron saint of translators, that in translating one should not translate 'verbum e verbo sed sensum exprimere de sensu' (sense for sense, and not word for word) - even though the notion of the right sense of a text can imply some ambiguities. In the course of my experiences as a translated author I have always been torn between the need to have a translation that respected my intentions, and the exciting discovery that my text could elicit unexpected interpretations and be in some way improved when it was re-embodied in another language. What I want to emphasise is that many concepts circulating in translation studies (such as adequacy, equivalence, faithfulness) can also be considered from the point of view of negotiation. Negotiation is a process by virtue of which, in order to get something, each party renounces something else, and at the end everybody feels satisfied since one cannot have everything. For example, there is no exact way to translate the Latin word 'Mus' into English. In Latin 'Mus' covers the same semantic space covered by "mouse" and "rat" in English - as well as in French, where there is 'souris' and 'rat', in Spanish ('ratn' and 'rata') or in German ('maus' and 'ratte'). But in Italian, even though the difference between a 'topo' or, more unusually a 'sorcio', and 'ratto' is recorded in dictionaries, in everyday language one can use 'topo' even for a big rat - perhaps stretching it to 'topone' or 'topaccio'- but 'ratto' is used only in technical texts. So what happens when we find the word 'topo' in an Italian translation of a French text? Does it translate back as 'rat' or 'souris'? Take the first chapter of Camus' La peste in the Italian translation by Beniamino dal Fabbro. It states that one morning, Doctor Rieux found, on the stairs of the building, 'un sorcio morto'. Now 'sorcio' is like 'topo', and like "mouse" in English, and if one knows that mouse in French is souris one can infer that the Italian translator chose 'sorcio' instead of 'topo' because he was phonically influenced by the French 'souris'. In spite of these obvious assumptions, one is tempted to reflect on the fact that Camus' novel is telling the story of a terrible epidemic, and the plague is not usually carried by mice but by rats. Thus, not because of linguistic competence, but by virtue of general knowledge, one is encouraged to think that the translator made a mistake. As a matter of fact, if you check the French original, you will see that Camus does not mention a mouse but 'un rat'. This is an instance in which the Italian translator should have stressed the difference and mentioned, if not a 'ratto', at least a 'grosso topo' or a 'topo di chiavica'. Now let us suppose that one has to translate "How now! A rat?" from Hamlet (Act III, Scene IV) into Italian. As far as I know, every Italian version translates it as 'Cosa c', un topo?' or 'Come? Un topo?' A rigorous translator should check in an old dictionary whether in Shakespeare's time "rat" meant, as Webster's says today, "any of numerous rodents (Rattus and related genera) differing from the related mice by considerably larger size and by structural details", adding that a "rat" can also be "a contemptible person"; (and that to "smell a rat" means to realise that there is a secret plot). In fact, Shakespeare, at least in Richard III, used "rat" as an insult. However,in Italian the word 'ratto' has no connotation of "contemptible person", and rather suggests (though improperly) speed ('ratto' as an adjective means "speedy"). Moreover, in every situation in which someone is frightened by a rodent (when, according to a vaudeville tradition, women jump upon a chair and men grasp a broom to kill the intruder) the usual scream is 'un topo!' and not 'un ratto!' I would decide that Hamlet, in order to kill Polonius, did not need to know if there was a "mouse" or a "rat" behind that arras, and that the word 'topo' accurately suggests surprise, instinctive alarm, and an impulse to kill. For all these reasons I accept the usual translation 'Cosa c'? Un topo?' If in Camus' case it is indispensable to make the size of the rodent clear, and it had to be a rat, for Hamlet it is more important to stress the animal's sudden passage and the nervous reaction it elicited. Thus we have negotiated which portion of the expressed content was strictly pertinent in that given context. Between the purely theoretical argument that, since languages are differently structured, translation is impossible, and the commonsensical acknowledgement that people, after all, do translate and understand each other, it seems to me that the idea of translation as a process of negotiation (between author and text, between author and readers, as well as between the structure of two languages and the encyclopedias of two cultures) is the only one that matches our experience. This is an edited extract from Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation by Umberto Eco, published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson on November 13 for ?12.99 ........... I hope you found it an interesting reading Peace

peace all, Just realised this thread was erased due to the problems we had, so here it is again. Right Click & Save Target As You'll need Winzip to open it (unless you have XP which has a zip facility built in). http//www.winzip.com/ And a web browser to view it, like the one you're using right now! One of its advantages is that its quicker to locate specific verses. I always use it. When opened, click on the file "~QT_home" to view it. Wakas

http//www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-29035-3

Peace upon all, I have a question In the quran, I see some chapiter is madani and another makki, does the origin of this information comes from the hadith ? Thanks Peace Marie

Peace all, It is now done...After all these months of anguish and corrections and discussions...'The Message' is now available as a book for those who dislike reading on-line only Here is the Bookstore link http//www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-29035-3 http//www.free-minds.org/0595290353s.gif Layth