Peace Yosemite There is proof that Shareef's claim is false because he has not attempted to go to his people to share the message, nor has he come to teach what we already do not know, though he claimed to have advanced knowledge. Joe

Peace all, I saw that you are promoting a republic with your book "Natural Republic". Why don't you promote anarcho-capitalism? That's what, I think, is also promoted in the Koran. Anarcho-capitalism is a view which regards all forms of government as unnecessary and harmful, including, and characteristically, in matters of justice and self-defense. It synthesizes certain ideas from the tradition of classical liberalism (see libertarianism) and arguably from individualist anarchism as well. Anarcho-capitalists promote individual property rights and free markets (in the sense of freedom from government interference) as the most just and effective way to organize all services. They see the definition of property rights through contracts and common law as a universal mechanism to solve conflicts. They regard capitalist corporations as being the product of voluntary contracts and thus a legitimate and efficient way for people to organize, with freedom to choose a competitor or to enter competition as the universal way to preserve and promote quality in services. This analysis includes all goods and services, including those which governments have traditionally claimed as their natural monopoly - such as police or military forces (though only for defensive purposes) and justice through courts of arbitration. Thus, anarcho-capitalists hold their position to be a form of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalists repudiate all forms of state control - including taxation, coercive regulation, war, and coercive monopoly on the use of defensive force - as violations of essential individual rights. They reject these forms of coercive control whether they are exercised by state officials or by private agents; they oppose them because they are violations of rights, not because they are committed by governments. http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism Peace, Omar

Peace all, peace sabo, I hope you don't mind that I started a new thread. So according to what I am reading, after moses there were messengers sent to clarify the scripture , after jesus, and what about after mohamed? did God send someone to receite the Quran and teach us its wisdom? Or do you consider everybody on free-minds.org a messenger? I would say, everyone, who is informing people about the message (of God), is a messenger (of God). Even, if a disbeliever is informing about the message for a minute, in that very minute he is a messenger. If God says, he is sending messengers, it doesn't necessarily mean that angels with wings will bring him down from the sky. It could as well be your neighbour knocking at your door, going to tell you about the Koran. And what kind of "bayyinat" do you expect from someone who is "sent" (as God says "arsalna") from God with this mission? "bayyinah" means proof. The root "BYN" means "to be clear". I don't expect any proof beside the message. But I expect the message itself to be clear and self-proving. (EDIT The message need not necessarily be self-proving, but verifiable. In that case I expect a proof beside the message, like, the messenger giving me logical reasons to prove his message as true.) Finally I have to say, it is absurd to first try proving messengership before accepting a message, because to prove messengership, you must verify the message itself first. As you can see, you need to verify every single message anyway, regardless, who is saying it. Also, once you can call someone a messenger, it doesn't mean that you can trust what he will say in future, because he could as well say something wrong in the next minute and "lose his messengership". Therefore Listen to everybody, follow the truth, and forsake, what is wrong. Peace, Omar

Peace Zenje, So finally it doesn't really matter if there would exist such a Koran-Book (mushaf), where you can trust, that it's without error, because you always need to reflect anyway, because you could accidently miss a word, or learned a word wrong, etc. etc. etc. There you go! It doesn't really matter does it? wink I didn't say "it wouldn't be good to have a Koran-manuscript, where you can trust that it's without error", nor did I say "it doesn't matter at all". I meant that it wouldn't save you from reflecting. Here is my original statement again, with the original position of the underline So finally it doesn't really matter if there would exist such a Koran-Book (mushaf), where you can trust, that it's without error, because you always need to reflect anyway, because you could accidently miss a word, or learned a word wrong, etc. etc. etc. Hmm... I wonder, if the (19) code works with the 'different' quran? (I would say, there is only one Koran, the real text from God. But different Koran-manuscripts, the texts written down by humans/machines. So I guess you are talking about different "Koran-manuscripts".) I'm not completely sure, what you mean by "works". If you try to dissort Koran-manuscripts, e.g. removing one word "rahmaan" (Gracious), then the occurrences of "rahmaan" won't be a multiple of 19 anymore. I believe that the most correct Koran-manuscript is the Hafs-manuscript without verses 9128-129. (because Code-19 "works" here best, as well as the other reasons I mentioned against verses 9128-129.) I hope this answers your question. Which brings me to this, in the original quran (you know, the one without the markings?) did it even have verse numbers?... Would the code still work with that too? You mean the first Koran-manuscript? As long as there have been no errrors, and markings between the verses Yes. If there have been no markings between the verses, then not all patterns would have been visible, but some 19-patterns (e.g. word-occurences) would have been available. Peace, Omar