To Western Women

Dear Muslim Woman (Acerbic Jazbati),

You may have a point regarding the problems being faced by the Western women of today, but PLEASE donot forget the plight of the oppressed women of the Muslim world, especially the ones in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Just because Western women are on the wrong track (in your opinion) does not make the Muslim Women be on the right. I think there are a lot of issues that need to be sorted out for the Muslim women and we should not bury our heads in the sand and think all is well.

Best regards.

A Muslim Man.

Ref krashid #: 181

You said {I think chastity belt for males should also be marketed and you will beat Azim Premji.}

I believe the Qur`an only says that men should ``lower their gaze`` when they meet women. Thus, sunglasses/spectacles with a tiny camera that detects a woman in burqa (THAT should be an easy problem in image recognition) and immediately close the crystals of the LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) lenses so that the only way to see anything would be to lower the gaze would be the appropriate device for men. Thank you for stimulating my thoughts so that I have now come up with another useful invention for Islamic societies, the electronic blinkers.

Electronic chastity belts for men would be anti-Islamic as the Prophet has not asked men to lower any other part of their anatomy. He was extremely considerate and scientific in his approach and took into account that such reactions are beyond the control of men.

I am rather disappointed that I haven`t seen enthusiastic posts of approval for the chastity belt from ``let-us-put-women-inside-burqas`` men and ``I-am-Western-educated-but-I-wear-a-hijab-by-choice`` women. I hope you will live by the words you write here and be one of the earliest customers for my Electronic Islamic Blinkers.

siaglaph!

I will ask you this question.

Why didn`t you gave your country to India while Bangladesh was in Army rule?

Will you do that if army took over?

Will you justify the taking over of your country because there is no democracy?

If you answer yes, then you are justified in defending Israel.

If not then try to apply the same criteria to other people as yourself.

As you said, you are a proud freedom fighter. But Bangladesh in its form has never existed in history. Would you give it to Delhi to rule as a subjugated state, because that is the old history?

You are referring to non-European jews. Can you breakdown them as migrants from Somalia etc to increase the number of (second class) jews.

re digit

`` Stating otherwise would pretty much declare oneself as being Jewish, as only the Jews belive that Israel is the ethernal Jewish homeland, be there Jews in rule over the land or not.``

My religion is between me and my Creator; I couldn`t care less whether you thought I was Jewish or Taoist.

Yes indeed Israeli jails have torture and Palestinians have died under it. They have exact numbers and judicial enquiries people lose their jobs because of this high handedness. Quite a different picture than in the Arab world where no numbers exist, no enquiries are ever made, and those who disappear are gone for good while their killers and torturers are given gallantry awards by presidents elected with 99.99 per cent of votes in one-party elections.

Oman? Where the Qaboos family is afraid of so afraid of its own people that it won`t allow a parliament to be elected? Get real. At least you can be intelligent and have us compare Israel`s pluralist democracy with quasi-democracies like Jordan, Egypt, or Tunisia.

cheraym!

So, this ``Researcher`` is back? Is his research all over, or, is he just here to unload his insides out?

He is a ``faulty`` researcher. Beware of that.

In response to sigalph (#185):

``Really? The land of today`s Israel was ancient Jewish homeland almost four thousand years ago; who has displaced whom?``

Only for a short period of the Jewish history has Israel actually been a Jewish homeland. Stating otherwise would pretty much declare oneself as being Jewish, as only the Jews belive that Israel is the ethernal Jewish homeland, be there Jews in rule over the land or not.

Further, the Arabs who had inhabited the land during the Ottoman era did not displace the jews from the land. It was clearly the European Jews who displaced the Arabs.

The past history of the Jews (holocost and all) is irrelevant when it comes to the issue of Palestine; the displacement of the Arabs is the cause of all contemporary hostility.

``It is telling that only in Israel, of all the Middle East, are Arab Muslims capable of having a meaningful, though small, voice in electing their rulers.``

This is funny. The Arab`s, Muslim or otherwise, are third-class citizens of Israel. Of course, being a third class citizen in a state that is rather wealthy (thorough aid and now a boombing high-tech sector) still makes them better off then their peers in other states.

But it should also be noted that not any old Arab can become a citizen of this state. It`s not in the interest of Israel to re-patriate all the disposessed Arab`s. That move, seeing as Israel is a democracy and all, could spell trouble for the *zionist * state. You see, the Arabs don`t share the view that Israel is the ethernal homeland of the Jewish people.

``By no means a fully pluralist liberal democracy, Israel has place for the most vocal and active dissent``

Yes, then their army comes and bulldozes down your house when you are through demonstrating your dissent. Get real.

``Any Palestinian or Arab attempting half that would be shot or tortured to death...``

Torture is legal in Israel, and many palestinians have died in Israeli prisons. In any case, if you wish to compare Israel with another Arab state, try Oman.

re umairr #191

While your write-up is interesting and even surprising given that you support recognition of Israel, you tend to ascribe to me a lot of things which I did not say. If this is simple oversight, that`s okay; if this is a a method to let you score otherwise impossible points, then I am quite disappointed.

You mention ``the reasons you are using to justify the killings of Palestinians...`` I have never justified any killing; please be careful in throwing around such nonsense, as pleasing to some ears as it may sound.

In the same vein you end by expressing surprise that I am ``actually trying to justify the suppression and conquest of Middle Easterners...`` That reminds me of the Sir Winston line about the Labour leader, ``the getleman is indebted to his imgaination for his facts and his memory for his jokes.``

You ascribe to me the folowing as well: ``If you are trying to indicate that Palestinian Muslims have a better and safer lifestyle in Palestine...`` I have never indictaed that at all (never mind whatever this ``Palestine`` is). I have said, and prove me wrong, that Palestinian Muslims are the only Muslims in the Middle East who participate in genuinely meaningful elections. That may not be important to YOU; I know a lot of people who`d die (and do die) to gain that right to choose their rulers.

That said, now the substances. I agree wholeheartedly as you said that we shouldn`t use the past of 4000 years to decide the present. I had mentioned that ONLY to point out how absurd it is that some of you are quite willing to use the past of 50 years (because it suits your purpose) to decide the present. Either we can take into account ALL of recorded history of that land or NONE; intellectual honesty doesn`t allow for a 52 year limit on taking history into account. So I am all for your line ``One needs to solve problems in the present not in the past``. The fifty years is past and so is four thousand.

The present is this: Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East where voters, Jewish, Muslim, Druze, and Christian choose who governs them. Those Palestinians who may not want to live as part of the Israeli state have the option to move to Palestinian self ruled areas. And the world community has an obligation to see to it that those self rule areas are given normal opportunities to create a decent quality of life. In other words, the old Regan Peace Plan: The right of Israel to exist within safe and secure forntiers along with the legitimate rights of Palestinians for self determination.

I know Hanan Ashrawi, have read some of her works and am quite familiar with the fact that 60 minutes is a US TV news show (I have lived too long in the US not to know that, pal). I am also very thankful that you have a high regard for the freedom struggle of Bengalis. If I was a more suspicious soul I`d have assumed that you were trying to be patronising since those facts are somewhat tangential to what I thought we were discussing.

Indeed I am originally from Bangladesh and very proud of the 1971 War of Independence. It is not inspite, but because, of that long freedom struggle that I appreciate the thousands of years of struggle of the Jews to reclaim their homeland and doggedly hold on to it while all their neighbours took oaths in heaven to throw them into the sea.

European Jews? Can you name a single member of the Israeli inner cabinet who was born in Europe? Before you go off with ``but their parents were..`` hypothesis, should we then assume that Gen Zia, Nawabzada Liquat Ali Khan, and all the Mohajirs are ``Indian`` Pakistanis? Give me a break! Never mind the fact that more than a third of Israeli Jews are of Middle Eastern/non-European descent. But that is an inconvenient fact.

Throughout your post you`ve alluded to the ``suupression`` (that word has been used at least once in evey one of your paragraphs)by Israel of Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, Christians. If that were indeed the case, a fifth of Israel proper (excluding the post-1967 aditions) wouldn`t be Palestinian Arab and the Holy Places of Christians and Muslims had long been destroyed to make room for excavation of Jewish sites.

You want to see ``suppression``: look at the annihilation of Bahais in Iran or check out the chemical genocide of Kurds by that champion of humanity Saddam Hussein. Or the wiping out of the ancient city of Hama by Hafiz al Assad in 1983 when mosques were bombarded with tank hits.

Or, closer to Palestinian hearts, the butchery forver known as Black December in 1970 when Jordanians ``took care`` of the Palestinian problem. Or when under the guise of Martial Law, Dhaka was turned into a graveyard on March 25, 1971. Mind you, none the above was carried out by ``European Jews``.

My friend, you don`t know what suppression is. Compared to the rest of her contemporaries, Israel is humane to the point of disbelief. I know that is a very unpopular thing to say in the company of Muslims and desis. But facts are neither Jewish nor Arab. Demonizing the ``European Jews`` got us nothing but the Holoucast and five Arab-Israeli wars.

The history of jews is very interesting.

They have suffered persecution throughout history. Whether in Spain, Jerusalem, or Europe.

In the last century, when Jewish Christians (Christians whose ancestary were jewish) and moneyed jewish like Rothscild etc became prominent a movement started called Zionism. Which was basically to create a land of Israel and for it not only was it necessary to disposses the locals of their lands by buying the land or by forcible eviction, but also to bring Jewish people who were mostly from East Europe.

As far as justifying creation of Israel on the basis of ``Promised Land`` with all the blood shed still going on. It is more justified to have ``Jihad`` against infidels, because of the only uncorrupted book of God.

As far as reality of Israel. I think it is a metter not for us to decide. Because a tranche of IMF loan or a five day visit by Clinton or a transfer of technology can blur our vision to see all things in good light.

The decision should be left on the people who have been dispossesed and suffered and are still suffering.

An interesting News from yesterday is that Israel attacked by MISTAKE a civilian population in south Lebanon. Hizbollah Guirella attacked North Israel in retaliation.

So Israel attacked again (bombed) South Lebanon in retaliation because the original attack was not an attack but MISTAKE.

sigalph #185: ``Really? The land of today`s Israel was ancient Jewish homeland almost four thousand years ago; who has displaced whom?``

I belong to the small group of Pakistanis who think that Israel should be recognized by Pakistan(as long as the Israelis are willing to give Palestinians some form of independence). I believe in this because, on the whole Pakistan has gained nothing from opposing Israel. Also, I do not know of anything their leader Yaser Arafat has ever done for Pakistan. From what I hear Palestinians and Pakistanis are actually fierce competitors in places like the UAE (I could be wrong). And most of all, I doubt Israel will disappear in the coming decades, so there is no point in trying to make it disappear.

However, the reasons you are using to justify the killings of Palestinians, and the take-over of their land are beyond me. What happened 4000 ago cannot be used to justify the present. Otherwise why not revert back to the world of 4000 years ago completely, and redistribute everything in that manner. Infact, why stop at 4000, why not go back 6000 years, or more. Should the Native Americans be allowed to kill all the descendants of European Americans. Should the Hindus be allowed to kill all the Muslims in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (or at least the ones whose forefathers did not locally convert from Hinduism, and came in with the conquering armies).

Using thousands of years old history to justify present conditions is the last resort argument. Such arguments are used by people who cannot justify something under present conditions. It is quite possible that my great great great great grandfather killed someone, or took over someone`s land; should that person`s great ...... grandson kill me now, or kick me out of my house. One needs to solve problems in the present, and not in the past.

In case of Israel, your justification is even weaker. The jews, who are running Israel right now, are almost all European jews. So even if we use your argument of 4000 years ago, the jews who have a right over the land in Israel should be the descendants of the Middle Eastern jews, and not the descendants of European jews. The reason the European jews ended up in Israel, and not in the USA (or remained in Europe) is because they were not strong enough to do so. According to Dominique Lappieres`, ``Oh Jerusalem,`` the USA would not bend its immigration policies enough to accomodate the few (hundreds of thousands) of jews coming out of Europe after WWII. Many, if not most of them, would have opted for the USA, instead of fighting it out in the Middle East with Muslims, for a completely uncertain future. The USA could have accomodated them very very easily. Lappierre furthur points out that strong lobbies in the US jewish community themselves did not want the European jews to migrage to the USA. These lobbies were interested in obtaining a jewish state in the Middle East, and could only do so through the efforts of the European Jewish immigrants. And obviously the European jews did not feel strong enough to take on the European Christians. So they went after the weaker people of Palestine.

According to 60 Minutes (a US TV news show), the jews in Israel currently are facing a huge problem trying to decide whether Israel should be an orthodox jewish state or a liberal one. 60 Minutes pointed out that the orthodox rabbi supported population of Israel averages 7 kids per household, while the the liberal Israelis population (the face that Israel likes to show the rest of the world) averages 2 kids per household. 60 minutes furthur mentioned that most liberal jews in Israel would migrate to the USA, if they could get green cards.

The European jews were about as justified in taking over the land of the Palestines, as a Pakistani or Bangledeshi Muslim would be in taking over Mecca and Medina, or a Sikh would be in taking over Hasan Abdal, i.e. absolutely not justified. The European jews`, ``conquest`` was basically survival of the fittest, and cannot be backed by a moral argument. Unfortunately, the victors/people in the strongerst position in a confrontation try to morally justify their stand by using all kinds of baseless arguments.

The group of Middle Eastern jews who had been living in the areas now constituting Israel do fall under your 4000 year theory. Had those Middle Eastern jews asked for a separate piece of land, and an independent Israel, then they would be justified. Infact the European jews suppressed not only the Muslims, but the entire population of the the areas constituting Palestine. This included suppression of the Middle Eastern Christians, as well. I would encourage you to read the book authored on this subject by Hannan Ashrawi. She is the Christian spokesperson for Palestine. She has a Ph.D. in English from University of Virgina, and is one of the best speakers I have ever heard. As a whole, the European jews have dominated the Middle Eastern jews also. So, someone from Europe (jew, muslim or christian) has absolutely no right in taking over land from a Palestinian (muslim, jew, or chiristian). Under your argument, a Central Asian or Afghan could demand the land of India and Pakistan, since his forefathers ruled over it for 800 years. How far back in history should one go?

``It is telling that only in Israel, of all the Middle East, are Arab Muslims capable of having a meaningful, though small, voice in electing their rulers.``

If you are trying to indicate that Palestinian Muslims have more rights, and better and safer lifesyle in Palestine, than in other Arab countries, then I am afraid I cannot agree with you. This is quite apparent from the rate of migration outwards from Palestine, and the rate of migration inwards into the other Middle Eastern countries. Palestine would be the last choice of migration for a person migrating into the Middle East. Most go to Saudia Arabia, UAE, etc. That, ``meaningful, though small, voice`` you are refering to is so small and so unmeaningful that it does not compensate for the other suppressions against the Muslims that occur in Israel. I have quite a few Palestinian friends, who have migrated to the US from Palestine. Infact many of them migrated to Jordan and other Middle Eastern countries first, just to get out of the Israel dominated Palestine. All of them would completely disagree with your assumptions that they were better off in Palestine, then in other Middle Eastern countries. Percentage wise, Palestinians have historically had a very high rates of migrantions to other countries in the Middle East (specially to Jordan). Their situations in other Middle Eastern countries are definitely not ideal. However, their historical migration patterns would indicate that as Muslims they are better off outside Israel in other Middle Eastern Muslim countries (at least in their opinion, perhaps not in yours).

Even if the Muslims in Israel had more rights in Israel than in other Middle Eastern countries, that still does not justify the European jews coming in and taking over their land, or suppressing them in any way.

So at a moral level, there is absolutely no justification for the Europeans jews` suppression of Palestinian Muslims (infact there cannot be moral justification of anyone conquering and taking over anyone else`s land. All such actions should be opposed and not justified.) On a realistic level, Pakistanis and Palestinians should accept the fact that Israel will not go away, and try to solve the problems keeping that in mind.

I may be mistaken, but I think you mentioned you are from Bangladesh. I have always been a very strong supporter of the East Pakistanis getting their right to decide their own future in 1971 (as well as the Kashmiris, the Kosovars, Bosnians, Chechnyans, the Pakistanis, the Indians under the British etc.). Most of the violence in the world occurs when one group forces itself over another just to gain personal advantage. Once that conquest is completed, the conquering/suppressing group attempts to justify their actions by using all kinds of illogical arguments. Considering the fact that Bangladesh is itself a product of the struggle of East Pakistan against a suppressing West Pakistan, I am quite surprised you are actually trying to justify the suppression and conquest of Middle Easterns (Christians and Muslims) by, ``invading`` European (jews). Quite interesting.

cheraym #88 writes: ``If you guys are interested I can let you know in a later post how I have personified most of the popular/unpopular chowkwallas.`` OK, I am curious. Pl. go ahead and send out the personifications before this thread disappears.

To cheraym,

I did not compare Yassar Arafat to M.K Gandhi. All I said is he is a Mahatma. Your problem is typical, when you know what is good and bad in an absolute sense, you read what you want to read, irrespective of what is there. Take it easy.

regards

jay.

Sorry, in my last post I misspelled gymnosophist. Somehow, I felt you are a physicist (some illusion of mine). Any way what is in a name, a rose is a rose always! Don`t you try to personify /epitomize people when you read their creations over again? If you guys are interested I can let you know in a later post how I have personified most of the popular/unpopular chowkwallas.

Regards

cheraym

sigalph235 #185.

one of the participant writes thus:

Krashid says: `For one thing, the history of Israel is a dispossesion of locals of Palestine of their land, killing of them. It was an invasion of Europeans(Jews) on Arab soil.```

You say `` Really? The land of today`s Israel was ancient Jewish homeland almost four thousand years ago; who has displaced whom? It is telling that only in Israel, of all the Middle East, are Arab Muslims

capable of having a meaningful, though small, voice in electing their rulers. By no means a fully pluralist liberal democracy, Israel has place for the most vocal and active dissent. Any Palestinian or Arab attempting half that would be shot or tortured to death in enlightened and peaceful places like Syria, Iraq, Libya, and SAudi

Arabia.``

Good point. It is the same argument of Hindus invading Muslims in Kashmir. Interestingly, one of my Jewish American friends mentioned other day that since most of the powerful New Yorkers are Jewish, why not they purchase home for all the Jews in Israel, as you have suggested that why not the arabs do the same for the Palestinians. But what is the solution for God-damned Kashmir?

On a different note, Tahmed, I laughed a lot when you said that we should give dandas to the militaries? Is it military you meant or the militias? Does not matter. How about bows and arrows? I guess one gets better pleasure out of beating someone with hearts content only by using dandas.

Jay, I know I do not have any right to say enough is enough in a democratic process, and nobody owes anything to me or any chowkwallas. But do not squeeze your lemon that hard when it starts tasting bitter. I see some of your posts although very witty, but quite obnoxious. You really do not have to rub it in. Same goes for YLH. If we really think that forum like Chowk can be used as a constructive tool for bringing in opinions conducive to the overall well being of the people of sub-continent, then we should use some measures of restraint and mutual respect.

Sadna and gymnophysist, keep up good work.

Have a nice weekend.

one of the participant writes thus:

`For one thing, the history of Israel is a dispossesion of locals of Palestine of their land, killing of them. It was an invasion of Europeans(Jews) on Arab soil.`

Really? The land of today`s Israel was ancient Jewish homeland almost four thousand years ago; who has displaced whom? It is telling that only in Israel, of all the Middle East, are Arab Muslims capable of having a meaningful, though small, voice in electing their rulers. By no means a fully pluralist liberal democracy, Israel has place for the most vocal and active dissent. Any Palestinian or Arab attempting half that would be shot or tortured to death in enlightened and peaceful places like Syria, Iraq, Libya, and SAudi Arabia.

Oh, as for the European Jews: more than a third of Israel`s Jewish population today is made up of people of non-European descent.

If Arabs and Muslims really cared for Palestinians that much, their petrodollars would have brought them a home ages ago and Palestinians wouldn`t have been one of the most discriminated minorities in the ``brotherly`` Gulf sheikhdoms. The issue is kept alive by Arabs and their court jesters because this is the only issue which gives the Arab League and OIC a cover for all that ``unity`` non-sense they preach.

In the immortal words of Pakistan`s late Prime Minister (later re-quoted by the late HM King Hasan II) Hussein Shaheed Suhrawardy, ``Israel has come to stay.`` Deal with it! Mr Suhrawardy paid for that indiscreet remark partly with his office; we are still paying for not heeding it by going through fifty years of illusion.

As for the gentleman who compared Arafat to Mahatama Gandhi: get real! I am no fan of the Mahatama at all; but he never condoned, let alone ordered, physical harm and death to innocent men, women, and children unlike ``Chairman`` Arafat. History will someday ask why did Arafat get a Nobel Peace Prize while Gandhi didn`t? Perhaps because the Swedes and Norwegians, with all due respect to Their Majesties Kings Hakon and Olaf, have lost sight of history.

Ref Molko #: 180

You ask {We`ve debated the Koran being the literal word of God, or being merely divinely inspired. What about the third scenario- that the Koran isn`t the word of God, but something that came out of Muhammad`s imagination? What would the implications of that be?}

The result of you saying that the Koran came out of Prophet Muhammad`s imagination is that you will get stoned to death. [And I do not mean by pot (marijuana) drugs, hashish, etc., when I use the word ``stoned``.]

Dear Molko,

Reply 181

Oh God, why are we wasting our time on this. There I was, reading you fellows` schools of thought, staying well back and now you`ve forced me to come into this discussion. Nevertheless, I`ll try to be as short as possible.

Where shall I start from? The very first result of what you say is that Muhammed (PBUH) is a liar; though judging from his profile, by the people of Mecca and Medina etc. etc. he was an `amin.` I`m sure you`ve heard of the example of him addressing the kafirs on if he were to say there`s an army behind the mountains would you believe him. They all said yes. He then goes on to talk of ONE GOD and they refuse to believe him. Therefore either Muhammed (PBUH) was an honest man right from the start or the people of Arabia were fools.

Let`s travel 1400 years later into Canada, Toronto. A marine merchant was given certain script of Quran to read. He read upon a description of a sea storm then asked the fellow who had given him the script, `This Muhammed, was he a sailor too?` When told that Muhammed had always lived in the desert, he converted to Islam because in his opinion only a seaman could have described a sea storm as well as the one that was written in Quran. (Surah Nur 24:40). Therefore, either Muhammed had a brilliant imagination, or it was just a plain fluke or someone else had done the sailing for him. Of course, Muhammed could have just read some script on a sea storm, though he was an illiterate. Then again, Muhammed could have simply been lying about his illiteracy.

How about atomic particles. For a long time the Greeks (Democritus) had postulated on atoms, or `atomos`, the smallest INDIVISIBLE particles. The Arabs had their own word for it, `Zurrah` or `Durrah`. Recently it`s been discovered that these INDIVISIBLE particles are in fact DIVISIBLE, i.e. they can be split into nucleons, electrons which can further be split into quarks etc. There is a reference to this in Surah Saba 34:3 (He is aware of an Atom`s weight in the heavens and on the earth and even anything SMALLER than that). Of course, once again this could have just been an educated guess. After all everybody knew in the days of the elements (earth, fire, water blah blah) that things were actually made of atoms that could be further broken down.

From another point, If Quran were the works of a human, then surely it would reflect his thinking. Muhammed (PBUH) went through a difficult life, such as the death of his daughters, agitation by the kafirs and the initial fear of the first revelation. There is no mention of Mohammed`s (PBUH) feelings in the book. All of you writers out there, surely you would agree that we use our experiences to fuel our creative processes and our experience do come out onto paper. Yet his experiences are not really there in the book.

On top of that, humans are imperfect creatures. If Quran were the product of a human, then surely it would not provide `falsification tests.` No other book does that and that`s because no other book is perfect. Quran actually invites a person to find mistakes and discrepancies within the texts. That`s like me doing an exam paper, and asking the examiner to find mistakes in my answers. I would only say this if I were 100% sure of being correct on every question. Check out Surah an-Nisa 4:82 (Do they not consider the Quran? Had it been from other than Allah, they would have surely found therein much discrepancy). Please don`t talk to me about Zer, Zabr changes introduced by Khalid bin Walid or Hajjaaj Bin Yousif or Ousama Bin Laden or whoever (can`t remember his name right now), because that move was made to ensure that Non Arabs could pronounce the Arabic words properly. You`ll know what I mean if you were born in Pakistan and Urdu was your first language. If an English bloke were to read the same text he would need Zer, Zabr and Pesh to steer his mouth in the right directions. Doesn`t mean you`re changing the Urdu words.

Another example concerns embryology. (Surah al-Hajj 22:5, al-Muminun 23:14 and Ghafir 40:67). A world expert on Embryology in Canada (once again) was given the scripts and he subsequently changed the descriptions of embryo development in the later editions of his book `Before we are born` (PS he was a non-Muslim), because some of the things mentioned were only discovered `30 years ago.` One thing that had fascinated him was the description of the human being as a `leech like clot` (alaqah) which was new to him. When he looked at a picture of a leech and compared it to the clot, the resemblance was startling. When asked, maybe the Arabs could have delved in crude dissections of their own, he replied `impossible` as these pictures were taken under a microscope. Microscopes didn`t exist 1400 hundred years ago! So what we are saying is that Muhammad (PBUH) or his ally already had microscopes. They investigated embryonic development, wrote it down in Quran and then destroyed their equipment. This is ridiculous unless you can come up with some evidence to prove this.

Also the fact that Quranic verses say `this information is new` (i.e. does not have any bibliography) as opposed to the other books which state that such and such information was derived from XYZ book also confirm it`s authenticity as a divine revelation. Enemies of the prophet (PBUH) were never able to claim that Muhammad was taught such and such in XYZ schools (as he was an illiterate) or that they knew which person he got that information from.

I really could go on and on and an and ariston… I`ll probably end up doing an article. Forget all of the things I`ve mentioned above. Accuracy does not necessarily constitute divine revelation. As one fellow said, a telephone directory is not a divine revelation` so forget what I`ve just said. You`ve said that The Quran maybe the work of Muhammed. Fine, you made the claim, go on and prove it and if you can`t prove yourself, than accept the fact that the Quran is a divine revelation.

(PS, let`s not waste our time pondering over the meaning of life, why tarkaa daal looks like diarrhoea and whether the Quran is a divine revelation or not. These things have been set up to divert our attention so that we never get to ponder over the real issues of life. The same crap happens down my hometown. There are so many pubs in this place, the youthful energy is tamed with alcohol so that no body can stand up and question the politicians and their dubious policies).

Take care

Omar Phoenix