What Do You Think?

[Allegracrown]

This is a transcript of a somewhat old online debate between Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and Khalid Zaheer vs. Ali Sina

The PDF file might be easier to read, but I know a lot of people are uncomfortable downloading files from unknown locations so I am going to post it here.
The source pdf file I am using I downloaded from:
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/downloads/probing-islam.pdf

http://faithfreedom.org

Regardless of if one agrees or disagrees with the statements made there are a lot of interesting points to think about made by both sides.

I am going to try to split the file up into logical sections but there are several sections I know will not copy, for instance where they use actual Arabic text and some of the quote formatting. But I think it will still be readable. At least enough to get an idea of the discussion and decide to down load the pdf or not.

I hope everyone enjoys and learns a little something from this discussion.

[Allegracrown]

PROBING

ISLAM

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and Khalid Zaheer vs. Ali Sina


© 2007 Permission is granted to translate, publish and distribute this book by any means, except for financial gain.

The file is an extensive and comprehensive debate between Mr. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, one of the world’s top Islamic scholars from Pakistan and Ali Sina, one of the leading critic of Islam and the founder of faithfreedom.org.

This debate was arranged when someone invited Mr. Ghamidi to respond to Ali Sina’s criticisms of Islam. Mr. Ghamidi entered into this debate through his student, Dr. Khalid Zaheer.

An invitation to debate

From: Free Inquirer <religious_inquest@yahoo.com>

[Allegracrown]

Invitation to a Debate
Sep 4, 2006
During the recent years Islam has become the target of sever criticism and vilification not just by members of other religions but by a growing number of ex-Muslims. The Internet has allowed these critics to come out and speak their minds at an alarming rate. These criticisms have had devastating effect on the minds of the Muslim youths who unable to answer the critics on their own are bewildered that the Islamic scholars also have not come forth with satisfactory answers.
In the interest of unraveling the truth about Islam and clearing the minds of the young Muslims I am formally inviting the Islamic critic Ali Sina and the modern Pakistani 'state appointed' Islamic Scholar Javed Ahmed Ghamidi to engage in a debate on Islam.

ALI SINA
Ali Sina is probably one of the most eminent critics of Islam, an ex-Muslim who renounced Islam after reading the Quran. Ali Sina has managed to create a movement against Islam and has grouped together a group of ex-Muslims who share his opinions on Islam. He has challenged Islamic scholars to disprove the fallacies that he has identified in the Quran and Hadith.

JAVED AHMAD GHAMIDI
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi is a respected Islamic Scholar who has been recently appointed by the Pakistani Government to help facilitate the government in 'modern' interpretation of Islam and to do Ijtehad for the development of a cosmopolitan modern Islamic Society. Javed Ghamidi has been under the tutelage of Amin Ehsan Islahi and idealizes the writings of his teacher with utmost reverence. Initially expelled from Jamaat e Islami due to some difference with the party's founder Maududi, Ghamidi has managed to develop a restricted following of his own. He has been actively involved in the government's initiative to revamp and restructure Islamic Ordinances in Pakistan like Hudood Ordinance and Zina Ordinance. He is also the president of the Al Mawrid Institute based in Lahore. Javed Ghamidi also enjoys a good company of his students who teach in various places in Pakistan. Most notable are Moiz Amjad, Asif Iftikhar, Khalid Zaheer & others...Mr. Ghamidi operates through a network of Danish Saras across Pakistan and has some major Islamic Sites to his credit. He also publishes various magazines in Urdu and English like Ishraq and Renaissance.

[Allegracrown]

The Challenge to a Debate

This is an invitation to Ali Sina and Javed Ahmed Ghamidi to debate on the validity of claims made by Islam and whether Islam is a true religion.

Both parties are invited to provide answers to each other's arguments.
. • Both sides have to accept this invitation
. • The debate will be conducted over emails and will be published on the Faith Freedom International Website for the benefit of common public.
. • The points on which the debate shall be done will be agreed upon first by the two parties to ensure that the core issue is addressed properly. However it is preferable that Ali Sina's arguments be thoroughly studied on http://www.faithfreedom.org /challenge.htm to restrict the debate only to main points of disagreement.
. • Complete references should be given by both parties to support their arguments for the benefit of the reader
. • Any other points on which both sides would like to agree upon


The debate is subjected to acceptance on both sides. Failure of acceptance of the debate on any one side shall be deemed as a failure to provide a logical and truthful response to support one's ideas / ideology

Dear Free Enquirer
I published your invitation to announce my acceptance to debate with Mr. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. It would be an honor to discus important points of disagreement on Islam with such an eminent scholar. Please inform Mr. Ghamidi that I look forward to meet him virtually.
I have given countless proofs that Islam is not a true religion. Mr. Ghamidi is invited to disprove any of my claims, or if he prefers, he could give one single irrefutable proof that Islam is indeed a true religion sent by God.
In either case, should Mr. Ghamidi disprove any of my charges against Muhammad and Islam or provide a single irrefutable proof that Islam is from God, I promise to publicly acknowledge that I have been mistaken and remove this site permanently. Furthermore I am offering $50,000 US dollars reward to anyone who can show Islam is a true religion or at least my charges against Muhammad are unfounded.
Greetings
Ali Sina

I am glad to inform the dear readers of FFI that Mr. Ghamidi has expressed his readiness to discuss Islam with me. I would like to thank Free Inquirer for making this debate possible and for inviting Mr. Ghamidi and myself to take part in this informative and educational debate. I trust this would be a very fruitful discussion. I read some of Mr. Ghamidi's articles and he has made a very positive impression on me. He is one of Pakistan's most respected scholars and I am honored that despite his busy schedule, he has accepted this invitation. Mr. Ghamidi is a man of peace and a moderate Muslim. Here is the letter of acceptance that I received from his office
Ali Sina.
From: "khalid zaheer" <kzaheer_lums@hotmail.com> To: religious_inquest@yahoo.com Subject: Mr Ghamidi's Response Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006

Dear Free Inquirer
Thank you very much for taking interest in arranging a dialogue between Mr. Ghamidi and Mr Ali Sina.
First of all, we would like you to correct this fact: Mr Javed Ahmad Ghamidi has not been appointed by the Government of Pakistan to help it in interpreting Islam in a modern way. Mr. Ghamidi was asked by the President of Pakistan to be a member of the Council of Islamic Ideology, which is a constitutional body that suggests responses to various issues confronting the people of Pakistan in the interpretation of the message of Islam. He accepted that offer in the spirit of informing the rulers about what he thinks is the right understanding of Islam quite the same way as he has been informing people about it in the last 35 years.

We welcome the initiative you have taken to enable Mr. Ali Sina to ask Mr. Ghamidi questions about of Islam that create doubts in his mind about the truthfulness of the claim that it is a message from God. Mr. Ghamidi has been performing this task for the last three-and-a-half decades and there is no reason why we wouldn't want to share our research with a person like Mr. Sina. However, what he doesn't want to do is to engage in a polemic which results in a senseless competition of rhetoric wherein the contestants are in reality playing a game in the garb of an academic debate. The difference between a polemic and a serious academic exchange is that while the one is a fiercely contested debate with a clear objective to not understand and accept what is true but to defeat the opposing party, while the other engages both parties in a serious exchange of views with a view to know and acknowledge what the truth is. The participants are close-minded in the case of the former and open to truth in the case of the latter. Mr. Ghamidi hates the former and welcomes the latter.

Finally, before starting this process, we would like Mr. Sina to have a look at the attached pages which outline the basic approach Ghamidi Sb follows in forming his religious opinions. It is important that the sources of information he thinks are original for Islamic learning and therefore are the basis of his research should first be understood to preclude any possibility that Mr. Sina demands from him explanation of information and concepts that Mr. Ghamidi thinks do not belong to the original message of Islam.

After Mr. Sina has gone through this message along with the attached outline of Mr. Ghamidi's approach to understanding the message of Islam, we would welcome suggestions from your side to convert this opportunity into a meaningful dialogue.

Khalid Zaheer
(This message has been written in consultation with Mr Ghamidi.)
http://www.khalidzaheer.com/about.html

Dr Khalid Zaheer is an associate professor of Islamic Studies and Ethics at Lahore University of Management Science (LUMS). He has a teaching experience of more than 16 years. Prior to joining LUMS, he taught at IBA and Punjab University for 12 years as a permanent faculty member. He has also taught at various other educational institutions in Lahore. Dr. Zaheer delivers lectures in Pakistan Administrative Staff College, National Institute of Public Administration, Pakistan Audit and Accounts Training Institute, and Lahore School of Economics. Dr Zaheer's PhD dissertation focused on Interest-Free Banking. His areas of interest are Islamic banking and application of Islamic principles in contemporary business environment. He is a member of the task force constituted by the Ministry of Finance to propose measures to convert government domestic borrowing into project-related financing according to Shariah injunctions. He is also a member of the Board of Management of the Pakistan Baitul Mal. He regularly contributes articles to the monthly Renaissance, a leading religious English journal of the country. Dr. Zaheer has appeared in many television programs and has also given sermons at mosques.

[Allegracrown]

Part I

Ali Sina's response:
2006/09/16

Dear Mr. Khalid Zaheer:
I am glad and honored that Mr. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi has accepted the invitation of Free Inquirer to debate with me. I am also pleased that you have agreed to share your knowledge with us and respond to my questions. Unfortunately most Muslim scholars are not as open-minded as your good self and Mr. Ghamidi. They seem to have boycotted me and prefer to ignore me. The truth is that the questions that I have raised are making the public - both Muslim and non-Muslim - talk. The reluctance of Muslim scholars to respond to my questions reflects poorly on them and also on Islam. Therefore it is heartening to find a real scholar who is confident enough to not shirk from confronting a "renegade" apostate like yours truly.
You also emphasized on the futility of engaging in "a polemic which results in a senseless competition of rhetoric wherein the contestants are in reality playing a game in the garb of an academic debate." I cannot agree more and let me add that I admire your positive attitude and your commitment to the truth. This is indeed a rare quality and it speaks volumes about your, and Mr. Ghamidi's integrity as true scholars. Our goal, as you stated, should be to unravel the truth and not to childishly try to win the argument at any cost. Since this debate/dialogue will be posted on the Internet for everyone to see, I am sure our readers do not expect anything less from either one of us. An immature behavior would be tantamount to shooting ourselves in the foot.
When the objective is to find the truth, talking about "defeating the other party" is puerile. How can one be defeated when at the end of the debate truth triumphs and we all learn something? The triumph of the truth means victory for everyone. The one who learns more is the bigger winner and it is in this sense alone that I hope to be a winner. Only those who have inflated egos will feel defeated once proven wrong. I was born ignorant and still I am to a great extent. I learned everything I know from others. I am not ashamed for being ignorant. It is haughtiness, condescendence and obstinacy that are shameful. You know better than me that ego acts as a veil to enlightenment and understanding.
To know that you don't know is the foundation of all wisdom. Willing to doubt what you know is the virtue of the sage. Haughtiness and arrogance are the traits of the fool.
Since we both are after the truth, I am sure this discussion will a win/win for both of us and also for our readers.
I read the page you sent me as attachment and I fully agree with its content. Let me assure you that I am not going to present any argument that is not in the Quran, the Sahih Hadith (Bukhari, Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud) and the Sira (Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Ibn Sa'd) as evidence. I may quote Muslims scholars to make an example but our discussion will be only on the above-mentioned sources.

Let us begin without further ado.
I will address now Mr. Ghamidi. I will start with less contentious subjects and move on to more difficult ones. My first question is about intercession.
Dear Mr. Ghamidi; In your book Al Bayan you have made it clear that intercession, as believed by many Muslims, is a myth. You quoted the following verses of the Quran to back up your claim:
"[A reward] from the Lord of the heavens and the earth and all that lies between them; the most Gracious - there is no one who has the authority to speak on His behalf. On the Day when Gabriel and the angels will stand arrayed [before Him]. [The Day] when only they will speak whom the most Gracious allows and who speak the truth."
(78:37-38)
In the footnote you wrote the following explanation: "This and the next two verses strongly negate the philosophy of mediation and intercession. The angels whom the polytheists believe to be their intercessors will themselves respectfully stand before the Almighty on the Day of Judgement. No one will have the position to speak on behalf of the Almighty. Only they will speak whom the Almighty permits and they too will not be able to utter anything false." 1
You also quoted verse 2:48:
1 http://www.renaissance.com.pk/seocqur97.html
And guard yourselves against the day when no soul shall be of use to another in anyway and no intercession shall be accepted and no compensation be taken from it and nor will people be helped.
Then you commented: "There is a negation of three things in this verse: intercession, compensation and help. However, this is just the negation of the outcome: actually the negation is of the existence of someone who can intercede, compensate or help. In other words, what is implied is that on that day there will be no intercession, compensation and help because there will be no person who would do these." 2
This sounds reasonable to me. In fact there are many verses in the Quran that confirm what you said. Here are a few:
O children of Israel, call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and that I made you excel the nations. And be on your guard against a day when NO SOUL shall avail ANOTHER in the least neither shall any compensation be accepted from it, nor shall intercession profit it, nor shall they be helped.
(2:122-123)
O you who believe! Spend out of what We have given you before the day comes in which there is no bargaining, neither any friendship nor intercession. (2:254)
Whosoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides God, any protector or helper. (4:123)
And warn with it those who fear that they shall be gathered to their Lord - there is no guardian for them, nor any intercessor besides Him - that they may guard (against evil).
(6:51)
Leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and amusement, and are deceived by the life of this world. But proclaim (to them) this (truth): that every soul delivers itself to ruin by its own acts: it will find for itself no protector or intercessor except Allah: if it offered every ransom, (or
2 http://www.renaissance.com.pk/MayResearCmp2y4.html
reparation), none will be accepted: such is (the end of) those who deliver themselves to ruin by their own acts. (6:70)
Allah it is Who created the heavens and the earth, and that which is between them, in six Days. Then He mounted the Throne. Ye have not, beside Him, a protecting friend or mediator. Will ye not then remember? (32:4) 3
The fact that Muhammad has no power to save anyone from Hellfire is clearly stated in the verse: (39:19)
Is he on whom the word of doom is fulfilled (to be helped), and canst thou (O Muhammad) rescue him who is in the Fire? (Pickthal)
This point seems to be clear enough! Or is it?
Amazingly, despite all these verses, many Muslims believe that Muhammad has the power to intercede for them in front of Allah and save them from the Fire on the Day of Judgment. Ukasha Al-Tayyibi has written a book to prove this very point. He writes:
"On the Day of Judgment Prophet Muhammad (SAW) will be the only prophet who will be granted permission to intercede to save mankind from the terrors of awaiting judgment on the Day of Rising.
[We] must not fail to understand that matters which are great and insignificant, large or small, are preordained confirmed in the knowledge of Allah. Surely Allah mighty has decreed and determined the states of the [in]tercessor, and for whom he intercedes.
Or has taken an analytical approach to prove that [int]ercession can only be granted by Allah's permission, [t]hat Prophet Muhammad (SAW) will intercede for mankind at five various levels, i.e. from the crossing of the Sirat to the height of peoples rank within the garden of paradise.
Each chapter has been carefully researched and examined according to the Quran and Hadith and by reading this book Muslims and non-Muslims alike will
3 See also: 39:43-44, 82:18-19, 17:56-57
have a greater and clearer understanding on the meaning of intercession and what it entails." 4
As you see, Ukasha Al-Tayyibi claims that his book is based on the Quran and Hadith. I have not read his book but I have found many Quranic verses as well as Hadiths that ratify his claim. I will quote a few and I am sure you'll find more proofs in his book.

The Quran:
Who is there can intercede in His [Allah's] presence except as He permitteth? (2:255)
This verse seems to imply that there is at least one person who can intercede with Allah. Let us see if there are more verses confirming this point.

No intercessor (can plead with Him) except after His leave (hath been obtained). (10:3)
On the day when We shall gather the righteous unto the Beneficent, a goodly company. And drive the guilty unto hell, a weary herd, they will have no power of intercession, save him who hath made a covenant with his Lord. 19:85-87

On that Day shall no intercession avail except for those for whom permission has been granted by (Allah) Most Gracious and whose word is acceptable to Him. (20:109)
And We [1st person plural] did not send before you any messenger but We revealed to him that there is no god but Me, [1st person singular] therefore serve Me. And they say: The Beneficent Allah has taken to Himself a son. Glory be to Him.[3rd person singular] Nay! they are honored servants They do not precede Him in speech and (only) according to His commandment do they act. He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves and for fear of Him they tremble. And whoever of them should say: Surely I am a god
4 http://www.simplyislam.com/iteminfo.asp?Item=52473
besides Him, such a one do We recompense with hell; thus do, We recompense the unjust. (21:25-29)
No intercession can avail in His Presence, except for those for whom He has granted permission. So far (is this the case) that, when terror is removed from their hearts (at the Day of Judgment, then) will they say, 'what is it that your Lord commanded?' they will say, 'That which is true and just; and He is the Most High Most Great'. (34:23) 5
Verses 43:86 and 53:26 also tell us that no one can intercede with Allah except those whom Allah pleases.
In the above verses we get the confirmation that someone is capable to intercede with Allah.
I also highlighted the pronouns. We see sometimes Allah refers to himself in third person singular, (He) then shifts to first person plural (We) and sometimes to first person singular (I and Me). Will you please explain this unorthodox way of speech? It appears that these are Muhammad's Freudian slips of tongue. It is as if the Prophet keeps forgetting that the Quran is supposed to be the word of Allah and Allah should not allude to himself in 3rd person. We can find this error in the entire Quran. I hope you will give some explanation to this conundrum as well. Is the Quran really the word of God or that of the illiterate Muhammad?
Anyway, let us continue with our main discussion. The following verses are interesting because Muhammad actually starts interceding with Allah for his followers right away even before the Judgment Day.
Those who sustain the Throne (of Allah) and those around it sing Glory and Praise to their Lord; believe in Him; and implore forgiveness for those who believe: "Our Lord! Thy Reach is over all things, in Mercy and Knowledge. Forgive, then, [Now this is clearly Muhammad supplicating to Allah] those who turn in Repentance, and follow Thy Path; and preserve them from the Penalty of the Blazing Fire! And grant, our Lord! that they enter the Gardens of Eternity, which Thou hast promised to them, and to the righteous among their fathers, their wives, and their posterity! For
5 see also 2:254 - 255
Thou art, the Exalted in Might, Full of Wisdom. And preserve them from (all) ills; and any whom Thou dost preserve from ills that Day,- on them wilt Thou have bestowed Mercy indeed: and that will be truly (for them) the highest Achievement." 40:7-9.
These verses surly can't be the words of Allah. If they are the words of Allah, whom is Allah supplicating to? If they are the words of Muhammad, a) why they are in the Quran, and b) don't they contradict 2:48, 2:122-123, 2:254, 4:123, 6:5, 6:70, 39:43-44, 82:18-19, 17:56-57 discussed above?

The Hadith
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: The Prophet said, "A man keeps on asking others for something till he comes on the Day of Resurrection without any piece of flesh on his face." The Prophet added, "On the Day of Resurrection, the Sun will come near (to, the people) to such an extent that the sweat will reach up to the middle of the ears, so, when all the people are in that state, they will ask Adam for help, and then Moses, and then Muhammad (p.b.u.h)." The sub-narrator added "Muhammad will intercede with Allah to judge amongst the people. He will proceed on till he will hold the ring of the door (of Paradise)
and then Allah will exalt him to Maqam Mahmud (the privilege of intercession, etc.). And all the people of the gathering will send their praises to Allah. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 24, Number 553)
This Hadith sounds absurd. The sun coming down to scorch people and they sweat so much to get drowned in their own sweat is surly an art work of imaginative power. But that is not my point. The point I want to make is that this Hadith also states that someone very special has the power to intercede with Allah and make him revise his plans. I wonder who that person might be! Let us find out.
The Prophet added, "Then the prophets and Angels and the believers will intercede, and (last of all) the Almighty (Allah) will say, 'Now remains My Intercession.' He will then hold a handful of the Fire from which He will take out some people whose bodies have been burnt, and they will be thrown into a river at the entrance of Paradise, called the water of life ...6
This hadith makes one to think that Allah is interceding himself. Isn't that an absurdity? Unless Allah has some sort of mental disorder such as schizophrenia, making him talk to himself, pleading with himself to do what he wants to do, the above hadith makes no sense at all. Now, let us see who else beside Allah is given the power of intercession.
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "For every Prophet there is one invocation which is definitely fulfilled by Allah, and I wish, if Allah will, to keep my that (special) invocation as to be the intercession for my followers on the Day of Resurrection."7
Wait a minute! Here Muhammad is wishing to become the intercessor for his followers. But didn't you say that no one can intercede with Allah and that his decisions are irreversible? Oh well, I wish to become a billionaire. There is nothing wrong in wishful thinking. After all you think Islam can be a moderate religion. Isn't that a wishful thinking? It does not mean all the wishes are going to be fulfilled. But it looks like Muhammad thought that his wish is already fulfilled. See the following hadith:
Narrated Ma'bad bin Hilal Al'Anzi: We, i.e., some people from Basra gathered and went to Anas bin Malik, and we went in company with Thabit Al-Bunnani so that he might ask him about the Hadith of Intercession on our behalf. Behold, Anas was in his palace, and our arrival coincided with his Duha prayer. We asked permission to enter and he admitted us while he was sitting on his bed. We said to Thabit, "Do not ask him about anything else first but the Hadith of Intercession." He said, "O Abu Hamza! There are your brethren from Basra coming to ask you about the Hadith of Intercession." Anas then said, "Muhammad talked to us saying, 'On the Day of Resurrection the people will surge with each other like waves, and then they will come to Adam and say, 'Please intercede for us with your Lord.' He will say, 'I am not fit for that but you'd better go to Abraham as he is the Khalil of the Beneficent.' They will go to Abraham and he will say, 'I am not fit for that, but you'd better go to Moses as
6 Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s 7 Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 566
he is the one to whom Allah spoke directly.' So they will go to Moses and he will say, 'I am not fit for that, but you'd better go to Jesus as he is a soul created by Allah and His Word.' (Be: And it was) they will go to Jesus and he will say, 'I am not fit for that, but you'd better go to Muhammad.'
They would come to me and I would say, 'I am for that.' Then I will ask for my Lord's permission, and it will be given, and then He will inspire me to praise Him with such praises as I do not know now. So I will praise Him with those praises and will fall down, prostrate before Him. Then it will be said, 'O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to; and ask, for your will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.' I will say, 'O Lord, my followers! My followers!' And then it will be said, 'Go and take out of Hell (Fire) all those who have faith in their hearts, equal to the weight of a barley grain.' I will go and do so and return to praise Him with the same praises, and fall down (prostrate) before Him. Then it will be said, 'O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to, and ask, for you will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.' I will say, 'O Lord, my followers! My followers!' It will be said, 'Go and take out of it all those who have faith in their hearts equal to the weight of a small ant or a mustard seed.' I will go and do so and return to praise Him with the same praises, and fall down in prostration before Him. It will be said, 'O, Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to, and ask, for you will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.' I will say, 'O Lord, my followers!' Then He will say, 'Go and take out (all those) in whose hearts there is faith even to the lightest, lightest mustard seed. (Take them) out of the Fire.' I will go and do so."
When we left Anas, I said to some of my companions, "Let's pass by Al-Hasan who is hiding himself in the house of Abi Khalifa and request him to tell us what Anas bin Malik has told us." So we went to him and we greeted him and he admitted us. We said to him, "O Abu Said! We came to you from your brother Anas Bin Malik and he related to us a Hadith about the intercession the like of which I have never heard." He said, "What is that?" Then we told him of the Hadith and said, "He stopped at this point (of the Hadith)." He said, "What then?" We said, "He did not add anything to that." He said, Anas related the Hadith to me twenty years ago when he was a young fellow. I don't know whether he forgot or if he did not like to let you depend on what he might have said." We said, "O Abu Said! Let us know that." He smiled and said, "Man was created hasty. I did not mention that, but that I wanted to inform you of it.
Anas told me the same as he told you and said that the Prophet added, 'I then return for a fourth time and praise Him similarly and prostrate before Him me the same as he 'O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to; and ask, for you will be granted (your request): and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.' I will say, 'O Lord, allow me to intercede for whoever said, 'None has the right to be worshiped except Allah.' Then Allah will say, 'By my Power, and my Majesty, and by My Supremacy, and by My Greatness, I will take out of Hell (Fire) whoever said: 'None has the right to be worshipped except Allah.'" 8
This sahih hadith, not only contradicts your claim that there are no intercessors with Allah it is actually a very ridiculous story. Muhammad here is portraying the entire Divine system as a big joke. This story sounds naive. Should really, you and I, in this age of enlightenment read such tales and believe in them? In this hadith Muhammad is predicting what people would do in the Day of Judgment, how they will run to various prophets and how these poor fellows (the prophets) would feel helpless to intercede on their behalf until our hero, Muhammad, would valiantly go to the fearsome Wizard of this Universe to ask forgiveness for his followers and Allah grants all his wishes. All Muslims will be eventually forgiven, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Khomeini, mass murderers and terrorists will all be saved from Hellfire by Muhammad, as long as they had a small amount of faith in him. The unbelievers will of course be left to burn in Hell for eternity because they had the trepidation to use their brain and not accept things that made no sense to them. I like how Muhammad bargains with Allah going back and forth and each time he gets a little more concession. How can one not be grateful to this hard working and kinder than God prophet?
8 Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 601
Now, this story has not yet happened. It will happen on the Day of Judgment. But Muhammad already knew exactly how it is going to happen and what Allah is going to do and say on that Day. It sounds goofy but it makes a fine children's story.
The absurdity of this tale is beyond description. What Muhammad is trying to say is that it really does not matter how much crime you commit, the Heaven is a hanky panky place and if you just believe in me and become my follower, I will pull some strings with Allah and rescue you from the Hellfire. Your actions are secondary. You could be a murderer, a rapist, a thief, a pedophile, etc. you will be still forgiven if you just accept me as the prophet of God. Just have an itsy bitsy blind faith in me and I will save you from Fire.
And I thought the purpose of God in sending prophets was to teach people how to live righteously and not to sin. How silly of me! Now I know that all that we must do to go to paradise is to have a little faith in Muhammad. Our conduct is not that important. Actually, many Muslims happily live by this dictum. They commit all sorts of perversities and sins and yet they have strong faith in Islam and Muhammad to the extent that they would happily slit the throat of anyone who slights Islam. That is the extent of their religiosity.
Abul Husain Muslim also reports a few hadiths that support the claim that Muhammad will be the sole intercessor with Allah on the Day of Judgment, who would be sitting on the right hand of Allah advising him how to run his business, whom to punish and whom to reward.
It is reported on the authority of Abu Zubair that he heard from Jabir b. 'Abdullah, who was asked about the arrival (of people on the Day of Resurrection). He said. We would come on the Day of Resurrection like this, like this, and see, carefully, that which concerns "elevated people". He (the narrator) said: Then the people would be summoned along with their idols whom they worshipped, one after another. Then our Lord would come to us and say: Whom are you waiting for? They would say: We are waiting for our Lord. He would say: I am your Lord. They would say: (We are not sure) till we gaze at Thee, and He would manifest Himself to them smilingly, and would go along with them and they would follow Him; and every person, whether a hypocrite or a believer, would be endowed with a light, and there would be spikes and hooks on the bridge of the Hell, which would catch hold of those whom Allah willed. Then the light of the hypocrites would be extinguished, and the believers would secure salvation. And the first group to achieve it would comprise seventy thousand men who would have the brightness of full moon on their faces, and they would not be called to account. Then the people immediately following them would have their faces as the brightest stars in the heaven. This is how (the groups would follow one after another). Then the stage of intercession would come, and they (who are permitted to intercede) would intercede, till he who had declared: "There is no god but Allah" and had in his heart virtue of the weight of a barley grain would come out of the Fire. They would be then brought in the courtyard of Paradise and the inhabitants of Paradise would begin to sprinkle water over them till they would sprout like the sprouting of a thing in flood water, and their burns would disappear. They would ask their Lord till they would be granted (the bounties) of the world and with it ten more besides it. 9
Not only Muhammad thought that he will have the power to intercede with Allah and influence the Almighty's decisions, he said that even his followers will have that power.
'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that his son died in Qudaid or 'Usfan. He said to Kuraib to see as to how many people had gathered there for his (funeral). He (Kuraib) said: So I went out and I informed him about the people who had gathered there. He (Ibn 'Abbas) said: Do you think they are forty? He (Kuraib) said: Yes. Ibn 'Abbas then said to them: Bring him (the dead body) out for I have heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: If any Muslim dies and forty men who associate nothing with Allah stand over his prayer (they offer prayer over him), Allah will accept them as intercessors for him.10
Isn't that nice? You can commit all the sins in the world and if you have 40 people coming to your funeral praying for you Allah will accept their intercession. What if you don't have 40 friends? My experience tells me that wealthier people have larger funerals. They serve banquets and draw huge crowds. Poorer people often die alone or with few friends and relatives around
9 Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0367 10 Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 2072
them. This hadith, not only shows Allah's injustice it is also absurd that he should listen to intercession of 40 people and forgive a sinner. This is not my idea of justice.
Whether it is forty or four billion, it seems absurd to me that humans should have the power to influence God and make him change his mind.
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I shall be pre-eminent amongst the descendants of Adam on the Day of Resurrection and I will be the first intercessor and the first whose intercession will be accepted (by Allah).11
These hadiths, and the above mentioned verses show not only the inherent contradiction in the Quran, but that also Muhammad wanted his followers to be at awe with his powers and know that it is he who has the authority over their destiny, so they better submit to him and serve him in this world.
You say that intercession is a myth. Please take a look at the verse 3:159 where allegedly Allah is telling Muhammad "and ask pardon for them". He is telling his prophet to intercede to him on behalf of his followers. This makes no sense. If Allah wants to forgive someone why is he asking Muhammad to intercede? Does he need someone lobby him to do what he wants to do? Another verse repeats the same absurdity:
So know (O Muhammad) that there is no Allah save Allah,
and ask forgiveness for thy sin and for believing men and believing women. Allah knoweth [3rd person] (both) your place of turmoil and your place of rest. (47:19)
Also: And when it is said to them, "Come, the Messenger of Allah will pray for your forgiveness", they turn aside their heads, and thou wouldst see them turning away their faces in arrogance. (63:5)12
11 Sahih Muslim, Book 030, Number 5655 12 See also 4:64; 9:103; 24:62; 60:12
If Allah does not accept intercessions what are the above injunctions for? Why is he telling Muhammad to ask forgiveness for the believing men and believing women?
The difficulty does not end there. Despite the above verses where allegedly Allah tells his prophet to pray for the forgiveness of his followers, there are verses that actually contradict them and say such prayers will not be accepted.
And do not plead on behalf of those who act unfaithfully to their souls; [speaking in 1st person] surely Allah does not love [shifting to 3rd person] him who is treacherous, sinful; (4:107)
Ask forgiveness for them (O Muhammad), [speaking in 1st person] or ask not forgiveness for them; though thou ask forgiveness for them seventy times Allah will not forgive them. [switching to 3rd person] That is because they disbelieved in Allah and His messenger, and Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. (9:80)
And never (O Muhammad) [1st person] pray for one of them who dieth, nor stand by his grave. Lo! they disbelieved in Allah and His messenger, [switching to third person] and they died while they were evil-doers. (9:84)
And Noah called upon his Lord, [3rd person] and said: "O my
Lord! surely my son is of my family! and Thy promise is true,
and Thou art the justest of Judges!" He said: "O Noah! He is
not of thy family: For his conduct is unrighteous. So ask not
of Me that of which thou hast no knowledge! I give thee
counsel, lest thou act like the ignorant!" [Why when talking
to Abraham Allah uses the correct pronoun and when speaking
to Muhammad he mostly uses a wrong pronoun, suddenly
speaking of himself in 3rd person?] Noah said: "O my Lord! I
do seek refuge with Thee, lest I ask Thee for that of which I
have no knowledge. And unless thou forgive me and have
Mercy on me, I should indeed be lost!" (11:45-47)
The Quran tells us that Abraham prayed to Allah for the forgiveness of his parents.
O our Lord! cover (us) with Thy Forgiveness - me, my parents, and (all) Believers, on the Day that the Reckoning will be established! (14:41)
Forgive my father, for that he is among those astray. (26:86)
Yet, Abu Huraira narrates a hadith from Muhammad saying Abraham's prayers will not be accepted.
The Prophet said, "On the Day of Resurrection Abraham will meet his father Azar whose face will be dark and covered with dust. (The Prophet Abraham will say to him): 'Didn't I tell you not to disobey me?' His father will reply: 'Today I will not disobey you.' Abraham will say: 'O Lord! You promised me not to disgrace me on the Day of Resurrection; and what will be more disgraceful to me than cursing and dishonoring my father?' Then Allah will say (to him): 'I have forbidden Paradise for the disbelievers." Then he will be addressed, 'O Abraham! Look! What is underneath your feet?' He will look and there he will see a Dhabh (an animal,) blood-stained, which will be caught by the legs and thrown in the (Hell) Fire. 13
Isn't it funny that Muhammad knew the discussion that would take place between Abraham and his father in future when he actually could not predict what would happen to him the next day or at least know where Kinana, the youthful leader of Khaibar, had hidden his treasures so he did not have to torture that wretched soul to death to make him talk? Anyway, that is another subject. This hadith confirms your belief that Allah will not accept anyone's intercession. However, it contradicts all other verses and haidths that I quoted above.
So praying for the deceased is not permitted, especially if the deceased was an unbeliever. At least this is what some of the verses say. However, cursing people is okay. Sura 111 is nothing but curse. Allah reveals a Sura to curse Muhammad's uncle and his wife.
Perish the hands of the Father of Flame! Perish he! : No profit to him from all his wealth, and all his gains! : Burnt soon will he be in a Fire of Blazing Flame! His wife shall carry the
13 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 569
(crackling) wood - As fuel!-A twisted rope of palm-leaf fibre round her (own) neck!
Is really this Sura from Allah? Why would Allah need to curse anyone when he can crush them and destroy them so easily? Isn't it more logical to believe that at least this Sura is made up by Muhammad out of frustration and rage? Which is more logical? Is Allah insane or this sura is made up by Muhammad? Muhammad confesses that at least in one occasion he received Satanic Verses, thinking to be from God. Could the sura 111 also be of the same category?
Sometimes one verse in the Quran is contradicted by the subsequent verse. For example the verse 2:254 says:
O you who believe! spend out of what We have given you before the day comes in which there is no bargaining, neither any friendship nor intercession, and the unbelievers.
And the following verse 2:255 contradicts it and says:
Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth?.
Far from being a clear book the Quran is replete with contradictions. That is why Muslims can find anything they want in the Quran and interpret it in any way they wish. Osama Bin Laden can find verses that justify his crimes against humanity and you can find verses to portray Islam as a moderate religion. I will discuss these contradictions in my future discussion with you, one at a time. My goal is to prove that far from being a book of guidance, the Quran misguides people. Muslims will do much better if they stop following this book of confusion and rely on their own intelligence to find their way, just like other people do. I hope to convince a good number of Muslims that Islam is a lost paradigm. We should not waste our time trying to reform it. Islam can't be reformed. It must be discarded. The Quran is not the word of God. One error in this book disqualifies it as the word of God. If you bear with me I will show you hundreds. We have just started. This was only a token of the humongous errors and contradictions that exist in the Quran - only a drop from an ocean of asininity.
I remain cordially yours
Ali Sina

[Allegracrown]

Part II
Date: Sep 27, 2006
Dear Mr Ali Sina
I don't want to waste your time and that of the visitors of your site by presenting apologies and excuses for being late in the response. I hope and pray that the future responses wouldn't be delayed by as long a duration as the one this message has taken.
I must clarify, by way of a disclaimer, that, now that myself and Mr Javed Ahmad Ghamidi are living in two different cities, at least temporarily, what I am writing is in consultation with him on the basis of a telephonic conversation. I am taking the liberty of writing a much briefer message than what it should have been if I were to mention everything he had suggested. The reason why I am doing so is that I personally believe that relatively brief messages help in attracting a larger readership than the longer ones. So, for instance, whereas Mr Ghamidi would have liked me to quote ten examples to prove a point, I would, for the sake of brevity, confine myself to two. However, if you would so demand, I would go for the longer versions of responses too.
Having said that, here are the responses to the, basically, two problems you've raised on Qur'anic teachings:
1) As for the problems of understanding in the Qur'anic description of intercession in the life hereafter, you've agreed in your message that if that understanding was to remain confined to what is mentioned in the following Qur'anic verse, it would be reasonable and logically acceptable:
"[A reward] from the Lord of the heavens and the earth and all that lies between them; the most Gracious - there is no one who has the authority to speak on His behalf. [It will happen] on the Day when Gabriel and the angels will stand arrayed [before Him]. [It will be the Day] when only they will speak whom the most Gracious allows and who speak the truth." (97:37-38)
We believe that what the rest of the Qur'an says is consistent with the above statement. The following explanation is an attempt to clarify position on the issue: There can be three categories of individuals from the point of view of their attitude and performance in the trial of this worldly life: the good performers who would succeed in the next life on the merit of their own deeds; the criminally inclined, obstinate individuals who wouldn't deserve any mercy from the Almighty; and the in-between performers who mix good deeds with bad ones but nonetheless are not obstinate transgressors. While the first category wouldn't need any intercession, the second category wouldn't deserve one. Intercession would only be needed by, and allowed to, people belonging to the third category.
In our worldly life, we too tend to make a distinction on the basis of attitude while dealing with people who do things that are wrong. An employee who is not extremely efficient but is not seen to be disloyal to the organization gets, or deserves to get, a treatment which is different from the one meted out to the one who is both inefficient and disloyal. Likewise is what God Almighty is going to do in the next life: His less-efficient-but-loyal servants would receive His mercy, albeit through the agency of intercession. The disloyal criminals would deserve no mercy.
Intercession would be used as a mode of applying God's mercy for the less-efficient-but-loyal servants for two reasons: The treatment meted out to them and the high performers should remain distinct and the highest performing servants should get the additional reward of getting the honour of successfully interceding for some other people. Indeed this process of intercession would not violate the basic principle outlined in the above-quoted verse: "[It will be the Day] when only they will speak whom the most Gracious allows and who speak the truth." (97:37-38) In other words, the Almighty would Himself identify the people who would be allowed to intercede and the ones they would be allowed to intercede for. In the process of intercession, they would not speak anything but the truth. Wherever the Qur'an talks about intercession, it does so within the parameters of the above-stated principle.
As for the mention of intercession in ahadith, we have already stated that the only two reliable sources of knowledge of Islam are Qur'an and sunnah, While the Qur'an is the book of God that was preserved through the process of memorizing from the first generation onwards in a way that its originality is beyond doubt, similar is the case of sunnah, the religious practices of the prophet-- in fact the earlier prophets too -- that he performed in the presence of his companions who emulated him even after his death and the next generations followed suit. The authenticity of originality of these sunnah practices -- like for example, prayers, pilgrimage, burial rites etc. -- are at par with the Qur'an. Both have been passed on from generation to another in accordance with God's scheme to preserve the last religion revealed by Him.
The case of ahadith is not the same. These reports about the prophet's life are a record of what he did, said, or what happened during his lifetime, compiled by individuals at their own initiative. Unlike the Qur'an and sunnah, the contents of ahadith do not contain a completely authentic description of the prophet's mission. There could be both inadvertent errors in the hadith literature as well as mentions that resulted out of deliberate attempts at distorting the true picture of Islam. The important thing is that while the Qur'an and sunnah are end result of the God-ordained arrangement, ahadith are the result of human effort. We therefore don't take the responsibility of defending what is mentioned in this literature.
2) The other problem you have pointed out in the Qur'an is regarding the inconsistent use of pronouns for God. To understand why it has so happened, one must appreciate that the Qur'an is not just a bland piece prose in Arabic that was revealed to hand down some instructions to the prophet. It is a masterpiece of Arabic literature. Like other literary masterpieces, the use of pronouns in the Qur'an, as indeed in the case of many other aspects of its styles of presentation, should be viewed from that perspective. The use of third person pronoun by an author may be considered an error by a reader not fully conversant with literary writings. To someone who knows the subtle delicacies presentations that are expressed in the highest level of literary taste, usage of the same pronoun can raise that work from the level of ordinary prose to a much higher level of literary taste. The Qur'an was revealed not just to influence the ordinary people of the Arabian society; it had come to have a deep impact on the elite of the society who wouldn't have been impressed by a message that expressed itself in a simple, dull language. Thus Qur'anic style of presentation should not be critically examined from the point of view of ordinary logic. It has to be appreciated from the standpoint of the richness of its literary stature.
Zamakhshari, a twelfth century exegete, whose literary appreciation of the Qur'an is widely acknowledged, has given several examples of the usage of third person pronouns by the top-grade classical poets of the Arabian society. If needed, I will quote them. The Qur'an had not just to match them in the beauty of their literary style. It had to outperform them to reach the hearts of the elite class and, through them, the ordinary people as well. It shouldn't come as a surprise then that God uses He and Him for Himself on several occasions. In case such usage is to be criticized, it should be done on the parameters of literary appreciation of the classical Arabic.
Just to help appreciate our point, I am mentioning a couplet each from Iqbal and Ghalib, the two most outstanding Urdu poets of the Indian subcontinent.
The translations are my own:

Urdu:
Iqbal bara ubdaishak hay man baatoon main moh laita hay
Guftar ka who ghazi to bana, kirdar ka ghazi ban na saka

Iqbal is a great sermonizer: He wins the hearts through what he says
Despite winning the verbal battle, he couldn't win the battle of character

Urdu:
Atay hain ghaib say yeh mazamin khyal main
Ghalib sareere khama-e naway-e saroosh hay

Ideas come to him from the heavens
Ghalib is only the scribe of the voices of angels

In both cases, the great poets are using third person pronouns for
themselves. Anyone who would accuse them of committing logical error in
presentation would attract the criticism that he is devoid of a taste for
appreciation of literary masterpieces. Likewise is true for the Qur'an.

Khalid Zaheer

Date: Sep 30, 2006 Ali Sina's Response
Drear Mr. Ghamidi and Mr. Zaheer;
Greetings and thank you for the response! You have been brief and to the point. I will try to do the same.
1-In your introduction to Sura Naba Mr. Ghamidi, you quoted the verses 78: 37-40 and in the footnote you wrote:
"This and the next two verses strongly negate the philosophy of mediation and intercession."
I agreed with that and affirmed that intercession makes no sense.
But then I pointed out that many Muslims believe that intercession is possible and I quoted several verses that make that belief plausible.
However in your latest response you indicated, "intercession would only be needed by, and allowed to, people belonging to the third category."
So obviously I had not understood you correctly at first or you are having a second thought. It appears to me that now you are saying that intercession is possible. Is my understanding correct?
If intercession is not possible, I would like you to explain why in so many places Muhammad claims that he will be the intercessor and that others to whom permission has been given can also intercede.
If intercession is possible, then we have a logical problem to solve. Doesn't God know everything? What can possibly any intercessor tell Him that He does not know already? The Quranic verses say that intercession would be allowed to those who speak the truth. This makes no sense at all. Can anyone tell a lie to God when he already knows everything? Why does he need the opinion of others when he knows best? What is the point in talking to God when he already knows what we are going to say and we know that he knows what is in our heart? Isn't this an exercise in futility?
Furthermore, if God's wisdom, compassion and mercy exceed those of his creatures why would he need any creature of him to tell him please be more forgiving and merciful to some of your weaker creatures? Can possibly anyone be more merciful to other humans than God?
When I agreed with you, it was because I understood you say the Quran "strongly negates the philosophy of mediation and intercession". But this does not seem to be the case. So I can't agree with you and you should explain logically why an all knowing, all wise God needs intercessions by his creatures. Is there anything that God does not know that the intercessor can inform him? The philosophy of intercession denies not only the omniscience of God, but also his mercy and fairness. It implies that Muhammad and "those to whom permission is given" know things that Allah does not know, or that they are more forgiving and merciful that him.
You brought the example of an employee who is loyal but not very efficient and that his employer tolerates some of his ineptitudes in consideration of his loyalty. Let us agree with this premise. The question is why this employer needs someone to intercede with him on behalf of this lousy but loyal employee? An intercessor would only make sense if the employer does not have the full knowledge of the situation. So he would ask the opinion of the superior of this employee who knows him best. But if God knows everything better than anyone else, is wiser than all his creatures and his prophets, why would he need anyone's opinion? Doesn't this imply that Muhammad knows something about humans that Allah does not know?
According to Islam, Allah is perfect while Muhammad and Muslims are not. Will you please explain why a perfect being would listen to the opinions of imperfect creatures? If the claim that Allah knows best is true, then intercession by creatures who don't know anywhere close to what Allah knows is not needed at all and is sheer arrogance. Do Muhammad and other devout Muslims know the secrets of people's hearts better than God?
The concept of intercession is nothing but blasphemy. Muhammad is claiming to have the power to act as God's advisor. He even grants this preposterous privilege to his followers. This is absurd. What possibly anyone can tell God that He already does not know? If someone deserves a break because of his loyalty or for any other reason, shouldn't God know that better than his prophet? By claiming that he has the power to intercede with God, Muhammad in assuming the role of the Almighty's partner.
You wrote: "In other words, the Almighty would Himself identify the people who would be allowed to intercede and the ones they would be allowed to intercede for. In the process of intercession, they would not speak anything but the truth."
This makes no sense at all. I can't understand the logic of this protocol. How can an omniscient God appoint some humans to intercede? Let us say God decides to punish someone for a sin. Has he made his decision wisely or not? Is his decision based on knowledge or is it based on ignorance? Then he appoints some good Muslims to intercede on behalf of this individual. These Muslims prostrate in front of Allah and tell him, oh Allah, please forgive this man because he was a loyal Muslim, and Allah, after thinking for while and hearing some supplications, plays with his beard for a moment and changes his mind and says, "Okay, because you interceded I will forgive him." Doesn't this sound ludicrous? If this individual deserves to be forgiven why God does not forgive him in the first place? What these Muslims can possibly tell God that He does not know already and how a bunch of humans can influence the decision of the maker of this universe? Is God so whimsical? Doesn't this imply that his original decision was not right? If it was right why change it? If it was not right because it was based on the faulty information then God is not all knowing.
Funny thing is that Allah already knows that his decision is not right and the person deserves better treatment. So he asks his prophet and some good Muslims to beg so he change his decision and make it right.
We should also remember verse 7.188, where allegedly Allah tells Muhammad to say:
I have no power over any good or harm to myself except as Allah willeth. If I had knowledge of the unseen, I should have multiplied all good, and no evil should have touched me: I am but a warner, and a bringer of glad tidings to those who have faith.
There is also this hadith:

I am a Prophet of Allah but I do not know what will be my end. 14
In one of his sermons, calculated to instill the fear of Allah and the day of reckoning in the hearts of men, Muhammad said:
O people of Quraish be prepared for the hereafter, I cannot save you from the punishment of Allah; O Bani Abd Manaf, I cannot save you
14 Sahih Bukhari, Chapter "Al-Janaiz"
from Allah; O Abbas, son of Abdul Mutalib, I cannot protect you either; O Fatima, daughter of Muhammad, even you I cannot save. (Sahahin) 15
How can then, such a person who has no power over anything except what Allah tells him, and does not know what will be his own end claim to know that he will be an advisor to Allah on the Day of Judgment advocating for the Muslims?
Imagine Allah sitting on his throne and condemning a Muslim to Hell, knowing that this person deserves better. So he turns to Muhammad and tells him to intercede for that Muslim. Mo goes on his knees and supplicates with Allah to forgive tat man. Then Allah smiles and tells the Muslim, I have forgiven your sin because of Muhammad. Now you go to Paradise and be thankful to Muhammad.
This is comedy. It is clear that Muhammad said something at one time and then forgot and said something else at another time. The whole story is just ludicrous. This is enough proof that Muhammad was making it all up.
Now imagine this scene happening billions of times, once for every Muslim that ever lived and had a grain of faith in Muhammad. (All Muslims have that much faith or they would not call themselves Muslim.) Let us say there will be about 3 billion Muslims in total, since the beginning of Islam to the Day of Resurrection and let us say it takes just one minute for Muhammad to intercede on behalf of each one of them. That is really fast justice. At this rate, if Muhammad and Allah work non stop, 24 hours per day and all days of the year, the Day of Judgment will have to last 5,707 years. Now imagine you have lived 60 or 70 years in this world and will have to stand in line over five thousand years to receive your judgment. If there are twice that many Muslims, then the Day of Judgment will last 11,414 years. If the intercession ritual takes more than one minute per person the waiting time will be even longer. If Allah and Muhammad take coffee breaks, you'll have to stand in line a few extra thousands of years. We are not even counting the time that it will take to process the non-Muslims because we assume that they will all be herded to hell like the Jews being sent to Nazi gas chambers and Allah will not waste a minute of his time on them.
15 www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/prophetdescription.html
If the Quran says intercession is possible, the Quran is engaging in a logical
fallacy. It is undermining the omniscience of God and is confuting His superior
wisdom and mercy.

My dear erudite friends, I think you have a big logical problem in front of you.
You either must accept intercession or reject it. If you reject it, then explain why
Muhammad claims to have that power and if you accept it then you are engaging
in blasphemy, which is even a bigger problem.

2-In response to my second question asking why Allah in the Quran abruptly
changes pronouns and sometimes refers to himself in third person, you said that
it is because the Quran "is a masterpiece of Arabic literature".

I agree that sometimes a speaker or a writer speaks of himself in third person
and this is acceptable. However this is not the recipe to transform a dull writing
into a masterpiece of literature. The Quran is not a masterpiece of literature by
any standard. If we continue this debate long enough, I will show you the errors
in the Quran that prove clearly the author of this book has been indeed an
illiterate man and not the almighty God. Switching from one pronoun to another
without notice only creates confusion and it does not transform a prosaic writing
into a masterpiece of literature.

Sura Fatiha, the first sura of the Quran is the one that all Muslims read regularly.
Let us read it again.

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
The Beneficent, the Merciful.
Master of the Day of Judgment.
Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.
Keep us on the right path.
The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of
those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray.

Are these the words of God? Who is God supplicating to?

This topic in my view is clear. The following is my next question:


A Beast as the Messenger of Allah
When Muhammad claimed to be a prophet, people who knew him best laughed at him. They asked for proof. He had none. Then they asked why God does not send an angel so they could be sure? Muhammad's response to them was that God sends human prophets to humans.
People said:
You are no more than a human being like us! You wish to turn us away from what our fathers used to worship. Then bring us a clear authority.
(14:10)
This is logical. If Muhammad did not present any proof, how could people know he is telling them the truth? (see also 23:47)
Allah responded by asking:
Is it a wonder for mankind that We have inspired a man among them?
(10:2)
He further complained:
That was because there came to them their Messengers with clear proofs, but they said: "Shall mere men guide us'' (64:6)
Well, I would like to see that clear proof. If we had clear proof we would not be having this discussion. Then Allah gives his reasons why messengers to humans are always humans and not angels or something else.
And naught prevented mankind from believing when the guidance came unto them save that they said: Hath Allah sent a mortal as (His) messenger? Say: If there were in the earth angels walking secure, We had sent down for them from heaven an angel as messenger. (17:94-95)
We never sent before thee any messengers but lo! they verily ate food and walked in the markets. And those who look not for a meeting with Us say: Why are angels not sent down unto us and (Why) do we not see our Lord! Assuredly they think too highly of themselves and are scornful with great pride (25:20- 21) And We have not sent before you but men from (among) the people of the towns, to whom We sent revelations. (12: 109)
And We sent not (as Our messengers) before thee other than men, whom We inspired. We gave them not bodies that would not eat food, nor were they immortals. (21:7-8)
Ibn Kathir in the tafseer of Sura Isra explains:
And there are many other similar Ayat. Then Allah says, pointing out His kindness and mercy towards His servants that He sends to them Messengers of their own kind so that they will understand what he says and will be able to speak to him directly. If He sent to mankind a Messenger from among the angels, they would not be able to deal with him face to face and learn from him, as Allah says: "Indeed, Allah conferred a great favor on the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from among themselves" (3:164)
Ibn Kathir is right; there are other verses. What I quoted so far is enough to make us understand that for men, only men will be sent as messengers. But we find that Allah contradicts himself.
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. (27:82)
Here Allah is promising that he will send a beast to bring his message to mankind. Doesn't this belie everything he has said in all those above-mentioned verses? Do beasts of the earth speak Arabic better than angels? What kind of beast will be this messenger of Allah? Will it be a jackass, a camel, a crocodile or a chimpanzee? How would we recognize it? According to Islam, Jinns also can appear in the form of animals. Why animals can speak to humans and angels can't?
Then again didn't Muhammad claim to be the last prophet? (33:40) If he was the last one to bring us a message from God, then what is this beast going to be? If this beast is going to bring us a message, he is a messenger and the title of Khatama alnnabiyyeen (the last of prophets) that Muhammad claimed for himself should go to this animal. If 33:40 is right then the verse 27:82 must be wrong.
Furthermore, it is not true that angles do not bring messages from God to humans. The Quran itself testifies that at the time of Solomon there were two angels in Babel, Harut and Marut who spoke to people and said "We are only a temptation, therefore disbelieve not (in the guidance of Allah)." Then the Quran says:
And from these two (angles) people learn that by which they cause division between man and wife; but they injure thereby no-one save by Allah's leave. And they learn that which harmeth them and profiteth them not. (2:102)
Also the Quran says an angel appeared to Zechariah the father of John (Yahya) and brought him the glad tiding that he is going to have a son:
Then the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: That Allah gives you the good news of Yahya verifying a Word from Allah, and honorable and chaste and a prophet from among the good ones.
(3:39)
Don't these two verses contradict the previous verses that deny the possibility of angels coming to humans as messengers?
A little further down (3:42, 45) again it is an angel who brings a message to Mary the mother of Jesus, informing her that she is going to have a son. In another part of the Quran, the same angel is appearing to Mary says:
I am only a messenger of your Lord: That I will give you a pure boy.
(19:19)
Either, angels can be messagers of God to humans or they can't. In either case some of the verses of the Quran must be false.
The difficulty does not end here. The above verses are emphatic that the messengers that Allah sends to each species will be of the same species. However, the Quran says that Muhammad was sent as a messenger also to the Jinns.
And when We turned towards you a party of the jinn who listened to the Quran; so when they came to it, they said: Be silent; then when it was finished, they turned back to their people warning (them). (46-29) Then the Jinns said to each other:
And whoever does not accept the-Divine caller, he shall not escape in the earth and he shall not have guardians besides Him, these are in manifest error. (46:32)
The same claim is made in Sura Jinn (72: 1-14)
There are also many ahadith that talk about Muhammad going to the Jinns and teaching them Islam. For brevity I pass them up.
How could Muhammad who was a man, at least according to his own claim, become a messenger to the Jinns when in so many verses he said to each species will be sent a messenger of their own kind?
The Quran claims that both Jinns and men have received messengers from among them.
O assembly of jinn and men! did there not come to you messengers from among you, relating to you My communications and warning you of the meeting of this day of yours? (6:130)
According to the Quran also angels have their own messengers:
Allah chooses messengers from angels and from men, for Allah is He Who hears and sees (all things).(22:75)
All praise is due to Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, the Maker of the angels, apostles flying on wings, two, and three, and four; He increases in creation what He pleases; surely Allah has power over all things.(35:1)
So how could Muhammad go to the Jinns and become their messenger if he was not of their kind? And how come to us humans a beast will be sent to deliver the message of Allah? Could it be that Muhammad was actually a jinn, deceiving people, posing as a prophet?
I remain sincerely yours
Ali Sina Note: I would like to make this very clear, that although Mr. Ghamidi, Mr. Zaheer and this author have diverging viewpoints as far as Islam is concerned, I am strongly supportive of these two scholars and have utmost respect for their great work. Muslim world needs men like them. I appreciate what they do and wish them success. They try to humanize the Umma at the risk to their own lives. It is regrettable that Mr. Ghamidi must be protected by bodyguards to stay safe from the assault of Muslim fanatics.
As our slogan says, we are not against faith but against hate. Anyone who strives for peace and fights against intolerance and hate is our friend and ally. We do not want to see the end of religion. We want to see the end of religiously inspired hate. I believe that Mr. Ghamidi and Mr. Zaheer have embarked on an impossible mission. I applaud them but do not believe they will make it.
Upon informing Mr. Zaheer that I have published my response, he wrote:

Dear Mr Ali Sina
I am finding it difficult to access your site. Can I get your response directly? Thanks.

Khalid Zaheer
This is regrettable. It seems that they have banned faithfreedom.org in Pakistan. Several Islamic countries have banned us. For 1400 years Muslim leaders have kept the masses ignorant. In this way they could rule them better. But for how long they can keep people in the dark?

[Allegracrown]

Part III Date: Oct 5, 2006

Mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer's Response

Dear Mr Ali Sina
This message is in response to your message to me dated September 30, 2006. I am responding to it after Mr Ghamidi went through the contents of it and apprised me of his views.
Before we comment on the essentially two points that were the subject of our first discussion, I would want to mention the followed two things as a prelude:
i) As I mentioned in one of my earlier messages, since we are doing quite a few other things apart from participating in this discussion, the responses from our side can take longer than what many people would expect. But please bear with us; it is in the interest of the quality and usefulness of this discussion that we take our time and not hurry through with our responses.
ii) Ours is a serious academic debate and not an attempt at providing emotionally consoling material to our respective fan clubs. In fact, if I am not mistaken, what brings us together despite the vast differences in our ideologies is the concern that some people, both religious and non-religious, don't allow their followers to face realities the way they are. We are confident that we, the participants on both sides of this discussion, are equally concerned that the truth should be allowed to lay bare before our readers and that no method be adopted that would take their minds away from what is being discussed. It is this concern that compels us to request you that no third point be raised before the first two are taken to as far as they can go in deciding the truth about them. Raising new points when the earlier ones haven't as yet been resolved helps only in distracting the reader from concentrating on the real issues of the discussion. We want to move step-by-step no matter how long it takes for the journey to end. We have come together to uncover the truth. Let us do it in the best possible way.
Now let me comment on the first two points you have mentioned.
i) Your criticism on the Qur'anic presentation of intercession is that it is inconsistent and self contradictory. You have not been convinced by our response that the intercession to be allowed by the Almighty would be
36
applicable to the case of marginal performers only. We will present our understanding from another perspective now and then take up your reservations one-by-one to show that your criticism doesn't logically apply to the Qur'anic concept of intercession.
Let us take the following Qur'anic passage: "The (acceptance of) repentance is binding on Allah in the case of such people only who do sin in an emotional state and then repent immediately afterwards. Such are the people whose repentance Allah shall most certainly accept. And Allah is most knowledgeable and wise. And repentance of such people is not going to be accepted who continue to sin until death reaches any one of them and he says "I repent now", nor indeed (is repentance) of those (going to be accepted) who die as disbelievers. For such people we have prepared a painful punishment." (4:17-18)
The above passage outlines three categories of people on the basis of their responses to the sins they commit. There are those who sincerely repent immediately after they commit a wrong act. There are others who don't repent until death reaches them. The case of both categories has been clarified in the above passage. However, the case of another category of people has not been mentioned in this verse: those who commit evil but don't repent immediately nor do they delay their repentance till viewing the signs of death. Their case has not been clarified in this passage of the Qur'an. The Almighty has neither declared that they will be forgiven nor has He announced that they are going to be punished. What if a person belonging to such a category was to seek justice from God Almighty on the Day of Judgment? And what if another person, let's say my ordinary self, was to ask the Almighty to forgive him? What objections can be raised against the possibility that such an event will take place before the Almighty makes a clear pronouncement to that effect? Intercession will be nothing more than a request tendered by some individuals to the Almighty to forgive those people whose case will be unclear on the basis of the principles of justice clearly outlined by the Almighty. Such an act will neither be an attempt to add anything to the His knowledge nor will it be instrumental in altering His decision. It will be a mere plea expressed by some individuals to seek mercy for some others who will be falling on the margin of good and bad performers.
On the basis of the above explanation, I am now mentioning our brief comments on some of the observations you have made. (Your observations in quotation marks are followed by our comments.)
a) "You are having second thoughts (about the concept of intercession)." We have consistently mentioned the same understanding of intercession. That understanding is based on one logical, coherent idea that runs through all the statements of the Qur'an relevant to that question.
b) "Doesn't God know everything?" Given the clarification mentioned above, this question doesn't even arise. The fact that a person will plead mercy from God for someone else in no way undermines belief in God's omniscience.
c) "Can possibly anyone be more merciful to other humans than God?" This comment too is not applicable to the explanation we have offered above. In fact, it would be the supreme kindness of God that would allow some people to plead mercy for those people whom He will have already decided, but not openly announced, to forgive. It would be a gesture of graciousness on His part to allow some other people too to participate in that process. In other words, God Almighty could have shown kindness to people on the margin of success-failure boundary directly, but He will let others too to become a part of that process. By embracing others in His process of mercy, God will elevate those others to a very high status of recognition in the eyes of the rest of mankind.
d) "The philosophy of intercession denies not only the omniscience of God but also his mercy and fairness." For omniscience and mercy, kindly refer to our earlier remarks. As for the possibility of a compromise in the principle of fairness, it needs to be pointed out that forgiveness for people who would fall on the margin of good and bad performers would be nothing but a delicate balance between the principle of mercy and fairness coming together to simultaneously play a role.
e) "Do Muhammad and other devout Muslims know the secrets of people's heart better than God?" I hope it is clear by now that this question also doesn't apply to the Qur'anic concept of intercession.
f) "Funny thing is that Allah already knows that his decision is not right and the person deserves better treatment. So he asks his prophet and some good Muslims to beg for him to change his decision and make it right. If it was the best decision, how could anyone dare to ask him to change it?" Again, our hope is that, given our clarifications, the concept would start making sense to all sensible people and would not remain funny any more. Allah Almighty will not change His decision. He will only allow His decision to become manifest in a different way to indicate that while those who are being forgiven didn't strictly fall in the category of clear winners, they are still getting the benefit of His mercy.
ii) You have moved on by making a passing remark that the mere fact that examples of third person pronouns used by authors for themselves do exist in literature of high quality is not an evidence of the fact that such shifts in the Qur'an also enable its text to belong to the same category. Let's discuss this more deeply. Let us have your arguments that support your claim. We have to decide at this point as to whether your claim is correct or not. We will have no problems in accepting your claim provided you present your case properly. Let us go into the classical Arabic literature, the most outstanding example of which we believe is the Qur'an, and find out whether what you have casually referred to is actually true. This discussion must not move on even a step further from here unless this issue is resolved. We will wait for examples from classical Arabic literature coming from your side that would show that sudden shifts of pronouns by the author are unheard of and that it has been a blunder on the part of the author of the Qur'an to have done so. We will then, God willing, proceed to tell you through several examples from masterpieces of Arabic literature as to why we believe that such shifts were common place in that literature. We hope that you do not object to our claim that since your criticism is on a particular style of communication adopted by the Arabic Qur'an, it is the standards of classical Arabic literature, especially belonging to the era when the Qur'an was being revealed, and no other criterion, that should be employed to come to any definite conclusion about the relevance of your criticism. We would like to have your clear view on this point in your next response.
You have suggested a third topic for discussion. We very politely request that the discussion on the third topic will make sense only after the first two have been discussed thoroughly. As we have pointed out earlier, we must help readers to make up their minds on the two points you have raised. It's only after the matter on these two issues has been settled that we should move on to others. We assure you that if you have hundred more points that you think can be raised against the claim that the Qur'an has divine origins, we will discuss each one of them in the same spirit and enthusiasm as we are taking up these two. And in case you will be able to academically prove your point convincingly, you will not find us unwilling to acknowledge that you have done so. Let this debate remain a serious academic exercise in which each point which is being taken up for discussion is debated threadbare. Only then would the truth would unfold itself.
Thanks. Khalid Zaheer

Date: Oct 9, 2006
Dear Mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer.
Thank you for your response. You made a very important statement. You said
"what brings us together despite the vast differences in our ideologies is the concern that some people, both religious and non-religious, don't allow their followers to face realities the way they are. We are confident that we, the participants on both sides of this discussion, are equally concerned that the truth should be allowed to lay bare before our readers and that no method be adopted that would take their minds away from what is being discussed."
I am very pleased to read that. It is in this regard that I regret the decision made by your government, to which you are a religious adviser, to block faithfreedom.org from being accessed in Pakistan. Even though I am certain you had nothing to do with this decision, the timing has raised questions in the minds of some people. One friend from Pakistan wrote:
Mr. Ali Sina
For the whole of past week I was trying to access your website to follow up on the debate between yourself and Mr. Javed Ahmed Gamdi. And I was not able to do so. I thought maybe Faithfreedom Int'l was experiencing some technical difficulties and such other problems. But at the back of mind there was this nagging suspicion that perhaps the Pakistani authorities may have blocked your website.
And it so happens I was right, yesterday through an anonymous online proxy I was able to get through to Faithfreedom.org. Yes I live in Pakistan.
For the past 2 years I was able to access your website without any difficulties and let me tell you that you have opened my eyes about the true nature of islam, and suddenly now that you are debating with a prominent Pakistani scholar your website gets banned/ blocked in Pakistan. Is this a mere coincidence or can we safely assume and count two and two together and reach a logical conclusion.
I hope you realize this can only be interpreted as an effort to keep people in the dark. It absolutely violates what you and I believe that no one has the right to withhold the truth from people. Even though I am sure you had nothing to do with this reprehensible act of censorship, the timing has raised a few eyebrows.
They have done a big disservice to you. To reassure the skeptics that you do not agree with this decision, you may want to publish our debate in your site as well. This gesture will send a clear message to everyone that you truly believe in freedom of information and do not approve censorship of thoughts. It also can be seen as proof that you are convinced of the strength of your argument.
Of course it would be commendable if you speak to the authorities in Pakistan and let them know that this banning is reflecting poorly on you and on Islam and that they should lift it at once. You may want to remind them that Islam is truth and truth does not need the heavy hand of censorship --all truth needs to triumph is freedom. If they believe that Islam is truth, what are they afraid of? If we at FFI lie, we are inviting Muslim scholars to write to us and point where we have gone wrong. We provide an open forum for anyone to refute our claim, which Muslims use freely, but to insult us and not to refute us.
Now, as for me introducing a third question, I don't think this is an attempt to distract the readers. As far as the first two points (intercession and the use of pronoun) are concerned I have said what I had to say and I rested my case.
The point is not that you and I should agree. We probably will never agree and frankly, knowing how dangerous is Pakistan and how your lives could be taken away by angry mobs if you agree with me, I do not expect and do not want you to agree with me. I want you good people live long and help your nation to move away from fanaticism and towards moderation and modernity. If you agree with me, that would be your end. So this is not what I am seeking.
I have received words that according to a Hyderabad (India) local news magazine "Muslim Jagaran", Syed Yousaf Bin, the chief patron of the Ulema Board, in Hyderabad has issued a fatwa against my person. According to the sources he has decreed, "if anybody kills Dr. Ali Sina, he will be rewarded with Rs.1,000,000 (Indian rupees one million)". Syed Yousaf Bin was the person behind the fatwa against Indian tennis sensation Sania Mirza.
Haseeb-ul-hasan Siddiqui, a leading cleric of the Muslim organization, the Sunni Ulema Board has also warned me and others behind faithfreedom.org of the consequences that we would have to face if we don't close our website. "According to Islam, the criticisers of Islam should be stoned to death," he is reported to have said.
Safdar Nagori who was the secretary-general of the extremist Islamic outfit
S.I.M.I (Students Islamic Movement of India) till the organization was proscribed under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 has been reported to

have said, "Dr. Ali Sina would be killed within a month, irrespective of wherever his hideout is."
This is happening in the secular India. If anyone issues such blatant death threats and solicit murder in a real democracy, he would have to spend years in jail. India, the largest "democracy" of the world is obviously a banana republic. Muslim goons roam around freely issuing fatwas and offering rewards for the assassination of the critics of Islam and no one dares to call them to account. How poorly this reflects on India and Indians who bend backwards to appease Muslims in their country! Now Muslims in India constitute only 12% of the population. But they are procreating faster than the Hindus. What they would demand when they become 20%? Another partition?
This is happening in India, which is allegedly a democracy. What they would do to you in Pakistan, which prides itself to be a fanatical Islamic country and a dictatorship if you agree with anything I say?
One million rupees are just $21,893 US dollars in today's rate. I thought I was wroth more. But I am not complaining. Jesus was worth only thirty pieces of silver. This is way more. However, why kill me? I am offering $50,000 US dollars (more than twice what these mullahs are offering) to anyone who can disprove me with the promise to remove the content of this site and publish in each existing page one message saying, "I stand corrected on Islam. Islam is a true religion. Allahu Akbar."
Wouldn't that be more effective? Imagine the impact of such a confession worldwide! Muslims don't have to kill anyone for that. All they have to do is write one page disproving me. By killing me, they only prove what I say about Islam is true. Since this site is now managed by several volunteers, (none knows the others in real life) it will continue its job without me. My assassination will become another news sensation and another nail in the coffin of Islam. Killing people is foolish. It worked in the time of Muhammad and made him succeed by casting terror, but it won't work today.
With every act of violence the world is realizing Islam is barbarity and is more repulsed by it. Have you looked at the polls lately? More and more people are becoming disgusted with Islam. It is not because of what we write in FFI, it is because of what Muslims do.
Those who think the world can be intimidated with terror are fools. They do not understand the resolve of free people to keep their freedom. These people have shed their bloods in two revolutions, one in the heart of Europe and the other in America, to gain their freedom and have fought two World Wars to keep it. They are not going to capitulate to a bunch of ragged-head lousy barbarians. There is a limit to their patience. They won't take this terrorism for too long. Once their patience wears out, Muslims will pay dearly and wet and dry will burn alike. So, please wake them up. Help them see their follies. Stupidity does not pay off. I pray for your success, even though I do not hold my breath and doubt you can do much because this tree is rotten from its roots. I, along with other good people in FFI am working towards the same objective, but with a different strategy. We are axing down this rotten tree. We know it can't bear sweet fruits by pruning. If you succeed before we do and end this madness and terrorism, I promise to stop. But I know you won't and we will.
The purpose of this debate is not that you and I come to an agreement. The purpose is that you and I shed light on two different sides of the coin so our readers can see both points of views and make their minds.
Let me put it this way: I am accusing Muhammad of being a false prophet. You are trying to disprove me by showing that he was indeed a messenger of God and all charges made against him are unfounded and false. In other words, I am playing the role of the prosecutor and you are playing the role of the defense attorney. You and I need not agree. All we have to do is expound our respective cases clearly for the jury and convince them to agree with our viewpoints. The jury is the public. Let you and I do what we are supposed to do and let them come to their verdict.
As I see, the second round of our discussion on the topics of intercession and the use of third person pronoun by Allah in the Quran is a repetition of what each one of us said in the first round. I believe both of us explained this point exhaustively. I think our readers have enough information from both sides to make an intelligent decision. So let us move on.
I remain sincerely yours
Ali Sina

[Allegracrown]

Part IV Date: Oct 22, 2006

Dear Mr. Ali Sina
I am responding to your message dated October 10. I had the opportunity of talking to Mr Ghamidi directly this time to get his response on your last message. This is what we have to say on the points you have raised.
Our discussion is for the moment concentrating itself on the contents of the message of Islam in general and the Qur'an in particular. Your view is that the Qur'an is not God's book and therefore Islam is not His message. Our belief is just the opposite of it. We don't endorse many of the things which the contemporary Muslims are doing in the name of Islam. In fact, we both are concerned, for very different reasons though, that the present-day Muslim attitude should change. You seem to hold the opinion that the fanatic Muslim attitude can only change if they give up Islam; we believe that Muslims can only behave properly if they understand and follow the true Islam. However, for the purpose of making this discussion truly purposeful, we would suggest that we be very clear that we are trying to understand whether Qur'an is the word of God or not. For the sake of that purpose, we would request that we focus our attention on this single point and not allow any amount of external circumstances to distract us from it.
In your first message to us you raised these two points against our claim that the Qur'an was the word of God: i) The Qur'anic understanding regarding intercession contains contradictions and ii) the policy for usage of pronouns in the Qur'an for God seems to be inconsistent. We responded by presenting our understanding on both. In your second message you disagreed with the points we had mentioned to defend the Qur'anic presentation, to which we responded in our second response. In your third message (dated October 10) you have urged us to move on and leave it to the readers to conclude from what the two of us have mentioned in our respective messages on the two topics. We are now doing exactly that, assuming that you have nothing more to say in response to what we have mentioned in defense of the Qur'anic teachings on intercession and its usage of pronouns for God.
Your third criticism on the Qur'anic presentation is that there doesn't seem to be any consistency in the manner the Qur'an presents the idea of who should guide whom. At times it seems that it is only men who can guide men; on other occasions we are given to understand that angels can come to guide men, and on still other occasions we get the impression that jinn can also get guided by men. The most prominent part of your comment appears when you present a passage from the Qur'an that mentions the fact that the Qur'an has informed us that at a certain stage an animal would also come to play a role in guiding men. There is thus, according to you, a complete absence of consistency in the manner the Qur'an presents its methodology of guidance.
Before responding to the point raised by you, we would want to emphasize that when one tries to understand the contents of a book as a sincere student who is not out there to pick faults in it but is involved in the serious business of understanding the text, it is important that one appreciates how the book itself presents its arguments and the premises on which those arguments are based. If we were not interested in sincerely understanding your messages and were bent upon picking faults in them, we could have pointed out several contradictions in what you have written to us as yet. However, that would have been a sheer waste of time and an exercise in futility. It is only after you have sincerely understood a text by appreciating the methodology of presentation which the author of the text himself is suggesting that you have a right to criticize the text or else it would come under the category of non-serious criticism. After you understand the scheme of presentation of a text, you have a right to criticize both that scheme as well as the text on the basis of your observation that the text is violating the principles stated by itself.
Now let us briefly mention the scheme presented by the Qur'an regarding the delivery of God's message. We have been informed in the Qur'an that the message of God Almighty comes to the messengers through angels. It is these messenger men who then deliver the message to their fellow humans for the purpose of ensuring that the addressees receive it in the most effective manner. When the message is communicated to humans through fellow men, they are in no position to present any excuse in their defense for denying them. The Qur'an is very clear in its claim that it is only men who can deliver the message of God to their fellow men for the latter to receive it in a manner that its claim to divine origins becomes unmistakable. The reference to the fact that jinn also hear the Qur'an and get guided by it is in the context that since some jinn could hear Qur'an and understand it, they too accepted its claim of divine origins. Had men been able to hear and see jinn, they too would have been obliged to acknowledge the truthfulness of genuine messages of God delivered to that category of God's creation.
As for the mention of the animal, the Qur'an clarifies on several occasions the fact that after people refuse to accept God's message through the normal process of its presentation, He can use any of His signs to let such people know that their denial was not based on any evidence. For instance, on the day of judgment, it is mentioned that the limbs of human body would play the role of witnessing against the perpetrators of crimes. The reference to an animal in a Qur'anic passage is of similar nature. In our opinion, the following is the correct translation of the relevant passage: "You (O prophet) cannot force the dead to listen to your message nor can you force the deaf to hear the call even when they are turning their backs in disinterest. Likewise you can't guide the blind in their misguidance. You can only guide those who are willing to believe in our signs and in submitting themselves to the message. And once the message will be delivered in an undeniable form to them, we might bring out a beast from the land to confirm that these men were not willing to believe in our signs." (Qur'an; 27:80-82) The passage is mentioning that the appearance of a beast, if at all it happens, would only be meant to reinforce the earlier process of communication from the prophet as a final measure confirmation that the deniers were indeed guilty of rejecting a message that was so obvious that a beast could also confirm its divine origins. In other words, the evidence of the beast will not be meant to convince any of the humans to accept the message. Instead, it will be used as a final measure to expose the indefensible stubbornness of the deniers of the message of God.
We would be glad to know if the above presentation doesn't make sense to you. We would also like to know the reasons why you think this presentation is suggesting that the Qur'an is inconsistent in the manner it suggests its message should be communicated to men.

Khalid Zaheer October 24, 2006

Dear Mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer.

I am glad to hear from you again. I am also glad that the Ramadan is over and you'll have more time to be with us. We really enjoy and value your company and learn from your insights. This exchange of ideas will benefit everyone. Truth is the spark that is flashed when opposing ideas clash. I am certain that if we divest ourselves from prejudices and preconceived ideas, at the end we will find the truth.
Now, let me start with our discussion. Yes, I have nothing else to add to the subjects of intercession and the wrong use of the pronoun in the Qur'an. As for the first topic I am satisfied with what I have already said and so rested my case. As for the use of the wrong pronoun in the Qur'an, you say it is to add beauty to the language and that it should be seen as poetry. I don't know how happy Muhammad would be with this characterization. Apparently he was disdainful of poets to the extent that he wanted to commit suicide when he had that strange vision in the cave Hira and thought he had become a poet. He said there are two groups of people whom he despised most: poets and kahins (soothsayers).
Furthermore, the Qur'an, on repeated occasions reiterates its claim to be a clear book (5:15) easy to understand (44:58, 54:22, 54:32, 54:40) explained in detail (6:114), conveyed clearly, (5:16, 10:15) with no doubt in it (2:1), with clear ordinances, (98:3), of divine nature, (10:37) and full of wisdom (36:2). Yet you tell us that we must first learn its "scheme of presentation" in order to understand its meaning. If that is the case then what shall we make of the above claims of the clarity of the Qur'an? If we first need to learn the "scheme" of the book before we begin to understand it, then the claim that the book is clear and easy to understand is false. Please show me one verse where it says before understanding this book you must first learn its scheme of presentation. What is this scheme of presentation? Will you please explain it to us?
Anyway, by equating the Qur'an to poetry, you basically disarm me completely. I can no longer point to its grammatical, linguistic, scientific or even logical errors because it is a book of poetry and poets are licensed to break all sorts of rules. That is the distinction and the privilege of poets. We let them indulge in fantasies and breach all the norms of language and commonsense if necessary, to stir our soul. If we accept the Qur'an as a book of poetry, we have to acknowledge that it is a very bad poetry.
Then again, the Qur'an adamantly denies being a book of poetry. "It is not the word of a poet; little is it that you believe". (69:41) And, "We have not taught him poetry, nor is it meet for him; it is nothing but a reminder and a plain Qur'an." (36:69)
You see? The Qur'an claims to be plain. Why would you need to study the "scheme of presentation" to understand a plain and clear book?
The main problem in considering the Qur'an as a book of poetry is that as such it ceases to be a book of guidance. You can say it is an inspirational book but you won't be able to call it a book of guidance. A book of guidance must be clear and must not leave room for interpretation. This is the claim made in the Qur'an. If you want to go from A to B, you need a clear roadmap that tells you exactly how to get there. You don't want a poetic direction so confusing that would leave room for different interpretations, or you would get lost. The very fact that you and I both agree that Muslims are lost is that their alleged book of guidance is not guiding them. It is only a bad poetry disguised as guidance. Its spiritual message, if any, is unclear and unintelligible, while its message of hate and violence is loud and clear.
You think by shifting from one pronoun to another the Qur'an becomes a literary work of art. Personally, I do not see much beauty in the Qur'an, but I have no doubt that you do. Let us say beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and move on to the next topic. There was a time that I thought the Qur'an is beautiful. One of the surahs I used to think was beautiful to recite was Surah al Masadd (111). Then I found out that it is nothing but curse. You must agree that in Arabic it rhymes nicely. If you don't know what it says, you may actually enjoy it.
You wrote:

Are you suggesting that we should take first, a course on how to read the Qur'an before reading it? Will you please tell us why a book that claims to be so clear and easy to understand is so complicated? The Qur'an says that the unbelievers are "the vilest of animals"(8:55). How should we interpret this verse? In what scheme these insulting words mean something different than what they appear to mean? This to me sounds a hate speech. How would Muslims react if someone says Muslims are the vilest of animals? The Qur'an encourages Muslims to slay the unbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), to not take them as friends and helpers (3:28), fight them and show them harshness (9:123), and smite their heads ( 47:4). Under what light should we read these and many other gory and hate mongering verses like these so we could instead love all mankind, respect others, mingle in amity with people of all faiths, and be kind, loving and accepting of everyone? Don't you think these verses are responsible for the fact that Muslims are violent and intolerant of others?
Let us say you are right and there is a scheme of presentation that Muslims have failed to see and that is why they have behaved like savages during these 1400 years. Doesn't this make Allah a cruel and cynical deity? Why would he confuse people with ambiguous messages? If Allah wanted us to love all mankind, why he did not say so? Why he said kill the unbelievers wherever you find them? Why there are no verses saying, people of all faiths are your brothers and sisters, love all mankind as members of your family? Why he said: "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are harsh against unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other?" (48:29):
You ask me to be a sincere student and not to "pick faults". Is that your definition of sincerity? I think that is the definition of gullibility. If I try to see no evil, hear no evil and say no evil, I will end up believing in evil. Will you accept any scientific theory in this way, so lackadaisically, so uncritically? Why should we not be equally, if not more, rigorous in finding the truth about God?
If a message is from God, it should not have any faults. If it has a single fault, then it is not from God. What you are suggesting is recipe for disaster. What if a charlatan claims to be a prophet of God? How do I know this person is not lying if I don't try to see his faults? There have been many cults that have seduced many people, leading them to perdition. Just think of cults such and Aum Shinrikyo, whose followers, mindlessly believed in what their guru told them and released sarin gas in the subways of Tokyo, killing a dozen of innocent commuters and injuring hundreds of them for life. What about the cult of People's Temple whose members committed mass suicide in the jungles of Guyana after happily poisoning their own children? What about the cult of Heaven's Gate, Branch Davidian or hundreds of other cults whose followers believed and did not ask some basic questions? They did exactly what you suggest. They tried to be sincere and did not try to find faults in these cults. Can you question their sincerity? They proved their sincerity by sacrificing their lives. Do you question the sincerity of the suicide bombers? Sincerity alone, if not guided by reason and critical thinking can be deadly. Haven't you heard the expression, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions?"
If someone claims to be a messenger of God, we must not accept his claim unless all our questions are answered and we are satisfied that there are no holes in his claim. If there is one, he is not a messenger of God but a shameless liar, an impostor or a madman. God does not err and his religion must be logical. So don't be shy. Try hard to find faults in the claims of prophet pretenders and believe only if you find none. Do not let them intimidate you by saying it is not up to you to test God. You are not testing God. You are testing their claims. If they are indeed messengers of God, they should be able to answer all your questions. If they threaten you with hell, leave them because they are charlatans and liars. This is the only way to find the truth, not by uncritically accepting any nonsense. Do not let anyone fool you with empty promises and bogus claims. The message from God should come with the proof from God and that proof should satisfy our intellect and not insult it.
The reason we have so many faiths, religions, and sects, despite the fact that at most only one of them can be true, is that the followers don't question. They are eager to prove their sincerity and believe blindly without asking some important questions such as "what is the proof?" A simple and yet essential question! They believe, mislead by the feel-good factor and after being swayed by some logical fallacies.
You wrote:

No, it wouldn't. The reason we are having this debate is to find the flaws in each other's arguments. This is not an exercise in futility but the point of this discussion. We want to come to the truth. How else can we do that if we do not highlight each other's errors? You and I see the same things from different perspectives. From your vantage point you can see things that I don't, and vice versa. From where I am standing I may see an object as a disk. Seeing the same object from a different angle you could say, no you are mistaken; it's a cylinder. There may be a depth to the object that I can't see but you can. If you and I point to each other's errors, this is not a slight. We are humans. Our vision and understanding is limited by our vantage point. We don't and can't have the full picture of everything. So it is okay for us to err. And it is okay that we point out to each other's errors. The day I was born I was the most ignorant person in the world. Everything I know, I learned from others. Others like you, who corrected me and showed me my errors. There is no shame in being wrong. We are humans and as such fallible. If I had never come out of Iran, I doubt I would have known what I know today. I probably would have believed in exact same things you believe. In fact in many ways I identify myself with you. I had the same humanitarian ideals that you have while I believed in the same faith that you believe and I could not see the discrepancy and contradiction between my stated belief and my love for mankind. We are to a great extent products of our environments.
As a self proclaimed ignorant, I attest that there is no shame in being ignorant. Shame is in obstinacy and in not willing to see the truth after it has become clear. We can err. However, when an alleged message of God is so beset with errors, we must question its source. The Qur'an claims to be the verbatim words of God. God is not fallible. Therefore if we find one error in the Qur'an, it's enough to disqualify it as the word of God.
There are hundreds of blunders and absurdities in the Qur'an. How can an infallible God err so much? If there were only one or a handful of errors, we could still argue that those verses have crept into the book in later stages. But when the book is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies, we must question the legitimacy of its divine origin.
Therefore, what you define as "sincerity", in my view is nothing but gullibility. The believers force themselves to believe in absurdities and call that sincerity. They interpret lack of critical thinking, i.e. simple mindedness, as "purity of heart". A sincere seeker is one who questions and is not satisfied with half-baked answers. A sincere seeker is a doubter. He does not rest until all his questions are answered. How can you claim sincerity when you give up questioning and believe in absurdities? This is recklessness, not sincerity. "If God did not want us to use our brain", asked Galileo, "why he would give it to us?"
Logic is the measure of what is right and what is wrong, not the bogus claims of charlatans and impostors who want us to have faith and not question them. A true God would not expect us to believe in anything unless the clear proof is given. Muhammad himself, on many occasions, claimed that his message is clear. I want to see it. It is not clear to me and to billions of others who do not believe in him. We want proof. Where is the proof? The proof must be logical, irrefutable and conclusive. If I can find a single hole in it, that claim cannot be from God. If I tell you the earth is round, I can prove it. I do not expect you to have faith in my words, and you should not believe me if I resort to violence and force. If I tell you Gabriel visits me every night with a message from God and we play backgammon together, you must ask for proof. If I can't prove my claim, chances are that I am either an impostor or a mentally sick man. It would be foolish for anyone to believe in my claim especially if I demand sacrifices from others and live an ungodly and pervert life as Muhammad did.
Why should we believe in Muhammad and not in equality-unproven claims of other prophet-pretenders and impostors? We know about all the bad things that Muhammad brought to the world, such as religious intolerance and misogyny that did not exist in Arabia before him. (Arabs even believed in a prophetess, Sijah, and women like Salma and Aisha led armies. Such things are inconceivable today.) "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached," asked the wise Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, six hundred years ago. The only answers Muslims had to this question, when it was repeated by Pope Benedict, were riots, burning of churches and killing an elderly nun and her bodyguard. Will you answer this question now? Will you tell us what new Muhammad brought that was not evil? I have counted innumerable evil things that this man brought. Will you tell us of one good thing that he brought?
You wrote:

By whom? By the Quran itself? Isn't this circular reasoning? How do you know this is true? If the Qur'an is a lie, then this claim is also a lie. We ask, what is the proof that Muhammad is a true messenger? You answer, it is written in the Qur'an." We ask, how can we know that the Qur'an is the word of God? You say, because Muhammad said so. This is a logical fallacy, not proof. If there is one error in the Qur'an, then Muhammad is proven to be a liar and if Muhammad is a liar, then the entire story of an angle bringing God's message to him is a fairytale. Since you are yet to prove that the Quran is error-free, we cannot believe in silly stories such as Gabriel brining the message of God to Muhammad.
Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh, who was Muhammad's scribe, realized that Muhammad was making the Quran up. He was not an illiterate man like Muhammad and often suggested better ways to compose the Quranic verses that Muhammad happily would agree. He escaped and went back to Mecca and told his story to everyone, which prompted Muhammad to decide to kill him even though he promised he would not kill anyone in Mecca if they surrendered.
In response to my question about a beast acting as a messenger of Allah you wrote:

First of all disbelief does not need evidence, it is the one who makes a claim that has to provide the evidence. People don't need evidence to not believe in Muhammad. Those who believe in him and try to force that belief on others have to show the proof. Secondly, I am afraid you are engaging in the fallacy of false dilemma. You bring one unproven and unsubstantiated claim such as human limbs acquiring a mouth and testifying against their owner (themselves) to prove that it is easy for animals to talk. This is like saying since 1+1= 3, then 2+2=13. Shouldn't you first prove the claim that human limbs testify against themselves before you use it as evidence to prove animals can also talk?
This is the problem with Islamic thinking. We accept one fallacy and since we have became believers we accept any absurdity afterwards. The following three paragraphs are from my book, Understanding Muhammad.
When Muhammad recounted his tale of ascending to the seventh heaven, Abu Bakr was stunned. He did not know what to make of this. This sounded utterly mad. He had two choices. He had to either admit that Muhammad was a loony and leave him or believe in his fantastical tales. There was no middle ground.
Ibn Ishaq says when Muhammad made his vision known, "many Muslims gave up their faiths. Some went to Abu Bakr and said, 'What do you think of your friend? He alleges that he went to Jerusalem last night and prayed there, and came back to Mecca!' He replied that they were lying about