Books and Documents

Islam and Pluralism (11 Nov 2013 NewAgeIslam.Com)


  • Dear NISHAT, BRUSSELS , your saying “By and large the entire community, barring a few, are conservative. But conservatism is not terrorism, though it may be extremism of a rather non-violent kind” is really good enough.

    I think such a non-violent conservatism is everywhere.  

    By Ghulam Ghaus غلام غوث - 11/14/2013 2:39:07 AM

  • Kharjism is not a biological virus that lay dormant for over a thousand years which has become active once again nor an ideology. Those who indulged in terrorism for political ends a thousand or more years ago were simply declared Kharij or the expelled from the fold of Islam and dealt with severely. It worked as a solution. If I understand correctly, Mr Yunus suggested solution is similar. He has given a call to the Ulema to declare all those who are using violence for political ends in the name of Islam as the Kharijs. However what worked in the past may not work today for the simple reason that for it to work required the backing of the state which it did in the past and which is not available today. It is terrorism which enjoys state backing in several countries. If every state decides to end terrorism, it will end. The state will not obviously target entire sects but those specific individuals resorting to violence or supporting violence. What is clearly required is state power and a focused approach. The general public can do very little except to build public opinion and bring pressure on the state to act. 

    The situation is being exploited by the enemies of Islam who target all Muslims and the sectarians who see an opportunity to target other sects. Such attacks achieve nothing except create greater mischief and hinder a solution. The Islamophobes take a position that it is for the entire Muslim population to solve the problem. The sectarian takes a similar view.

    The Patna story is a funny story. The dominant numbers in the village according to the story are from the Jamate Islami hind and the Tablighi Jamat. These youth appear to have moved away from the dominant group and come under the influence of the Ahle Hadith. Mind you, no person born Ahle Hadith is involved. Only those "converted" to Ahle Hadism! The question to those who have eagerly lapped up this story is do they exempt the Jamate Islam Hind and the Tablighi Jamat of all suspicion? Do not the same people attack every other Sunni sect/group including the Jamate Islam, Tablighi Jamat, and the Deobandis?

    By Observer - 11/14/2013 12:21:39 AM

  • Dear Yunus Saheb, I am posting a slightly extended version of a comment posted on another thread, as I noticed you addressed me too with similar misgivings.
    "As long as the Muslims carry the present day's veritable Kharijites aboard their ship, the world will regard them as their sympathizer. It is time to jettison them off. "

    But Yunus Saheb, how can we jettison them, if we can't even call them by their names. Kharjites are gone for almost a millennium. Today's Wahhabis do share some characteristics with them, like their takfirism and their propensity for indiscrininate violence, but they themseves criticise Kharjis and oppose them too. 

    However, Wahhabis are Wahhabis; they are running a Wahhabi kingdom, based on ideas of ibn-e- abdul Wahhab and ibn-Taimiya. If we are so afraid of them to call them by names, how can we jettison them, you call them as modern Kharjis, they don't respond. How will you jettison them? 
    Call them by their real name. Don't be afraid of being called by their apologists as sectarian. The biggest crime of sectarianism is practised by them. They say, their should be only  one interpretation of Islam. OURS. This is the biggest sectarianism. 

    God has given us all different minds. We think and interpret God's commands differently. Why should one Mulla come and say My Way Or High Way. Who is he?

     Yes,  Wahhab's progeny run a dictatorial state protected by  the world's sole super power. They can do what they like but why should we non-Saudi citizens be intimidated. Just because some Saudi agent will call us sectarian, so we should start calling Wahhabis Kharjis, because, then there would be no one to call us sectarian. Why. Would there not be innocent kharjis who would not know what kharjism stood for. 

    Denouncing Kharjism is as much sectarianism, on that level, from that argument, as calling wahhabis  Wahhabi. Of course, it is a safe course. There are no Kharjis left. So no one will come and denounce us as sectarian, Nothing could be more convenient than beating a dead horse, particularly a horse that has been dead for a thousand years. However, I do not like doing that. I would like us to fight a force that presents a real danger to society. Even in India now, as in Patna blasts, ahl-Hadeesis have been allegedly found involved. Two different newspaper reporters have discovered 12 persons including these two had converted to ahl-e-Hadeesim only a couple of years ago. One of them died planting a bomb at Patna junction, and one has been apprehended. All others found involved in terrorism or of one or the other strain of Wahhabism.

     I know there are wahhabis who do not know what Wahhab and his mentor ibn-Taimiya stood for. it is for them to worry why the world considers them extremists and terrorists. And if they are truly illiterate, born into wahhabidom, they will not even know what the world thinks of them. good for them. I have nothing against Wahhabis. I am criticising parts of their ideology. I am criticising the violence  inherent in this ideology, in their deliberate misinterpretations of beautiful, perfectly innocuous Quranic concepts like Amr bil Maroof Nahi Anil Munkir, Al ala wa al-Bara, Jihad fi sabilillah, etc. I am criticising parts of Wahhabism, the violence and coercion it engenders in society, not Wahhabis in general. I cannot allow myself to be intimidated into saying that all strains of thought in Islam are implicated in violence, though it it is true that Wahhabi influence is poisoning the minds of Muslim youths from all sects  and sections.

    My point is simply we cannot jettison Wahhabis, ahl-hadeesis, etc. if we do not even have the courage to call them by their correct names. They do share some characteristics with Kharjis, as they share some characteristics with us mainstream Muslims, but they are followers of Ibn-Taimiya and Md Abdul Wahhab. Let us call them by their correct names, if we need to jettison them, as you pointed out.

    By Sultan Shahin - 11/13/2013 9:36:19 PM

  • While Wahhabis, Salafis, Ahl-e-Hadeesis, etc, don't seem worried about being called terrorists, extremists, war-mongers, etc, -- perhaps they are happy their ideology being is described correctly -- it's Apostates of Islam or paid Islamophobes who alone seem worried. 
    Because in their view this leaves the overwhelming majority of Muslims go scotfree from the charges of terrorism and extremism, whereas they want the entire Muslim community to be branded extremist and terrorist. I have been watching this debate happening on NewAgeIslam.com for a long time. Are only a few tiny Muslim sects engaged in terrorism or is the entire community. By and larg the entire community, barring a few, are conservative. But conservatism is not terrorism, though it may be extremism of a rather non-violent kind. only very few sects among Muslims propagate and engage in violence, though admittedly, their influence is growing by the day and some individuals like this killer of Pakistani Punjab Governor Salman Taseer are also becoming violent under the influence of PETRODOLLAR MEDIA.

    By NISHAT, BRUSSELS - 11/13/2013 12:35:21 PM

  • dear varsha Sharma - 11/13/2013 11:46:54 AM
    i live in this world and in the company of Muslims. who says an atheist can't say anything about Islam and Muslims? has the editor put such condition that atheist or apostate can't post the comments.
    i think an apostate has more interest in Islam than Muslims.
    are your discourses so weak that any troll can derail them? please do continue your work.
    aap meri hausla afzai kar rahi hain.

    aapka nindak

    By rational mohammed yunus - 11/13/2013 12:15:09 PM

  • Mr. rational, I am wondering why do you appear on this ISLAMIC forum new age Islam, when you have turned atheist (as you have proudly declared yourself many a time)? kindly speak honestly and let us also know which motives keep you glued to the internet looking for every possible chance to disturb an objective probe or brainstorming and healthy discussion going on among thinking Muslims?

    By varsha sharma - 11/13/2013 12:00:46 PM

  • Mr. rational I am wondering whay do you appear on this ISLAMIC form new age Islam, when you have turned atheist (as you have proudly declared yourself many a time) kindly speak honestly and let us also know which motives keep you glued to internet looking for every possible chance to disturb an objective probe or Brian storming and healthy discussion going on among Muslims.

    By varsha Sharma - 11/13/2013 11:46:54 AM

  • dear Varsha Sharma - 11/13/2013 9:01:19 AM
    please cool down. they are Muslims. no one has declared them kafir. only they are using equally valid different interpretation of holy text.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 11/13/2013 10:49:30 AM

  • @Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi
    Mr. Ghulam Rasool, you have hit the main point when you said in your comment:
    "Until we speak up openly and stand up against the fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam, we Muslims will not prove to be true peace-makers.Nearly all peace-loving Muslims the world over have made it irrelevant by their silence. It is time we peace-loving Muslims speak up, or else we will find that one day these fanatics will hijack our religion, and hence the end of our world will begin."

    The fact is that the fanatics have already hijacked Islam whereever they are in the world. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and other oppressed women . It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
    By Varsha Sharma - 11/13/2013 9:01:19 AM

  • Dear Dr.Mohammad Ghitreef,

    Muslims have to take a gigantic stride in their religious thoughts as proposed in the following article:

     Call for international Fatwas to declare the terrorists who advocate wanton killing of innocent people in the name of Islam as ‘Terrorist Apostates’, like the Kharijites of early Islam.  
    By muhammad yunus - 11/13/2013 7:48:48 AM

  • Sultan Shahin is right in his approach to the "Deen" ,simply because Islam is indeed an inclusive religioun(Deen), for a Muslim can not be a true Muslim unless and until he believes in Jessus as well as he believes in Moses and so on and so fourth. So It is very necessary to call the people to the essence of Islam not to the form as we Muslims are accustomed to judge people by their beards,Kurta,Topi e.t.c.In fact Islam is all about humanity,human degnity and respect for all. It is a religion of peace. Muslims all over the world should expose those people who maligne its name by doing things unislamic,inhuman and ungodly like violence,abusing women and descriminate between man and man on the basis of faith and creed and do all these things in the very name of Islam and establishing Islam.
    Dr. Mohammad Ghitreef

    By Dr.Mohammad Ghitreef - 11/13/2013 6:49:53 AM

  • Silent Warrior

    Long ago, for many years, white men came in the name of GOD.
    They took their land, they took their lives, a new age has just begun.
    They lost their GODS, they lost their smile, they cried for help for the last time.
    Liberty was turning into chains, but all the white men said: "That's the cross of changes."
    In the name of GOD - the fight for gold, these were the changes.
    Tell me - is it right - in the name of GOD, these kind of changes?
    They tried to fight for liberty, without a chance in hell, they gave up
    White men won in the name of GOD with the cross as alibi.
    There's no GOD who ever tried to change the world in this way.
    And for the ones who abuse His name, there'll be no chance to escape on judgment day.
    In the name of GOD - the fight for gold, these were the changes.
    Tell me - is it right - in the name of GOD, these kind of changes?
    Tell me why, tell me why, tell me why the white man said: "That's the cross of changes"?
    Tell me why, tell me why, tell me why, in the name of GOD - these kind of changes.

    By friend - 11/13/2013 3:57:57 AM

  • By friend - 11/13/2013 3:49:13 AM

  • please read nonsensical for non-nonsensical
    By rational mohammed yunus - 11/13/2013 3:27:29 AM

  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/13/2013 1:09:30 AM
    better if you direct such non-nonsensical comments to your sufi fellows. who believe in something just because their peers say so.
    who are in pre-adolescent stage those who run for someone to tell them to do good or who are doing it just because it is good.
    to pass our pre-adolescent stage we don't need your help. have you become blind so that you can't see who is in pre-adolescent?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 11/13/2013 1:29:11 AM

  • dear mohammad ishaque foujdar - 11/13/2013 12:10:02 AM

    i know many people who although intelligent but could not get convinced by faith, and lived a life of virtuous persons. being virtuous is not the monopoly of the faith.
    how true is the following quote:
    *Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.  Steven Weinberg

    By rational mohammed yunus - 11/13/2013 1:20:05 AM

  • Such a naïve discussion on whether there is God or not! The two of you need to get past your pre-adolescent stage.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/13/2013 1:09:30 AM

  • dear Janab mohd. yunus rational sahib, "you do not bother about the existance of Allah...." if a discerning man becomes voluntary blind, noboby can show him light, because he knows the light but does not want to accept it.
    By mohammad ishaque foujdar - 11/13/2013 12:10:02 AM

  • dear mr rational, in all civilizations, all cultures, in all traditions and in nmost of all religions there is a place for the agnostic and the un-believer (not a non-believer, i think there is a diffrence).

    being an avowed atheist is probably logically a difficult position. agnostics are merely doubtful. in either case, there are only "signs" that religions quote as a means of convincing themselves about the existence of a final cause. there may be a final cause or there may be not, but to expect that this final cause is looking for prostrations and submission from us is the height of egoistic arrogance.

    for a two legged talking animal to think that this uncreated creator has granted them some special place in his mind or heart or whatever is really a matter of thinking too much of ourselves. it takes a certain egotism/egoism to believe that in this vast universe, we who do not last a paltry hundred years, have been "chosen" by the creator.

    even if a god were there, he has a lot of things on his mind and on his hands. he has to make the clouds, make stars, meteors, solar systems, bosons, eddy currents, electron transfers, making of successes, making of failures, the crows, the fish, the zillions of bacteria and god only knows how many more details to take care of. not to mention the occasional congenital malformations, sense less violence, eruptive volcanoes and a couple of tsunamis now and then.

    in his busy schedule, to imagine he has even a fleeting concern for us is the height of optimism.

    there is no reason for god to chose a sinless human in preference for a virtuous tortoise.

    By hats off! - 11/12/2013 11:24:20 PM

  • dear hats off! - 11/12/2013 8:52:23 PM

    i really don't bother if God exists or not. The Quran is a speech of God or speech of Hz moahmmed. Whether hz mohammed was a prophet or not. If he ever existed, he was an extraordinary man. A man who has 1.5 billion followers, all are sure being on right path and every one is misguided in the eye of next.
    The book you told me is a very interesting book. I have read some portion. Beside that first interview i have read, second one i am going to start. it is clearing many cobwebs. the very interesting part is application of scientific method of lower and upper limits in Islamic legislation. this the very part which is under criticism. faith is another domain. anybody can believe in anything rational or irrational. the book is very huge and demanding, but since language is easy, it is an enjoyable reading.
    however the question remains who has the time and patience to read all mind bogling stuff.
    blind faith is soothing and you see so many believers from who worship everything and in every manner to one God whose existence is debatable.

    i will re-read ibn tufail.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 11/12/2013 9:22:39 PM

  • dear mr rational, it should be obvious that those who question miracles will forever be looked upon with suspicion by those that believe in them.

    like children and adults. most children (who believe in miracles) distrust adults (many of whom have grown out of miracles).

    people who are certain are uncomfortable with those that raise doubts. people who are certain think that those who raise doubts want to disrupt dialogue or that they are fanatics or that they are apostates. after running out of names to call, they will conclude that those who question and those who raise doubts are very dangerous. for no one wants to tell the king that he has no clothes.

    pascal's wager is the only "reason" to believe in a "god". all other excuses are childish.

    By hats off! - 11/12/2013 8:52:23 PM

  • "it is time we peace-loving Muslims speak up, or else we will find that one day these fanatics will hijack our religion, and hence the end of our world will begin."
    its mean you are standing on very porous ground. anybody can hijack your religion and your site too. few days back some commentators said rational has hijacked this site.
    if the divine scheme is true, this will happen. all kinds of people will continue to live in this world.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 11/12/2013 10:32:54 AM

  • Dear Sultan Sahab,
    Copy: Observer

    While I have complimented your speech, i just read Observer's comment to Gholam Ghaus on the need to avoid sectarian remarks and was faintly reminded of a reference to a particular sect in your speech. I looked up and spotted the following remark: 

    "Time has come for Muslims to learn more about ahl-e-Hadeesis, Wahhabis and their ideologues like Ibn-e-Taimiya who would order people being killed at the drop of a hat."

    Read cursorily, the comment purports to connect  each member of ahle hadith and wahabi with wanton terror. Of course you have never meant this. What you meant is that the ideologues of these groups like Ibn Taimiya would order random killing of people. But this statement again suffers a great deal of anachronism and historical dissonance. Ibn Taimiya lived at time when the all powerful and well established Islamic civilization was torn apart by attacks from the Crusaders in the East and Mongols on the West. The centers of Islam that boasted of elegant castles, well lit streets and hamams and libraries were raised to the ground and the light of Islam that was shining brighter and brighter with passing of each century, suddenly turned into the crimson of death that shone over the burning cities. So those of Ibn Taimiya's statements that literally invoke terrorism were specific to a context, somewhat like the fighting verses of the Qur'an and must not be given a universal dimension. Besides numerous Muslim boys study in madrassas named after him. The above statement purports to lump them together as quasi-terrorists. Perhaps you would have been more harsh and free from generalized sectarianism in your remark by warning the Muslims of the present day Kharigites of Islam as I have consistently referred to them in my writings.

    This is to maintain my credibility with the Observer, who in his heart questions my neutrality in my comments with regard to sectarianism .

    I know you are not blaming all members of any sect and when you deliver a speech, you make statements that in isolation can be misunderstood, and anybody putting all the words of an extempore speaker under a microscope can spot flaws. So I do not mean to undermine your highly commendable presentation. However, an omission of any reference to ahle hadith or wahabi would have excluded the namesake or happenstance wahabis and ahle hadith from any innuendo of terror as they may be as opposed to terror as you and me. 

    By muhammad yunus - 11/12/2013 5:37:19 AM

  • We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. No doubt, this assertion is very true. But our pathetic silence over the fanaticism of so-called "Islamists" has made it entirely irrelevant. Until we speak up openly and stand up against the fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam, we Muslims will not prove to be true peace-makers.

    Nearly all peace-loving Muslims the world over have made it irrelevant by their silence. It is time we peace-loving Muslims speak up, or else we will find that one day these fanatics will hijack our religion, and hence the end of our world will begin.

    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 11/12/2013 4:03:46 AM

  • Dear Sultan Sahab,

    You have said EXACTLY what I would have said had God placed me in your position.

    I must thank you for encouraging me, whenever my interest waned, to actively participate in your forum. This has enabled me to share my fresh insights into the Qur'anic message with you reinforcing your almost identical views. It has also helped my understanding of many complex religious issues by racking my brain to answer challenging and even crude questions raised by some of the commentators.
    With this seminar you have gone across to a much wider section of educated Muslim class and that, with time, may make a positive change in the understanding of Islamic message among the Muslim masses as well as educated Hindus. This may be a good start to retrieve the lost love that characterized the two communities until the advent of Aurangzeb.

    Well done! keep it up. The community desperately needs people like you.

    By muhammad yunus - 11/11/2013 9:21:10 PM

  • dear mr rational, i read somewhere that even al-ghazzali did not proscribe the mundane sciences and philosophy. he merely said that about religion.

    he also acknowledged that philosophy, arithmetic, geometry and astronomy are to be pursued for their practical effects. what he (it seems) meant to say was that as far as religion was concerned, the koran and sira and the hadith are all that is ever necessary. and no more was needed.

    it also has been said that the real decline in islamic tolerance and sciences started with the replacement of persian with urdu as the language of sciences and the court. they say persian is more nuanced, more capable of describing scientific concepts and a better ability to make absrtract, when compared to urdu.

    urdu being the language of mere mercenaries from the army camps, it could not carry the burden and sophistication of sciences on its slender shoulders, which by the way was more suitable for romancing and songs of painful separation from the lover.

    maybe there is some truth in that.

    By hats off! - 11/11/2013 8:55:29 PM

  • Learnt a lot while reading this, would have learned more,had I been present there. Great going NAI. 
    By Aiman Reyaz - 11/11/2013 8:06:14 PM

  • dear hats off
    copy-dear sultan Shahin
    copy-dear Mike Ghouse

    some says we should go after ibn -e arabi some says he ruined the islam.
    here is a portion of "INTERVIEW WITH MUHAMMAD SHAHRUR
    by Dale F. Eickelman (1996)"

    DFE: When we first spoke about your family and youth in Damascus, you
    mentioned an occasion when your father took you past the shrine of Mueu-
    al-deen Ibn e Arabi, in the ‘§liÈiyya quarter of Damascus where you were
    born and raised.3 Why did you begin with this episode?
    MS: The episode took place after the 1967 Six Day War. My father
    and I were passing by the shrine. He pointed to it and asked me,
    ‘Do you know who defeated us?’ ‘No,’ I replied. He said, ‘The
    man who is buried under this shrine’. He told me that Ibn-e-Arabi
    ruined our ability to reason. He turned our focus away from the physical world to a hallucinatory one existing only in our

    By rational mohammed yunus - 11/11/2013 7:46:46 PM

  • "Beware of restricting yourself to one particular religion and disbelieving in everything else, so that great good would be missed by you, indeed you would miss attainment of knowledge of the affair in the form he is following. Rather be ready to accept all forms of belief. This is because Allah is higher and greater than to be comprehended by one belief to the exclusion of others." - Ibn Arabi -

    Muslims need to learn and re-learn what Ibn Arabi taught. As Sultan Shahin Sahab says, "Islam-supremacism was the biggest evil sapping our energy as well as disturbing our relations with other people.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/11/2013 2:24:45 PM

  • Secular Logic - indeed Muslims or others find their icons where ever they are.  Here is the list of my mentors, written several times over.


    These men and women have shaped my attitudes, and I thank them, they are models of pluralism.  Prophet Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Krishna, Buddha, Guru Nanak, Mahatma Gandhi, Bahaullah, MLK., Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln, Dale Carnegie, Jiddu Krishnamurthy, Gusdar Abdurrahman Wahid, Swami Vivekananda, Abraham Joshua Heschel,  Rev. Moon, my Nana (Maternal Grandfather), my father and mother. Among the living pluralists, HH Aga Khan,
     Barack Obama, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, Bishop Tutu and Pope Francis.

    It is at: http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2013/11/michami-dukadam-starting-life-over-with.html

    By Mike Ghouse - 11/11/2013 1:21:38 PM

  • Sultan,

    Thanks for writing this piece, it perfectly resonates with me.  Now, I need to read Ibn Arabi and of course I have been a great admirer of Azad.

    “Ibn Arabi, who affirmed in his masterpiece al-Fusoos his belief in the unity of all religions: "Beware of restricting yourself to one particular religion and disbelieving in everything else, so that great good would be missed by you, indeed you would miss attainment of knowledge of the affair in the form he is following. Rather be ready to accept all forms of belief. This is because Allah is higher and greater than to be comprehended by one belief to the exclusion of others. Rather all are correct, and everyone who is correct receives award, and everyone who is rewarded is fortunate, and everyone who is fortunate is one with Whom He is pleased."

    About a decade ago, I stated, my religion is beautiful to me as yours is to you, and added this, “I will never claim my religion is superior to yours – that would be sheer arrogance. “ I had to explain this controversy to my Imams, and they could not come up with anything against it – God loves the most those who forgive, and the least that are arrogant. To claim your religion to be superior is arrogance, and breeds conflicts from the word go, and go against the spirit of Islam.  Then in 2008, I was awarded the “Religious communicator of the year” along with the President of the council of churches – in my acceptance speech I repeated it, he confessed he could not say that.

    Learning about other faiths enhances one’s one belief knowing that everyone is seeking to find peace within and with others. Learning about others need not mean infidelity to your own, but rather it gives confidence that we are all seeking the same – peace and freedom from within.
    By Mike Ghouse - 11/11/2013 1:18:16 PM

  • "But unfortunately, he regretted, while extremists choose people like Osama Bin Laden as their heroes, ordinary and common Muslims in India are confined to look up to Muslim film stars like Shahrukh Khan as their icons, with very few Muslims following the ideals of Maulana Azad. "

    Why must Muslims only look at the small pool comprising of other Muslims in their quest for icons? why not seek icons from a wider selection irrespective of religion?

    By secular logic - 11/11/2013 12:03:30 PM

  • "Islam was spread in India largely by Sufi saints"

    "It was Hinduism alone that provided Islam with a fertile ground for growth. Muslims' treatment of Hindus, too, was quite considerate and in keeping with the Islamic spirit of Lakum Deenakum Waleya Deen (For you your religion, for me mine, the Quran -109:5)."

    Lucky for you that the dead don't speak. Lucky for you that your concocted and whitewashed history is lapped up by intelligentia. 

    But we know better, right?

    By secular logic - 11/11/2013 11:56:00 AM