Mr. Aamer,

I have been following your notes (both for this discussion and the one on evolution) and have found them quite informative and persuasive. Though this does not mean that I agree with you on all that you wrote. I would like to write a few lines about your recent comment whereby you talked about an imaginary terrorist blowing apart San Fransico. Let me clarify at the outset that I have no claims to linguistic eloquence and/or intellectual maturity. At best you can consider it an opinion of someone 'from the street'.

I believe that the scenario you depicted is misleading and it is so because of one of the fundamental difference in the way a believer in God would look at the universe as oppose to someone who does not believe in god. Please don't take it to mean that I am trying to paint myself as a saint and you as a pagan; this is just to explain the two different bents of mind.
From a believer's perspective, his very existence is a gift from God. The entire universe around him and the complex processes involved in begetting him and sustaining him thereof are a manifestation of God's benovelance. The term al-Rehman can be loosely translated as someone which gives without a request from the needy. In that sense, not only the believer, but all human kind -- or should I say all living and non-living things, are recipients of God's bounty. The term al-Raheem refers to someone who gives when asked for. Thus all humans, atleast potentially, are capable of receiving God's mercy and kindness if they ask for it. Life as such, is the most precious gift bestowed by God. The fact, that most living things tend to cling to life even under most adverse circumstances testify to the fact that we do consider life as something very precious.
From a non-believer's perspective, our existence is something for which we need not be grateful to someone. As we can explain, to a certain extent, how life came about in the universe through mathematics therefore it should not be considered an act of favour from some divine creature (though this line of argument always looks to me like saying 'since I know the present my father gave me on my birthday was bought of the dollars he got in inheritence therefore I need not to feel thankful to him'). Anyways, my point is that since a non-believer does not believe that al-Rehman was at work to give him life in the first place and that al-Raheem is at work to sustain his life, therefore he considers taking away of life as barbaric and unjustified. From this wantage point, all scriptures would depict a picture of revengeful god. Its like reading the last chapter of a book and deciding its nature based on that. The entire process of God's bounty and magnanimity is not even considered for comparison.

The two sides will continue to look at things differently. And whenever you'll try to look at the 'other' point of view in a selective manner you'd be pleased to know that your point of view is way more rational and superior. This will enhance your belief in your school of thought and next time you will look at the other side in an even more skewed manner. Somebody see a spiral effect here?

BTW: I am quite a fan of your writing skills and the way you build your argument.

regards,

inaam