To:  Mr. Quarin Ahmad and Mr. Aamer Rafi:

Dear Mr. Ahmad:

Thanks for your compliments (Ref your letter 298). In this letter you have provided a good analysis of various aspects of the current FOTH proceedings.  

The reason for bringing Islam and other religions into the discussion is quite obvious. It is about God. It is hard to think about God and ignore religion. The Godless religions are often called the ethical systems rather than religions. A discussion about God without religion would be almost like having smoke without fire. Although religion is normally a personal matter but I see no reason for not discussing it; the discussion can be conducted without demeaning it or hurting the believers feeling. As I have said before, the disagreement does not have to be abrasive or hurtful. Philosophical discussion on the existence or non-existence of God is quite possible though as the article provided in my post #197 provides a good example. This is one avenue that we have not yet explored here. 

I concur with your comment that Mr. Rafi appears to be hard when responding to the believers. In fact, I would go a step further than that. In my opinion Mr. Rafi appears to be almost afraid that if some one ever manages to prove the existence of God or that Quran is really a holy scripture, it may prove to be a personal disappointment to him.  

I strongly agree and support your stance on the likes of Rushdi and Manji, who will not spare any thing to make a buck. I have not read Rushdi’s ‘masterpiece’, but have read Manji’s. If she had replaced the word “Islam” with “Muslims”, the book may appeared half decent. The title and the contents of the book do not go together. The way it stands, it is not worth the paper it is written on.

Mr. Ahmad, please keep writing.

Dear Mr. Rafi:

       Please refer to your post 299. You stated: 

or Mr. Javaid I. Chaudhry tells us that Quran foretold scientific facts

           (Javed I. Chaudry) 

You have almost made it sound as if I have been talking about  “a little book of scientific discoveries”. 

What I said and would like to reiterate is that there are hints and signs in this book that could not have been written if the book was authored by humans. You did bring out a good point about the (possible) mistranslation of a particular verse. But in that article, there are 8 different independent sections. The error or validity of one section does not negate or validate others. But you did not comment on others, perhaps they were too close to prove the point. I would welcome you to comment on the other sections. In case you feel that others may not be interested, I would like to ask you to send your comments to me directly. You can get my e-mail address from Mr. Pervaiz Salahuddin.  

The reference to this article was necessary to prove that there is a supernatural power (God) who knew about things when the humans had no chance of guessing about them without the modern scientific tools which were invented only recently. As the discussion was about God, so the link is obvious. I was not proving the validity of Quran from itself. 

Regards,