Of course I think I'm right

[Silent3]

Why believe in whatever you believe in (and disbelieve what you disbelieve) if you don't think that your own position is the best conclusion that you could come to?

If you are willing to admit that you do indeed thing you're right about something, what's the difference between, one the one hand, confidently expressing a what you believe to be a well-reasoned conclusions, being willing to listen to other views while expecting good argumentation and logic from those who express disagreement with you own views, and, on the other hand, coming across as smugly superior and dismissive of other viewpoints? Let's call one position being a Confident Advocate (CA) and the other position being a Smug Asshole (SA).

While I'd like to think of myself as a CA for atheism, and for skepticism about the supernatural and paranormal in general, I'm sure that, for some people at least, I often come across as an SA.

I suppose a big part of what makes a difference between being perceived as a CA or as an SA is in the differences, often unspoken, between what different people mean when they talk about being "right". For me, "right" does not mean "gives me a greater feeling of purpose". "Right" does not mean "helped me get through grief" or "helped me get over an addiction". It doesn't mean finding a community of like minded people, it doesn't mean feeling at peace with oneself or at one with the universe or any of that.

For me the "rightness" of a point of view is how well it corresponds to facts, to verifiable objective reality. "Rightness" might also mean simply avoiding making unsupportable claims. What it doesn't mean is "right for him" or "right for her", whatever makes a particular person happiest or provides him or her with the best coping strategy for life. (That sort of "personal truth" is not always benign as it might sound. It can be used to support irrational fears, ugly prejudices, and selfish plans of action that adversely affect others.)

I'm not, of course, dismissing that some things in life are very personal and individual. To use a trivial example, only you can judge your own favorite flavor of ice cream, or if you like any sort of ice cream at all. But to refer to one's favorite flavor as a "personal truth" is to water down the potency of the word "truth" for matters best left to words like "taste" and "perspective". It takes a long tangential argument that I don't want to fully elaborate right now to explain this, but when you treat the existence or not existence of deities as a "truth" which is just as malleable and personal as a favorite flavor of ice cream, you make discussing practically any subject matter impossible, undermining the basis for any sort of clear and consistent communication.

I suppose if I'm talking to someone who prefers a very loose, personalized idea of "truth" -- the kind of person who loves the "three blind men and the elephant" analogy -- the very way I try to have an R/T discussion, in terms of an underlying universal truth, could likely set off their SA alarm. While many people who talk about "personal truth", or "people of all beliefs having a different piece of the truth", to me this comes off not so much as a real philosophy about the nature of truth as it does a diplomatic technique to avoid conflict, or perhaps to avoid the doubts that would arise about their own beliefs if they really chose to face all the inherent conflict between many different religious and spiritual doctrines.

If I had borrowed a thousand dollars from you last week, then today when you asked me about getting your money back I'd said something like, "Hmmm. In my reality I don't believe I borrowed any money from you.", you're not going to buy that line. You aren't going to look at this as two different, equally valid truths. You'll treat what you remember as true, and what I remember as false. If you're incredibly kind you might give me the benefit of the doubt that I simply forgot, but you sure as hell aren't likely to accept the literal truth of my excuse, and imagine a world where it's really possible for such contradictions to be simultaneous true.

In the larger scheme of things, however, a thousand dollars is a pretty trivial matter compared to say, whether or not God exists. Why, and how, should comparatively trivial things like a little borrowed money be subject to the rules of a consistent, shared, objective reality, yet big questions like the ultimate nature of the universe be matters of personalized, inconsistent, mutually contradictory "realities"? How many people really accept that an atheist lives in a universe where no gods were ever needed to create that universe, and simultaneously accept that the atheist can interact across radically different universes to talk to someone else who lives in a different universe that absolutely required God, or Izanagi and Izanami churning the oceans with a spear, to come into being?

What's kind of amusing (or annoying) is running into people who are almost "militantly" (to abuse the word as it is often abused around here regarding atheists) ecumenical (I mean this not just in the Christian sense of the word), who can tolerate and embrace not just the people who believe a wide variety of faiths, but all of those faiths themselves, as "different paths to the truth", while not being able to tolerate the expression of the belief that their own epistemology is an unworkable mess. Skepticism is, apparently, often pretty low on the ranking of "different paths", if it's allowed to count at all.

What really gets to me are the people who are trying so desperately to feign humility, to deny any claim to superiority, while they are simultaneously claiming to have attained certain "levels" or "stages" of Spiritual Awareness that others around then have not reached, a Smug Asshole point of view as I see things, performing all sorts of rhetorical backflips to avoid saying this makes them "better" or "more knowledgeable" or "more perceptive" than anyone else... even though they "passed through" the "stage" you're at, even though their oh-so-enlightened view apparently encompasses, subsumes, and surpasses your limited grasp of the truth, and it's so impossible for them to make you understand what they see until you're "ready", or have followed their path, or gained their "sensitivity". :eyes:

I'd much rather have someone admit outright that they know better than I do -- and then respond well to a challenge to back up their claim -- than deal with that feigned humility from someone who insists I'm not willing or ready to "understand at their level yet", conveniently freeing themselves from any obligation to better explain themselves.

[trotsky]

1. Great post.

It is obvious that many people just don't seem to believe that one can be a CA for atheism, that any vocal atheist is an SA. An atheist who believes s/he is right is by definition an SA, sadly.

What really gets to me are the people who are trying so desperately to feign humility, to deny any claim to superiority, while they are simultaneously claiming to have attained certain "levels" or "stages" of Spiritual Awareness that others around then have not reached, a Smug Asshole point of view as I see things, performing all sorts of rhetorical backflips to avoid saying this makes them "better" or "more knowledgeable" or "more perceptive" than anyone else... even though they "passed through" the "stage" you're at, even though their oh-so-enlightened view apparently encompasses, subsumes, and surpasses your limited grasp of the truth, and it's so impossible for them to make you understand what they see until you're "ready", or have followed their path, or gained their "sensitivity".

Beautiful. Very nicely said.

[uberllama42]

2. Having had a run-in myself with a "miltant ecumenicist"

a few weeks back on this board, I know exactly what you're talking about. There seems to be a strange contradiction in that mindset- people who accept that view are careful to account for the possibility that completely contradictory takes on reality are all true, but they never seem to have room for scientific evidence which establishes a single explanation of how the world really is.

[Dorian Gray]

3. Militant ecumenicist?

"We must all get along or I'll hurt you!!!!"

LOL.

Sorry, that struck me as funny.

And, of course we all believe our faiths or ideologies are correct, otherwise, why waste time with them? That doesn't necessarily have to mean holding a sense of superiority, though. I get along with most people I meet, and most don't share my faith. I don't spend much time thinking about what they do or don't believe and whether it is wrong or right because I am too worried about all the asshole moves I make in the world everyday. (And I make a LOT of them!)

But, humility is something that I cherish and strive for, so I try not to spend so much time thinking about how superior I am to all of you!


:rofl:

(Just kidding!)

[Silent3]

4. We understand the need for scare quotes around "militant"...

...and that we're saying it with a sense of irony. We hear a lot of talk about "militant atheists", however, spoken with no sense of irony whatsoever, completely blurring the distinction between mere strong rhetoric and actually having an agenda of forced conformance, something that is very rare among today's outspoken atheists, but not so rare among religious fundamentalists.

[Dorian Gray]

6. I know...

I just thought it was humorous. I like the idea of it, and a good skit could be written and filmed about it.

[Silent3]

8. Just to rehash an old post of mine...

Our chief weapon is logic... logic and anger... anger and logic.... Our two weapons are logic and anger... and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are logic, anger, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to Richard Dawkins.... Our four... no.... Amongst our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry... are such elements as logic, anger....

I'll come in again.

[Goblinmonger]

9. Phew! Ah! ...Our chief weapon is logic...blah blah blah. Cardinal, read the charges. n/t

[uberllama42]

5. I agree with Kerry4Kerry 100%

I see exactly where the :rofl: is coming from.

[Dorian Gray]

7. I didn't disagree

with Kerry's premise. The only reason I included the :rofl: was because of the (hopefully) obvious irony in my statement. I was trying to be funny.

[MedleyMisty]

10. Heh - I was with you up to the last bit with the stages

I am interested in stages of cognitive and moral development and have done a lot of research into the topic. It passes my personal test - the studies seem to have been done well and the information seems to coincide with how I see humans act and interact every day. I do take the "spiritual" models with a grain of salt, but I haven't been able to sniff out any bias or propaganda in Dabrowski or Kohlberg or Piaget. Of course, who knows, maybe that's because I share their bias. If you could take a look and tell me what you think of their theories that'd help me see better.

Piaget
http://www.telacommunications.com/nutshell/stages.htm

Dabrowski
http://giftedkids.about.com/od/socialemotionalissues/p/positive_dis.htm

Kohlberg
http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

I really honestly don't see the stages of development as placing a value on a person's life and don't personally interpret it as saying that the life of a person at a higher stage is somehow worth more than the life of a person at a lower stage. Sure, people at higher levels are more likely to make better moral decisions because they are capable of independently reasoning as opposed to just going along with the crowd, but what does that have to do with the value of a life?

I don't think that this is quite the position you're taking, but it bothers me when people confuse conformity for equality. It always brings the phrase "Why you got your nose in a book? Think you're better 'n us?" to my mind - I'm guessing because I tend to run into that attitude the most in intellectual situations where people try to claim that knowing how to read when everyone else around you is illiterate obviously means that you are an elitist snob who needs to be taken down a peg or two. I expect it's because they're projecting their feelings of inferiority and attacking the object of projection to make themselves feel better.

Although of course some accusations of being an elitist snob are true - but that's based more on social interaction. If I just happen to be near you reading when you can't read and perhaps start a discussion about what I'm reading, how am I making a statement about the relative value and worth of our lives? But if I call you an ignorant dumbass who's not good enough to lick my boots and live off your labor while refusing to teach you how to read, then yeah, I'm a smug asshole.

[Silent3]

11. Someone who can read, in a crowd of illiterates...

...might not be well appreciated by those who think he "needs to be taken down a peg or two", but he can nevertheless quite demonstrably do something that others around him cannot do, and achieve things using that skill the illiterates can't achieve.

If you were the only sighted person on an island full of the blind, people who hadn't even heard of vision before, it's true that you could never fully convey to them what they were missing, what it was like to be able to see. However, you could make rough analogies with hearing, you could explain the mechanics of vision, and you could repeatedly demonstrate special skills that sight gives you, the results of which could easily be appreciated the blind. Just have one of the islanders stand a hundred feet away, hold up a random numbers of fingers, and time and time again, with complete accuracy, shout out how many fingers he's holding up. It will be clear that you have some special ability that the islanders lack.

The people I'm talking about who claim to be at higher "levels" or "stages" have no demonstrable special abilities or skills. They not only want you to believe they see more, understand more, or are aware of more than you are, but they also want you to believe that you have to be "at their level" to properly appreciate or recognize any of the fruits of their advancement. They categorically rule out any equivalent to the finger-counting demonstration that a sighted man can show the blind. You're just supposed to trust that they're at a higher level without evidence of any sort -- the unplumbed analogy that some people have skills that others don't is supposed to be enough to satisfy you.

It's not that I don't believe people can't be at different levels or stages of psychological or emotional development -- of course they can. What's very suspicious is "spiritual" levels which can't be clearly demonstrated to skeptics at supposedly lower levels, with the higher levels only believed in by those who claim to already be there, or by non-skeptical followers easily swayed by charisma, emotional appeals, and supposed "skills" that are never critically examined.

[Azooz]

12. The Quran as a book

I can prove easily that the Quran, as a book, is the most eloquent book on Earth. It claims that it leaves "no doubt", and that even if all the world's best writers united to write a single page like any in the Quran they will fail. Skepticism of this is normal, but it has stood the test of time, 14 centuries and no one has written anything even close to it's eloquence. If you like Shakespeare, good books and poetry then you'll love the Quran, that I have no doubt of.

The gaining of higher ""levels" or "stages" of Spiritual Awareness" is thus a simple matter in Islam, the more Arabic grammar you learn the more of those stages you gain - the one with the best Arabic grammar is automatically the Imam because he knows the Quran "better" than those - and if someone learn more grammar then he becomes the Imam. When you go to the "highest" levels you will be in the realm of the Quranic scholars, poets and critiques one and all.

You think you are right, same as most people, me included - but would you care to try saying it in Arabic one day? All your arguments are easy to knock down in Arabic without any display of pride, blind faith or arrogance, I would only need verses of the Quran. That is eloquence only, your faith of God(s) or not is not my concern - just that I am sure than no human or no group of human writers can be eloquent enough to write one page like the Quran, where would they get their "inspiration" from anyway?

Same as your concept of "personal truth" - but instead raise to the ultimate value the word "truth", as in a life or death situation - I have no doubt, zero, that the Quran the most eloquent book ever simple because no one has ever written anything like it's eloquence.

It'll try not to be a SA, but if any gets thru please blame it one my rusty English

[Silent3]

13. First I have to master the pronounciation of 'ayn

ع

That letter is fiendish, perhaps even pure evil, and the emphatic consonants are lesser demons. I'm not sure how well a Holy Book can survive the use of such malevolent letters.

Then again you probably feel that way about English vowels. :)

Kidding aside, even if I grant you that the Quran is amazingly, even transcendently elegant, elegance and truth are not the same thing. Scientists are often guided by mathematical elegance when looking for solutions, but good scientists know that even the most elegant equation must be tested, it must withstand experimental verification.

If the Quran holds important truths, more so than any other book, I would think non-Muslims should be able to look at the lives of Muslims around the world and see a clear, positive difference that Islam has made in the lives of its followers. What I see is a lot of poverty and little freedom under autocratic governments.

What are the positive benefits of Islam, which clearly derive from Islam and which can't be achieved by other religions or philosophies, which can be demonstrated to the non-believer? Which can be demonstrated to those who do not read or speak Arabic? I'll grant you that if we're talking about the elegance of the language alone, and nothing else, it's probably fair to say someone first has to learn, and learn well, the language in which that elegance is expressed to appreciate it. But just like in my analogy of a sighted man on an island full of blind people, it seems to me that if there's more than elegant language here there should be clear and demonstrable benefits that can be appreciated by non-believers, something that doesn't become a moot point because you have to die first and see how your supposed afterlife turns out to appreciate the value.

[Azooz]

17. Mind that AYN

it's one letter that all English Christians should learn so they can say the name of Jesus (pbuh) properly - the Roman's Latin didn't have enough vowels either ;)

The history of Arabia before Islam is one word: war. 3,000+ years of one major war each and every year, unless it was two wars. Many more smaller tribal wars, city wars, civil wars. there were 4 truce months for Pilgrims and those were for duels only, and a lot of Cain and Able replays - and when they were over the wars would begin again.

Also - the central part of Arabia (desert) had no religion at all - total anarchy that permitted no organized religion, a Christian or Jewish tribe would have to drop it's religion in a month or two, and would not be able to teach it to the kids - it was never a matter of learning a new religion for an old one, it was getting people who had rejected all religion for 3,000 years into Any religion.

What the Quran does is simple, it emphasizes the "or else" part of a religion. "Thou Shall Not Murder" is in all the holy books, and a good thing to - and they all have very eloquent "or else" that are designed to scare the "faithful" away from murder, or any other "sin" - the Quran is eloquent enough to leave no doubt about the "or else". An Arabic speaking person can commit a murder and all the other major sins, but the Quran leaves no doubt about that "or else". The Quran took the worst people on Earth, and made them almost civilized - our neighbors like us now much better, that I know for sure.

First word revealed in the Quran was: Read - so why not read it. The eloquence is not needed if you just want to know what it says, and it's a lot better at explaining things than anyone is.

>>What are the positive benefits of Islam, which clearly derive from Islam
>>and which can't be achieved by other religions or philosophies,
>>which can be demonstrated to the non-believer?

When Arabs "conquered" Egypt they had over 300 religions and many with no religion - not one of them was preached to, no one had to change his or her religion - the Romans had a nice Inquisition going at the time, and when Islam came along the many exiled Egyptian Christian priests returned, and the Egyptians liked not being told what to believe in. The only religious practice changed was that Islam forbids throwing young girls into the Nile - the Egyptian women did not complain about that one.

>>which can be demonstrated to the non-believer?
Nothing at all - not even to a great and true believer either, you will find much the same things in the Quran as in many other books, and much better worded and with an easier to follow flow than the English Quran - Arabic just adds the eloquence, nothing more - Arab Jews and Christan's say the Quran is magic, dark temptation (fitnah) and the work of demons to be that eloquent - but they do agree that it is too eloquent for anyone to write like it.

[cyborg_jim]

14. You must be EXTREMELY old

To have read all the books of the world.

[Occam Bandage]

15. I think the Bhagavad Gita is more eloquent. Prove me wrong.

[Azooz]

16. Easy - Ask an Indian Muslim

India has over 100 million Muslims, a minority there but all converted to Islam. They would know the Bhagavad Gita and many other great books - they make great scholars of the Quran because of their knowledge of great books and great writing styles. I'd love to put an example here of Iqbal reading from the Quran, he knows a dozen languages and Arabic is not in itself a special language and Indian Muslims are not going to prefer Arabic over any of their own languages - it's just there for those for those who want to read the Quran. The Bhagavad Gita is read many millions of people who know Arabic to, they can evaluate and decide.

Let me put it in the domain of the English language - you would need to find a book written in a way that leaves no doubt that no one will ever write anything close to it's English eloquence, not in a thousand years and not even by the greatest of all English poets - if you can find that book I will prove that the Quran is even more eloquent than that - that will be easy and to make it fair, you will be the judge to - the Quran insists on this point to.

[Silent3]

18. If you can "prove" this, the only thing you might prove is a statistical tendency...

...for those who know Arabic, and well as other languages, to favor the alleged eloquence of the Quran over the eloquence of anything else they've read in Arabic or in the other languages they know. Plus, since a great number of people who study Arabic as a second language specifically learn the language for devotional reasons, the bias of a pre-existing dedication to Islam strong enough to motivate the often difficult task of learning another language would have to be taken into account.

You have presented no such statistical data, adjusted for devotional bias or not. Your "proof" so far seems to consist of repeated insistence that you can prove your claim, "proof by vigorous assertion" as it's called. Are you imagining that the burden of proof is on anyone who disagrees with you, and you're "right" until someone who knows Arabic, or takes the special effort to learn Arabic, finds text they believe is more eloquent than the Quran, presents that text to you, and gets you to reach the same subjective conclusion?

[Silent3]

19. And when it comes to eloquent translations from Arabic to English...

...I'll take the poetry of Rumi over the Quran any day. Why should it be that Rumi's eloquence manages to often transcend translation, but, at least for my own subjective taste, the Quran does not? I find the verses from the Quran translated into English no more impressive than the Bible in English -- which means occasionally majestic, but often dull, plodding, and sometimes bizarre and mean-spirited.

Some Rumi, translated to English:

This World Which Is Made of Our Love for Emptiness

Praise to the emptiness that blanks out existence. Existence:
This place made from our love for that emptiness!

Yet somehow comes emptiness,
this existence goes.

Praise to that happening, over and over!
For years I pulled my own existence out of emptiness.

Then one swoop, one swing of the arm,
that work is over.

Free of who I was, free of presence, free of dangerous fear, hope,
free of mountainous wanting.

The here-and-now mountain is a tiny piece of a piece of straw
blown off into emptiness.

These words I'm saying so much begin to lose meaning:
Existence, emptiness, mountain, straw:

Words and what they try to say swept
out the window, down the slant of the roof.

[Azooz]

20. A Poet?

I learned Arabic at 12, never studied religion and even the Arabic poetry I ignored for English SF books, the only Arabic book I personally like to read is the Quran.

I do not know Rumi, but of the top ten poets in Arabic history not one was a Muslim - it's just a language. The thing is that no Arabic poet can ever reached the level in the Quran - and it does that without using any poetry or any other known word art - it is a totally plain and normal natavite, a simple monologue, nothing else. This is noticeable with just 6 months Arabic and much more noticeable with more Arabic - that you can take on faith but with six months of Arabic only you can tell me I am wrong.

You seem to like poetry, don't you think it strange that no Arabic poet, Muslim or non Muslim, has ever even claimed to have equaled the Quran? The best Arabic poet of the 20th century, a Christian lived the last 20 years of his life in London had great pride but even he could not make that claim.

It's not my point that it is a holy book, that is faith - I am just saying that no human or group of humans can write like the Quran - that claim is in the Quran, it is well known to all poets - but no one has ever equaled it. When you learn Arabic you will actually be shown how to make the attempt, it is the easiest way to learn Arabic - the non Muslim way has to depend on poetry and other low quality human writing's :)

From the Quran - my translation of 3 words:

alShoaraa - the poets
yatbao'ohom - are followed by
alGhawoon - the fools

It's not close to the power of the original wording - but hope it fits in with that Rumi poem, I'm really not into poetry myself.

[Azooz]

21. natavite?

natavite = narative,

Still getting used to this nice little "Check Spelling" thingy :)

[Silent3]

22. It seems odd you'd not know Rumi, and not be "into poetry"...

...yet have such strong opinions on the eloquence of the Quran.

You seem to like poetry, don't you think it strange that no Arabic poet, Muslim or non Muslim, has ever even claimed to have equaled the Quran?

That doesn't seem strange at all. Not too many writers in any language are so openly boastful as to go around talking about their work being better than someone else's. And even if they are so vocally immodest, they'd be more likely to compare themselves to someone writing in a similar genre, rather than some holy book. Devout Muslims simply wouldn't dream of saying such a thing, no matter what they perhaps thought privately about the quality of their own writing compared to the Quran.

I think much the same can be said about third parties: Given that you're Muslim, speak Arabic, or both, it would simply be considered taboo to compare anything to the Quran in a way where the Quran is said to be inferior. Observing such a taboo can be a matter of one's own personal discomfort with violating the taboo, not wanting to hurt the feelings of those who would be offended by such a comparison, or fearing for one's own safety because of how others might react.

It seems to me that loudly proclaiming your own work, or even someone else's work, to be in any way superior to the Quran would be a great way to bring a fatwa down upon your head.

I can't think of any English-speaking writers who go around talking about how their work is better than the King James Bible -- that hardly means none of their work is better. Just look at the fuss that was made when John Lennon said that the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus", and you can see why most people would avoid making those kinds of comparisons.

[Azooz]

26. I lack the taste

I have never been able to "get" poetry in either language, too geeky I think or learning languages at the wrong age or something.

The form of wording in the Quran is made to make Very harsh men cry like babies for hours on end, me included even with no taste for poetry, a box of tissues is normally placed close to the Quran. In English you just see the very poor choices the translators had to put up with it's a heart breaking job seeing how shallow it comes out in English.

It is Not taboo to compare anything to the Quran, just useless - all one has to do to write the Quran is just write naturally, their is no trick to it at all - the most talented poets actually do achieve great writings, sometimes even a line or two like the Quran, but never more than a line or two - and these are not inhibited by religion, just that can no one write that well.

Poets always despire of their words getting their feelings across - some get closer than others and some get so close it makes people swoon - but they all reach a level where it stops, some have higher levels - the Quran starts at the Very highest level, and stays there cover to cover.

My claim is this - there is not one written page on Earth equally to the Quran. I would not hesitate to help anyone try it and it is not a sin and it really is the best way to learn Arabic grammar because no one uses Arabic grammar like the Quran does - and it was written Before the rules of Arabic grammar were known. This is not a boast, I do not brag, as a book it is just too well written to be equaled by any known human writer, past or present - and the future I leave to history and faith.

The Quran is normal writing, something even a poet with little talent should be able to at least equal with a bit of work, but the best have not even come close to date - it would be the greatest poem ever written, something people would be able to enjoy reading non stop their whole lives - it's nothing to fear getting hit with a fatwa on the head about, it is what each and every poet should be trying to do anyway.

It just has not be done to date, but lots of educational fun trying anyway.

[Occam Bandage]

24. "I do not know Rumi"

This is somewhat shocking.

[Occam Bandage]

23. What if I ask an Hare Krishna who is fluent in Arabic, and he believes the Bhagavad Gita is better?

Why should I believe the Muslim over the Hare Krishna?

[Azooz]

25. You are Right - sorry

There are many more Indian Hindus than Indian Muslims, it is a question for them to answer to, but as I said the Indian Imams really do make great scholars of the Quran. It is for you to compare it to anything you like English, Shakespeare for example or all of you own personal favorite writers - that is for you to judge - and no one has ever refuted this despite it being often repeated challenge in the Quran itself. Just one page equal to any in the Quran, no one has been able to do that to date - think it would be a secret if some one had?

A Hindi Muslim who knows Arabic would ba a better example - he would not believe a single word of the Quran and think it is fake and the work of a mad man or liar - but he would not be able to find anything in any language he knows, like the Quran. It's just a much better read than any book has a right to be - even it it was about plumbing, knitting or accounting it would still be the best read he could have - endless pleasure for anyone.

Funny thing is that most Claim it to be written by an illiterate goat herder, from a race who had never written a single book in the history of their existence before the Quran came along :)

[Azooz]

27. ooops

I wrote: "A Hindi Muslim who knows Arabic" I ment "An Indian Hindu who knows Arabic"

I tried to edit but got:
You can't edit this message because the editing period has expired.