Is there any evidence for thinking?

[taghavi]

please;

Originally Posted by Raymott

Only if he wanted to be understood.

Arberry: 3:5 "It is He who sent down upon thee the Book, wherein are verses clear that are the Essence of the Book, and others ambiguous. As for those in whose heart is swerving, they follow the ambiguous part, desiring dissension, and desiring its interpretation; and none knows its interpretation, save only God."
Why dont you continue this verse;

"and the sagacious people are the only ones aware of this knowlegde (interpretation knowledge)."
So there are sagacious people who know what God says.

So it's possibly blasphemous to try to make the ambiguous parts sound as if they are scientifically correct. But, of course, I certainly don't claim to be an interpreter of the Koran!

[Raymott]

Arberry: 3:5 "It is He who sent down upon thee the Book, wherein are verses clear that are the Essence of the Book, and others ambiguous. As for those in whose heart is swerving, they follow the ambiguous part, desiring dissension, and desiring its interpretation; and none knows its interpretation, save only God."
Why dont you continue this verse;

"and the sagacious people are the only ones aware of this knowlegde (interpretation knowledge)."
So there are sagacious people who know what God says.

Yes it looks as if I was being deceptive, but my translation reads:
3:5 It is He who sent down upon thee the Book, wherein are verses clear that are the Essence of the Book, and others ambiguous. As for those in whose hearts is swerving, they follow the ambiguous part, desiring dissension, and desiring its interpretation; and none knows its interpretation, save only God. And those firmly rooted in knowledge say, 'We believe in it; all is from our Lord'; yet none remembers, but men possessed of minds.

So it looks like I'm omitting an important part "and none knows its interpretation, save only God and the sagacious people ..." but that is not how my translation reads. Also, in my source, only every fifth surah is numbered, so I wasn't even sure if this was part of 3:5.
The Arberry translation does not say that the sagacious people are aware of the interpretation, only that they believe. You have added the interpretive parenthesis (interpretation knowledge), in order to highlight a possible reason for including this part in a quotation.
But I accept your correction, and the point you are making.

You'll note though, that it doesn't change the point I made. Parts are deliberately ambiguous, and those who are not sagacious can translate them badly, for their own purposes, and that would be blasphemous.

[Raymott]

About orbits.
So they are swimimng in the air, it means that they are moving and they are not static?, like fish in water.
Arberry's translation is better than others but when we think more, we ask why Koran uses special words (falak as orbit) (and not as sky) for verses or emphasises them.
We might also ask, if ‘falak’ was in Muhammed’s Koran, and if ‘falak’ means ‘orbit’, why are the overwhelming number of Islamic Arabic scholars not translating it as ‘orbit’? Have you wondered this about ‘gravity’ and all those other things? If not, perhaps you should give it some thought.
In any case, in 800, wouldn't "the sun's orbit" have to mean the orbit of the sun around the earth?

Let’s talk about how a prediction is not a prediction if it is made after the fact. Or, if you don’t like ‘prediction’, how proof that something was known prior to its discovery is not proof at all if it is asserted only after the discovery.
As an example, assume that a sacred book says X. Later Y is discovered. Scholars then decide that X actually means Y and change their book to say Y. There is then a great campaign to prove how wonderful their book is because it predicted Y (or knew about Y). But it is all ‘smoke and mirrors’ because the book actually said X.
Tell me if you understand this.

I suggest that you can refer to "Tafsir al Mizan" of Allammeh Tabatabaie. he wrote the best form of translation plus giving the reason of Arabic words used in verses. As you know arabic in koran has got so many compelex forms that you cannot translate it without analysis.
Yes, most sacred scriptures are like this - only interpretable by those who control the religion.

[taghavi]

Yes sagacious people who can refer to "Hadith and Ravayats" of prophets and Imams.
So we can refer to their interpretations.

About orbits?

In the mejority of Islamic Arabic translations you face only the word"sky or like that" instead of "orbit". And it might be so strange that most or none of Arab scholars have not mentioned orbit.

We can refer to the real meaning of "falak" or "falakan" in Arabic;
Something is roud , circuit or circle and orbit.
The meaning of "falak" or "falakeh" in Farsi is also the same as arabic. when we use the phrase of "falakeh" it means a place arround which things can move.
Falak has these meaning in farsi;
sky (as the meaning of fortune or destiny)
orbit,
hitting sb with a stick.

But as i refer to arabic glossary, I just face the real meaning of this as "curcit" or "orbit".

Please look at the following verses of koran, they are all called "Al samaa" means "sky or heaven";

2;29/164
3;190/191
7;187
13;2
17;44
14;48
17;44
19;90
and so on.

but please lok at these only two verses that called "falak";

21;33
36;40

We can think more that these two verses have not been occured haphazardly or accidentaly, Koran uses them because its aim is that sth that was orbital and circle on which those calestial bodies moves. these verses are talking about the way of moving
in the shape of swimming.
None of the Koran verses are telling about their movement by using "falak" word but these two ones.
If Koran wanted to say stars or planets have their own sky, it delebratly would have used Samma.

if i translate farsi into english i might choose the wrong word from farsi if i didnt get the text correctly, like this;

"falak" to ra adab kard.

in english;

sky punished you.

while the real text was meant falk as fortune or destiny.

destiny punished you.

How about in Arabic if i used wrongly a word in Koran?!

In Koran we have many verses that stimulate people to search more deeply through verses of Koran by studying and searching among facts. Numbers, using special words and sentences, and repetition of those need thinking more.


You want to say that Koran dose not predict anything and those so-called predictions were wrong or we interpreted them according to our imagination, yes?

If i got correctly, Another your question is that, God might have aimed anything else and it's far away of our interpretation, so we thought for example X means Y, while X was eactly X and it dose not relate to Y. yes?


Ok, If it is so, how can we prove those so-called predictions are wrong? and how can we prove our imagination about verses are wrong?

Can you prove that those predictions are denying our interpretations?

one thing, Koran has never mentioned which verse predicts and which does not? The only thing that koran says is that you shoud deal with verses and search more about them. So, we cannot put the blame on Koran. We have responsibility to search which verses predict and which ones approves the past events.

For example; Sth like this verse about Rume's army that first time was overcomed by Iran and would claimed promptly that Rum would deafet Iran. that event occured nine years later.
30;1/2/3
So we can make judgement that Koran does not say anything haphazardly. Here we turn back history and search on it. This is our responsibility.

Translations and their interpretatons are very important.

[Raymott]

In the majority of Islamic Arabic translations you face only the word"sky or like that" instead of "orbit". And it might be so strange that most or none of Arab scholars have not mentioned orbit.
Yes, it is.

We can refer to the real meaning of "falak" or "falakan" in Arabic;
Something is round , circuit or circle and orbit.
The meaning of "falak" or "falakeh" in Farsi is also the same as arabic. when we use the phrase of "falakeh" it means a place arround which things can move.
Falak has these meaning in farsi;
sky (as the meaning of fortune or destiny)
orbit,
hitting sb with a stick.
Do you know of any translations that say the sun hits people with a stick?
That would be interesting.

But as i refer to arabic glossary, I just face the real meaning of this as "circuit" or "orbit".
OK, it means orbit.

In Koran we have many verses that stimulate people to search more deeply through verses of Koran by studying and searching among facts. Numbers, using special words and sentences, and repetition of those need thinking more.


So, are you saying that if Muhammed wrote “five” (in Arabic), it might actually mean “seven”? This is exactly what I’m talking about. There’s no way that logic can argue about that.
It’s now obvious to me how:
36:38 “And the sun -- it runs to a fixed resting-place; that is the ordaining of the All-mighty, the All-knowing.”
could actually mean:
36:38 “And the sun – it orbits the centre of the galaxy with a periodicity of 240 million years; that is the ordaining of the All-mighty, the All-knowing.”

You want to say that Koran does not predict anything and those so-called predictions were wrong or we interpreted them according to our imagination, yes?
Close. Yes, I’m saying that I believe the Koran does not predict anything. Obviously, I’m not a Muslim, so I would not be so arrogant as to say that there are no predictions (just as I don’t claim that there are no gods). What I am saying is that you have given me no evidence for predictions in the Koran, and I have no reason to believe there are any.
I believe that the claims for prediction have come from Muslims who want to prove that the Koran is miraculous and scientific. I am not saying that these people are necessarily being blasphemous and deceptive: perhaps they just have an overly zealous approach to creative interpretation.

If I got it correctly, another ofyour questions is that, God might have aimed anything else and it's far away of our interpretation, so we thought for example X means Y, while X was eactly X and it dose not relate to Y. yes?
Yes, exactly. This can happen in a number of different ways:
- The interpretation that X means Y is only added to the Koran after Y has been discovered. Example: substitution of “gravity” for “invisible pillars”.
- The interpretation refers to something that was generally known or believed at the time by other cultures which Muhammed had access to. An example of this is “the sun’s orbit”. The earth-centred theory that the sun revolved around the earth was quite common in the middle ages. “The sun’s orbit” written in 800s would mean “the orbit of the sun around the earth”.

Ok, If it is so, how can we prove those so-called predictions are wrong?
Sometimes, it’s quite easy. If the interpretation is made only after the discovery is made, then it’s not a prediction. At other times – with a text that can pretty much whatever the Islamic authorities say it means – it’s a matter of faith. And you should have no expectation that non-Muslims would accept it.

and how can we prove our imagination about verses are wrong?
You can’t. There is no way to prove that the Prophet did not mean “gravity” when he wrote “invisible pillars”. All that a non-believer can do is point out that it’s very unlikely, and that there is no evidence for it. It’s a matter of faith.

Can you prove that those predictions are denying our interpretations?
No, all a person can do is point out that there is no evidence for predictions, and point out that much simpler explanations can be given. For example, it is much more logical to believe that “the sun’s orbit” written in 800AD means the orbit of the sun around the earth, since that is what everyone believed at the time, and there is no evidence to suggest a less likely interpretation.

one thing, Koran has never mentioned which verse predicts and which does not? The only thing that koran says is that you shoud deal with verses and search more about them. So, we cannot put the blame on Koran. We have responsibility to search which verses predict and which ones approves the past events.
“Predict” means to foresee the future. Why do you need to claim that the Koran does this? Some muslims already believe it; and non-believers will simply point out that there are no predictions there. The Koran is not a scientific book. Why are you so intent on turning it into one?

For example; Sth like this verse about Rume's army that first time was overcomed by Iran and would claimed promptly that Rum would deafet Iran. that event occured nine years later.
30;1/2/3
I have:
30:1Alif Lam Mim.30:2 The Romans are vanquished,30:3In a near land, and they, after being vanquished, shall overcome. Know Quran - Chapter 30
30:2: “The Greeks have been defeated in a neighbouring land. But in a few years they shall themselves gain victory.” (Dawood).
30:2 -4 The Greeks have been vanquished in the nearer part of the land; and, after their vanquishing, they shall be the victors in a few years. (Arberry)
The gloss in my Dawood version says “By the Persians, in Syria AD 615. Muhammed’s sympathies were with the Christians, not with the idolatrous Persians”.
I take that to mean that Muhammed predicted that the Greeks (or Romans) would fight back, since Muhammed was against the Persians of that time; and that the Greeks (or Romans) were Christians. He predicted a future win by the side he preferred.
I don’t know when Surah 30 was written, but I can accept that this might be a prediction that came true – somewhat like “The Tigers have been defeated by the Lions, but the Lions will come back!”
I’ll make the point that if this verse can be translated as both Greeks and Romans, the original cannot be very specific about what event this refers to. Nevertheless, I’ll concede that Muhammed may have been right with the 50/50 chance he had here.
Do you have any more actual predictions like this? What about actual predictions that failed? It might be worth reflecting upon whether there are other similar verses where “the Lions did not come back”, so to speak.

[Raymott]

By, the way, about Albert Einstein and Alexander Fleming.
Are you claiming that they were Muslims? It will save me a lot of time if I don't have to refute this.
What were your actual claims about these men?

[taghavi]

hitting sb with a stick.
Do you know of any translations that say the sun hits people with a stick?
That would be interesting.
Teasing me! No, it's another meaning of falak in farsi. it does not relate to sky or the sun.
So, are you saying that if Muhammed wrote “five” (in Arabic), it might actually mean “seven”? No, i said "numbers" are used interestingly in Koran. Five is the very five and prophet muhammed didnt use numbers wrong. This is exactly what I’m talking about. There’s no way that logic can argue about that.
It’s now obvious to me how:
36:38 “And the sun -- it runs to a fixed resting-place; that is the ordaining of the All-mighty, the All-knowing.”
could actually mean:
36:38 “And the sun – it orbits the centre of the galaxy with a periodicity of 240 million years; that is the ordaining of the All-mighty, the All-knowing.”

You want to say that Koran does not predict anything and those so-called predictions were wrong or we interpreted them according to our imagination, yes?
Close. Yes, I’m saying that I believe the Koran does not predict anything. Obviously, I’m not a Muslim, so I would not be so arrogant as to say that there are no predictions (just as I don’t claim that there are no gods). What I am saying is that you have given me no evidence for predictions in the Koran, and I have no reason to believe there are any.
I believe that the claims for prediction have come from Muslims who want to prove that the Koran is miraculous and scientific. The big mistak of Most muslims is here. The Koran has not claimed that there is any miracles of its words. It also has not claimed that this holy book devoted to science. This holy bood includs scientific, political, social, family and and other material and spritual fields. I should repeat that It points out all things in allusions to humans and encourages them to select the best way through this guide book. We cannot find any childish word among this book. it's many years since this book descent to prophet Muhammed, again there are many many things covered for people, even present time. the ongoing chalenge between believers and unbelievers and even among believers itself on this book showing one of the miracles as I can call it. It's interesting that Koran calling for people to challenge with koran and asked them to bring the same verse like any verse of it. we can pause and think more about the strong words of Koran.

Those verses that humans found miracles and are related to scientific areas are derived their search. when they compare them to for example scientific event it can be adapted. However, there are many secret things which are covered in verses of Koran. But, we cannot here deny all searching about the Koran verses which coincided with their scientific results. Can we prove that verse is realy wrong? Unless we interpret those surfacely and not deeply.

If I got it correctly, another ofyour questions is that, God might have aimed anything else and it's far away of our interpretation, so we thought for example X means Y, while X was eactly X and it dose not relate to Y. yes?
Yes, exactly. This can happen in a number of different ways:
- The interpretation that X means Y is only added to the Koran after Y has been discovered. Example: substitution of “gravity” for “invisible pillars”.
- The interpretation refers to something that was generally known or believed at the time by other cultures which Muhammed had access to.

Isn't it very strange why p.Muhammed accessed to "gravity" while he was illiterate and his society was nomadic and the people of that time were not awar of "Plotark" or "Cupler" before Neuton?
An example of this is “the sun’s orbit”. The earth-centred theory that the sun revolved around the earth was quite common in the middle ages. “The sun’s orbit” written in 800s would mean “the orbit of the sun around the earth”.
No, another misinterpretation is occured;
again we should refer to arabic text;

"va shamso tajri lemostagharen laha"

Tajri in Arabic means "runs" and when we say that sth runs it means that moves from a place to another. So The sun moves from a place to another on its circuit. it dose not moves on its centre, but transitional movement.
it has not been mentioned in Koran that the sun moves arround the eart. Has it been?
We know that each star and planet has their own orbit. So, it's usual if the sun moves its own orbit.

Ok, If it is so, how can we prove those so-called predictions are wrong?
Sometimes, it’s quite easy. If the interpretation is made only after the discovery is made, then it’s not a prediction. At other times – with a text that can pretty much whatever the Islamic authorities say it means – it’s a matter of faith. And you should have no expectation that non-Muslims would accept it. Dont accept it, but please be careful. Those verses have not been occured accidentally. Which ones do you believe that they have not been proved their scientific approval?
and how can we prove our imagination about verses are wrong?
You can’t. There is no way to prove that the Prophet did not mean “gravity” when he wrote “invisible pillars”. But, the results are similar the interpretation. Again we cannot deny it.All that a non-believer can do is point out that it’s very unlikely, and that there is no evidence for it. Again, he is not able to deny it. is he? It’s a matter of faith.

Can you prove that those predictions are denying our interpretations?
No, all a person can do is point out that there is no evidence for predictions, and point out that much simpler explanations can be given. For example, it is much more logical to believe that “the sun’s orbit” written in 800AD means the orbit of the sun around the earth, since that is what everyone believed at the time, and there is no evidence to suggest a less likely interpretation. The most important evidence is people's ilitracy of that time.

one thing, Koran has never mentioned which verse predicts and which does not? The only thing that koran says is that you shoud deal with verses and search more about them. So, we cannot put the blame on Koran. We have responsibility to search which verses predict and which ones approves the past events.
“Predict” means to foresee the future. Why do you need to claim that the Koran does this? Some muslims already believe it; and non-believers will simply point out that there are no predictions there. But those scientists cannot prove the real prediction. can they?The Koran is not a scientific book. Why are you so intent on turning it into one? I am not trying to prove scientific field of Koran but when i refer to those results i can understand some facts that are adapted to given verses.

For example; Sth like this verse about Rume's army that first time was overcomed by Iran and would claimed promptly that Rum would deafet Iran. that event occured nine years later.
30;1/2/3
I have:
30:1Alif Lam Mim.30:2 The Romans are vanquished,30:3In a near land, and they, after being vanquished, shall overcome. Know Quran - Chapter 30
30:2: “The Greeks have been defeated in a neighbouring land. But in a few years they shall themselves gain victory.” (Dawood).
30:2 -4 The Greeks have been vanquished in the nearer part of the land; and, after their vanquishing, they shall be the victors in a few years. (Arberry)
Nevertheless, I’ll concede that Muhammed may have been right with the 50/50 chance he had here. Why do you say 50/50 and dont say 100%?
Do you have any more actual predictions like this? What about actual predictions that failed? Can you list the failed predictions of Koran?It might be worth reflecting upon whether there are other similar verses where “the Lions did not come back”, so to speak. [/QUOTE]
i cannot understand????? what do you mean?

[taghavi]

Some historical predictions;
11;37
30;4/5/6
10;90/91/92
9;109

[Raymott]

I believe that the claims for prediction have come from Muslims who want to prove that the Koran is miraculous and scientific.
The big mistake of Most muslims is here.
I would say a bigger mistake lies elsewhere.



We cannot find any childish word among this book. it's many years since this book descent to prophet Muhammed, again there are many many things covered for people, even present time. the ongoing chalenge between believers and unbelievers…
This raises an interesting point.
I believe that Muhammed was talking about his enemies in AD 800 when he refers to unbelievers. Otherwise his words about non-believers are demonstrably false if they still refer to people who don’t believe in the Koran as God’s eternal word; and all the barbaric things that are said about non-believers in the Koran. Since you raise this point, see my next post for a reply.

Isn't it very strange why p.Muhammed accessed to "gravity" while he was illiterate and his society was nomadic and the people of that time were not awar of "Plotark" or "Cupler" (Kepler?, Copernicus?) before Neuton (Newton)?
No, that’s not strange. They were aware of the ancient Greeks, who as I pointed out earlier, also believed in an earth-centred universe with the sun in a celestial sphere – quite consistent with “invisible pillars”.

So The sun moves from a place to another on its circuit. it does not moves on its centre, but transitional movement.
Of course, but you’re misinterpreting what I meant. The sun moving on its centre is called “rotation”. I wasn’t referring to that. The “sun’s orbit” could mean i) the orbit of the sun around the earth (the Middle Ages meaning, the apparent meaning in Koran), or ii) the sun’s orbit around the galaxy (which no one one knew about in AD 800, and which is not in the Koran).

Sometimes, it’s quite easy. If the interpretation is made only after the discovery is made, then it’s not a prediction. At other times – with a text that can pretty much whatever the Islamic authorities say it means – it’s a matter of faith. And you should have no expectation that non-Muslims would accept it. Dont accept it, but please be careful. Those verses have not been occured accidentally. Which ones do you believe that they have not been proved their scientific approval?
I’m not clear about your meaning here. I gave you examples. All of your claims so far – the “sun’s orbit” meaning the orbit of the sun around the galaxy; “gravity” as a meaning for “invisible pillars”, “finger-tips” meaning fingerprints … None of these claims are proved.

and how can we prove our imagination about verses are wrong?
You can’t. There is no way to prove that the Prophet did not mean “gravity” when he wrote “invisible pillars”. But, the results are similar the interpretation. Again we cannot deny it.
We can certainly deny it. Do you mean prove it? No.
I’m denying it. You’ve giving me no reason to believe it.
All that a non-believer can do is point out that it’s very unlikely, and that there is no evidence for it.
Again, he is not able to deny it. is he?
Here is a belief that rational people generally agree with: If someone makes a strange claim, it is for that person to prove the claim, not for other people to disprove it. It is impossible to logically or rationally disprove something that is not itself a logical or rational claim. One such claim is that Muhammed meant “gravity” when he wrote “invisible pillars”. This is not suceptible to rational disproof. Logic cannot deal with it.
But it can certainly be denied unless there is evidence to prove it.

there is no evidence to suggest a less likely interpretation.
The most important evidence is people's ilitracy of that time.
If Muhammed was illiterate, he couldn’t have physically written the Koran. He could have recited it for someone else to write. He might not have been able to read, but it is quite clear that he could have known about all of things we have been talking about, simply by talking to strangers and to intellectual people of his time.

“Predict” means to foresee the future. Why do you need to claim that the Koran does this? Some muslims already believe it; and non-believers will simply point out that there are no predictions there.
But those scientistscannot prove the real prediction. can they?
Yes they can. If the Koran read “He made the sun to run on a course around the galaxy once every 240 million years”, that would be of considerable interest to scientists. But the Koran does not say this.

Nevertheless, I’ll concede that Muhammed may have been right with the 50/50 chance he had here. Why do you say 50/50 and dont say 100%?
If you have to predict who is going to win a war, all things being equal, there is 50% chance of making a true prediction. I agree that it is 100% true that he made the right choice (assuming that this happened, etc.).

It might be worth reflecting upon whether there are other similar verses where “the Lions did not come back”, so to speak.
i cannot understand????? what do you mean?
I mean, if Muhammed made three predictions, each with a 50% chance of getting it right, then getting 1 out of 3 right would not be a good record. I’m simply asking whether it’s possible that there are other verses like this where the event did not actually occur as ‘predicted’.

My next post will address the issue that you raise about “non-believers”.

[Raymott]

About unbelievers:

We cannot find any childish word among this book. it's many years since this book descent to prophet Muhammed, again there are many many things covered for people, even present time. the ongoing chalenge between believers and unbelievers…

This intolerance of non-Muslims is the biggest curse that Islam has brought into the world. If it were simply a “challenge”, say based on truth and evidence, then there would no problem. It is the means of challenge which is disturbing.
It is also very disturbing for non-Muslims to believe that Muslims actually believe that Allah still wants the following things for non-believers simply because they have a different religion or no religion:

Qur’an 3:56 “As for those disbelieving infidels, I will punish them with a terrible agony in this world and the next. They have no one to help or save them.”
Qur’an 5:51 “Muslims, do not make friends with any but your own people.”
Qur’an 8:12 cp. 8:60 “Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers”; “smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them”
Qur’an 2:191 “...kill the disbelievers wherever we find them”
Qur’an 8:55 Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve.


I won’t go on. I’ll assume that you know that the Koran is full of this kind of language.

Surah 107:1 “Have you thought of him that denies the Last Judgement? It is he that turns away the orphan and has no urge to feed the destitute.”
This is a lie, or a rhetorical deception at best. It’s a blatant insult to all non-religious members of the Red Cross, UNICEF, and many other non-religious aid organisations.
Australia is a largely non-religious country, but we poured huge resources into largely-Muslim Indonesia after that tsunami. [Also see below. I’m not claiming Australia is special; it’s just the example I know best.] If you include those who believe in the unexpurgated Torah and Bible (the “rejected passages”), then the overwhelming number of foreign aid workers and volunteers from around the world are infidels or unbelievers.
I’m concerned that, because it’s in the Koran, and since many Muslims live in a rather closed society, there must be many Muslims who actually believe this.

-------------------
Australia on standby to Assist Victims of Earthquake in Iran
23 February 2005 ["The Australian" newspaper]
Australia extends its sympathy to the people of Iran following a powerful earthquake that hit KermanProvince (750 km south east of Tehran) yesterday morning.
Initial reports indicate that the earthquake measuring 6.4 on the Richter scale may have killed up to 500 people and injured thousands more with a number of villages completely destroyed.
The Government of Iran has not requested international assistance, however Australia stands ready to provide humanitarian relief to people in the affected areas. …
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) is in direct contact with the Director General of the Natural Disaster Task Force within the Ministry of Interior, as well as the Director General of Rescue Operations in the Iranian Red Crescent.
Australian aid officials are monitoring regular reports from OCHA.
--------------------

Surah 98:5 The unbelievers among the people of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.
This is a thread that permeates the whole of the Koran – that unbelievers are wicked, evil and vile.
If Allah is omniscient, he would surely know that this isn’t true. The only way this can possibly be explained is that Muhammed was writing for local times. It is not true today. Why is there so much reference to orphans in the Koran unless it’s because it was written for times when their parents were in the habit of slaughtering each other? There are relatively few orphans in the modern developed world, and those who exist are mostly looked after well. Many modern secular governments have “social security” systems, by which destitute people are cared for by the state, ie. by tax money from non-believers.

Do you believe these surahs?
Have you ever been outside Iran? Do you personally know any non-Muslims? Are they wicked, vile creatures? Are otherwise good people really wicked and evil and deserving of Hell simply because they don’t believe in Islam?