You may download and print the whole file in PDF : reactions

[Return to english page]

 

REACTIONS TO THE BOOK “A LOOK OF FAITH AT THE QURAN”
Two explicit reactions, one in support, the other of refusal, ensued after the publication of the book “A look of Faith at the Quran”.

The first reaction is an article written by the Sheik ZY (Dignitary of the High Islamic Legal Council). This article in support had to appear in an Islamic Arab newspaper. This publication was forbidden, but the author of the article sent a copy, signed by his own hand, to Dr. M. We reproduce its contents translated from the Arab.

FIRST REACTION
Article of the Sheik Z Y
To M. the Teacher

Concerning the book “A look of Faith at the Quran”: a new book of the learned Christian Dr. M was completed on the 13th of October, 1984. The book is composed of 136 pages of average size; it is divided into four chapters:
1st chapter: The reference to the Quranic text
2nd chapter: The litigation points
3rd chapter: The main points of agreement
4th chapter: Invitation to reflection.

The author mentions in the introduction a Quranic verse: “You to whom the Scriptures (the Bible: Torah and Gospel) were given! Believe in that We have revealed (the Quran) confirming your own Scriptures” (Quran IV; Women, 47). The author says that this book is a brief study of the true concept of the divine Intention. It is an invitation to open oneself with faith to the Quran and through the Quran to the Gospel and the Torah, which are attested by the Quran. The Quran, in fact, affirms that it attests these two predecessors and that it does not dispute them. Indeed, the Lord says to the believers in the Quran: “We believe in that which has been revealed to us (Quran) and in which was revealed to you (the Torah and the Gospel)” (Quran XXIX; The Spider, 45).

The author says: “I advise the reader to consider the content of this book with objectivity, rising above the mentality of the religious confessions he belongs to, thus leaving behind all narrow conceptions. In fact, the purpose of this study is to liberate oneself from this spirit of confessional clan and spiritual racism, which has infiltrated into our soul unconsciously. The only way we can free ourselves from this unhealthy spirit is by knowing what God has really revealed in the Holy Scriptures. Only this knowledge can liberate us from the chains of the traditions and prejudices, which deviates us from the teachings of the Bible and the Quran. The author appeals to the Quranic verse: “Those to whom We gave the Scriptures before this (Quran) believe in it (Quran). When it is recited to them they say: ‘We believe in it (Quran); it is the Truth from our Lord. Indeed we were Muslims before it’. Those will receive a double reward” (Quran XXVIII; The Story, 52).

The author adds: “What consoles the heart of every true believer in this verse is, on one side, the opening of the Christians to the Quran in the past, without fanaticism, and on the other side the double reward of God when they say that they were Muslim before the Quran. Nowadays if a Christian dared to proclaim that he is a Muslim before the Quran, he would be the object of hatred by the conservative Christians and Muslims. This shows the abyss between God’s original desire and the human traditions that went astray”.
The author is astonished that despite the testimony of the Quran in favour of the Torah and the Gospel, repeated so many times, there are many scholars who wanted to interpret the verses of Quran without referring to the Bible at all: as if they were disgusted by the Bible. They consider, on the contrary, a glory not to refer to the Bible. This is why their interpretations deviate from the spirit and the logic of the biblical Inspiration, therefore carrying the germs of the dissension and separation between brothers. The Quran, instead, asks not to separate the prophets and what God has inspired them. The Quran says: “Do not dispute with the People of the Book (Bible) if not with the best (argument), unless with those of them who are unjust and say: We believe in what has come down to us (Quran) and in that which has come down to you (Bible) and our God and your God is One. To Him we are Muslims (submittet)" (Quran XXIX; The Spider, 45).

The author adds: “Whoever reads the Bible and the Quran with objectivity and without prejudices, will grow in wisdom and shrewdness and will understand that certain biblical stories are also reported by Quran: from the Creation of the world, passing through Noah, Abraham and the twelve Apostles, the breaking of the Covenant by the Jews to the mention, finally, of the Messiah whom the Quran describes with such respect and honour. Why thus should one move away from the Quran, why thus should one deviate from one of the two Books in particular, as we find in the Bible additional Light explaining the Quranic Inspiration? Many people discuss about religion with enthusiasm, ignoring what the inspired Books contain and finally get lost in the network of fanaticism. In the eyes of God and His Prophets such attitude is an abomination”.

The author still says that, as Christians, we understand the essence of Islam from what the Quran itself says of the Islam, purifying it of all the traditional ideas added like parasites during many centuries and events, in order to disfigure the purity of the face of Islam. The author still writes: “we have perfectly grasped that in the eyes of the Quran, the Muslim is ‘he that surrenders himself to God and leads a righteous life’, he, ‘who stands on the firmest ground’” (Quran XXXI; Luqman, 21). Because, there are those who submit their face to God, but do not do good. Blessed are those Muslims who submit their face to God by making an effort to understand and read the Books inspired by the Lord. Blessed is this man whether he is Muslim, Christian or pagan.

The author certifies again while saying: “In this study we want to inculcate a spirit of broad-mindedness and good agreement between the true believers, the non-racists, the non-fanatics of all the confessions, without any compromise. The believers of all confessions, who will be able to free themselves from their prejudices, will realise by reading the inspired divine Books, with calm and far away from the challenges and the provocations of personal ideas, that this Inspiration is One. Its Source is One, and it comes from only one God. They will discover with joy to be brothers embracing themselves mutually after having believed that they were deadly enemies”.

Dr. M. says: "I named this book "Look of faith at the Quran" because, to men, I am a priest and a Christian and, in their opinion, a Christian does not believe in the Quran, although the Quran is no one's monopoly. It is God's inspiration addressed to all those who enjoy the spiritual life and aspire to sublimate their thoughts so that they can sit by the Creator, live eternally from His breath and be in His company".

Dr. M. says: “I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, the Christ of God and I believe in His prophet Muhammad. I believe there are only two communities, not three: the community of the blessed believers and the community of the banished fanatics, belonging to any people, nation and religion”.

And we too, greet Dr. M., this generous heart. He has caught our attention with much kindness as did before him, the ambassador Nasri Salhab. We hope to see many more such books of faith which have consequences.

Signature of the Reverend Sheik Z Y

SECOND REACTION:
Response to the article of Sheik KR
The second reaction consists in a series of five articles written by the Sheik KR, which appeared in an Arab review. Dr. M answered in a newspaper to the first four articles.
Here the translation of Dr M. answers:
Unity of faith, not elusion of the texts
I read in the review your reaction to my book “Look of Faith at the Quran: Unity of the Biblical-Quranic Inspiration”. I answer to your reverence because some close friends of mine, who are authentic Muslims, asked me with insistence to do so, after having been convinced by my answers to your attacks. They thus asked me to answer publicly so that nobody, you included, could believe you are right.

Initially allow me to draw your attention to some remarks. You said: “The author endeavoured to reconcile the texts of the Torah, the Gospel and Quran. From where has he the right to do so?… The truth is that he stumbled in his style of conciliation and bordered the truth, so that the conciliation became elusion”. You repeat that in the introduction to the four articles reported by the review always in the same way. However, in my book, unlike what you say, I provided not even an effort “of conciliation”. Such an effort is conceived only with texts which contradict each other or which are opposed; this is not the case of the inspired Books. Talking about conciliation between the inspired Books, implies they are not in harmony with each other. However that is not true at all. That is why I think you are right saying regarding conciliation: “From where has he the right to do so?" since the problem does not exist at the beginning. I tried to find an agreement between the believers of these inspired Books, not between the inspired Books themselves which, since the beginning, are in agreement. Are you blaming me because of that? If this effort of conciliation between believers is a sin, I thus deserve the hell, because I am burning with the zeal to see the believers in agreement and united with love around the unique God. How wouldn't there be harmony between the Books of God? The Quran declares explicitly that it certifies the Bible, not that it contradicts it, and that the God of Quran is the same One of the Bible, as I showed in my book supported by the Quranic verses I repeat here:

“You to whom the Book (the Bible) was given! Believe in that We have revealed (the Quran) confirming your own Scriptures” (Quran IV; Women, 47)

However, what the “people of the Book” had in the VII century BC was the Bible in its current text. Would the Quran have testified for the Bible, had this one been falsified - according to your statements - in the previous centuries?

The Quran also says to the people of the Book: “Our God and your God is One. To Him we submit” (Quran XXIX; The Spider, 45).

The logical conclusion of these inspired words is the following: to believe in the God of the Quran, is to believe in the God of the Bible, to Whom we all “are resigned” (ie “Muslim”). This is why the Quran considers the apostles of Jesus Christ “Muslim” even before the arrival of the Quran. The sane logic leads us to conclude that one inspiration only emanates from the same God, a single divine intention, and only one salutary plan, which one should endeavour to discover incessantly until arriving at the goal which, by the grace of God, will delight and enlighten us. Indeed, the intention of God in the Bible and Quran is the same, even if the style and the literal form are different. The latter depend on the society, the place and the moment when the inspiration was given. God, as you know, speaks to each people according to their language and their mentality as the Quran reveals: “Each apostle We have sent has spoken only in the language of his own people…” (Quran XIV; Abraham, 4).

What I endeavoured to seek, is the unit of the faith who existed originally in the heavenly Books inspired by God in various languages, according to the societies to whom God Himself addressed. I never tried to find an agreement between these inspired Books, as you say: “And from where has he the right to do so”, since this agreement exists already?

My intention appears in the title of my book: “Unity of the Biblical-Quranic Inspiration” and not “Attempt of reconciliation between the Bible and the Quran”.

This is why I did not understand the reason of your anger. Furthermore several respectable believers and well educated Muslims congratulated me for this happy initiative, among them wise religious chiefs you know well and who know you. In addition, from the beginning, I warned the attentive reader at page 1 that “this book is a brief study of the true concept of the divine inspiration. It is an invitation to open oneself with faith to the Quranic inspiration. And through this inspiration, to embrace the Gospel and the Torah attested by Quran. It is indeed a look of faith at the divine inspiration in general in order to gather all the believers through the discovery of the unity of the Biblical-Quranic inspiration…”

Thus, as the attentive reader will have noticed, the thread running through my research is clear: it is to discover the already existing unity of the faith in the inspired Books and not an effort of reconciliation between the Books.

Now, allow me, Reverend Sheik, to express my disappointment and my regret, feelings shared by others, about the scorning, aggressive and provocative style you adopted in your answer, not as I consider myself an important person, but because I am a simple man, a man whom your Reverence ignores, with his own dignity like all men. The prophet Muhammad never behaved like you, but he chose the best attitudes and recommended them to the believers. We would have expected by a man of religion a discussion and a dialogue by “the best” of the attitudes according to the Quranic command. Especially because in your introduction you say: “I had recourse to God the Almighty so that He could inspire to me the Good and the right logic”. However, I note that you had recourse to the poets, the philosophers and the men of science, not to God. In the name of God, I thus ask you: how can you accuse me of elusion, as I always refer to His Words in the luminous book of the Quran and not to human ideas?

You have still tried, as far as you could - and I want to believe that it was in good faith - to disfigure the contents of my book, by not mentioning any positive idea. You spoke about the tritheism as if I believed in three gods, while instead I have denounced it as being a heresy. You have spoken about the divinity of the body of Christ whereas I spoke about the Spirit animating His body created like the body of Adam. I explained why the Christ only is considered by the Quran the Spirit of God. This is why I said that you have tried to disfigure the contents of my book by mentioning half-truths, defending with enthusiasm the unity of God, unity which I believe in without your long speeches. You have disfigured, as it suited you, certain passages of my book, before people who were unaware of it, without mentioning even one positive point, presenting it as containing only animosity and hatred towards the Quran, the Islam and the Truth. However the opposite is true and the testimony of my conscience and the support of my good friends, authentic Muslims are sufficient to me. And that God forgave you, Reverend and respectable Sheik KR!

However I ask each reader to take note of the contents of my book before passing a comment. (Today, it is on the site: http://www. pierre2.org).

I seized the opportunity to inform the readers and yourself, Reverend, that my book has been translated into French and that it is on the way of being translated into English, German and Italian if God wants it. This work has planted in the heart of many believers in the West, the love for the Quran, for its noble prophet and for the Islam. It has contributed to destroy the blind fanaticism, especially in the West, by presenting the Quran in its purity, the prophet Muhammad in his limpidity and the Islam in its innocence, not an intolerant, defeated and divided Islam - as Christianity is too - because of the aggressive fundamentalism of the two communities. This is why my heart exalts God because of these translations, because the faith, the Bible, the Quran, the prophets, the apostles, the Christianity and the Islam are not the monopoly of anybody; no one can claim to limit them, whatever his hierarchy and his culture could be.

This is why I point out here the remarks of your Reverence in the N°8 of the review: “Each prophet came to cancel the law of his predecessor as a consequence of alliances and different times, until God put an end to prophecy, achieving His message by the last of His prophets: Muhammad. Thus, the law of Muhammad cancelled that of Jesus. However, between Jesus and our Prophet (Muhammad) there is no other prophet; we thus know by this fact, that there is no religion allowed to be practised other than the Islam”.

I am astonished, Reverend, that you may regard the prophet Muhammad as “your” prophet; he is the prophet of God, the prophet of the Universe, of all those who believe in him, and whom I am a part of. He is not the monopoly of anybody, while on the contrary we belong to him. No community can say an apostle or a prophet is his own, or the Messiah is “Our Messiah”. Indeed these envoys have a wider dimension than our capacity, and nobody can monopolise them. The faith, the prophets, the apostles and God are for all, whether some would admit it or not!

You talk then, Reverend, of the “Law of Jesus”. Jesus indeed never established other “Law” than that of Love, justice and judgement of a mature conscience. How could such “a Law” be abolished? Did the Quran speak about the abolition of the “Law” of Jesus by Muhammad or are these only human thoughts?

The Gospel says: “The law was given through Moses, grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ” (Jn 1,17). And regarding what you said: “There is no religion allowed to be practised other than the Islam and the Islam is the religion to the eyes of God”, I am one of those who preach that with a burning and alive faith. I don’t preach a confessional and fanatic Quranic Islam, divided and torn by his own contradictions. The beloved Muhammad prophet said: “Be careful, do not become again after me as irreligious people beating one another” (Discussion N°204).
The classification of the Discussions of the Prophet is drawn from the Arab book “Manhal Al Waridin” by the Sheik Sobhi Saleh.

Where is thus the Islam today? Do you see it in the different Muslim communities that kill themselves? Where is the faith today? I ask myself with desolation and sadness, because my love for the faith, the unique God, the Quran and the Islam is deep, but saddened.

What Islam is your Reverence speaking of? You are in a valley and I am in another… and I contemplate with desolation the words of the beloved prophet Muhammad in his spiritual “Discussions”: “It will come a day when the only thing remaining of the Quran will be its drawing and of the Islam its name. People will boast of the Islam, but they will be the most distant from it”.

This time has come with the appearance of the evil incarnated in the Israeli entity. This entity, you well know, announces a Zionist Christ and denies Jesus, the true Christ.

This “Christ” of Israel is the Antichrist the Gospel and the prophet Muhammad spoke of in several of his spiritual “Discussions” where he says moreover: “I fear for you only for the Antichrist. If he appears while I am with you, I would refute his arguments, but if he appears then when I am no more with you, each one would have to find the arguments (against him) and God will be my successor next each Muslim” (Discussion N°1806).

The Zionist Antichrist appeared misleading all mankind and the beloved Muhammad is not with us. In this case, each man today is responsible for his own arguments and God is the only successor of Muhammad near the believers until the end of the world. I say to all those who claim to be the successors of Muhammad: “You are wrong! This is not true, because the beloved prophet himself warned us by saying to us there are no other successors but God”. I believe, and my faith is firm and deeply established, that we reached the moment when each man must seek himself his own arguments to justify his conscience and his faith in front of God. God Himself today takes the reins in his hands to direct all the Muslims, whom I am a part of.

Still allow me to remind you, Reverend, what the Quran reports: “The Arabs of the desert declare: ‘We are true believers’. Say: ‘Believers you are not. Rather say: ‘We profess Islam, for faith has not yet found its way into your hearts” (Quran XLIX; The Chambers, 14).

This Islam of the Arabs of the desert is the one widespread today. The beloved prophet warned us against this kind of faith and this “Islam” which I reject and denounce. There are many of these modern “Arabs of the desert” who say: “We believe and we are Muslim, but they are neither believers nor Muslim, as they submitted (Islamised) their face not to God, but to Israel, the enemy of God, hating one another. The examples are numerous in the Arab countries and I am not the only one to be sorry and sad for the Muslims betrayed the authentic Islam, as I am not alone in my pain to see the Christians betraying the true Christianity.

In my research, I lingered over the words of God and His directives, putting His command into practise to discuss religious subjects only supported by a “Luminous Book”. The Luminous Book I took for guide is the Quran as I mentioned on page 11 of my book where I say: “God requires prudence by the believers in the research of the spiritual truths. He asks them always to rely on the inspired Books and not to care about the rumours propagated by the troublemakers. God warns us saying: “Some wrangle about God, though they have neither knowledge nor the guidance of a luminous Book (Quran XXII; the Pilgrimage, 8). The luminous Book we have recourse to understand the spirit of the Quran is the Quran itself”.
As far as you Reverend are concerned, seeking to show at all costs that the Gospel is falsified, you had recourse to the statements of certain “Western scientists”, neglecting those of two great Eastern Muslim scientists, the late Reverends Muhammad Abdo and Afaghani who confirmed with firmness the authenticity of the Bible. How much I would have liked that you, as a man of religion, answered me on the basis of Quranic texts. They only can convince me. However I had warned the readers of my book, by saying that one of the most important principles in my research, as I value to preserve faith more than any other thing, is the continual return to the text of the Quran to avoid any mislaying. The calm and sober reader has, without any doubt, caught this point which, in my optics, is of greatest importance. You will find this principle mentioned on page 11 of my book.

The scientists whom you have recourse to in your answers mislaid many people. This is why -whatever the eminence of their science and their culture could be- I prefer the luminous Book and his directives.

You endeavoured with an astonishing eagerness to find non Quranic evidence showing the falsification of the Bible, and particularly of the Gospel, as if you were cross with this Holy Book. Your work is condemned by God in the Quran, which, as I will show it further, considers “losers” those who refuse the Gospel (Quran II; The Cow, 115). You avoided to refer to the Quran relying on a long list of Western, anti-biblical “scientists”. Thus allow me, Reverend, to draw your attention to four points:

1) To find a proof of the falsification of the Gospel -and there is no one- means to contradict the Quran which attests it. You present the biblical translation of the Vulgate like a proof of the falsification of the Holy Scriptures. This translation, as you well know, was made by St Jerome, starting from the Hebrew for the Old Testament and from the Greek for the New Testament. To translate the Bible does not mean to falsify it. The translation was called “Vulgate”, that is to say “popular”, because it was translated into Latin, the “popular” and universal language that time. Is there anything wrong in translating it? Where is the falsification? Is there anything wrong in correcting the text and improving it after having translated it? The text of the Vulgate is that existing at the time of Muhammad, which was recognised canonical by the Council of Trent in Italy in 1546. It is the text employed by all the catholic and orthodox Christian Churches. The Protestants refuse seven books of no importance of the Old Testament, but recognise that the other books are canonical, not falsified. As for the books of the New Testament, all the Christian confessions agree on their authenticity.

2) The “scientists” you mentioned are only the links of a chain of agents of the international Zionism and the universal and atheistic freemasonry. Many of these “scientists” infiltrated in the Christian clergy, particularly in the catholic clergy, in order to sow confusion and to spread these false doctrines of the biblical falsification, which Quran is innocent of. Their words are not new and many biblical scientists answered to these calumnies, like Jean Daniélou, Karl Rahner, Paul Claudel, the Biblical School of Jerusalem held by the Dominican monks of the convent of St Etienne in Jerusalem, etc…

The Vatican denounced and drew aside several of the false scientists whom you quoted and warned against a number of others. In addition, the archaeological discoveries have contradicted your “scientists”. Indeed, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, going back to 200 years BC., proves the authenticity of the Old Testament and others discoveries attest that of the New Testament, as I showed in my book (p 42).

We would have appreciated that you mentioned the great orientalist scientist Louis Massignon who believed in the Gospel and in the Quran and who took the defence of the Islam and his mysticism. This man is an apostle of openness, peace, agreement and unity between the believers of the East and the West. He was a famous orientalist who gained the confidence of the true Christian and Muslim believers.

I don’t want to expatiate upon that and to mention lists of scientists with their words - as you did - whatever the value of their arguments and the greatness of their virtues could be, because I rely only on the divine inspiration. I limit myself in the quotation of men of science not to imitate the proud one who spread out its cultural “muscles” to upset psychologically the simple and the naive ones. To have recourse to the scientists will anyway bring nothing to the unbelievers who have “eyes but do not see and have ears but do not hear”, like the Lord says in His luminous Book.

3) The majority of the scientists whom you mentioned attack not only the Gospel, but also the Quran. They reject the evangelic doctrines attested by the Quran, like the virginity of Mary. These people are the apostles of the cursed fight against the Quranic inspiration. It is true that they recognise the authenticity of the Quranic text, but they deny its contents. They put all their research at the service of the Israeli entity and claim that their discoveries result in supporting Israel. They teach Israel is the people of God and that Palestine is due to them for a divine right. They impose on the Western Christians the solidarity towards the Jews of the East and the West. They make pressure on the Vatican -especially those of them who are infiltrated there- so that this one recognises Israel.

The aim of these “scientists”, by propagating the doctrines of falsification, is to delete any confidence in the Gospel, because it denounces the Jews. I quote as an example what Christ said to the Jews who refused Him: “You are from your father, the devil…” (Jn 8,44). The ultimate aim of the doctrines of the Gospel falsification is double:
a) To consider all the anti-Israelis texts as falsified.
b) To destroy the Christians faith in Jesus as the Christ in order to present a Zionist “Christ” considered by the Gospel as the Antichrist, Jesus being the true Christ as the Quran confirms too.

The infiltration of the Zionists or zionized scientists to the heart of the Church bore lots of fruits. You are certainly aware, Reverend, that the Second Vatican Council put forth a declaration of justification of the Jews in 1964. Lately still, on the 25th of June 1985, the Vatican put forth a declaration asking the Christians to approach the Jews. On this subject I refer to the article of Mr. Youssef Elias Daher in the newspaper “Al-Safir” published on the 10th of November 1985. The title of the article is: “Last declarations of the Vatican about the attitude towards the Jews”.

I mention it in order to be more careful and to have recourse to the luminous Book to avoid the punishment of the apostles led astray by the falsification and of those who will believe in it.

4) How could the Bible be falsified as the Quran say: “Those to whom We have given the Book (the Bible), and who read it correctly, truly believe in it; those that deny it will surely be the losers” (Quran II; The Cow, 121).

The “losers” in God's eyes are not those who take the defence of the correct reading of the Bible, but the irreligious people who calumniate it under pretext of falsification.

God says further in the Quran: “Therefore let those who follow the Gospel judge according to what God has revealed therein. Evil-doers are those that do not judge according to God’s revelations”. (Quran V; The Table, 47). Would God like one judge according to what is falsified?!

Those who believe in the Quran - or who claim to believe in it - how could they believe in the falsification of the Bible, while the Quran attests it and certifies it, testifying that it is read “correctly”? Doesn't that mean the Quran blesses and approves the text of the Gospel? What additional proof is necessary to you, Reverend, rather than the testimony of God Himself! As far as I am concerned, I am satisfied with the guarantee of the Quran against all mistakes and I am satisfied with it as a guarantee of the veracity of my words.

You said about me: “he stumbled in his style of conciliation and bordered the truth”. How could you claim that, as I based my research on the Quran? I did not border the truth; this one being in the Quran and my research emanates from this Holy Book. Others bordered the truth choosing to follow the misleading scientists instead of questioning the Quran. I chose for my part the honour to refer to the Quran and to resign myself to its contents without resistance and compromise.

You criticised me, Reverend, because I wrote that the Quran, speaking about the sacrifices of animals, said: “Their flesh and their blood does not reach God” (Quran XXII; The Pilgrimage, 38). Why are you angry at me? All I did was mentioning a Quranic verse. Your anger does not touch me because it is directed against God's words. He alone will respond to you as fits his Majesty.

Then you further went on, when I wrote that God in the Quran leads men towards monogamy and not polygamy. God says regarding this subject: "If you fear that you cannot maintain equality among them (wives) marry one only" (Quran IV, Women, 3)...“try as you may, you cannot treat all your wives impartially” (Quran IV; Women, 128). Saying: “try as you may, you cannot treat all your wives impartially”, God moves the believers away from polygamy. This believer must thus be clever, perspicacious and able to seize the intention of God at the first divine sign.

I mentioned these verses of Quran in my book and I based my sincere research upon them. Instead you attacked me with virulence, without mentioning even one convincing Quranic verse, and you had recourse to the poems of the poets. The weakness of your Quranic argumentation did nothing but reinforce my conviction to be in the good way and my determination to go on.

You also got angry at me, because I said that the divorce, that was anarchic at the time of the Arabs’ ignorance, is scorned today in the Arab world, after the passage of the Quran vivifying breath. What is there in these remarks to make you so anger? I remind you the words of the noble prophet Muhammad in his Discussions: “To God, the divorce is the most odious of the allowed things (of the “permissible” things)”. I do not have to comment on these prophetic words because there is wisdom for those who are able to understand.

You say in your answer (review N°9 p 82) that God has no resemblance neither an image, as the New Testament frankly declared in several points that the vision of God in this world is impossible. The verse of John 1,18 says: “No one has ever seen God”. Why, Reverend, do you mention only half of the verse that seems to give you right concerning the impossibility of seeing God and not all the verse that contradicts your claim: “No one has ever seen God: it is the only Son, who is closer to the Father’s heart, who has made Him known”? And why don’t you mention the words of Jesus, the Christ, to His apostles in John 14,9: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father”? By eliminating the Gospel verses which contradict your ideas, your research becomes subjective and deprived of any credibility. How thus can you accuse others of elusion?

You would say that you do not believe in the verses you did not mention, because they are falsified!… Very well! If the Gospel is falsified, then it should not be mentioned at all. I thus will discuss with you by the best argument drawing your attention on the Quranic interpretation of Jalalein concerning the first verse of the chapter “the Night Journey”. Muhammad said there: “I have seen my God the Almighty”. My single comment on this subject, that contradicts your assertion, is as follows: the vision of God in this world is possible and, in fact, it took place. The New Testament, as opposed to what you claim, does not deny this possibility… if it is not possible for the impious people and the criminals, it is indeed for the men with a pure conscience. In fact Jesus, the Christ, said: “Blessed are the pure in heart: they shall see God” (Mt 5,8). Certainly you will find philosophical and scientific arguments to deny the possibility of seeing God. I leave these false arguments to those who appreciate them. As for me, I lend the ear only to the Gospel, the Quran and to the spiritual Discussions of the prophet Muhammad.

In your answer, you mentioned “the Gospel” of Barnabas and a list of other non canonical Gospels for the Christians. You seem to place the latter on the same level as the canonical Gospels, if not even on a higher level for you. Why didn't you tell to the reader what I explained in my book concerning the false Gospel of Barnabas? I showed that this “Gospel” is a false testimony against the Gospel and the Quran because it affirms that Jesus is not the Christ. I mentioned, moreover, the verses of this pseudo-Gospel, claiming that they are contrary to that of the Gospel which announces that Jesus is really the Christ, and are also contrary to the teachings of the Quran which affirms that Jesus -and no other- is the true Christ. You know, Reverend Sheik, that many Muslims believe that “the Gospel” of Barnabas is the only true. Why did you hold secret the truth about this “Gospel”? Why didn't you reveal it to the readers, leaving them in the ignorance? Why did you concentrate your attacks on the true Gospels? Why hiding the truth, you, a spiritual guide? Why?

I underline that I wrote my book in the conviction that the precious Quran is the property of nobody, and that Islam is the monopoly of nobody. I wanted to present them as I see them and understand them. I have exposed my arguments with sincerity and have depicted the beautiful and tender face of Muhammad as I have known and liked it, so that those who have a false image of him -due to the fault of some who disfigured the Quran, the Islam and Muhammad- could love him too.

My book contains a new research and a new concept. I have drawn the attention on some important points left obscure for a long time. By discovering them, many have awaken and rejoiced. No one will be able to ever extinguish this ray of light. You have answered me with obsolete logic and teachings of which only those who are doomed to perdition will be convinced. Therefore, the days of the fanatic logic attacking the inspired Books are over. This logic failed… and where would it have been given to succeed from? The Heavenly Books go their way, challenging the times, the enemies and the events. They do not need the testimony of any man to remain; God protects them and confirms them and any sincere and mature conscience believe in it. Many in the distant and near past have attacked the Gospel; they have descendents and disciples on earth. The Gospel stands as a rock which the stubborn enemy crashes into. Many attacked and keep on attacking the Quran. Indeed it is the same rock which tears the fanatics who fight it.
I thank you, Reverend Sheik, for your answer. You tried hard and sought. I thank you because your answer tranquillised my heart and confirmed my faith. Now, I am attached even more to the contents of my book than before, having noted the weakness, if not the absence, of any valid contrary argument.

Of course, I do not expect that all Muslims and all Christians share my convictions. This is not the most important thing. I do not wait for all to agree with what I wrote. Many of those who praised me do not share all my points of view. This is natural and even positive. What is important is the freedom to express opinions with conviction and to exchange remarks with love, without attacking one the others and accusing one the others of elusion. After all religion is to behave one towards the others by “the best” behaviour. I am thus fully willing to meet your Reverence, if you want, and if you think it could be useful, within the framework of a calm and cordial discussion. We could exchange the ideas freely, far from any distortion, fanaticism or provocation, on condition however that our discussion is made on the basis of a “luminous Books” and that it is not based on the statements of the poets, the philosophers and the scientists, because I have enough of it, and because such is the command of God.

Sheik K R’s Response
I have read in a newspaper Dr. M.’s response to the points which he has raised again, even though I have already responded to them. M accuses me of having been angry. With love and sincerity I told him that I had no interest in doing so and that I was only expressing the truth. I did not exceed the rights of courtesy and discussion, based on logic and good reflection. Furthermore, I would like to add that M. criticized my way of discussing things, but then he fell into the same trap. The proverb says: “Do not criticize a morality and then fall into the same mistake”.

Regarding what M. says at length about the conciliation between believers, I will summarize as follows: The conciliation between believers must be made on healthy and stable bases unshakeable by storms. This is agreed upon by all wise people. I thus, call upon all the righteous people: How can one reconcile with the belief in the One (Unique) God and the belief in three gods? With those who deny the crucifixion and those who affirm it? With those who believe in one God who has neither wife, nor child and those who affirm the contrary? With those who say during Mass: “Mary, Mother of God” and those who deny it, saying God is above all?

These are only a few examples of the doctrinal questions controversies discussed between Christians and Muslims.

Yes, one can become close and cultivate the love between men, because man despite everything is man’s brother.

This is possible based on God’s word who says: “Men! We created you man and woman and made of you people and tribes so that you know each other”. God furthermore says: “God does not forbid you to be associated with those who do not attack your religion, nor drive you out from your homes. Be righteous towards them, because God likes the righteous ones”.

If some beliefs are opposed to that of others, does this mean that animosity fights, exile and the stripping of others must prevail? Certainly not!

The divine inspiration’s unity is part of the Muslim’s doctrines; he thus believes in it and if he attacks or despises one of God’s prophets, he disavows Islam and falls into heresy and apostasy.

Between the Arab and non Arab Muslims on one hand and Israel and the Zionists on the other hand there had been animosity and fights ever since Islam’s dawn and up to today. In spite of that, if a Muslim attacks Moses, God’s prophet, he apostasies and is excommunicated from Islam. The inspiration’s unity is a doctrine issued by the Quran and affirmed by our prophet and God’s prophet, Mohammad.

In the paper, I have demonstrated in details, the elements of this research and I see no reason of repeating myself.

M raised an interpretation and questions about what God had said: “You to whom the Scriptures were given, believe in what we inspired attesting what is with you” (Quran IV; Women, 50).

The interpreters mentioned the occasion on which this inspiration was given: “Ibn Isaac said: The prophet has spoken to Jewish chiefs and has said to them: ‘You Jews, fear God and resign to God; you know that what I bring to you is the truth’. They said: ‘We do not know that Mohammad’. They apostasies, they did not know and remained stubborn in their apostasy. God thus has inspired this verse!”

As for the confirmation of the verse in question, it means: Despite their knowledge of the prophet’s quality and their stubbornness they remained in the apostasy.

God, furthermore, denounced, in several verses, those who falsify the Bible. We will only mention the following verse: “Misfortune to those who write the Book with their hand and then say: ‘This comes from God’ to earn dishonest money. Misfortune to them for what their hands have written and misfortune to those who wrote to acquire a profit”.

God invited the people of the Book by this call: “You people of the Book, come to a word of agreement between you and us, that we adore only God, let us not associate to Him anything, and that we do not become lords between us, in the place of God”.

This divine invitation is always valid and the door is always wide open to those who want to respond to it. As for the verse to which M. referred: “Those to whom we gave the Book read it correctly; they believe in it and those who do not believe in it are the losers”, Katada interpreted it as follows: “They are the prophet’s friends; the book is the Quran”. Abu Moussa El-Ashaari has said: “The one who follows the Quran is led by it into Paradise’s meadows”. Omar Ibn-El-Khattab has said: “It is those who, by reading a verse of mercy, ask God for it, or a verse of punishment, have recourse to God”.

M. made some comments on polygamy, referring to the verse of the chapter of the Women: “You could never be equitable towards your wives even if you wanted to”. To be equitable here, means the fondness of the heart (an equal affection is impossible). This is a fact that man does not control, but that God alone controls. Mohammad the prophet had several women; as did his successors and this was not forbidden.

M. also spoke about God’s vision in this world. This question is discussed by the scientists. What we tend to believe, I would even say what we prefer to believe, is that God’s vision is forbidden in this world, and that his vision in the other world is without any possible comparison, this according to the word of God: “ Nothing is similar to him; he sees and hears all”.

There are still more questions which do not deserve a lengthy explanation, because my answer to the book has covered all the subjects.

I thank M. and congratulate him from my heart for the beautifully expressed words, like when he says that the Antichrist is the Jew’s Messiah. I thank him for expressing frankly his faith in the Quran and for expressing his love for Mohammad the prophet and his brothers, the other prophets.

(Sheik KR ends his response in thanking us for the invitation to this cordial dialogue filled with courtesy).


Second response to Sheik KR
Reverend Sheik KR, I have read your response in a newspaper. I am delighted that you agree that the Antichrist is the Zionist’s “Christ”, the State of Israel made of many pieces. My first response was referring to this satanic state and to the denunciation of its charlatanism and its injustice. I allow myself to send you my book “The Antichrist in Islam”, because our beloved prophet Mohammad spoke about it in his Discussions. His prophetic words make it possible to conclude that the Antichrist is the State of Israel.

However, this belief implies many new involvements on religious and spiritual levels, which is not convenient to those who feel injured by these upheavals. The Antichrist’s appearance means that we have arrived at the time of corruption. The Lord Jesus, the Christ, as well as the prophet Mohammad warned us against such times. With the appearance of this charlatan, thus, a new era has started in the world. God alone is the successor to all the prophets and to Mohammad as well, as revealed by him. For the believers, this succession of God will release them from the hegemony of the alleged human succession who exploits them: tradesmen of religion and the mercenaries who continue to tie the poor and the simple people’s conscience with chains that God alone can break. Such is the divine wisdom which, today, opens a new door to accommodate the hearts who aspire to release themselves from the weight of the matter, and to fly high towards God, to live in his presence, his eternal divine company, right now.

Any human claim with any prophetic succession is thus useless today, because the prophet Mohammad said in his Discussions (1806):“I fear for you only the Antichrist. If he appears while I am with you, it is me who will refute his arguments, but if he appears when I am no longer with you, it is up to each one of you to find the arguments (against him) and then God is my successor beside every Muslim”.

The Antichrist has appeared! Thus Mohammad’s successor today is God.

This being said, I will successively respond to the points you raised in the newspaper:
1) You say: “The conciliation between believers must be made on healthy and stable bases… How can one reconcile with the belief in One (Unique) (God) and the belief in a three gods? With those who deny the crucifixion and those who affirm it? With those who believe in a one (unique) God who has neither wife, nor child and those who affirm the opposite? With those who say during Mass “Mary, Mother of God” and those who deny it…”?

My answer is as follows:
A) The quranic - biblical inspiration’s unity that I preach is the stable and unshakeable base for reconciling the believers between themselves. On the contrary, the principle of the Gospel’s falsification on which you base yourself is not a stable ground for the conciliation, because it contradicts both, the Quran and the Gospel. It is rejected by many Muslim scientists (of whom I mentioned the religious Muslims: Muhammad Abdo and Afaghani) and by Christians.

B) The conciliation with the belief in the unicity (divine) and triple ness (three gods) is impossible, but the reality of One (Unique) and Trinitarian God is a reality revealed by God and explained by myself in my book “A Look of faith at the Quran”. I summarize the explanation as follows: The man, his word and his spirit are a one and only person, not three persons. In the same way, God, his Word and his Spirit are a one and only essence. God has revealed that so we know that Christ is the Word of God and his Spirit, not the Word and the Spirit of another God. No other prophet has been qualified this way.

C) It is impossible to reconcile the denial of the crucifixion and the confirmation of it, but we must work to unite ‘those’ who deny the fact and ‘those’ who confirm it. I have explained in my book that the Koran’s formulation of Christ’s crucifixion leaves an open door to the following interpretation: The Jews could not harm Christ’s message by killing him. The Quran has spoken about the death and the resurrection of Jesus, as I have explained. This confirms the biblical words. In any event, to believe or not to believe that the Quran denies the crucifixion is not an obstacle in believing in the inspiration’s unity. One must be mature and released from any form of fanaticism, unless, one belongs to those who adore God to the letter and not to those who look for the divine intention through the words. I also remind you that the Quran condemned God’s adorers who believed to the letter, while saying: “Some profess to adore, but to the letter. When blessed with good fortune they are content, but when an ordeal befalls them they turn upon their heels, forfeiting this life and the hereafter. That way true perdition lies”. (Quran XXII; Pilgrimage,11).

D) The Gospel does not preach that God has a wife with whom he has sexual relations and with whom he gives birth to, as you pretend. In my book I speak about the title of Son of God, explaining that Christ was born from Mary, not with a man’s help, but by a word of God who said: “Be! And it was”. This truth was revealed to us by the Bible and the Quran.

E) I do not accuse those who say “Mary is the Mother of God”, and do not qualify them as irreligious people who associate to God other gods. These believers base themselves upon the evangelic inspiration regarding God’s incarnation, not the incarnation of one of the gods - this would have been “association” which means to associate God to other gods because there is only one God. The divine incarnation took place in the body of Christ. This revelation is clear: it is rejected by certain people who do not understand it according to the divine religion’s wisdom which confuses the philosophers of the falsification of the Gospel. They carry the responsibility for it; the Quran has nothing to do with this slanderous falsification.

Mary is the Mother of Christ’s body, created as Adam has been created; she is not the mother of the Divine Spirit which animated this body and used it as an instrument to spread his light into the world. The quality of “Mother of God” allotted to Mary is a temporal quality, not an eternal one, whom “God chose… and elected among all the women of the universe” (Quran III; Family of Imran, 37). She, alone, was thus chosen for profound reasons inspired by God, for reasons accepted by spiritual men and rejected by materialists. Let those who see clearly, understand? Mary is just the “Servant of God” as she herself mentions in the Gospel. She is a creature as all human beings and differs from others only because she only was selected among mankind to be the temporal Mother of the One who is the Word of God and the Spirit of God. This is why, the prophet Mohammad, blessed is he, admirable in his perspicacity and his discernment, had said: “No man is born without being touched by the devil, from his birth and he screams because of this satanic touch: except for Mary and for her son”.

This verse of the Discussions is reported in the interpretation of the “Jalalein”, after verse 31 of the Surat of the Family of Imran. Any perspicacious man, endowed with certain discernment understands why Jesus and Mary only were not touched by the devil.

After having presented to you my sincere arguments, I declare: First let us work to unite the believers of one side, because in our unfortunate Lebanon – as well as outside - the confessions that believe in the same doctrine kill each other and exile themselves mutually, in a fratricidal war. This is why, I fully agree with you, Reverend, when you say: It is possible to bring people close and reconcile them by cultivating the love between mankind, while referring yourself to Quranic verses. This is what I am working on too, with God’s assistance; because there is no obligation in the religion! (Quran II; The Cow, 256). The religion belongs to God, the earth and the fatherland belongs to all and I believe in the peaceful coexistence between the believer and the atheist, if the mutual behaviour is good. Because God alone is the judge of the consciences and much will be requested from those who have received much and believed much!

2) You say:“The inspiration’s unity is a doctrine issued by the Quran and asserted by our prophet and the prophet of God, Mohammad”. I do not wish to enter an unhealthy competition and to compare the inspired Books, or the prophets, and getting myself into high bidding which the religion and the prophets condemn. But, I put the following question forward to your Reverence: How can you reconcile with the inspiration’s unity in which you believe and the doctrine about the Gospel’s falsification that you preach? You speak as if God the Almighty were powerless in safeguarding his inspiration from falsification.

3) You say: “M. created an interpretation and questions about what God had said:“ You who received the Book (the Bible) believe in what We(God) have inspired (the Quran) attesting what is with you (the Bible)”. You have explained this verse as follows: The Quran’s attestation does not refer to the Bible, but to Mohammad, nevertheless disavowed by “Jewish chiefs”.

However, in the Jalalein’s interpretation, we find the contrary to your assertion. It is written there:“You to whom the Scriptures were given! Believe in that which we have revealed, confirming your own scriptures (the Torah)” (Quran IV; Women, 50).

The Quranic attestation thus aims at the Bible, as I have said. In my research I did not verge on the truth, as you are accusing me of. This attestation of the Bible -not of Mohammad- by the Quran, arises from this verse’s words where God even invites people of the Bible to believe in “that” which he inspired (meaning the Quran), attesting “that” which they have with them (meaning the Bible). The code “that” does not apply to a person. If the verse aimed at Mohammad, it would have said: “The one who is with you” and not “that which is with you”. Moreover, God said:“attesting that which is with you”; however, the prophet Mohammad was not with these Jews who disavowed him. What was with them, in their possession, in all sincerity and uprightness was the Bible.

I will finish this important subject by saying the following: If the Quranic verse intended to indicate Mohammad, it would have been inspired for example as follows:“You who received the Book, believe in what We have inspired, attesting the one (Mohammad) you hate and fight”.

4) You say:“As for the verse to which M. referred:“Those to whom we have given the Book, read it correctly”, Katada has interpreted it as follows:“They are the the prophet’s friends”; the book is the Quran”! (not the Bible). My response to you is that this verse’s interpretation by the Jalalein says that he was inspired regarding a group from Ethiopia who converted to Islam. However, we know that the inhabitants of Ethiopia were Copts, Christians, and their Book was thus the Bible. The fact that they became Muslim, meaning that they recognised Mohammad as prophet of God, is a proof that they were not Muslim yet, friends of the prophet, and that consequently the Book in question is indeed the Bible. Furthermore, the Quran had not yet been made into a book. This was done much later, under Osman Ibn Affan. Therefore, myself and others have a quite different opinion from that of Katada and we are following the Jalalein’s opinion.

5) You assert that the interpretation of the following Quranic verse:“You could never be equitable towards your wives even if you tried” is as follows:“To be equitable here, means the fondness of the heart”. My answer is: Let it be! But, God nevertheless, says:“If you fear being unjust from an emotional point of view, the fondness of the heart, then only one wife is needed” and God adds:“You could never be equitable towards your wives even if you tried”. Only one woman thus should be taken. Furthermore, it is easier to be just and equitable in the material things that in the emotional area. If the exact interpretation were the fondness of the heart, with strong reason only one woman should be married, because affection - for spiritual people, not for the sensual ones - is stronger and more important than matter.

A jurisprudence (Fatwa) of the Egyptian Minister for religious affaires (Wakf), Dr. El Ahmadi Aboul Nour, published in the newspaper of 11.20.1985 consolidates my conviction. Indeed, he writes:“Some think that when God gave them financial generosity, they were allowed to marry a second woman, especially if there has been repulsion or divisions with the first one. We can say that when there is no acceptable justification for polygamy, this becomes forbidden and constitutes a sin”. Dr. Aboul Nour mentions the reasons “of disorders and of discords, which replace calm and stability and sow hatred and hardness” in the second marriage. He quotes as a living example that of an employee who, after his second marriage, neglected his first family which broke down and so did he. This is only one of the many examples to show how evil is created in the second marriage.

If such is the condition of the second marriage which, according to this minister’s decision, - who creates authority in one of the largest Muslim countries - is forbidden and constitutes a sin, what about the third and the fourth marriage? I therefore conclude that the most odious of “permissibles” for God, after the divorce, is polygamy.

To justify polygamy, you are refering to the many wives of the prophet Mohammad. However as you know, he had more than four and thus exceeded the number limited by the Quran. Your argumentation on this point is not convincing, because the purpose of the prophet’s marriages was to unify the opposite tribes and to reconcile them through a matrimonial relationship. They did not take place because of seduction or fondness of the heart. And what God allowed Mohammad, his prophet and ours, he does not allow it to all men, because today there are no valid reason for such a thing. The Quranic verses themselves enlight us and judge between you and me.

6) You say about my remarks:“He still spoke about God’s vision in this world. This question is much debated by scientists. What we tend to believe, I would even say: what we prefer to believe, is that God’s vision is forbidden in this world”. My answer is that the opinions of the ‘scientists’, as you know, do not interest me because I do not wish to philosophize about a subject very simply settled by the divine inspiration and the prophets. In my preceding article, I intentionally mentioned the word of the prophet Mohammad in the interpretation of the Jalalein of the chapter “the Night Journey” first verse where he says: “I have seen my God”.

I trust the prophets’ experience without listening to the scientists and the philosophers who want to prevent me from seeing God. I thus spread the wings and fly to answer the call sent by God and his prophets to the pure hearts, asking them to rise and sublimate their thoughts beyond the matter and man’s restricted logic. I climb high in order to be able to contemplate my God, helped by his holy and very powerful grace.

Here I mention an example to clarify my thought: It is about a dialogue between a blind man and clear-sighted man. The clear-sighted says to the blind man: “Look how beautiful the sun is at its rising!” The blind man answers:“No, nobody can see the sun”. The clear-sighted says again: “But yes! I see it!” And the blind man says: “But no, nobody sees it!”. I say that both are right. The clear-sighted sees and is delighted about it; and the blind man does not see. The important thing is to possibly create peace between the two, letting the clear-sighted be delighted by his vision and praying for the blind man’s cure.

By this example, I do not want to undermine anyone, believe me. I quote it, being obliged to clarify my answer, and I do it with great love and not to confound. My goal is not to offend, but to testify for a truth. Also, neither in my current answer, nor in my first answer, do I intend to offend anyone, as you are accusing me of. Yes, I have tried to testify and with firmness, but with enormous respect, in favour of the Divine Inspiration’s unity to honour God before pleasing men. I wish, however, to excuse myself in advance to those who will feel aimed at by the given example, repeating that such is not my intention. But I believe in the prophets and in what God has revealed to them and I make every effort to invite the believers to rise towards the Spirit’s highest summits, to be in the Creator’s company, like many believers and mystics did - Christians and Muslims - of whom the Muslim mystic El Hallaj.

7) You claim having answered in detail in the paper to the question of the Divine Inspiration’s unity. But you did not. Also, you avoid answering my remarks on the alleged Gospel of Barnabe whom you mentioned and I demonstrated to you that it is a forgery; you also avoided the subject concerning the impossibility of cancelling Jesus’s “law”, a law of love and justice, and not of cult and material tradition that must be cancelled.

8) In your fifth answer to my book you take sides with the Quran and speak at length about its size, its influence on the Arab language and about the prophet Mohammad’s impeccable style. You present all this and you let the reader believe that I am not convinced by it. However, I never tackled these subjects in my book, believing firmly in the Quran’s miraculous fact, with its literary and spiritual genius, convinced that it was really inspired to our dear prophet Mohammad. My faith in this is total. However, here you present these subjects within the framework of your answer to my book, as if I did not believe in it. You thus intentionally continued to disfigure the contents of my book.

9) As for the examples you quoted in your fifth answer on the question of the Heavenly Table (Eucharist), they simply mean that the interpretation’s efforts always continue. Will discover the truth on this “Heavenly Table” only those who humiliate themselves and ask the Gospel its true meaning because, as you say on (p 95 of your 5th answer):“The general opinion in connexion with this Table is that it is descended from Heaven with, above, a consumable food of which God alone knows the essence”. God defined its essence in the Gospels of St John chapter 6,51-63, of Matthew chapter 26,26-29, of Luke 22,19-20 and of Mark 14,22-25 as well as in the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians: 1Co 11,17-33. However, some do not believe in it and some refuse it, as did the Jews in the past, and still do today. I explained the meaning of this Heavenly Table in my book.

10) You reiterate in your fifth answer the Quran’s call which invites “people of the Book let us come to an agreement: that we will worship none but God, that we will associate none with Him, and that none of us shall setup mortals as dieties besides God”. (Quran III; Family of Imran, 57). Notice that the Quran, knowing that people of the Bible do not associate “anybody” with God, request not to associate another “thing” with God (like money, for example). We answered this noble invitation, my companions and myself, and we found the common word of agreement between the sincere Muslims and Christians, not the others. We subjected ourselves (Islamised), not only to God, but also to all the inspired Books, as the Quran commands and says:“The faithful believe in God and His angels, His scriptures (in the plural)” (Quran II; the Cow, 285).

We believe in the Torah, the Gospel and the Quran.

In my opinion, you are right when you say:“The monotheism of certain people is a monotheism far away from the one God and tinted with polytheism, because God says that: “The majority believe in a God while remaining polytheist” (Quran XII; Joseph, 38). I am of this opinion, too, because there are many who believe in God, but associate to Him many other “things” like money, glory and pleasures, as I mentioned in my book. There are others who claim that they believe in monotheism, but associate to God the worship of their own mental state. They refuse the Books inspired by God for our salvation, because their narrow materialistic mentality is unable to rise in order to understand the sublimity of their spiritual contents. Incapable to understand these Holy Scriptures, they calumniate them and treat them as they were falsified. May God help us spread peace, even among our enemies.

(M. ends while kindly requesting the journal to publish all the answers to Sheik KR in order to be rightous and equitable).

M.