Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Fake Qur'anic Verses - UPDATE of situation

235 views
Skip to first unread message

mn...@usa.net

unread,
Jun 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/20/98
to

Dear all,

Unfortunately, what I expected yesterday is already happening, the site is
duplicated in the following sites already!! not only that but it has 9 verses
this time instead of just 4! And the designer putted an e-mail this time
too, for those people who treated this matter lightly thinking that it is
only written in Arabic meaning that it wont show in search engines, they are
wrong, as there is a link on each page to an English TEXT translation, which
appears in all the search engines and that's what worries me, since some one
could EASILY find the page EVEN if we didn't promote it like some suggested!
and he/she could treat the found page as a reference in a research for
instance or to joke about our beliefs, ignoring it is like hiding our head in
the Sahara sands, the harm is done already and is there 24 hours a day, 356
days a year and we are all responsible for it being there.

Please send these new sites to your circle too... and please take the time to
ACTUALLY read the contents, in Arabic and English, it contains not only
wrong information, it contains also clear accusations and insults to any
Muslim!!

After reviewing the three sites, here are some of the major examples that
clearly illustrate the vicious motives of the sites owner, although I also
believe in freedom of speach.

The URLs of the three sites:

The AOL site:
http://members.aol.com/suralikeit/

With English Translation on:
http://members.aol.com/suralikeit/tajassud.eng.htm
http://members.aol.com/suralikeit/muslimoon.eng.htm
http://members.aol.com/suralikeit/wasaya.eng.htm
http://members.aol.com/suralikeit/iman.eng.htm

There is another copy (mirror) at Geocities.com:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7143/

With English Translation on:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7143/muslim_e.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7143/wasaya_e.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7143/nurain.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7143/quss.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7143/wilaya.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7143/ubay.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7143/musaylim.htm

Another mirror site is available at TRIPOD.Com:
http://members.tripod.com/~question24

With English Translation on:
http://members.tripod.com/~question24/muslim_e.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~question24/wasaya_e.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~question24/nurain.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~question24/quss.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~question24/wilaya.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~question24/ubay.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~question24/musaylim.htm

According to one of the pages on tripod.com the site is maintained by
mailto:quest...@hotmail.com


I hope to emphasize the following important concepts which underlie our
official complaints:

1- Our religion (Islam) denies absolutely any interference, change,
modification, and/or *invention / imitation* of any of it's verses by
ANY human being as it is the holy verses of Allah (God). However the
owner of the site named the title of the sites: "The Challenge - produce
a Sura like it" Which clearly proves his bad intentions.
["And if you are in doubt as to which We have revealed to Our servant,
then produce a sura like it, and call on your helper, besides Allah, if
you are truthful."] Sura 2:23 (Surat Al-Baqara verse number 2)


2- There are no Suras (verses) in the holy Quoran bearing the titles
that the owner of the three sites had claimed for his fake Suras!

3- Faking Suras of the Quran and circulating them on THREE sites on the
net at the same time would give the impression to any surfer that this
is a part of the ORIGINAL holy Quran which has been mentioned for over
than 1400 years now without any changes whatsoever. Bad intentions are
very obvious especially that the owner did not clearly mention why he
produced these Quraanic verses, or tried to imitate them? or even have
the curtsy to put a warning, to inform the reader of the pages that
these are ONLY his inventions and NOT part of the ORIGINAL holy
Quran! which is very dangerous and misleading to the unsuspected
reader/researcher, especially that he mentioned lots of fake and
misleading information about Islam, Mohamed the prophet and all the
Muslim practices.

4- Please note that the owner of the site only included a hidden e-mail
alias (normally could not be traced back to the real owner) on only one
page of the THREE sites including a total of 25 pages! giving a clear
indication that he doesn't want to be reached or defend his point of
view (freedom of speech)

5- A few Examples of the widely circulated fake verses and Suras will
illustrate the pre-meditated bad intentions and humiliation that
underline the owner of the sites behavior:

For example:

While the holy Quran's miracle is in it's error free of grammatical
mistakes and syntax, the owner of the sites intentionally made lots of
grammatical mistakes including the title of the fake Sura itself i.e.
Surat Al-Muslimoon: [the correct would be Al-Muslimeen]

[accusing of all Muslims being astray!]
(2) Say: O Muslims, You are far astray.

[accusing Muslims of disbelieving in God and his Christ, despite the
fact that our holy Quran and religion states very clearly that Muslims
MUST believe in God, Angels, and all the his other prophets and
messengers including the Christ]
(3) Those who "disbelieved in God and his Christ" shall have in the
lifeafter the fire of "hell" and a severe "torture".

(6) And you "should have not disbelieved" what I have revealed to you
and "go astray" from a plain road.

[accusing the prophet Mohamed of misleading the Muslims]
(7) They said: We did not go astray ourselves "but he, who claimed he
was one of the messengers (of God) has mislead us."

(8) And as God says: "O Muhammad, you allured my servants and caused
them to become disbelieves."

[accusing the prophet Mohamed of misled by Satan]
(9) He said: O my Lord, it is "Satan who allured me" and truly he has
always been the most corrupting to children of Adam.

Surat Al-Wasaya ("The Commandments")

[Fake information]
(6) "You abrogate whatever you wish to abrogate of the orders We have
given them" for "We have allowed you to modify any of our decisions."

[Fake information]
(7) "Tell my servants who believe to seek refuge when they yawn in the
Beneficent One to prevent Satan from laughing at them and to magnify
Allah when they sneeze."

(8) (And tell them) not to allow dogs in their homes and not to put
pictures on their walls. [not true]

(10) And when they respond to the call of nature (tell them) to "wipe
their rear ends with three rocks" and to avoid "using dung" for We have
made it as food for the Jinn and as such We made it a prohibited matter
for the believers. [Intentionally humiliation, ridiculed Muslims and
mocking them although there is no such idiotic commandments in the Quran
or Islam]

(11) Tell my servants who believe "to raid whoever they want and even to
kill" in order to secure their provisions that "those amongst them who
never raided or never thought about raiding shall die as hypocrites and
shall be denied" (in the hereafter). [Clearly insinuating that Muslims
are bade by god to become terrorist, which is totally untrue, although
the name of our religion Islam is derived from peace, and good muslims
are totally against terrorism in any form]


For further reference and/or assistance in translation please contact
(the guys behind the Nike shoe case):
CAIR Action Alert
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
1050 17th St., N.W., Suite 490
Washington, D.C., 20036
Tel: 202-659-CAIR (2247)
Fax: 202-659-2254
E-Mail: ca...@ix.netcom.com
URL: http://www.cair-net.org

Please take actions in this matter in any way you can, contact the media, your
local Muslim comunity, ... but don't keep watching others try to solve the
problem.

Best regards,

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Jochen Katz

unread,
Jun 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/23/98
to

In article <6mhf8s$b7b$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
mn...@usa.net writes:

} Unfortunately, what I expected yesterday is already happening, the site is
} duplicated in the following sites already!!

} After reviewing the three sites, here are some of the major examples that


} clearly illustrate the vicious motives of the sites owner, although I also
} believe in freedom of speach.

What is so vicious about them?

I think the reason for the multiplication (mirroring) in other
sites is rather easy to see. Some people have learned from Green
Peace and have the impression that the material is an endangered
species (should freedom of speech might not be honored by AOL)
and is therefore in need to bred quickly before it disappears due
to Muslim hunters.

I have a problem with those two new sites as well. The person
has copied the content of my site (UK mirror of Answering Islam)
without asking me for permission. I am glad that (s)he thinks
this material is worth preserving and spreading, but I protest
that he just steals the pages without asking. AOL might bow to
pressure from the Muslim campaign, I have no clue what the
result of that will be. But we have our own domain and our
material will stay there and cannot be removed by a pressure
campaign.



} There is another copy (mirror) at Geocities.com:
} http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7143/
}
} With English Translation on:

This is the material from our discussion of the Qur'anic
Miracle at

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Miracle/

and I ask that the person who created the other site will
remove the material. (this message is cc'ed to the given
response address). They are most welcome to keep their
home page, but make the links on it links to our respective
pages, not to pages copied from our site on to Geocities.
Do not copy it without permission. Let's stay ethical.

} Another mirror site is available at TRIPOD.Com:
} http://members.tripod.com/~question24

That seems to have disappeared faster than it was created.
Has the pressure campaign already worked? At least I can't
find the pages.



} 1- Our religion (Islam) denies absolutely any interference, change,
} modification, and/or *invention / imitation* of any of it's verses by
} ANY human being as it is the holy verses of Allah (God). However the
} owner of the site named the title of the sites: "The Challenge - produce
} a Sura like it" Which clearly proves his bad intentions.

How so? What makes an intention bad? I cannot speak for others
not the author of the first four suras, nor for the intention
of the copycat who has taken pages from my site. I will only speak
for myself. I have created the original page on Answering Islam
because it is one of the major claims of Muslims that the Qur'an
is of divine origin because of its miraculous eloquence. If people
ask me to become a Muslim BECAUSE OF THIS MIRACLE as an objective
evidence for the truth of the Qur'an, then it is only right to
critically evaluate the arguments that are the basis for such a
request that I change my convinctions. Don't you think so? When
I ask you to become a Christian because of various reasons into
which I can't go in this message but many of which you can find
at my site, wouldn't you find it the most natural thing to
evaluate whether the reasons I give with my appeal really hold
up to scrutiny? Then why do you think that others doing the same
shows "bad intentions"?

} 2- There are no Suras (verses) in the holy Quoran bearing the titles
} that the owner of the three sites had claimed for his fake Suras!

Mr. Lomax said it best in his response to bah...@geocities.com
a couple of days ago, article <6mcbbi$qs9$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
But to call these "fake Quran verses" is to miss the point. They do
not claim to be verses of the Qur'an. They do not begin with the
bismillah. Apparently, suralikeit *does* have a shred of sense. Only
the term "sura" would make one think that they were part of the
Qur'an. Now, if they sufficiently resemble the Qur'an that one could
actually be fooled into thinking that they *were* Qur'anic verses,
then we would have to admit that, in some respect at least, suralikeit
has succeeded in what he set out to do, and this is precisely what our
own "missionaries" (da'is) have claimed he would be unable to do. So
making a big fuss about these sites will only appear to confirm the
point!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it that basically nothing needs to be added to this verdict.
Very much to the point.

Sincerely,

Jochen Katz


Syed Yusuf

unread,
Jun 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/23/98
to

The only way to counter this is to prove why these are not up to par
with the Qur'an and challenge them to link their site to yours

--
Syed Yusuf
http://www.uidaho.edu/~yusuf921
--
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the
pursuit of justice is no virtue. (Barry Goldwater quoted by Malcolm X)


Sural...@aol.com

unread,
Jun 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/23/98
to

I realize that our site has suddenly become very popular.
- including some 250 junk mail messages to my account.
In order to meet the rising demand, I decided to create
some mirror sites so that no one domain is overused by
the access.

But then I just found this posting on soc.religion.islam
newsgroup:

In article <6mhf8s$b7b$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, mn...@usa.net writes:

> Dear all,


>
> Unfortunately, what I expected yesterday is already happening, the site is

> duplicated in the following sites already!! not only that but it has 9
verses
> this time instead of just 4!

Amazing. I do not know who has created those sites. Somebody
has just taken my work and set it up somewhere else. Without
asking for permission. Therefore I will give permission without
being asked.

I myself am only the author of the original four suras though.
The others are old historical texts and I will not claim to
be the originator of those.

> And the designer putted an e-mail this time

I have sent the request that the person may contact me
about it. I would like to know who is this enthusiastic
fan of my work. I have to insist though that he will
link back to the original sites where he took the material
from.

That is mine.

> There is another copy (mirror) at Geocities.com:
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7143/

Not from me.

> Another mirror site is available at TRIPOD.Com:
> http://members.tripod.com/~question24

Not from me.

> 1- Our religion (Islam) denies absolutely any interference, change,
> modification, and/or *invention / imitation* of any of it's verses by
> ANY human being as it is the holy verses of Allah (God).

This is nonsense.

> However the
> owner of the site named the title of the sites: "The Challenge - produce
> a Sura like it" Which clearly proves his bad intentions.

> ["And if you are in doubt as to which We have revealed to Our servant,
> then produce a sura like it, and call on your helper, besides Allah, if
> you are truthful."] Sura 2:23 (Surat Al-Baqara verse number 2)

Exactly. There is the command that we should produce other
suras like it if we are in doubt about the Qur'an. I am
in serious doubt about it. Therefore I recognize that the
Qur'an asks me to write such suras and I am obedient to
the instruction of this ayah.

> 2- There are no Suras (verses) in the holy Quoran bearing the titles
> that the owner of the three sites had claimed for his fake Suras!

That is rather obvious. I produce #other# suras and never
claimed them to be from the Qur'an--only good enough to
meet the challenge. In fact, they are better than the
Qur'an.

> 3- Faking Suras of the Quran and circulating them on THREE sites on the
> net at the same time would give the impression to any surfer that this
> is a part of the ORIGINAL holy Quran which has been mentioned for over
> than 1400 years now without any changes whatsoever.

This will only be the impression of those illiterate people
who do not read the first lines of the home page and do
not realize that this is written in order to meet the challenge
and prove the Qur'an false. If you fear many will have the
impression it is from the Qur'an, this only proves the point
that they are indeed as good as the Qur'an.

Bad intentions are
> very obvious especially that the owner did not clearly mention why he
> produced these Quraanic verses, or tried to imitate them?

I thought that was absolutely obvious.

And if you are in doubt
as to which We have revealed to Our servant,
then produce a sura like it,
and call on your helper, besides Allah,
if you are truthful.

That is the motto of the site. Can anyone mistake that
for anything else than what it is? Seemingly many do.
But if minds are trained for memorization instead of
thinking about texts what can be expected from such
minds?

or even have
> the curtsy to put a warning, to inform the reader of the pages that
> these are ONLY his inventions and NOT part of the ORIGINAL holy
> Quran!

If you need a warning, then the challenge is met.

>
> While the holy Quran's miracle is in it's error free of grammatical
> mistakes and syntax, the owner of the sites intentionally made lots of
> grammatical mistakes including the title of the fake Sura itself i.e.
> Surat Al-Muslimoon: [the correct would be Al-Muslimeen]
>
> [accusing of all Muslims being astray!]
> (2) Say: O Muslims, You are far astray.

I don't think you have no basis of wanting to educate
me on Arabic, but let me try to be nice about this.

Yes, grammatically, you have to change the "oon" to "een"
when the word is following another noun. But this word
"Al-Muslimoon" is a title that shouldn't be changed
because despite the fact that it is not in between ".... "
(quotation marks) it is implied that it is between them.

To prove this please look at the Qur'an, Surat # 23 and
tell us how it is written!!!! It is "Surat Al-Mu'minoon"
and not "Al-Mu'mineen."

Another one is sura # 109 where the title is "Surat
Al-Kafiroon" and not "Al-Kafireen." Although the
index of the Suras in Tafseer Al-Jalalein mentions # 23
as "Surat Al-Mu'minoon" and Sura # 109 as "Surat Al-Kafireen"
(only the index), but at the head of both suras , both words
end with "oon."

For those who don't know Arabic they can verify this from the
transliteration (of the title) provided by the Muslim Student
Association at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/023.qmt.html
and http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/109.qmt.html.

That should be the end of this discussion.

My recommendation is that all who want to criticize should
ask people of knowledge before they make fools of themselves
in public. I am a well published author and know my native
tongue quite well, thank you very much. There is no need
to be patronizing towards my work. For obvious reasons
this part of my work has to remain unrelated to my real
name. If you are in any doubt about that, I might publish
some of the hatemail and threats that I have recently
received. They might make a good addition to the web site.


Sha`baan

unread,
Jun 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/23/98
to

Dans soc.religion.islam, mn...@usa.net écrivait :

> While the holy Quran's miracle is in it's error free of grammatical
> mistakes and syntax, the owner of the sites intentionally made lots of
> grammatical mistakes including the title of the fake Sura itself i.e.
> Surat Al-Muslimoon: [the correct would be Al-Muslimeen]

Please be precise. 1) the titles of the suras are not part of the
Qur'an (we may have differents titles for the same sura) and 2) I have
in my Qur'an a sura which is called Surat Al-Kaafiroon (and not Al-Kafireen)

--
Sha`baan


Jeremiah McAuliffe

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

Sural...@aol.com wrote:


>Exactly. There is the command that we should produce other
>suras like it if we are in doubt about the Qur'an.

Uh, let's make some sense. "Like it" is going to mean in impact.
We'll have a few centuries to wait to see if what you are doing
rivals the Qur'an.

You *did* think of that right? I mean, you *seem* bright.

Upgrade this Fall
Jeremiah McAuliffe/ali...@city-net.com
Visit Dr. Jihad! Page O' Heavy Issues
http://www.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html


mar...@vom.com

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

as-salamu 'alaykum.

Sural...@aol.com wrote:

>My recommendation is that all who want to criticize should
>ask people of knowledge before they make fools of themselves
>in public.

While we may dislike suralikeit and his work for various reasons, we
must note that he has nevertheless given good advice. The criticism of
the title of one of his suras, Surat al-Muslimoon, was an example of
the hazards of jumping into debate without sound knowledge. It was
extemely easy for him to answer this charge because of the suras in
the Qur'an bearing analogous names, declined as they are. He did not
exactly say the reason.

The reason, I would think, why the titles of suras do not appear to
obey the normal rules of declination is that the words which would
otherwise be declined in the genetive are actually quotations from the
sura, and in the material quoted they are in the nominative. Thus the
title of Sura Muw'minuwn (23) comes from the first verse, qad aflaHa
l-muw'minuwn. And the sura may be referred to as, simply,
"al-Mu'minuwn." Note also that the titles are not part of the Qur'an;
it appears that they were not present in the earliest copies. They are
merely convenient ways to refer to the suras.

But surat ul-baqara is declined in the genetive, at least in my copy
of Yusuf 'Ali, and the reason would be that, in this case, it is the
"sura of the cow"; that is, the sura in which the story of Musa, AS,
and the heifer is told.

AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@vom.com
P.O. Box 423
Sonoma, CA 95476
USA


David Byrden

unread,
Jun 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/25/98
to

mn...@usa.net wrote in article <6mhf8s$b7b$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>...


> 1- Our religion (Islam) denies absolutely any interference, change,
> modification, and/or *invention / imitation* of any of it's verses by
> ANY human being as it is the holy verses of Allah (God).


Why should anybody who does not believe
in your god be constrained by the rules of your
religion?

Bear in mind that nobody has produced
any useful or reliable evidence that your god
exists in any sense.


David


bah...@geocities.com

unread,
Jun 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/25/98
to

>In article <6mp1sp$d7b$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,


> Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> In article <6mhf8s$b7b$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
> mn...@usa.net writes:
>
> } Unfortunately, what I expected yesterday is already happening, the site is
> } duplicated in the following sites already!!
>

> } After reviewing the three sites, here are some of the major examples that
> } clearly illustrate the vicious motives of the sites owner, although I also
> } believe in freedom of speach.
>
> What is so vicious about them?
>

> >In article <6mp1sp$d7b$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,


> > Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:
> >
> > In article <6mhf8s$b7b$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
> > mn...@usa.net writes:
> >
> > } Unfortunately, what I expected yesterday is already happening, the site is
> > } duplicated in the following sites already!!
> >

> > } After reviewing the three sites, here are some of the major examples that
> > } clearly illustrate the vicious motives of the sites owner, although I also
> > } believe in freedom of speach.
> >
> > What is so vicious about them?
>


>In article <6mp1sp$d7b$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,


> Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> In article <6mhf8s$b7b$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
> mn...@usa.net writes:
>
> } Unfortunately, what I expected yesterday is already happening, the site is
> } duplicated in the following sites already!!
>

> } After reviewing the three sites, here are some of the major examples that
> } clearly illustrate the vicious motives of the sites owner, although I also
> } believe in freedom of speach.
>
> What is so vicious about them?

Here are some snipets from that web page:

(11) Tell my servants who believe to raid whoever they want
and even to kill in order to secure their provisions
that those amongst them who never raided or never thought about
raiding shall die as hypocrites and shall be denied (in the hereafter).


Also from another URL there:

(8) And as God says: O Muhammad, you allured my servants and caused them to

become disbelieves. (9) He said: O my Lord, it is Satan who allured me and
truly he has always been the most corrupting to children of Adam. (10) And
God will forgive those who have been allured by man and then repented and he
will compel that one who was Satan's advocate to hell, a hapless journey's
end.


These are lies and an insult on the Prophet (pbuh). And you have the
audacity to ask what is wrong with this? Maybe you can not see what is wrong
with this site because your URL appears on this site. Which leads me to
believe that your site was responsible for the creation of this. I came
across an article on the net that confirmed that the ANSWERING ISLAM WEB SITE
has some involvment. I will present the URL here and the articles in full at
the end of this posting.


The following site contains an apology from ONE of the originators of the
article:

http://members.tripod.com/~ScottJoseph/Index.html

Hi All . .
I'm Scott Joseph .. I create this site just to aplogize for what I wrote about
Muslims and about
their Holly Quran, and to say

ALL THIS IS NOT TRUE

I wrote those verses just to destroy Islam and muslims. Alot of muslims has
visited my Two sites which Contains the Faked Quran and here is the addresses
:

http://members.aol.com/suralikeit http://members.tripod.com/~question24
..... ( Removed Yesterday ( 22.06.98 ) .. Thanks alot for Tripod )


you'll see in the second address more Verses ( Faked Verses ) .. I didn't
write them, but after publishing the first site alot of Islam enemies in the
World sent me some of their Faked Verses and they asked me to publish it. Ok
here alot of Questions come to your mind, I will answer as much as I can ..

Why I did this ?
Simply, A jew guy told me if you did this ( and he tell me everything in
Details ) he will give me $5000 ), ofcourse no one can refuse it !!

Ok, Why me ?
Because, I know about Islam and Quran alot since I studied these stuff long
time ago, and I have good Idea about Quran, and I know Arabic very well.

Ok. why I didn't remove the both sites ?
Actually, I dont have their account password. it's with that Jew Guy and I
can't do anything !!, Maybe you dont believe me, but if the AOL password
with me I would put the other faked Verses in that address !!

Ok, why I want to apologize now ?
Because I know this Verses are Faked, and I have other reasons I can't
explain them now.

again, SORRY MUSLIMS


If you want E-mail me this is my E-mail sco...@eudoramail.com


Also the following URL shows that THE ANSWERING ISLAM WEB SITE was behind this
plot to insult the Prophet (pbuh) and insult Muslims everywhere:

http://arabia.com/content/news/6_98/fake_24.6.98.shtml

Here is yet another story on the situation:

http://www.arabia.com/content/tech/6_98/aol_25.6.98.shtml

here are some comments from that article as well:

...
"This is aggression on the human heritage and sacred values not only of
Moslems, but of all humanity," Ahmed Omar Hashem told Reuters.

Copyright Reuters Limited
...


> Sincerely,
>
> Jochen Katz
>
>

Sincerely,
Arshad

Zubair Yakub

unread,
Jun 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/26/98
to

David,
You are beginning to sound like a broken record. You also seem to
misread/misinterpret every post you have replied to so far to mean that
Muslims expect everyone to believe as they do.

David,

What do you believe?

Where did the Universe come from?

Who created it?

David Byrden wrote in message <6mui3p$2gv$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>...


>mn...@usa.net wrote in article <6mhf8s$b7b$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>...
>
>

>> 1- Our religion (Islam) denies absolutely any interference, change,
>> modification, and/or *invention / imitation* of any of it's verses by
>> ANY human being as it is the holy verses of Allah (God).
>
>

mar...@vom.com

unread,
Jun 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/26/98
to

as-salamu 'alaykum.

bah...@geocities.com wrote:

>The following site contains an apology from ONE of the originators of the
>article:

.....


>I wrote those verses just to destroy Islam and muslims. Alot of muslims has
>visited my Two sites which Contains the Faked Quran and here is the addresses

Arshad has fallen into the trap of Satan, saying what he does not
know. He has positively identified the author of that letter, an
obvious fraud and forgery, as the "originator" of the pseudo-suras.
This quoted letter is nothing other than a false statement intended to
deceive, motive unknown, though I suspect an attempt to effectively
mailbomb an unfortunate sco...@eudoramail.com.

The author of the pseudo-suras, who uses the name suralikeit, is
well-known to us, and he writes excellent English, and apparently good
Arabic as well. I have no evidence regarding the Arabic knowledge of
the author of that fake apology, but his English is *atrocious*. And
he did not show particularly good knowledge of what was on the AOL
site, either, and there are other marks of forgery as well. And the
allegation about a "Jew" is just plain inflammatory, and those who
spread rumors like this become responsible for the sin of it.

Fear Allah.

Jochen Katz

unread,
Jun 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/26/98
to

In article <6mui4i$2rl$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
bah...@geocities.com writes:

} The following site contains an apology from ONE of the originators of the
} article:
}

} http://members.tripod.com/~ScottJoseph/Index.html

} Why I did this ?
} Simply, A jew guy told me if you did this ( and he tell me everything in
} Details ) he will give me $5000 ), ofcourse no one can refuse it !!

Good grief. Any you actually believe this? Anyone can create web
pages for free these days. If you pay $5000 not for the creatation,
but just to COPY a web page onto another free site you must be really
mentally retarded.

But I am used to see that anything that is bad from a Muslim
viewpoint is automatically a zionist conspiracy. What is new
about that. It doesn't speak high of the perception of those
who believe such nonsense either. Not only of the one who wrote
it.

} Ok, Why me ?
} Because, I know about Islam and Quran alot since I studied these stuff long
} time ago, and I have good Idea about Quran, and I know Arabic very well.

That man doesn't even know English well enough to speak it free
of error. There are so many errors on his page, it is quite
silly. It is obvious that "Scott Joseph" is not a native English
speaker. Just go read his page.

In order to copy web pages (i.e. save a file on your hard drive
and upload it on another site) you really don't need to know
one word of Arabic.

Guess what I believe about this page? This is a Muslim spinning
his personal fiction story around the issue. Quite amusing
actually. But his name is hardly Scott Joseph.

Rest of this sorry article snipped. The reason I respond
to your posting at all is this comment:

} Also the following URL shows that THE ANSWERING ISLAM WEB SITE was behind this
} plot to insult the Prophet (pbuh) and insult Muslims everywhere:
}
} http://arabia.com/content/news/6_98/fake_24.6.98.shtml

I already registered my protest two days ago here on SRI (and
in a private message to the plagiarizing party) that the person
who created those mirror sites STOLE them from Answering Islam.
The historical texts with quite some similarity to the Qur'an
have been on my site for nearly two years. That site (or myself
who runs this site mainly) is not behind any "plot". I never
had to hide anything. I have publically announced these texts
and they have been discussed on SRI many times. Saifullah has
posted "rebuttals" of them and has had responses to these pages
on his site at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5603/
In particular he responded to the verse of Quss bin Saida and
the fake suras Nurain and Wilaya. Saifullah has posted about
those several times on SRI over the last year. He hasn't
undestood the argument why those texts are on my site, though.
He posts mainly that they are not true suras, but fake ones.
I never claimed they are true. But I put them there to be
compared with the true Qur'an regarding their style and
eloquence. But given that this was there publically on the
web, and discussed in the newsgroup for two years, why does
this suddenly become a "plot" to insult Muslims everywhere?
(as you claim in the above). I have had many Muslims call me
to accept Islam because the Qur'an is the truth and this is
proven supremely by the Qur'anic miracle. Well, my intention
was to show that the basis for this claim is false. The
challenge is without substance and therefore I can with
intellectual integrity say that this is no reason to convert.
I have presented my reasons and have not seen anyone give a
clear refutation for my presentation.

My reasons are the philosophical ones displayed on the Answering
Islam site. The Arabic texts are just for beautification and
for those several Muslims who are too lazy to think in logical
terms and who instead impatiently say: "Don't make all those
empty arguments, just produce some suras". That is why I have
put up those historical texts on there that some friends pointed
out to me. When sometimes summer last year the "modern suras"
of "suralikeit" appeared on this forum, it was only natural
to include a link to that page on AOL as well.

Well, that site has been shut down because Muslims have put
on a vigorous campaign against it and flooded AOL with protest
letters. The only thing it shows is that the suras were indeed
of great quality. Otherwise nobody would have cared to remove
them. Wouldn't you agree? Or do you want to tell me that thousands
of Muslims just write letters to AOL without thinking and only
because some other Muslims tell them so? Is the Muslim ummah
working like a stampede of brainless buffalos that is set in
motion by a few and nobody can stop the masses afterwards?

I prefer to think that most Muslims have a brain and use it.
So, if thousands of Muslims think that page needs to be removed
then it tells me that thousands of Muslims think it is a threat
and that means the suras were really very good. Don't you agree?
Or do you opt for the "brainless" alternative?

To summarize:

I never tried to hide that I have those texts on Answering Islam.
I have discussed the miracle of the Qur'an many times on this
newsgroup and advertized those pages at

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Miracle/

I have said it many times, and I repeat it again, that I believe
the challenge is empty and bogus. You can search DejaNews for it
and find the various postings. But the fact that this person
(and I don't believe it was your "Scott Joseph" of the fake site
you refer to above) stole my web pages doesn't mean I have plotted
it all along. (What exactly do your refer to when you speak about
this plot?) If a woman was raped, then obviously she was guilty
of provoking the man. If the victim of theft was robbed then
obviously he is somehow guilty and the thief is to be excused.
That seems to be your theory. You certainly do not qualify as
Sherlock Holmes. You have accused me several times before of
various issues. It does not surprise that you accuse me of
that as well (whatever "that" is). I am sure you will find
more accusations until next week. I am used to it. They come
and go.

That is about all I have to say to the surah topic. Let us
move to more important issues. For example, you challenged me
to respond to the "orbits of sun and moon" scientific miracle
of the Qur'an. I answered you I think with the essential
question, but you have responded with a diversion. The issue
was the QURANIC verse. Not what the Bible says about the earth.
Why can't you stick to the topic? And why does only the sun
and the moon move (in orbits or celestial spheres doesn't matter)
but the earth does not? That is the issue, and you ignored it.
I will respond to your points on that tomorrow. It won't hold
up to scientific scrutiny.


Actually, the article your refer to above doesn't say "Answering
Islam" is behind it. That is your own invention. It says only:

The Geocities site is linked to an "Christian Answers to Islam"
web site from the United Kingdom which appears to be a bridging
site between "the three monotheistic religions." according to
editorial notes at the site.

And I am nearly as puzzled about this as about your claims.
Where does my site say it wants to be a bridge between the
three monotheistic religions? What editorial notes does this
refer to? Muslim journalists seem to be very free to make up
claims as they go along, both positive ones and accusatory
ones.

"Answering Islam" is not intended "as a bridge". It is a page
that delivers material for dialog, discussion and debate
and has some very controversial material. And I do not
intend to apologize for it. The site is created to explain
what I believe is truth and to expose what I believe is false.
Why would anyone try to make a bridge between truth and
falsehood? I believe in polite discussion, but I will not
cover up that I hold neither the Qur'an nor Muhammad to be
divinely authenticated and will not brush this under the
rug to make people feel good and build a bridge. Fake
bridges are not worth much.

Truth will stand clear from error, let us not create fog
around what we are called to make clear.

The "sura like it" issue is silly. It was never a big issue
for me. I only care about the content of the book. That is
what has to be discussed not some esoteric and undefined
characteristic of eloquence.

I do not reject the Qur'an because there are some other
texts that match it (I can't judge this anyway). And I will
not accept the Qur'an on this basis/challenge because the
challenge itself is logically flawed. See the articles on
the above URL for details on my argument.


Enough, I have to leave and am already late.

Best regards,

Jochen Katz


mar...@vom.com

unread,
Jun 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/26/98
to

as-salamu 'alaykum. We have seen a number of posts suddenly appear
from this person, generally off-topic flame bait.

"David Byrden" <Da...@Byrden.com> wrote:

> Bear in mind that nobody has produced
>any useful or reliable evidence that your god
>exists in any sense.

I agree. God is Truth. That's a *definition*, not merely a
description. Now, has anyone produced "any useful or reliable evidence
that" truth "exists"?

I haven't seen it. Yet, I do trust that Truth exists.

Some people don't.

Of course, one response would be that "truth" can be defined as "what
exists." So it exists *by definition.* And so does God, by the same
logic.

Q.E.D.

Now, Mr. Byrden did say "your god." Perhaps he thinks that *his* god
exists....

David Byrden

unread,
Jun 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/27/98
to

Zubair Yakub <Zubair...@Dundee.NCR.COM> wrote in article
<6n0vn1$bbq$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>...


> David,
> What do you believe?


I have no 'beliefs'. I have only
evidence.



> Where did the Universe come from?

Nobody seems to know.


> Who created it?

Nobody seems to know.

David


Omar Farouq

unread,
Jun 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/27/98
to

Assalamu 'Alaykum / Peace

Well, Muslim zealots! Are you proud of yourselves forcing AOL to shut
down suralikeit site , bringing shame and inferiority to yourselves, and
giving Islam a bad name? After all, if you feel Islam is in danger
because of suralikeit's writings, then you are of no use to Islam or its
defense; a religion where there is no obligation to believe. Islam can
stand on its own, and does not need your foolishness to defend it. I
know for a fact that suralikeit failed miserably at his attempts to meet
God's challenge. I would rather see his failure on display, not tucked
away as if it were something we should hide.

Why don't you people believe God when He says that all humans and jinn's
cannot come up with a Qur'an like ours? Are you all intimidated by one
loser who imitates Qur'anic style of writing? Do you think this is all
there to the Qur'an? If so then examine your belief before acting with
blind rage. You have opened the door wide for missionaries to attack
Islam, undeservedly, based on your own ignorant actions.

Jochen Katz wrote:

> I prefer to think that most Muslims have a brain and use it.
> So, if thousands of Muslims think that page needs to be removed
> then it tells me that thousands of Muslims think it is a threat
> and that means the suras were really very good. Don't you agree?
> Or do you opt for the "brainless" alternative?

As much as I hate Jochen's attacks on the Qur'an, I cannot blame him one
bit for these remarks. They are well deserved by those who formed the
stampede to shut down the site. I just hope that the majority of
non-Muslims would have the integrity not to generalize this foolish
action to all Muslims, or to the religion of Islam itself. The behavior
of individuals, or groups, no matter how large, if foolish, cannot be
representative of Islam. Islam does not promote blind rage and
foolishness.

It is a dark day when we begin to fear our adversaries, and put more
weight to their mere mockery than to fearing Allah and His swift
punishment. I, for one, am ashamed of the actions taken by Muslim
zealots. I have been against this action when it was first brought up.

May God grant us Peace, forgiveness, and guidance.

Omar Farouq

bah...@geocities.com

unread,
Jun 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/30/98
to

>In article <6n0vpb$boo$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,

> Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> In article <6mui4i$2rl$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
> bah...@geocities.com writes:
>
> } The following site contains an apology from ONE of the originators of the
> } article:
> }
> } http://members.tripod.com/~ScottJoseph/Index.html
>
> Good grief. Any you actually believe this?

Why shouldn't this web site be believed? I do agree that this individual
ScottJoseph is not capable of doing it himself, that is why I wrote the
phrase "ONE of the originators". He didn't claim to have command of the
English language, just of Arabic. With many of the people I speak with whose
maiden tongue is Arabic thier English is on the same level as Scott Joseph.

I believe this further strengthens the argument that the Answering Islam
Web Page was involved in this. The REUTERS article I included mentioned the
link to the Answering Islam Web Site. Also, the Surahlikeit web page had
a link back to the Answering Islam Web Site.

These people involved probably needed someone with a good command of the
Arabic language, slightly better then Mr. Timothy's, hence they got Scott
Joseph.


> } Also the following URL shows that THE ANSWERING ISLAM WEB SITE was behind
> } this plot to insult the Prophet (pbuh) and insult Muslims everywhere:
> }
> } http://arabia.com/content/news/6_98/fake_24.6.98.shtml
>

<snipped to save space, he is now referring to the surahlikeit web site>

> Well, that site has been shut down because Muslims have put
> on a vigorous campaign against it and flooded AOL with protest
> letters. The only thing it shows is that the suras were indeed
> of great quality.

What this shows is that Muslims will not tolerate religious bigots, or people
that insult Islam or the Prophet (saw).

As I had posted here earlier (you chose to delete it in your response) are
some of the insulting comments about Muslims and the Prophet (pbuh) on that
site:


And as God says: O Muhammad, you allured my servants
and caused them to become disbelieves.

He said: O my Lord, it is Satan who allured me and truly


he has always been the most corrupting to children of Adam.

And God will forgive those
who have been allured by man and then repented
and he will compel that one who was Satan's advocate to hell,
a hapless journey's end.

11) Tell my servants who believe to raid whoever they want


and even to kill in order to secure their provisions
that those amongst them who never raided or never thought about raiding
shall die as hypocrites and shall be denied (in the hereafter).


This kind of hatred will not be tolerated. You are welcome to try and make
a surah like the ones in the Quran but to insult Muslims and say lies
about the Prophet (pbuh), in other words to belittle Muslims, we will put
an end to this nonsense, insha'Allah.

Freedom of speech is one thing, religious bigots are another. That web
site was done by religious bigots, and AOL and others saw this and put an
end to this nonsense.


> I am sure you will find more accusations until next week. I am used to it.
> They come and go.

The article was from REUTERS and they accused you (your web site Answering
Islam) of being involved in this. So if you have any complaints you
will probably want to take it up with them not with me.


> Actually, the article your refer to above doesn't say "Answering
> Islam" is behind it. That is your own invention. It says only:
>
> The Geocities site is linked to an "Christian Answers to Islam"
> web site from the United Kingdom which appears to be a bridging
> site between "the three monotheistic religions." according to
> editorial notes at the site.


The reader is invited to read the article mentioned above at the following
URL: http://arabia.com/content/news/6_98/fake_24.6.98.shtml


When one gets to the paragraph that Jochen Katz snipped from the article you
will see that the phrase "Christian Answers to Islam" is actually a hyperlink
to the following web site:
http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/

Which happens to be the answering islam web site UK site.


> Jochen Katz


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Zubair Yakub

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

David Byrden wrote in message <6n3l6r$hgj$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>...

> I have no 'beliefs'. I have onlyevidence.

Okay David. Where is your evidence that God does not exist because I
have Evidence that he does exist. My evidence is the structure of the
Universe and the structure of the Atom.


> >> Where did the Universe come from?

It was created by God because it obeys strict mathematical laws.
When I see a complex instrument like a clock, I assume somebody made it.
When I
see the Universe I also assume somebody made it. The evidence of reality
necessitates the existence of God.

> Nobody seems to know.

>> Who created it?

See above.

> Nobody seems to know.

ahh....so you accept it was created?

Zubair

AbdulraHman Lomax

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

as-salamu 'alaykum.

bah...@geocities.com wrote:

>Why shouldn't this web site be believed? I do agree that this individual
>ScottJoseph is not capable of doing it himself, that is why I wrote the
>phrase "ONE of the originators". He didn't claim to have command of the
>English language, just of Arabic. With many of the people I speak with whose
>maiden tongue is Arabic thier English is on the same level as Scott Joseph.

However, the Arabic of the web page is much better than one would
expect from one whose thinking was as disorganized and chaotic as
"Scott Joseph," and it is classical, Qur'anic Arabic. And how in the
world does someone with the name of Scott Joseph come to know Arabic
much better than English? No, "Scott Joseph" was *made up*, I am
certain, by someone; he is a fictional character.

There are *many* anomalies in that "confession."

Now, if there *really* is a "Scott Joseph," capable of writing the
Arabic of "suralikeit," let *him* produce a "sura like it," that is, a
sura like that of those on suralikeit's web page, if he is truthful.

If he could do it for *them*, why could he not do it in the service of
truth, of exposing what really happened?

Now, it *is* possible that "suralikeit" is more than one person, that
one person writes the English and another writes the Arabic. But Scott
Joseph is neither of these.

bahloo? baloney!

David Byrden

unread,
Jul 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/4/98
to

Zubair Yakub <Zubair...@Dundee.NCR.COM> wrote in article
<6ngs6m$da0$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>...


> > >> Where did the Universe come from?



> It was created by God because it obeys strict mathematical laws.
> When I see a complex instrument like a clock, I assume somebody made it.
> When I
> see the Universe I also assume somebody made it. The evidence of reality
> necessitates the existence of God.


I do not understand this. Why do you
think that complexity implies a creator?

I think you would not say "The mountain is so
LARGE that God must have made it." You would
not assume that *great size* implies a creator.
That is for children. But why do you assume
that *complexity* implies a creator?


As for the "instrument" - the universe
is very, very different to a clock. When you
look at a clock, you will see things that could
not have come about through natural laws - such
as the signature of the clockmaker! But we see
*nothing* in the Universe that could not come
about through natural laws.


David

Zubair Yakub

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

David,

I stand astounded. It is precisely these natural laws I am talking about.
Who established these laws?

Your thinking is extremely flawed. I say the Universe was created because it
is too complex to occur by accident. You say, yes it is complex but was the
result of natural laws. Laws do not just happen.

NH

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

In article <6mui3p$2gv$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, "David Byrden" <Da...@Byrden.com> wrote:
>mn...@usa.net wrote in article <6mhf8s$b7b$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>...
>
>
>> 1- Our religion (Islam) denies absolutely any interference, change,
>> modification, and/or *invention / imitation* of any of it's verses by
>> ANY human being as it is the holy verses of Allah (God).
>
>
> Why should anybody who does not believe
>in your god be constrained by the rules of your
>religion?
>
> Bear in mind that nobody has produced
>any useful or reliable evidence that your god
>exists in any sense.
>


Among those who believe in God, only fools will try to proove God's existance.
Any conceivable proof will have to posit concepts - the basis of the proof -
higher than God thereby contradicting the definition of God. Thus the very
definition of God precludes any conceivable proof of existance. Ironically, by
citing proofs of God's existance, believers are in effect contradicting their
own beliefs and committing blasphemy.

--
NH

David Byrden

unread,
Jul 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/7/98
to
Zubair Yakub <Zubair...@Dundee.NCR.COM> wrote in article
<6nr7r6$auu$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>...

> I stand astounded. It is precisely these natural laws I am talking about.
> Who established these laws?

What makes you think that they need
establishing?

In our studies of them, we have found
that many of them are the result of other ones.
At heart there are comparatively few laws, and
they are *not* complex.



> Your thinking is extremely flawed. I say the Universe was created because
it
> is too complex to occur by accident. You say, yes it is complex but was
the
> result of natural laws. Laws do not just happen.

Well! Nobody has ever discovered why these
natural laws have their present form. It is an
unanswered question. But you speak so confidently,
as if you know the answer!

You say they "do not just happen"? Please
justify this statement!


David

0 new messages