By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, April 18, 2008

The organization Muslims Against Sharia is creating a new Koran with the violent verses removed. How legitimate and wise is this action? There is an effort in Turkey, for instance, to also revise Islamic texts. What real hope can these acts offer to bring Islam into the modern and democratic world? To discuss this issue with us today, Frontpage Symposium has assembled a distinguished panel. Our guests are:

Khalim Massoud, the president of Muslims Against Sharia, an Islamic reform movement.

Edip Yuksel, a Kurdish-Turkish-American author and progressive activist who spent four years in Turkish prisons in the 1980's for his political writings and activities promoting an Islamic revolution in Turkey. He experienced a paradigm change in 1986 transforming him from a Sunni Muslim leader to a reformed Muslim or rational monotheist.

Thomas Haidon, a Muslim commentator on human rights, counter-terrorism and Islamic affairs. He is active in the Qur'anist movement and works with a number of Islamic reform organisations as an advisor. He has provided guidance to several governments on counter-terrorism issues and his works have been published in legal periodicals, and other media. Mr. Haidon has also provided advice to and worked for United Nations agencies in Sudan and Indonesia.

Abul Kasem, an ex-Muslim who is the author of hundreds of articles and several books on Islam including, Women in Islam. He was a contributor to the book Leaving Islam – Apostates Speak Out as well as to Beyond Jihad: Critical Views From Inside Islam.

[No pic available
for security reasons]

Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Religion of Peace?

and

Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for politicalislam.com. CSPI's goal is to teach the doctrine of political Islam through its books and it has produced an eleven book series on political Islam. Mr. Warner did not write the CSPI series, but he acts as the agent for a group of scholars who are the authors. The Center's latest book is The Submission of Women and Slaves, Islamic Duality.

FP: Khalim Massoud, Abul Kasem, Edip Yuksel, Thomas Haidon, Bill Warner and Robert Spencer, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Khalim Massoud, let’s begin with you.

Your group Muslims Against Sharia is creating a new Koran with the violent verses removed. Tell us about this effort and what you hope to achieve and how realistic you think it is.

Massoud: Thank you Jamie.

We don't look at it as a new Koran, but rather a reversion to the original. We base it on three premises:

* God is infallible

* God is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate

* The Koran contains contradictory verses

We believe that unless you are a fundamentalist Muslim, a pagan or an atheist (and there is nothing wrong with being a pagan or an atheist), you would agree with all three premises.

If two verses in the Koran contradict each other, then at least one of them could not have possibly come from God because it would contradict the doctrine of God's infallibility. And because God is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, the peaceful verse could come from God and the violent could not.

If you are a Muslim and you follow our logic, you would agree with us. So what we are trying to achieve is to educate Muslims that the doctrine of Islamic supremacy is not divine, but rather a perversion put in the Koran by nefarious people to fit their agendas. Once we get rid of Islamic superiority doctrine, which is the cornerstone of all evil in Islam, Islam once again could become peaceful, loving, enlightened religion as we believe God has intended.

As to how realistic it is, it really depends on how many Muslims we can reach and on the position, which will be taken by non-Muslims. Unfortunately Western governments and media chose to embrace Western Muslim establishment, which overwhelmingly comprised of Islamists masquerading as moderates, thereby ignoring true moderates by default. It is beyond me why most of the Westerners ignore Islamists' terrorist ties and believe their words that clearly contradict their actions. The latest example of this madness is URJ-ISNA alliance. If this is the direction the West is heading, no matter what we do will fail.

FP: Sorry, with all due respect, I am a bit confused about the business of humans moulding God into their own image. Who says that contradictory messages can’t come from God? Who says that peaceful verses have to come form God and not the violent ones? What human is the arbiter of these things? What’s the process here? You leaf through the Koran and on your own whim say: “No God could have possibly said that, so I’ll just strike that out.” etc.?

And if God is only peaceful in your view, and therefore incapable of making violent commands, then how do you explain the life of Muhammad? Are you going to strike the proven facts of Muhammad’s life out of the historical record like you are doing with the verses of the Koran?

I ask the panel, and our readers, to look at the historical records outlined by Bill Warner and Abul Kasem about Muhammad’s life. I would like you, Mr. Massoud, and then the rest of the panel, to explain how this fits with reversing the Koran to its “original” -- or to the reality of a peaceful Allah. If the Koran was intended to be peaceful from the very beginning, then how do we explain these aspects of Muhammad’s life?

Massoud: Contradictory messages cannot come from God (the God, not a God), because God is infallible. If we assume that God is fallible, then he ceases to be a Supreme Being.

We believe that God is a loving God, that's why we believe that only peaceful verses can come from him. Jihadis believe that violent verses come from him. That's the difference between us and Jihadis. We love our God and they are terrified of theirs.

In regards to proven historical facts about Prophet Muhammad's life, let's consider this. We all know, or at least we think we do, that Muhammad was illiterate, therefore he did not write anything himself. The Koran, the Sira, and the Ahadith were written by people, most of whom weren't even Muhammad's contemporaries. So we are talking about oral tradition that went from one person to another for dozens, and in some cases hundreds of years before it was actually put in writing. Then, there was more than a millennium for those writings to be changed.

Now, let's consider the events of September 11, the most documented event in the history of humanity. Just several years after the events, it is quite easy to find many different "historical" versions of what "really" happened, including some versions that are diametrically opposed to each other. So the statement like "proven historical facts" is at the very least a stretch. Having said that, I would like to emphasize that we believe that Muhammad was God's messenger, which does not make him a perfect human being. It is quite possible that he did all the things that he is accused of. We also need to consider that norms of today's society are very different from the norms of many centuries ago. Slavery, polygamy, pedophilia, gender discrimination, etc., are not unique to the Seventh century Arabia. We can find all of that in the religious texts preceding the Koran.

FP: I don’t know, perhaps maybe I am missing something here, but I don’t understand how people can arrogate the authority to themselves to explain who God is, what he is and how he behaves and how he thinks. Contradictory messages cannot come from God? Really? Who decides this exactly? What happens if they can and they do? What happens if our minds are so tiny that we interpret something to be a contradiction which in God’s grand design is not a contradiction at all?

In terms of Muhammad, I don’t get it either: so now Islam’s prophet may have very well engaged in slavery, polygamy, pedophilia, gender discrimination, murder, rape etc., as the historical record suggests he did (click here and click here), but it’s ok because such acts were not in conflict with the norms back then? So there’s not a timeless and universal morality? I thought the idea was that God disapproves of that kind of behavior because he is peaceful and just and incapable of contradiction? Therefore his prophet wouldn’t engage in those acts right? Or is there some kind of thinking that since the prophet is a messenger and not a perfect human being, it is ok that he engaged in all of those acts? Or, as it appears to be also implied by you Mr. Massoud, since it all happened so long ago, and we can’t really trust any accounts about anything, we can just attribute to Muhammad any and every quality we simply wish him to have?

In any case, Thomas Haidon go ahead.

Haidon: Thank you for inviting me to partake in this discussion Jamie.

At the outset, I will categorically state that I find Mr. Massoud's approach to "Islamic reform" to be ludicrous. While I accept that he may be a progressive/or moderate Muslim, I find his thesis, which lacks any clear rationale or methodology, to be disingenuous. If Mr. Massoud were basing his arguments in a similar fashion to the late reformer Mohammed Taha, who argued from a historical and theological perspective that the Meccan verses of the Qur'an should effectively be removed, I would be more attentive. Not only has Mr. Massoud failed to provide any intellectually persuasive arguments (so far) in this symposium, he has failed miserably to do so on his own website, which sets out his organisation's ideas and mission statement. Ideas that are bereft of any substance are meaningless, and potentially harmful. We must support our arguments with ideas, and not merely emotions.

Mr. Massoud correctly points out the dangers of Islamists masquerading as moderates. I would further state that Muslims who make incomplete and incompetent arguments for reform also do harm, particularly when non-Muslims are lulled into a false sense of security and hope. "True moderates" (the term that Mr. Massoud uses) must not only talk about Islam's problems, but must develop responses that are rooted in Islam, and have some probability of success.

While I am supportive of attempts to modernise and contextualise the hermeneutics of the Qur'an, I am opposed to the removal of parts of the Qur'an. In other words, I am supportive of a new understanding of the Qur'an, not a new Qur'an itself. There is no debate among Muslims that the Qur'an is the "Criterion", and represents the culmination of Allah's revelations to Muhammad. The Qur'an, on a number of occasions, affirms its primacy and completeness (Qur'an, 6:114-116, 16:89 39:23, et al.). To argue therefore, that parts of the Qur'an should simply be removed is fatally flawed. Mr. Massoud offers no insight into how he would address this core issue. This is the primary doctrinal obstacle, and there are others as well. From a practical perspective, I think it is relatively clear that Muslims will never accept, on any level, removal of parts of the Qur'an. There is virtually no internal debate or discourse on the whether the Qur'an is complete or "perfect".

I am conscious that this symposium, given the topic, could shift to a discussion on the fundamental question of Islamic reform, or whether there is any capacity for this to happen within Islam. I suspect we will find little consensus between the Muslims and non-Muslim panelists. However, in response to Mr. Massoud's ill-conceived approach I will say that the key to reforming Islam is not abandoning the Qur'an, but returning to a modern, contextual understanding of it, and rejecting man made traditions that are a primary source for what Islam has become.

Mr. Massoud apparently assumes that the Qur'an is only capable of being interpreted as ulaema have traditionally interpreted it. Mr. Massoud uncritically accepts the concept of abrogation in the Qur'an, and the historical record of Muhammad. I find this perplexing. My colleague on this panel, Edip Yuksel, has authored (along with other scholars) a modern, contextual interpretation and translation of the Qur'an which seeks to confront the very verses that Mr. Massoud wishes to toss out. I will leave it to Mr. Yuksel to further address the fallacy of Mr. Massoud's approach from this perspective.

In summary, Mr. Massoud's "Islamic reform movement" is not a movement at all. Mr. Massoud's thesis is intellectually bankrupt and lacks any methodology or substance, and has no prospects of being accepted on any scale among Muslims. I suspect that Mr. Spencer and Abul Kasem will agree with me, albeit for contrasting reasons.

The public debate on Islam and its role in terrorism, human rights abuses and oppression, suffers significantly from political correctness, disinformation and obfuscation. We need to strip down this discourse to its bare bones and ugliness, in order to move forward. Genuine reformers have an obligation to contribute to this through open discussion, and practical solutions. We cannot distil and whitewash the Islamic record, we must confront it, especially the unattractive elements. Genuine reformers also need to contribute to this debate by not raising expectations. Wide-scale reform unfortunately aspirational, and while yes, there is some good work being done, we have not scratched the surface.

FP: Bill Warner?

Warner: Thank you Jamie for this opportunity to discuss the reform of Islam.

First, let me establish the basis for my logic with regards to Islam. To Mr. Massoud, I say: I have no interest in whether there is no god, one god or a million gods. I also have no interest in whether the texts of Islam—Koran, Sira and Hadith (the Islamic Trilogy)—are accurate or false. For over a billion Muslims, the Trilogy is the basis of the doctrine of their life, politics and civilization. They believe the Trilogy to be true and live their lives by it.

The Koran, the Sira and the Hadith are of one cloth. They form an integrated and complete ideology. The logical perfection of the Trilogy is the reason that it has lasted so long.

The other basis for my logic is that the reform be comprehensive and logical. We must have principles, not beautiful opinions.

One of those opinions was stated by Mr. Massoud, "God is a loving God." I don't know anything about Allah, but I do know what the Koran says. While there are over 300 references in the Koran to Allah and fear, there are 49 references to love. Of these love references, 39 are negative such as the 14 negative references to love of money, power, other gods and status.

Three verses command humanity to love Allah and 2 verses are about how Allah loves a believer. There are 25 verses about how Allah does not love kafirs.

This leaves 5 verses about love. Of these 5, 3 are about loving kin or a Muslim brother. One verse commands a Muslim to give for the love of Allah. This leaves only one quasi-universal verse about love: give what you love to charity and even this is contaminated by dualism since Muslim charity only goes to other Muslims.

So much for love. Fear is what Allah demands.

Mr. Haidon says, "…we need to strip this discourse down to its bare bones and ugliness." I agree and the ugliest parts of Islam are the concepts of the kafir, political submission and duality.

My only concern is how Islam treats me and my people, the kafirs. How Islam views and deals with the kafir is political Islam. The Trilogy determines the political doctrine and practice of relating to the kafir. The Koran says that the kafir may be murdered, tortured, plotted against, enslaved, robbed, insulted, beheaded, demeaned, mocked and so forth. The Hadith and Sira agree. That's ugly.

The Trilogy establishes the fundamental principles of Islam—political submission and duality--the basis of dualistic ethics. The Trilogy advances one set of ethics for the Muslims and another for the kafirs. A Muslim is not to lie to another Muslim; a Muslim may lie to a kafir, or not. A Muslim is not to kill another Muslim; a Muslim may kill a kafir, or not. And so forth.

The word "kafir" is pure dualism.

The Trilogy also establishes a dualistic logic. The early (Meccan) Koran and the later (Medinan) Koran frequently contradict each other, but since they are both the words of Allah, both sides of the contradiction are true. It is just that the later Koran is better and can "abrogate" the earlier Koran. Western logic says that if two things contradict, then one of them is false—a unitary logic. Dualism is the heart of the Trilogy's logic.

Dualism explains the two types of Muslims and which one is the "real" Muslim. The "nice" Muslim and the Taliban-type Muslim both follow a dualistic Koran and are both "real" Muslims. Dualism gives the "nice" Muslim plausible deniability. They can say that those jihadists are not "real" Muslims.

There can be an infinite number of reforms, but the only reform that matters to the kafir is ethical reform. That removes the principles of political submission and duality. There is a very easy way to see the problem and its solution. Go back to how the Koran defines the kafir and what can be done to them. No one wants to be insulted, raped, robbed, killed, threatened or tortured. No one wants to be treated badly. No one wants to be rejected as the "other", the kafir.

I propose a rational reform based upon how to treat the "other"--the Golden Rule: treat others as you wish to be treated.

The Golden Rule is centered on ethics, not god, and is universal to all cultures, except Islam. Indeed, the whole Islamic Trilogy denies the truth of the Golden Rule. Therefore, the Golden Rule reform has to be applied to the Koran, Sira and Hadith. Only then will the reform be comprehensive. Mr. Haidon says, "Muslims will never accept, on any level, removal of parts of the Koran." To just reform the Sira and the Hadith is petty change. I want ALL of the ugliness towards the kafir removed. That means that the Koran must also be subject to analysis.

The Golden Rule removes the brutality, insults and prejudice directed at the kafir. The constant attacks would disappear. The Rule is very simple and logical to apply to the texts.

What is amazing is how much the Golden Rule removes from the Trilogy. About 61% of the Koran vanishes, 75% of the Sira and 20% of the Hadith also go away. As I said, I only care about Islam treats the kafir, but the Golden Rule also removes all of the dualistic rules about women. So the reductions will be even greater when the material about the treatment of women is removed.

The Golden Rule even changes Hell. Islamic Hell is primarily political. Hell is mentioned 146 times in the Koran. Only 9 references are for moral failings—greed, lack of charity, love of worldly success. The other 137 references to Hell involve eternal torture for not agreeing that Mohammed is right. That is a political charge, not a morals failure. Thus 94% of the references to Hell are as a political prison for dissenters. The Golden Rule would empty Islam's political prison.

The Golden Rule annihilates the cruelty of dualistic ethics. Golden Rule Islam would be a reformed Islam that the kafirs would not fear and dread. We are tired of living in fear of political Islam. We have suffered enough and would welcome an Islam that did not argue, demand, pressure, dhimmize, threaten, deceive and destroy kafirs and their civilization.

However, all of Islam's success has been based upon political submission and dualism. Mohammed preached the religion of Islam for 13 years in Mecca and converted 150 Arabs to Islam. When he went to Medina he became a politician and a warrior. In the last 9 years of his life he conquered all of Arabia. In those 9 years Mohammed was involved with a violent event on the average of every 7 weeks. The violence destroyed the native Arab culture of tolerance. Political submission and duality triumphed.

But even if this symposium group could change the ideology of political Islam by integrating the Golden Rule, who would follow Golden Rule Islam? Islam is like the Internet; it has no central ruling body. Islam is a distributed network with the Trilogy as the operating system. An upgrade is not possible. But if Muslims want to show me to be wrong, the only reform worth anything to a kafir is an ethical reform based upon the Golden Rule.

[A technical note: I use Ishaq for the Sira and Bukhari for the Hadith. Ibn Sa'd, al Tabari, Muslim and Dawud add little additional information. The percentages stated above are not based upon verses. Analyzing the Koran only by verses amounts to analysis by sentences. Who would analyze Plato or Kant by sentences? We want to measure ideas, topics and concepts; not just sentences. See the Epilogue in A Simple Koran for details.]

FP: Mr. Yuksel?

Yuksel: This is an exciting symposium. Thank you for having me and get ready for a good fight. Mr. Warner is summarizing well the problem with the Trilogy of traditional Islam and yet at the same time he is indulging in intellectual acrobatics with jaw-opening contortions and distortions against the Quran. Meanwhile, the FP moderator is introducing the Sunni hearsay stories like the CNN news about current events, and he is promoting assumptions and false accusations like the Laws of Thermodynamics. A careful reader will notice that the entire symposium is designed to promote the "click-here and click-there" propaganda activities of a cabal. Let me first start with Mr. Massoud's claims and then respond to the claims of Mr. Walter and his tennis partner, Mr. Glazov, FP moderator.

I nominate Khalim Massoud, whoever he is and wherever he is, for the Ignoble Prize for his theologically inconsistent, logically Swiss-cheese, practically useless, objectively insincere, substantially oldie-moldy, academically elementary, mathematically innumerate, Quranically unacceptable, and politically neo-conning project. I also acknowledge that it has some merits as Thomas Haidon indicated: it is entertaining and ludicrous.

Now let me support each of my characterizations:

It is THEOLOGICALLY INCONSISTENT, since it does not address many important theological and philosophical problems, such as Socrates' question, "Is it good because God says so, or God says so therefore it is good?" Sure, it could be both. But Mr. Massoud is even unaware of the existence of such an important question. If the Quran is the word of God, then whom am I to "correct" or "censor" his words? Massoud thinks he has an answer for that. Whichever he dislikes, or whichever does not agree with his current culture, or whichever does not please the FrontPage, or whichever he cannot comprehend, it cannot be from God. That is so simple. Just give him a pair of scissors and he will reform the Muslim world. Archimedes needed a fulcrum to move the world; our friend just needs a pair of scissors. A sharp scissoring reform. In other words, he devolves God to his level or evolves himself to become a god. He has nothing to learn from God; to the contrary, he wishes to teach to God.

If Massoud lived in medieval times, and had a scissors in his hand, he would end up with a very different Quran that he envisions now. He would cut off verse 21:30 and 51:47 since it did not make any sense: how could the space and earth be one single body and then explode and expand? He would perhaps have problem with a round earth since he would never feel upside down wherever he traveled; so to bestow some reason and common sense to his Wise God he would cut off verses 10:24; 39:5; and 55:33. He would find the idea of egg-shaped earth ridiculous, so, he either would toss out the egg in the verse 79:30 (indeed, his contemporaries with no scissors would try to interpret the egg as a metaphor for a flat nest). He would find verses suggesting an evolutionary method of creation to be unfit to the wisdom of his Omnipotent God and would save his Quran from 7:69; 15:28-29; 24:45; 32:7-9; and 71:14-17. He would find equality of man and women bizarre and unfit to a Just God, so he would slash 3:195; 4:124; 9:71; 16:97; 33:34; 49:13; 60:12, and many other verses. He would have problem with too much freedom of expression of "evil ideas" and would like to save his Almighty God from allowing the expression of blasphemous ideas, so he would discard 2:226; 18:29; 10:99; and 88:21-22. He would find the verses promoting peace unrealistic and would chop 60:8-9; 8:60 and many others. Verses abolishing slavery (3:79; 4:3,25,92; 5:89; 8:67; 24:32-33; 58:3-4; 90:13; 2:286; 12:39-42; 79:24), verses promoting public elections and consultations (42:38; 5:12; 4:58; 58:11), verses condemning profiteering from religion and rejecting clergymen and religious intermediaries (2:48; 9:31; 9:34; 2:41,79,174; 5:44; 9:9) and hundreds of other verses promoting progressive ideas would get eliminated by Mr. Massoud.

It is LOGICALLY SWISS-CHEESE. I do not mean offence to Swiss cheese since I enjoy, but this Quran-with-a-Scissors package has too many holes in it. Mr. Massoud appears to be engaging in a logical activity. Since I teach logic and philosophy classes at college, I cannot ignore it. He asserts three premises to reach his conclusion:

(1) God is infallible

(2) God is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate

(3) The Koran contains contradictory verses

Thus, WE need to conduct a surgery on the Koran!

What about questioning the third premise? What about modifying it this way?:

(3) It appears to me that the Koran contains contradictory verses.

Thus, I need to improve my knowledge and comprehension skills in studying the Quran, OR I need to ask those real reformists who do not distort the message of the Quran through hearsay stories. AND, IF I still see contradictions in the Quran, then I need to conduct a surgery on my Koran.

It is PRACTICALLY USELESS, since if we can subject our holy book to such a personal cut-and-discard operation, we would not need to have a leader like Massoud. In fact, any person can grab a marker and cross out the verses they do not like. Even if I lost my mind for a moment and followed the suggestion of Massoud, I would never purchase his version of the Quran, since I am not his clone. So, all what Massoud is telling people is this: "cross out the verses you think that are contradictory!" So, why anyone should follow a version published by Massoud or any other person? If I were going to write a blurb for the book, it would be the following: "This is an infidel-friendly, neoconized lite-version of the holy book with zero cholesterol. Yet, it contains plenty of turn-your-left-cheek-and-behind attitudes against imperialistic invasions and aggression. Three thumbs up Massoud & Co!"

It is OBJECTIVELY INSINCERE, since Massoud should know that no teacher would ask students to tear the pages of a text book if they thought it contains wrong or contradictory ideas. No text book would survive such a collective task of weight-reduction! And no author would like to see a reader like Massoud mobilizing others to cut the statements, paragraphs and pages off his book and republish it in his or her name! If Massoud really believes that there is an original Quran hidden inside the circulated Quran, he cannot be sincerely hoping to discover it by the votes of a particular group of unidentified people in a particular time. So, either he does not really believe the divinity of the Quran, or he has no clue about what he is saying.

It is SUBSTANTIALLY oldie-moldy, since already skeptics have done a great job in annotating the Quran, and indicating the "perceived" contradictions. Though I disagree with their (mis)understanding, but I find their work thought-provoking and very useful. Skeptics provide their critical arguments. All what Massoud suggests is to delete those arguments together with the verses they address! And for this ingenious idea he is now participating in a symposium organized by FP!

It is ACADEMICALLY ELEMENTARY, since it does not provide a methodology to accomplish the task. Since the Quran is an interconnected book, where each verse is etymologically and semantically connected to many other verses, any modification will cause the need for another series of modification. The number of combinations is enormous and so is the potential chain reaction and unintended consequences. I could give dozens of examples but I have limited room here.

It is MATHEMATICALLY INNUMERATE, since the Quran is not only a literary prose, but it is also a numerically structured book (83:7-21), it is the most interesting book in the world. For instance, 29 chapters of the Quran start with combination of numbers and letters, such as A1L30M40, or K20H5Y10A70S90, or Q50. For instance, the frequency of the word ShaHR (Month) in singular form is exactly 12, the frequency of the word YaWM (Day) is exactly 365, and there are many more interesting nu-semantic examples. For instance, the numerical structure of the Quran based on the number 19 is so extensive that it involves every element of the Quran, the count and order of letters, words, sentences, verses, and chapters. They fill volumes of books. (You may find a good summary of the Code 19 in the Appendix of the Quran: a Reformist Translation). Thus, Mr. Massoud's project is aimed to destroy such an incredible structure that bears witness to the divine nature of the Quran.

It is QURANICALLY UNACCEPTABLE, since numerous Quranic verses reject the very same attempt. Here is a sample:

15:90 As We have sent down on the dividers.

15:91 The ones who have taken the Quran apart.

15:92 By your Lord, We will ask them all.

15:93 Regarding what they used to do.

15:94 So proclaim what you have been commanded and turn away from those who set up partners.

15:95 We will relieve you from the mockers.

15:96 Those who sat up with God another god; they will come to know.

15:97 We know that your chest is strained by what they say.

15:98 So glorify with the praise of your Lord, and be of those who prostrate.

15:99 Serve your Lord until certainty comes to you.

Most likely Massoud would chop these verses too, by an additional maxim: "Delete all the verses that rejects our deleting activities!" Ironically, Massoud is not suggesting something new. Sunnis and Shiites already disregard many verses of the Quran: they do not hear nor understand them. Furthermore, their sectarian teachings contain a rule called "abrogation" thereby they reject the decree of the many verses of the Quran, while at the same time they declare their belief in every letter of the Quran. I have discussed this issue in detail in the endnotes of the QRT.

And it is POLITICALLY NEO-CONNING, since it serves the policy of Neocon-led coalition of warmongers. I do not know whether Massoud is a hired petty officer for this agenda or just a naive person, but, it is clear that his project will only irritate and provoke Muslims who are frustrated and traumatized under cruel military invasions and occupations (such as Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Chechnya), or suffering under USA-supported oppressive regimes (such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan). When a few angry and pathetic Muslims engage in some stupid and violent action, the Western media will salivate and rush to focus their cameras on the ugly faces of "barbarians", while the American capitalists will continue their racket by transferring billions and billions of our tax money to the accounts of war industry and its sub contractors.

IN SUMMARY, I am astounded that FP is taking this ridiculous idea serious. If we are going to take any idea published on the web seriously, then we will be volunteering for an alien abduction adventure. I feel like I am talking in a symposium organized by the flat-earth society. Sir, do you also discuss cubic meteorites with avocados in their center?

Since I do not have space for more words, I would like to say a few words about the claims of FP moderator. His depiction of Muhammad is based on unreliable hearsay stories, yet he craftily sandwiches the "proven historical facts" into his complex question. If he introduced those accusations as "according to Sunni or Shiite story books written centuries after Muhammad" then it would be an accurate depiction. I challenge the integrity of each of the story books he is peddling as "historical fact." Where did he find those "proven historical facts"? As for brother Massoud's response, well, there is no surprise: he is receiving a "proven" false accusation from the moderator and after putting a petty spin on it he passes it back to him: intact!

As for brother Warner, he is perhaps doing statistics on Thalmud or Old Testament. His claim is far from truth. The most repeated and most highlighted Quranic verse that opens every chapter, except one, is Bismi Allah al-Rahmani al-Rahim, which means "In the name of God, Gracious, Compassionate." Let me give you the attributes of God most frequently mentioned in the Quran (The following list does not include the frequencies of the attributes in unnumbered 112 opening statements mentioned above). The Quran contains about 114 attributes for God. The most frequently used attributes of The God (Allah repeated 2698 times) are:

Lord/Sustainer/Nourisher (Rabb): 970

All-Knowing (Alim): 153

Loving/Caring (Rahim): 114

God (Elah): 93

Wise (Hakim): 91

Forgiving (Ghafur): 91

Honorable (Aziz): 88

Gracious (Rahman): 57

Hearer (Sami): 45

Planner (Qadir): 45

Knower (Khabir): 44

Seer (Basir): 42

These most frequent attributes of God, which are used in semantically relevant contexts, depict a very different Quran than Warner wishes us to believe. Perhaps, the Quran, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

As for Warner's assertion about the Golden Rule removing 61% of the Quran, I am glad to hear that. This shows that the Quran is a book of reality, not a book of fairy tales. First, the so-called Golden Rule is not a realistic rule and it is very rarely used, usually among family members and close friends. In fact, experiments show that the Golden Rule promotes immorality and crimes in real life. In my ethic classes, I have repeated the experiments and reached the same conclusion. I recommend Carl Sagan's article, titled "The Rules of the Game," where Sagan quotes the verse of the Quran, "If the enemy inclines toward peace, do you also incline toward peace," concluding that the best rule is not the golden rule but the golden-plated brazen rule, that is, retaliation with occasional forgiveness, which is exactly what the Quran promotes (See Quran 42:20; 17:33).

The irony is not in Warner's lack of knowledge; the irony is in the iron. Warner is aligning with those who promote and practice the Iron Rule (pre-emptive strike), and yet he bashes Muslims for not abiding by the Golden Rule. Perhaps this is the rule of double standard in generosity: iron for us, gold for you. No my dear: I cannot enjoy gold while you have the iron.

FP: Well Mr. Yuksel, you are astounded that I am taking a "ridiculous idea serious" but nowhere did I say I am taking it seriously. As a matter of fact, all my comments so far reveal that I don't know how it could be taken seriously. But the idea needs to be put on the table because it is one of the efforts being made right now by a Muslim reformer and his organization to try to bring Islam into the modern and democratic world – if that is at all possible.

And a discussion of an issue like this can bring a very important dialogue to the table. I find it a bit strange that you affirm that you are "astounded" that I am taking this "ridiculous idea" seriously and yet you yourself have agreed to join a panel to discuss it. Perhaps you see no point to your own contribution to this symposium, even though you have spent quite a bit of energy and time to offer it.

I also remain a bit confused as to how American "warmongers" are behind taking violent verses out of the Quran. And I am yet still to hear what you yourself think of the violent verses and the problem that jihadists point to them as their inspiration.

Also, calling me and other people names is, unfortunately, no way to delegitimize the aspects of Mohammad's life that people like Warner, Kasem and Spencer have pointed to.

Abul Kasem, go ahead.

Kasem: I appreciate that Khalim Massoud understands there are problems with the Koran.

Khalim Massoud writes that Allah is infallible. Then he writes that the Koran contains contradictory verses. How is it possible for an infallible God (Allah) to contradict Himself? Here Massoud is playing the role of another God to correct Allah. Isn't this quite bizarre that a human being, such as Massoud, has to correct Allah?

Massoud confounds us further when he says:

'If two verses in the Koran contradict each other, then at least one of them could not have possibly come from God because it would contradict the doctrine of God's infallibility. And because God is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, the peaceful verse could come from God and the violent could not.'

Who says Allah is always compassionate and merciful? He is certainly not, as can be demonstrated from many other verses in the Koran. Allah has peculiar temperament, to say the least. Under this circumstance why must we accept that Allah only sends the merciful verses? Who inserted those unkind, hateful, belligerent and barbaric verses? Without identifying these people, Massoud calls them nefarious. Why does he not identify these people? Could it that they were Muhammad and his coterie of power hungry people who surrounded him for a share of Islamic loot and plunder?

If we were to accept that the Koran is the absolute words of Allah, then how could Allah allow such calumny as tampering with the Koran?

Massoud says: If we assume that God is fallible, then he ceases to be a Supreme Being.

I simply do not get it. The Koran says clearly that Allah is the Supreme Being. Massoud further contradicts himself.

It appears that Massoud has accepted the truth that the Koran contains the words of humans, such as Muhammad, and possibly others. This completely breaks down Massoud's logic that the infallible Koran is the authorship of Allah.

In this context, Thomas Haidon is correct when he says: From a practical perspective, I think it is relatively clear that Muslims will never accept, on any level, removal of parts of the Qur'an. There is virtually no internal debate or discourse on whether the Qur'an is complete or "perfect".

I agree that the vast majority of Muslims hold the Koran as the incorruptible, unchangeable words of Allah, valid for eternity.

It is important to comprehend that Islam derives its mighty power not only from the Koran but also from ahadith and sirah. How about these important sources of Islam? Will Massoud edit these sources, especially those blood-thirsty, barbaric, inane ahadith? Will Massoud go ahead with the task of purgation of Muhammad's sirah to remove the unsavory, cruel, and inhuman disposition of Muhammad?

One important point: if Massoud agrees that parts of the Koran are human-created, why does he not abandon the Koran itself? Why he wants to mess with the task of editing the Koran with his own hand which, will cast him as an apostate and render him liable to severe Islamic punitive measures?

It appears that Massoud has forgotten that the Koran says that none can change the words of it (6:34, 6:115, 10:64, 18:27, 27:6). Verse 10:15 clearly says even Muhammad could not change a single word in the Koran. Thus, according to the Koran, Massoud's act will be the greatest of all Islamic crimes. Massoud should not forget the fate of Rashad Khalifa who attempted to do similar acts of revising the Koran, but paid a heavy price. Zealot Islamists murdered him while he prayed in his mosque. To day, Rashad Khalifa's minions are known as 'Submitters' or the Qur'an-only Muslims. Needless to say, most of them live in the western countries, for had they expressed their views in an Islamic paradise they would be certainly killed for tampering with the Koran.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the efforts of Massoud and Thomas Haidon who sincerely want to reform Islam and bring it to conform to the current civilized world. They are genuinely appalled at the barbaric, cruel and inhuman aspects of Islam, largely emanating from the application Koran and ahadith. Unfortunately, history of Islam demonstrates that many such attempts in the past had been dismal failures, and there is very little prospect that such current attempts or future attempts will succeed. I might sound pessimistic, but Islamic history uncannily confirms that playing with Koran and ahadith is a dangerous game that is destined to failure.

I agree with Bill Warner when he says: The Koran, the Sira and the Hadith are of one cloth. They form an integrated and complete ideology.

This means if one edits the Koran he must also edit the other two sources of Islam. Is Khalim Massoud willing to do this job? Will the Muslims, by and large, will agree with Khalim Massoud's versions of Sira and Hadith? I doubt they will.

What I disagree with Bill Warner is that, while he accepts that the Koran is reformable, I do not. I have already stated my reason/s why this is just not possible—the Koran completely forbids its reformation, and whoever attempts to do so will be murdered, Islamically.

There is only one choice left, to abandon the Koran, totally.

I find quite hilarious Edip Yuksel's discovery of numerical miracles in the Koran. This is akin to Rashad Khalifa's discovery of miracle of the number 19 in the Koran. I doubt if any mathematician will agree with Edip Yuksel's discovery.

Yuksel chastises Bill Warner for exposing the Korans' inanities and its stipulations to extirpate un-Islam by killing infidels, if need be. Unfortunately, Yuksel cannot refute Warner's allegation that the Koran commands Muslims to kill the Kafirs. Yuksel simply avoids this important topic by alleging that Warner is resorting to word gymnastics. It is interesting that Yuksel himself indulges in the intellectual gymnastic just to avoid the truth: the Koran has barbaric provisions for those who do not accept Islam.

It is sad to note that Yuksel has hurled vitriolic attack on both Khalim Massoud and Bill Warner. Instead of refuting/and/or arguing their cases in a dignified manner, Yuksel simply resorts to personal attack and logical fallacies. He indulges in irrelevant topics, America's foreign policies, Palestine issues and so on. This demonstrates his attempt to 'flight' from the burning issues of Islam and whether it is reformable.

We must appreciate that Massoud and Thomas Haidon have, at least, have plans to reform Islam—no matter how much we might disagree with their methods.

I find it very unbecoming of an Islamist scholar like Yuksel to reprimand the FP editor for opening a dialogue session with people of contrasting views.

Finally, here are a few suggestions, which, to my mind, will be of help not only to Massoud and Haidon, but to the entire world.

We need to expose Islam, the truth about it, and nothing but the truth. The world must pay heed to the fundamental messages of the Koran which is to conquer (by sword) the entire world and enforce sharia laws.

The infidel world must digest the fact that Islam wants to obliterate un-Islam, replace the western/un-Islamic civilization with Islamic/ Arabic civilization.

It is important that all infidel leaders must have a working knowledge of the Koran and Islam, and understand the language of the Islamists, which is anything but peaceful.

Spencer: Khalim Massoud is correct that the "Islamic superiority doctrine" is "the cornerstone of all evil in Islam," or at least of the evil that some Muslims perpetrate in the name of Allah against unbelievers. Bill Warner is right: reform should eradicate Islamic supremacism and the institutionalized mistreatment of women and non-Muslims sanctioned by Islamic law. The rest is just window dressing. But how that doctrine can be removed or reformed, and whether or not it can be accomplished by a drastic re-editing of the Qur'an, as proposed by Mr. Massoud, is another question.

Thomas Haidon is clearly right when he says that "from a practical perspective, I think it is relatively clear that Muslims will never accept, on any level, removal of parts of the Qur'an." This is true regardless of whatever logical or theological merits the plan may or may not have. Abul Kasem also raises an important conceptual question for Mr. Massoud: "If we were to accept that the Koran is the absolute words of Allah, then how could Allah allow such calumny as tampering with the Koran?"

So how, then, can it be done, if it can be done at all? It is noteworthy that Mr. Haidon says that he would be "more attentive" to Mr. Massoud's arguments if they more closely resembled those of Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, "who argued," says Mr. Haidon, "from a historical and theological perspective that the Meccan verses of the Qur'an should effectively be removed." Mr. Haidon clearly has in mind the Medinan verses, which Taha actually targeted, not the Meccan ones, but the main problem here is that for his views Taha himself was executed by the Sudanese government in 1985. Abul Kasem is correct that most of the Qur'an-only Submitters "live in the western countries, for had they expressed their views in an Islamic paradise they would be certainly killed for tampering with the Koran." Nothing is more certain than that those who attempt reform of Islamic doctrine in Muslim regions take their lives into their hands. One notorious example is that of Suliman Bashear, who "argued that Islam developed as a religion gradually rather than emerging fully formed from the mouth of the Prophet." For this his Muslim students in the University of Nablus in the West Bank threw him out of a second-story window.

Western non-Muslim analysts need to have a steady and sober awareness of these realities. Mr. Haidon is absolutely right that "Muslims who make incomplete and incompetent arguments for reform also do harm, particularly when non-Muslims are lulled into a false sense of security and hope." But those suffering from that false sense of security are legion. Numerous Western analysts, policymakers, and even law enforcement officials are so anxious not to appear "anti-Muslim" that they embrace any self-professed reformer, and have been gulled many times. They should bear in mind that Mr. Haidon is also correct when he says that "we cannot distil and whitewash the Islamic record, we must confront it, especially the unattractive elements," and that "genuine reformers have an obligation to contribute to this through open discussion, and practical solutions." But so far this has not been done, despite many loud proclamations to the contrary from many quarters.

And as an example of a Muslim who, in Mr. Haidon's words, makes "incomplete and incompetent arguments for reform," we have here with us Mr. Yuksel, whose bluster and abuse of other Symposium participants may be entertaining, but only exposes the bankruptcy of his arguments. He accuses Jamie Glazov of relying on "unreliable hearsay stories" for information about Muhammad, but fails to inform us that the great majority of Muslims around the world rely on those same "unreliable hearsay stories," and offers no program for convincing those hundreds of millions of Muslims of the historical weakness of these stories.

Mr. Yuksel's presentation likewise suffers from inaccuracies that will it extremely unlikely that it will ever be accepted by large numbers of Muslims. To take just one of many possible examples, he asserts that in the Qur'an "the frequency of the word YaWM (Day) is exactly 365." But another Muslim writer has noted that Yuksel only arrived at this total by not counting many forms of the word, including every time it appears as "that day" rather than "the day" or "a day." When Mr. Yuksel's fellow Muslims so readily notice such inaccuracies in his presentation, it's unlikely that many will accept his program for reform.

Massoud: Mr. Glazov states, "the idea was that God disapproves of that kind of behavior because he is peaceful and just ... [t]herefore his prophet wouldn't engage in those acts."

Not necessarily. God gave people, including Prophet Muhammad, Free Will. I do not claim that evil deeds attributed to the Prophet are false. I am not justifying rape and murder as acceptable practices of medieval times. What I'm trying to do is to raise the possibility of the historical record being incorrect. We also need to consider things like polygamy in historical perspective. When the female/male ratio is roughly 1/1, polygamy is a clear form of gender discrimination. But when half of the men are killed in a war and the ratio becomes 2/1, polygamy becomes a practical solution. When life expectancy is 75, marrying a young teenager is clearly inappropriate, but what if the life expectancy is 20? All I'm saying is that the Prophet Muhammad should not be looked at from black-and-white perspectives. He was not the perfect human, but he was not pure evil either.

Mr. Haidon finds our approach disingenuous, ludicrous, and lacking any clear rationale or methodology. I believe that Mr. Haidon refuses to see what is right in front of him, i.e., the contradictions in the Koran. The question is: does Mr. Haidon believe that the Koran contains contradictions? If so, our rationale should be pretty clear, if not, how can you explain something to a person who refuses to accept reality?

Mr. Haidon is proposing a new understanding of the Koran. I find that approach disingenuous and ludicrous. Attempts to reinterpret verses like 2.191 or 9.5 are simply pathetic. It is nothing more than whitewashing of genocide.

"The Qur'an, on a number of occasions, affirms its primacy and completeness (Qur'an, 6:114-116, 16:89 39:23, et al.)."

Should I remind Mr. Haidon that the Koran also affirms Islamic supremacy on a number of occasions? If he thinks that "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them" (2.191) means something other than what it says, why "there is none who can change His words" (6.115) cannot mean something else? Or what if someone already disregarded 6.115 and added 2.191?

Mr. Haidon keeps referring to "modern, contextual understanding" of the Koran. How can one possibly interpret "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" (9.5) other than "you must kill the infidels whenever you can"? Or does Mr. Haidon's "modern, contextual understanding" refer to simply ignoring the violent verses? If so, I believe removing the verses rather than ignoring them is a more practical approach.

"Mr. Massoud apparently assumes that the Qur'an is only capable of being interpreted as ulaema have traditionally interpreted it."

Apparently. Every single non-Muslim layman that we discussed the Koran with interpreted the Koran exactly the same way, which leads us to believe that the problem is not with interpretation, but with the source.

Mr. Haidon states that our "thesis is intellectually bankrupt and lacks any methodology or substance, and has no prospects of being accepted on any scale among Muslims." Neither I, nor any other member of Muslims Against Sharia (which is a movement, even if Mr. Haidon does not consider it such) claim that our proposal to reform Islam is perfect. As a matter of fact, we believe that there are no good solutions to reform Islam; there are bad and worse. We believe that our solution is most practical, and therefore, the best. Or the least bad, if you want to call it that. There are three points of view: Islam is perfect, Islam needs to be eradicated, and Islam needs to be reformed. If you believe that Islam needs to be reformed and could offer a more effective solution than ours, we'll support you all the way.

Mr. Warner's argument is based on his belief that "The Koran, the Sira and the Hadith ... form an integrated and complete ideology." We believe that anything except for the Koran is pure hearsay. Some of the ahadith are so vile that if there is an argument for book burning they should be prime examples together with Mein Kampf. As many Westerners, Mr. Warner fails to separate Islam, the religion, from Islamism, the political ideology. In regards to the concept of dualism, it stems from the concept of Islamic supremacy. We believe that our proposal, however ludicrous Mr. Haidon might find it, is the only one on the table that completely eliminates the doctrine of Islamic supremacy, and with it, concepts of dualism, infidel, and every other concept that Westerners and moderate Muslims find objectionable.

Mr. Warner states, "I propose a rational reform based upon how to treat the "other"--the Golden Rule: treat others as you wish to be treated." This idea is practically identical to the paragraph in our manifesto (www.reformislam.org) titled "Equality."

I see no reason to address Mr. Yuksel's diatribe. Any Muslim who considers liberations of 50+ million Afghanis and Iraqis "cruel military invasions and occupations" by "Neocon-led coalition of warmongers" or believes that the Prophet or the Koran is above criticism is a radical. And I have zero interest in arguing with Islamic extremists. I wanted to address Mr. Yuksel's hypocrisy of participating in a "ridiculous" forum, but Mr. Glazov already did that.

Next, I will address Mr. Kasem's analysis. He writes: "Khalim Massoud writes that Allah is infallible. Then he writes that the Koran contains contradictory verses. How is it possible for an infallible God (Allah) to contradict Himself?"

It is impossible. That's why we believe that the contradictory parts of the Koran did not come from God.

"Who says Allah is always compassionate and merciful? He is certainly not, as can be demonstrated from many other verses in the Koran. Allah has peculiar temperament, to say the least."

Again, we believe the verses Mr. Kasem is referring to did not come from Allah.

"Who inserted those unkind, hateful, belligerent and barbaric verses? Without identifying these people, Massoud calls them nefarious. Why does he not identify these people?"

Anyone who was involved in a chain of custody of the Koran could have changed it. People who write new copies, people who kept the Koran in oral form, and maybe the Prophet himself. I wish I could give a more specific answer, but I cannot.

"How could Allah allow such calumny as tampering with the Koran?"

People have Free Will.

"Massoud says: If we assume that God is fallible, then he ceases to be a Supreme Being. I simply do not get it. The Koran says clearly that Allah is the Supreme Being. Massoud further contradicts himself."

Let me clarify it. God is infallible. If he were fallible, he wouldn't be God.

"It appears that Massoud has accepted the truth that the Koran contains the words of humans, such as Muhammad, and possibly others. This completely breaks down Massoud's logic that the infallible Koran is the authorship of Allah."

I never claimed that the Koran is infallible and that Allah is the sole author of the modern Koran.

"From a practical perspective, I think it is relatively clear that Muslims will never accept, on any level, removal of parts of the Qur'an."

Our poll contradicts that "practical perspective." Almost a quarter of Muslim responders either agrees with our plan or thinks that our reforms do not go far enough.

"There is virtually no internal debate or discourse on the whether the Qur'an is complete or "perfect"."

Isn't that the more reason to start one?

"I agree that the vast majority of Muslims hold the Koran as the incorruptible, unchangeable words of Allah valid for eternity."

And what of those Muslims who disagree with that? Should we just kill them off?

"Will Massoud edit these sources, especially those blood-thirsty, barbarous, inane ahadith?"

I believe I addressed this earlier.

"One important point: if Massoud agrees that parts of the Koran are human created, why does he not abandon the Koran itself?"

Because if we remove the human-created parts, we'll give the Koran back its divine nature.

"Verse 10:15 clearly says even Muhammad could not change a single word in the Koran."

We are not trying to change the Koran, we are trying to un-change it.

There is no reason to bring up fates of some Muslim reformers. We are quite aware of the dangers.

I agree that "history of Islam demonstrates that many such [reformist] attempts in the past had been dismal failures", but it does not mean that "there is very little prospect that such current attempts or future attempts will succeed." Past attempts to reform Islam were made inside Islamic world when reformers were greatly outnumbered. Now we have many non-Muslims on our side.

Mr. Haidon says (and Mr. Spencer agrees) that "from a practical perspective, I think it is relatively clear that Muslims will never accept, on any level, removal of parts of the Qur'an." I would have to disagree. Our experience shows that an average open-minded Muslims is likely to be receptive to the idea that the Koran has been corrupted and that the corrupted parts must be removed. We firmly believe that while the concept of Islamic supremacy is enshrined in the Koran, Islam cannot be reformed. Interpreting violent verses as non-violent is the same as calling terrorist acts 'freedom fighting' or 'God's will'.

Haidon: There are a number of divergent views emerging from this symposium. I think what we need to reinvigorate this discussion with a little bit of good old fashioned reality. As Muslims on this panel, I think we have an obligation to be forthright and honest about the Qur'an and potential solutions for addressing its core problems. Mr. Massoud has been forthright about identifying the problems of the traditional, literalist understanding of the Qur'an, but has provided an illogical and incoherent solution to address it. While I agree on some points with Mr. Yuksel makes about the primacy and inviolability of the Qur'an, and his identification of problems with the Muslim tradition. I strongly disagree with his characterisation of Mr. Glazov, Mr. Spencer and Mr. Warner. Mr. Glazov, Mr. Warner and Mr. Spencer are merely stating the positions of traditional Islam. Given that millions upon millions of Muslims rely on the traditions of Muhammad and associated commentaries, it is only right that our panellists point this out. I also am perplexed about his characterisation of the United States, which is locked in a battle with traditional Islamic extremists.

I stand by my strong criticism of Mr. Massoud, and his ill-conceived approach to reforming Islam. Mr. Massoud has once again missed a golden opportunity to explain the methodology of his approach to unilaterally remove parts of the Qur'an. In response to Mr. Massoud's initial question, I do believe that there are, at face value, contrary verses in the Qur'an. I do believe however that these verses can be rationalised, when read in a contextual manner. Recent translations of the Qur'an published by Mr. Yuksel, Amina Wadud, and the Progressive Muslims provide a new framework of thinking about these verses. Mr. Massoud's assertion that if I recognise that there are contradictions in the Qur'an, I should automatically subscribe to his approach is pure absurdity.

Mr. Massoud is welcome to consider my argument that the Qur'an must be re-interpreted, as equally ludicrous and disingenuous. Fair enough. The reality is, however, there is a body of literature, and scholarly material which supports my arguments. There is an emerging body of literature from Muslim scholars, including Ahmed Subhy Mansour, Abdulahi Na'im, Kasem Ahmed, Amina Wadud, and others who have sought to challenge classical translation and interpretation of the Qur'an. These scholars have not attempted to "whitewash genocide", but to end genocidal understandings of the Qur'an. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Mr. Massoud. Mr. Massoud's has expressly rejected the work of Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, leaving him with no support from Islamic literature or scholars. In other words, Mr. Massoud's approach lacks any theological support. Further, it is over-inclusive and ignores the entire body of Qur'anist literature. This is another reason why I consider Mr. Massoud's approach to lack any intellectual rigour. My question to Mr. Massoud is, why have you ignored this body of literature and what is your response to their arguments for re-interpreting the Qur'an differently?

Despite Mr. Massoud's continued insistence that his approach is both logical and practical, he has failed to demonstrate the case for either. Muslims are unlikely to accept an approach that lacks no methodology, or theological basis. If Mahmoud Mohammed Taha's well crafted and hermeneutical approach can be rejected, I suspect that Mr. Massoud's approach will garner no support among traditional Muslims. I have to admit, I am sceptical about Mr. Massoud's claims of support among Muslims. I would hardly consider Mr. Massoud's "online poll" to be empirical evidence of a paradigm shift among Muslims towards acceptance of his views. For him to attempt to use the results of this poll to demonstrate his point is misguiding, and dangerous. This relates to my earlier point that pseudo-reformers can be dangerous because they tend to build false expectations, and lull non-Muslims into a false sense of security.

I do not consider Mr. Massoud's organisation to constitute a movement. For Mr. Massoud to say so is disingenuous. I would suspect that Mr. Massoud's organisation contains not more than a handful of actual and committed members. This is hardly enough to be considered a movement at the cusp of challenging the traditional Islamic establishment. To conclude, my apparent hostility towards Mr. Massoud's approach does not stem from my contempt of the notion of removing parts of the Qur'an, it stems from Mr. Massoud's ineptness in being able to articulate an adequate rationale.

Warner: I would like to thank Mr. Yuksel for restating my thesis. The "beauty of the Koran is in the eye of the beholder". There are three kinds of eyes that look at the Koran—the kafir, the dhimmi and the believer. Restated, all scholarship in Islam is either from the viewpoint of the kafir (kafir-centric), the dhimmi (dhimmi-centric) or believer (believer-centric).

For the believer, Allah is wise, forgiving, knowing, and so forth. But for the kafir, Allah is a hater, a torturer, a plotter, a sadist, and an enemy. Allah makes us kafirs. Then he goes ahead to tell the Muslims what filthy scum we are. The word "kafir" is the worst word in the human language. No other pejorative is so cruel, demeaning, bigoted, insulting, and hateful as kafir. Why? It is not just the Muslim who believes this, but Allah, himself.

From the kafir-centric point of view, the Koran is not remotely a holy book. For the scholar, who sees the Koran as simply another old text, the Koran is a derivative work, taken from the Torah, heretical Christianity, Zoroastrianism and the aboriginal Arabic religions. The only new ideas in the Koran are jihad and that Mohammed is the "messenger" of Allah.

Mr. Yuksel calls me, "brother Warner". But, according to some 14 verses in the Koran a Muslim is not the friend of a kafir. Therefore, I cannot be your brother. And since you agree with my thesis that Islam does not use the Golden Rule, but instead uses "retaliation" (pure submission and duality), you cannot be my friend.

This is the saddest part of Islam. Islam rejects the bond of love between humans and substitutes submission, retaliation and other forms of dominance by the "best of people". The Koran, Sira and Hadith say that you are better than me in every way, and that I am an enemy of all Muslims. It also says that Islam must destroy my civilization over time. The Trilogy says that that if you want to be my brother and friend then you are an apostate.

I also appreciate Mr. Yuksel giving us a perfect example of Islamic logic with his insults. This is pure Islam since the Koran is filled with insults. Mohammed insulted the kafirs as well. But Mr. Yuksel goes further and gives us an example of dualism. He says that he teaches logic and philosophy, so he knows insults are an example of the "ad hominem" fallacy, attacking the person, instead of the idea. Mr. Yuksel is a Western logician who uses Islamic insults as ad hominem attacks. This is contradictory. He holds two opposite "truths" in his mind at the same time. He does not see the compartmentalization and dualism of his own mind.

The divided Koran, the Koran of Mecca and the Koran of Medina, is the foundation of dualism. The two Korans are in contradiction, but Islam considers them both to be true. Dualism creates a mental barrier that compartmentalizes the mind and allows the Muslim to never be bothered by the contradictions, such as those stated here.

Dualism affects all Muslims. It creates a lack of empathy with the suffering of the kafir and an inability to see how the Koran is filled with hate for them. Kafirs are not really humans in the eyes of Islam. This is supported by the dualistic ethics of Islam. In Islam all Muslims are brothers and sisters, but the kafir may be treated well or murdered, robbed, raped…. When these things happen to us, Muslims never really take responsibility. The closest Islam gets to acknowledges our suffering, is to say, "Well, that … is not really Islam." This is a total lack of empathy.

The gentlemen address the contradictions in the Koran and the nature of god. But they overlook the obvious. Allah is dualistic—he contradicts himself, but he is a perfect god. Therefore, the Koran is filled with contradictions and both sides of the contradiction are true.

Here we see the foundation of the Islamic doctrine of dualistic logic. Kafir logic is based upon eliminating contradictions. A contradiction in an argument shows that the argument is false. Islamic logic is based upon accepting contradictions as truth. It is a dualistic logic.

The genius of Islam is that it defines a dualistic morality and a dualistic logic that creates a civilization that is completely outside of kafir civilization. To try to apply kafir logic to eliminate contradictions about the Koran and Mohammed is to miss the point. Islam is inherently contradictory, that is its nature. There is no compromise or resolution between the two civilizations. We live in parallel universes.

Let's take the concept of integrity. In kafir ethics integrity is a high measure of character. It means that our words and actions are consistent at all times. Integrity is a measure of unity and lack of contradictions. You can trust a man with integrity.

But, Islamic ethics allow the Muslim to lie or tell the truth to the kafir. [Mohammed consistently told his jihadists they could lie and deceive the kafirs to advance Islam.] Islam's ethical values do not even allow a definition of integrity, since it permits deceit. The most common Islamic deceit is to only speak of the Koran of Mecca and equivocate about the Koran of Medina. Speaking half-truths is a lack of integrity, but it is not a fault in Islam. Mohammed had no integrity with respect to the kafirs, only with Muslims.

Kafirs see a contradiction in Mohammed being such a violent man and yet being called a prophet of a loving god. Muslims see this as a bountiful generosity of ethical choices Allah sets forth. They can be violent and peaceful. Muslims can have their cake and eat it too. They can choose peace and war and both are sacred choices. Islam offers a bounty of moral choices in its dualistic ethics.