Are the "Shia suras" al-Nurain and al-Wilaya genuine?

(Despite his personal attacks it contains) M.S.M. Saifullah from Cambridge University has posted to the newsgroup soc.religion.islam a valuable piece of investiagation into the authenticity of the suras al-Nurain and al-Wilaya which sometimes are claimed to be suras that can be found in some Shia editions of the Qur'an. (My response to Mr. Saifullah is appended.)

[Some weeks after I have put this web page in place I was made aware of a scholarly review on the Western Orientalist views on the issue of the Shia Qur'an which also has a chapter on these two suras. This is a very valuable resource. ... Years later: Tisdall's article in The Moslem World of July 1913 is now also available online: Shi'ah Additions To The Koran.]

Now to Mr. Saifullah's article.

From Metallica <msms2@cus.cam.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Surah Nurayn and Surah Walaya of Shiite Qur'an?
Date: Sat Sep 27 13:57:26 EDT 1997
Organization: University of Cambridge, England
Message-Id: <60jhe6$9pv@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> 

Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamtullahi wa barakatuhu:

It has been claimed by Jochen Katz in his website that some Shi'ite's
have two more chapters in their Qur'an called Surah an-Nurayn and Surah
al-Walaya. They can be viewed at:

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

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

Regarding the Surah al-Walaya, Jochen says:

"Source: The Sura was taken from the book "ALThWRh AL'YARANYh FY MYzAN 
AL'sLAM" (The Iranian revolution in the balance of Islam), published in
Egypt. This is a Sunni book attacking the Shia. The author claims he has
taken it from the Shia Qur'an. Only problem is that the Sunni author
didn't realize that he was digging his own grave with publishing this
sura."

My methodology for this problem is very simple. Go back to the Shi'a
sources and check what they say and then check out what the orientalists
say about the two surahs which are quoted above.

THE SHI'ITE SOURCES:

The figure Ja'far al-Sadiq (d. 148/765), a great grandson of al-Husayn
(RA), is described in the Shi'ite tradition as a charismatic character and
quietest of the Imaams. The Shi'ites regard him as the founder of Shi'ite
Law, which is based , to a great extent , upon decisions supposed to have
been transmitted from him.
 
In the section "The Belief Concerning The Extent (Mablagh) Of The Qur'an"
Ja'far al-Sadiq says:

"Says the Shaykh Abu Ja'far: Our belief is that the Qur'an, which Allah
revealed to his Prophet Muhammad is (the same as) the one between the two
boards (daffatayn). And it is that which is in the hands of the people,
and is not greater extent than that. The number of suras as generally
accepted is one hundred and fourteen." [[1], pp. 77]

and again:

"And he who asserts that we say it is greater in extent than this (the
present text) is a liar" [[1], pp. 77]

This would have been a proof good enough to stop here and dismiss what
Jochen is claiming about the "Qur'an" which Shi'ites have. But let us go
further and expose the deceptive methodology.

In another Shi'ite book talking about the two Surahs mentions above, it
says:

"A small minority of Shi'is have attempted to get much larger passages
(and even the whole suras) accepted as being missing portions of the
Qur'an but without success." [[2], pp. 173]

And quoting the history of the Shi'ite belief regarding the Qur'an the
author says:

"With regards to the question of the text of the Qur'an, it has already
been noted that the early Shi'is believed that the Qur'an has been altered
and parts of it has been suppressed. The Nawbakhtis are said to have
adhered to this view although it went against their usual position of
agreeing with Mu'tazili thought. The compiler of the earliest,
authoritative collection of Twelver Traditions, al-Kulyani, seems to have
given some substance to this view in several of the Traditions that he
relates. Ibn Babuya, however, takes the position that the text of the
Qur'an is complete and unaltered. Al-Mufid appears to have wavered
somewhat on this point during his lifetime. He seems to have accepted the
fact that parts of the Qur'an had been excised by the enemies of the Imams
in some of his early writings, although he refused even then to state that
anything had been added. In his later writings, however, al-Mufid had
reinterpreted the concept of omissions from the text of the Qur'an to mean
that the text of the Qur'an is complete (although he does allow that the
order needs to be changed) but that what has been omitted is the
authoritative interpretation of the text by 'Ali. In this manner, al-Mufid
and most subsequent Shi'i writers were able to fall into line with the
rest of the Islamic world in accepting the text of the Qur'an as contained
in the recension of 'Uthman." [[2], pp. 81]

Now we have said enough about the Shi'ite sources. Let me now discuss the
view of the orientalists.

SURAH AL-WALAYA AND AN-NURAYN: ORIENTALISTS' VIEW:

The Surah an-Nurain was published in Dabistan-i Madhahib. In 1842 and
1843 it was review in the references [3] and [4].

The passages of Sura al-Walayah and Sura an-Nurain were discovered in a
manuscript of Qur'an in Bankipore, India, in June 1912. The translation of
the Sura was published by St. Clare Tisdall in the journal "The Moslem
World" in 1913. The manuscript is said to be some 200-300 years old, at
least. 

On Sura al-Walayah and Sura an-Nurain, St. Clare Tisdall writes:

"The reader (of the original Arabic especially) is irresistibly led to the
conclusion that the whole of these additions, - with the possible
exception of sura al-Nurain, - are forgeries. The style is imitated from
the Koran, but not always very successfully. There are some grammatical
errors, unless these are due to the transcriber. Occasionally the meaning
which the context shews to be that in which a word is used is later than
the time to which the Koran belongs. The verses are largely, however,
centos of Koranic passages taken from their context. The amount of
repetition shews the writer's determination to prove what he wished to
prove at all costs." [[5], pp. 229]

And talking about the nature of these two surahs, St. Clare Tisdall says:

"We notice also that some, - or, perhaps, only one person, - among the
Shi'ites decided to forge the passages which we are considering. Doubtless
he thought the end justified the means. He certainly must have determined
to insert these forgeries in the Koran and to get his own sect to adopt
them. But, although it was so greatly to their apparent interest to accept
these additional passages, yet the Shi'ites did not do so. The forger
found it impossible to introduce a single such altered verse into the
Koran. This, we may again say in passing , is highly to the credit of the
Shi'ah community in general. Although they think that they are staking
their eternal happiness on the truth of their contention that 'Ali and his
family are the true and Divinely commissioned inheritors of Mohammad's
spiritual rights, so far as these could be handed down to others, yet they
have never permitted a single one of these forgeries to become
incorporated into their copies of the Koran." [[5], pp. 229-230]

And he went on to say:

"So, far as we know, the manuscript which we are now concerned with is the
only one in existence which, together with the genuine Surahs of the
Koran, also contains these Alterations and Additions. To get them
generally accepted, even by Shi'ites, proved impossible. The attempt to
Sunnites to adopt them was probably never made, for its hopelessness must
have been evident even to the forger himself." [[5], pp. 230]

Further criticisms were added by Joseph Eliash concerning the text from
Bankipore and Dabistan-i- Madhahib. He says:

"Concerning the Bankipore text, its only connetion with the Imami Shi'a is
the claim that the manuscript was brought from the Nawwab in Lucknow which
was a centre of Imami learning in India. This alone does not constitute it
into an authoritative Qur'an for the Imami Shi'a." [[6], pp. 19]

"As to the Dabistan-i- Madhahib, it is significant to note that the author
does not identify himself with the Shi'a. He discusses twelve different
religions practised in his time in India and devotes just a few pages to
the Shi'a which he entitles "Statements about the second sect of Muslims
who are known as Shi'a" and prefaces his remarks by phrases such as "the
author of this book relates what he learned from Mulla Muhammad Ma'sum,
Muhammad Mu'min and Mulla Ibrahim, who in the year of 1053 (AD 1643) were
in Lahoreand from others" and the like. He precedes the 'Surah al-Nurayn"
by the following statement: "Some of them (the Shi'a) say the 'Uthman
burnt the copies of the Qur'an and excluded (rejected) some of the surahs
which were on the dignity of 'Ali and his excellence, on of the surahs is
this." The Dabistan-i-Madahib was critically edited and translated into
english in the year 1843, the editors are not certain of the identity of
the author. The give the date of the death of the supposed author, Muhsin
Fani, as probably 1081/1670, and state that he was "of the philosophic
sect of Sufis", "a native of Kachmir, a learned man and respectable poet,
a scholar of Mulla Yakub, Sufi of Kachmir", but make no mention whatsoever
that he was Shi'a authority. Hence Dabistan cannot be referred to as an
Imami Shi'a source and nor can its author be called Imami-Shi'i."[[6], pp.
19-20]

In the words of Professor Grunebaum:

"The only two Shi'ite surahs which have come to light are obvious 
forgeries; the other omissions that would have been dictated mostly by 
dogmatic considerations foreign to the 'Uthmanic period can not be 
substantiated, and the Shi'ites themselves have never been able to agree 
on the alleged distortion of the sacred text of their adversaries."
[[7] pp. 80] and [[8], pp. 282]


In the article "The Speaking Qur'an and The Silent Qur'an: A Study of The
Principles and Development of Imami Shi'i Tafsir" by Mahmoud Ayoub, we
read:

"Hence Muslims. and especially Shi'i Muslims, have insisted that God
revealed to Muhammad both the Qur'an and its exegesis. The sacred text of
the Qur'an, or what is contained 'between the two covers', is what
Muhammad taught the generality of faithful." [[9]. pp. 178]

Now what we know for sure is that Surah al-Walaya and Surah an-Nurayn are
forgeries by a small Shi'ite Group in India. This has been endorsed by the
Shi'ites [2] as well as the orientalists [6]. 

Now we turn towards Jochen. 

Most of old timers on SRI know the history of Jochen's deceptive ways. He
has deceived muslims and non-muslims who frequent this newsgroup on many
occasions. And in the situation now he is trying to deceive us by using
the surahs which were proven as forgeries in the beginning of this
century. His past excursions in Hafs and Warsh 'texts', changing of the
Qur'an by al-Hajjaj (I am not yet finished with it!!) , Dhul-Qarnain and
Pseudo Callisthenes etc. were shown be the misquotes. And it did not take
me much of the time to fizzle the thunder out of Newton and Jochen,
alhamdulillah. The Qur'an says: "Truth stands clearly from falsehood" and
we muslims should stand by it.

Jochen's aim is to convert Muslims to Christianity. But look at the ways
he is adopting. Indulging in forged documents, misquoting books!! And by
these he is putting up the case against muslims. Alhamdulillah, as a
muslim I am proud to say that I do not have to resort to deception and
lies to spread Islam. I have met Jochen in London (UK) a week ago and we
had a nice chat. He seems to be a nice and thoughtful person. But I do not
go by the impressions. They can be quite deceptive too.

REFERENCES:

[1] I'tiqadatu'l Imamiyyah (The Beliefs of Imamiyyah): Abu Ja'far
Muhammad ibn 'Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn Babwayh al Qummi. English translation:
A Shi'ite Creed: 1982 (Revised) Asaf A A Fyzee, World Organization of
Islamic Services, Tehran, Iran.

[2] An Introduction to Shi'i Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver
Shi'ism: 1985, Moojan Momen, George Ronald, Oxford ISBN 085398-201-5

[3] Chapitre inconnu du Coran, Garcin de Tassy, 1842, Journal Asiatique,
Volume XIII, pp. 431-39.

[4] Observations sur Chapitre inconnu du Coran, Mirza Kazembeg, 1843,
Journal Asiatique, Volume XIV, pp. 371-429.

[5] Shi'ah Additions To The Koran: 1913, W. St. Clair Tisdall, The Moslem
World, Volume III.

[6] The Shi'ite Qur'an: A Reconsideration of Goldziher's Interpretation:
Joseph Eliash, 1969, Arabica Revue D'etudes Arabes, Volume XVI, E J Brill,
Leiden.

[7] Islam: Essays in the Nature and Growth of a Cultural Tradition, G E
von Grunebaum, 1961, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., London.

[8] Note For The Study Of A Shi'i Qur'an: B Todd Lawson, 1991, Journal of
Semitic Studies, pp. 279-295.

[9] Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur'an: Andrew
Rippin (Ed.), 1988, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

and Allah knows best.


Had Mr. Saifullah only reported the above research without his attacks on my personal integrity, I could have displayed the above without further comment. As it is, this needed some response which was posted to the newsgroup as well.



From: Jochen Katz <jkatz@math.gatech.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 15:35:14 -0400 (EDT)
To: soc-religion-islam@telerama.lm.com, sri@ariel.vip.best.com
Subject: Re: Surah Nurayn and Surah Walaya of Shiite Qur'an?

In article <60jhe6$9pv@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, 
Metallica <msms2@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes:

} It has been claimed by Jochen Katz in his website that some Shi'ite's
} have two more chapters in their Qur'an called Surah an-Nurayn and Surah
} al-Walaya. They can be viewed at:
} 
} http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Miracle/nurain.html
} 
} http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Miracle/wilaya.html

It is always helpful to pay careful attention what is actually
said and what not. Nowhere do I say that some Shi'ites have two 
more chapters in their Qur'an. I challenge you, Saifullah to 
bring evidence or to apologize for lying about me.

I would like to be nicer to you, but since you have no problem of 
accusing me in public before thousands of readers, I am going to 
use some clear words here. You don't leave me much of a choice 
when finishing your article with:

} Most of old timers on SRI know the history of Jochen's deceptive ways. He
} has deceived muslims and non-muslims who frequent this newsgroup on many
} occasions.

Like when? Just now you try to accuse me of things that are not true.
You are allowed to call me names, but I would be censored for calling
you a liar. So, I won't. Actually, I don't think that you are deliberately 
deceiving people about me, but you have brought yourself somehow into 
a mode of being suspicious of everything that you now see things that 
are not even there.

So, I ask that you either show me where on my pages I make the
claim you have stated above, or apologize. And I ask you that you 
prove where I have been deliberately deceptive before. I thought our 
personal meeting could inspire a bit more of respect and would help
not to assume bad motives in the other person, but you seem to be 
set in your ways. That is rather sad.

} And in the situation now he is trying to deceive us by using
} the surahs which were proven as forgeries in the beginning of this
} century. 

What is your definition of deception? I have never seen the references
that you quoted. "trying to deceive" means for me that I know something
to be wrong but nevertheless try to convince you of it as true, i.e. want 
to make you believe something that is false. This is not and has never 
been my goal. Nearly everything I have learned about Islam and these
issues I have learned during discussion with Muslims in real life and
on the net and a very few books. Nearly none of them "scientific". 
Don't forget that I am studying at Georgia Tech, which is an Engineering
school and we have hardly any books or magazines on religion in our 
library. None of the ones you quote are accessible to me. I thank you 
for the work you did and bringing this to my attention, but I have never 
heard of this before and to accuse me of trying to deceive you is purely 
malicious on your part.

} The Qur'an says: "Truth stands clearly from falsehood" and
} we muslims should stand by it.

At least one thing we can agree on. If not much else. Yet, different
things seem to be clear to different people. But I hope the area of
agreement will increase.

} Jochen's aim is to convert Muslims to Christianity. But look at the ways
} he is adopting. Indulging in forged documents, misquoting books!! 

I do? When? Where? And you are misquoting me. You in this very 
posting claim things about me which are not true in order to slur 
my character. Why do you do that?

} And by
} these he is putting up the case against muslims. Alhamdulillah, as a
} muslim I am proud to say that I do not have to resort to deception and
} lies to spread Islam. 

Should I laugh? What is it that you are doing just now with this posting?

} I have met Jochen in London (UK) a week ago and we
} had a nice chat. He seems to be a nice and thoughtful person. But I do not
} go by the impressions. They can be quite deceptive too.

Sometimes it might be good to trust some personal impressions. 
But you don't even trust yourself anymore. So what can I do?

Okay, let us take your claims step by step. Let me requote:

} It has been claimed by Jochen Katz in his website that some Shi'ite's
} have two more chapters in their Qur'an called Surah an-Nurayn and Surah
} al-Walaya. 

I have already made clear that this is not true. But in order to 
prevent another misunderstanding that could be lurking behind your
words as well: 

Even if that was claimed by some page on my site, that doesn't
mean it is *I* who claim it. I have a lot of pages on my site that
are not written by me and I do not necessarily agree with every detail
of every page. For example, I have several debates documented on my 
site. Obviously I will not agree with much of the Muslim speaker in 
the debate, but for honesty's sake, both sides are displayed so that
everybody can form his own opinion by having access to the arguments
from both sides. In the same way, I do not necessarily agree with all
that the Christian speaker in such a debate says. After all, it was him
and not me who said it. But it is displayed as a service to the reader
so that they can be informed about the arguments that are out there
and form their own opinion.

I have a lot of pages which are not written by me and I am not
responsible for anything that I have not written myself. I would 
be grateful if you could bear that in mind. I am not making you 
responsible either for anything other Muslims are saying.

Furthermore, I am no longer the owner of this site. Another team
has taken over and is restructuring it [you might have seen a lot
of the graphical changes over the recent weeks - nothing of it is
done by me] and also adding new material. I found some new things
there when I came back from Germany written by a person I had never
heard of before. This article about Augustin and Ghazali was a 
pleasant surprise, but it was a surprise to me when I found it
on "my" site.
 
} Regarding the Surah al-Walaya, Jochen says:
} 
} "Source: The Sura was taken from the book "ALThWRh AL'YARANYh FY MYzAN 
} AL'sLAM" (The Iranian revolution in the balance of Islam), published in
} Egypt. This is a Sunni book attacking the Shia. The author claims he has
} taken it from the Shia Qur'an. Only problem is that the Sunni author
} didn't realize that he was digging his own grave with publishing this
} sura."

This paragraph is indeed from me [well, taking the info that my Egyptian
friend gave me]. But note: It is THIS MUSLIM author, who claims that this
sura is in some Shia Qur'ans. I make it very clear that this is a claim
and not a fact [since I have not been able to verify it myself]. 

What exactly is wrong about it?  All I said is exactly true. This Sunni
author does claim it. Do you contest this?

Let me be even clearer. I have several sections about the Qur'an on my
site. Two of them are:

1. The Text of the Qur'an     -  http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/
2. The Miracle of the Qur'an  -  http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Miracle/

The first is on what we know about the textual history of the Qur'an,
its authenticity, its development, its preservation or corruption etc.

The second is on the challenge of the Qur'an "to bring a sura like it". 
Both the above mentioned suras, Nurain and Wilaya, are in the latter 
section.
I don't care if they were at some time in the Qur'an or not. I only care
that those are suras which have been presented "by some people" and they
do have some similarity with the Qur'an [as I am told]. That is why I 
put them there so that anyone who is interested can judge for himself
if they do indeed meet the challenge of the Qur'an.

The whole point in this section on the Miracle is, that these texts are
NOT in the Qur'an, otherwise they wouldn't really be fit as a challenge.
[Surat al-Jinn is a special case, the argument there is different]. 
Only texts from outside the Qur'an can challenge the Qur'an. 

So, even before we really start to look at your arguments about these
two suras, we have already to recognize that your whole premise is
wrong.

* I never said what you claimed I said.
* You didn't understand why these suras were listed on the Miracles page.

Conclusion: Your case is finished before you even began. 

By the way, now that you directed my attention to the miracles of the
Qur'an page again, I realize that I wanted to install a link to this
new site with modern suras at AOL. I nearly had forgotten about adding
this.

} My methodology for this problem is very simple. Go back to the Shi'a
} sources 

Which are "the" Shia sources? Obvsiously, you will bring some which
agree with you and maybe(?) ignore others. This is my only quibble.
Otherwise, going to the sources is very commendable and exactly what
we have to do.

} and check what they say and then check out what the orientalists
} say about the two surahs which are quoted above.

That is good and I am grateful for those quotations you provided us
with. Without even having been asked, I will display your posting 
[and my answer] on my web site in the "Text of the Qur'an" section
[which is where they belong], so that people can form their own opinion 
about all this. Even though you somehow missed the topic of discussion,
since the issue is the eloquence of these texts and not the question
whether they have been part of the Qur'an, the citations you bring
are still very interesting and helpful for textual integrity discussion.
So, I am genuinely grateful for the work you have done. If only you
hadn't tainted it with your personal attacks on my integrity and
hadn't put words into my mouth, it would have been positive through 
and through.

} THE SHI'ITE SOURCES:

...

} "And he who asserts that we say it is greater in extent than this (the
} present text) is a liar" [[1], pp. 77]
} 
} This would have been a proof good enough to stop here and dismiss what
} Jochen is claiming about the "Qur'an" which Shi'ites have. But let us go
} further and expose the deceptive methodology.

Again your are running an ad hominem. WHERE have I claimed that Shias 
have another Qur'an? WHERE, could you please tell me that? If not then 
be so honest and apologize for this constant slander and the smear 
campaign you are building up here.

} In another Shi'ite book talking about the two Surahs mentions above, it
} says:
} 
} "A small minority of Shi'is have attempted to get much larger passages
} (and even the whole suras) accepted as being missing portions of the
} Qur'an but without success." [[2], pp. 173]

Ah, seemingly there ARE Shia who do rally for these to be authentic?
This is actually evidence that I didn't have before. It is NOT some
Western missionary who tried to fake this, but those are actual Shia
Muslims who are of this conviction? YOU are the one who has now brought
something much stronger than I ever claimed. YOU now have brought evidence
that some Shia indeed think this is authentic, while I so far only knew
for sure that some Sunni were claiming it about the Shia [which is an
enemy statement and to be taken with caution obviously].

...

} Now we have said enough about the Shi'ite sources. Let me now discuss the
} view of the orientalists.

Okay, I can't say anything else at this time, since (as already noted) 
I don't have access to these and other books on these topics. So, for
now, I will tentatively accept your quotations. I hope you don't mind.

} SURAH AL-WALAYA AND AN-NURAYN: ORIENTALISTS' VIEW:
} 
} The Surah an-Nurain was published in Dabistan-i Madhahib. In 1842 and
} 1843 it was review in the references [3] and [4].
} 
} The passages of Sura al-Walayah and Sura an-Nurain were discovered in a
} manuscript of Qur'an in Bankipore, India, in June 1912. 

This doesn't make sense. If there are already discussions/review 
publications about them in the early 1840ies, how can they be 
"discovered" in 1912? Were they discussed 70 years earlier and 
then quickly and completely forgotten? I hope you realize that you 
are a bit incoherent in your argument here.

} The translation of
} the Sura was published by St. Clare Tisdall in the journal "The Moslem
} World" in 1913. The manuscript is said to be some 200-300 years old, at
} least. 

So, we are at manuscript evidence for these suras at around AD 1660.
Given your earlier rallying for oral transmission, this doesn't mean
they were created 1660, they could just as well go back a long long
time ... Just as you say that if our oldest Qur'an manuscript is from
AD 790 that doesn't mean the Qur'an didn't exist in Muhammad's time,
correct?  [this just had to be said for teasing sake.]

I have read all your quotations with great interest and will certainly
make this available for people to see. It is very valuable to know.

} Now what we know for sure is that Surah al-Walaya and Surah an-Nurayn are
} forgeries by a small Shi'ite Group in India. This has been endorsed by the
} Shi'ites [2] as well as the orientalists [6]. 

Be careful with your words. Now we know for sure that some Shia and some
orientalists have given this judgement about these two suras. Do you 
want to base your whole conviction on them alone? How sure can you be
about anything in life? :-)  Hm, I am starting to talk like Mr. Lomax.

Now that I have expressed my gratitude and appreciation for your
research, let me finish by requoting the end of your posting, so that
we can end this session with the clear impression of your motivation
which seemingly is to discuss me and my motivations and to attack my 
person.

} Now we turn towards Jochen. 
} 
} Most of old timers on SRI know the history of Jochen's deceptive ways. He
} has deceived muslims and non-muslims who frequent this newsgroup on many
} occasions. And in the situation now he is trying to deceive us by using
} the surahs which were proven as forgeries in the beginning of this
} century. His past excursions in Hafs and Warsh 'texts', changing of the
} Qur'an by al-Hajjaj (I am not yet finished with it!!) , Dhul-Qarnain and
} Pseudo Callisthenes etc. were shown be the misquotes. And it did not take
} me much of the time to fizzle the thunder out of Newton and Jochen,
} alhamdulillah. The Qur'an says: "Truth stands clearly from falsehood" and
} we muslims should stand by it.
} 
} Jochen's aim is to convert Muslims to Christianity. But look at the ways
} he is adopting. Indulging in forged documents, misquoting books!! And by
} these he is putting up the case against muslims. Alhamdulillah, as a
} muslim I am proud to say that I do not have to resort to deception and
} lies to spread Islam. I have met Jochen in London (UK) a week ago and we
} had a nice chat. He seems to be a nice and thoughtful person. But I do not
} go by the impressions. They can be quite deceptive too.

... references snipped ...

} and Allah knows best.

Which does not deter Saifullah to think himself in the position
to judge my heart.

May God show you mercy on the day of judgment.

I know I need his mercy and grace. I do make grave mistakes even when 
the motivation has been right. Meaning well is not the same as
doing well. I am well aware of this. If I realize to have made mistakes, 
I am most willing to mend them and apologize. But the one thing I hope 
is clear to most [even though not to you] is that I am sincere and have 
no intention to deceive anyone. I seek honesty and uprightness and that 
is the reason that my web site is interactive and both sides is given 
the opportunity to present their arguments.
How many Muslim sites do you know which do this?
How many Muslim countries allow let alone encourage the open 
discussion and inquiry into religion that is possible in the West? 
Thanks God for the internet. There are a lot of lies on the internet
as well, but it also helps the truth go where it might not have been
able to go before. And more people can now see also the other side
which was withheld from them for a long time.

May the truth become manifest.

Jochen Katz


Should Saifullah ever apologize on the newsgroup, this will be posted here as well. If you don't find an apology, then he didn't think it to be necessary.


The Text of Qur'an
Answering Islam Home Page