Javed Ahmad Ghamidi / Dr. Khalid Zaheer vs Ali Sina
Date: Oct 22, 2006
Dear Mr. Ali Sina
I am responding to your message dated October 10. I had the opportunity of talking to Mr Ghamidi directly this time to get his response on your last
message. This is what we have to say on the points you have raised.
Our discussion is for the moment concentrating itself on the contents of the message of Islam in general and the Qur’an in particular. Your view is that the Qur’an is not God’s book and therefore Islam is not His message. Our belief is just the opposite of it. We don’t endorse many of the things which the contemporary Muslims are doing in the name of Islam. In fact, we both are concerned, for very different reasons though, that the present-day Muslim attitude should change. You seem to hold the opinion that the fanatic Muslim attitude can only change if they give up Islam; we believe that Muslims can only behave properly if they understand and follow the true Islam. However, for the purpose of making this discussion truly purposeful, we would suggest that we be very clear that we are trying to understand whether Qur’an is the word of God or not. For the sake of that purpose, we would request that we focus our attention on this single point and not allow any amount of external circumstances to distract us from it.
In your first message to us you raised these two points against our claim that the Qur’an was the word of God: i) The Qur’anic understanding regarding intercession contains contradictions and ii) the policy for usage of pronouns in the Qur’an for God seems to be inconsistent. We responded by presenting our understanding on both. In your second message you disagreed with the points we had mentioned to defend the Qur’anic presentation, to which we responded in our second response. In your third message (dated October 10) you have urged us to move on and leave it to the readers to conclude from what the two of us have mentioned in our respective messages on the two topics. We are now doing exactly that, assuming that you have nothing more to say in response to what we have mentioned in defense of the Qur’anic teachings on intercession and its usage of pronouns for God.
Your third criticism on the Qur’anic presentation is that there doesn’t seem to be any consistency in the manner the Qur’an presents the idea of who should guide whom. At times it seems that it is only men who can guide men; on other occasions we are given to understand that angels can come to guide men, and on still other occasions we get the impression that jinnis can also get guided by men. The most prominent part of your comment appears when you present a passage from the Qur’an that mentions the fact that the Qur’an has informed us that at a certain stage an animal would also come to play a role in guiding men. There is thus, according to you, a complete absence of consistency in the manner the Qur’an presents its methodology of guidance.
Before responding to the point raised by you, we would want to emphasize that when one tries to understand the contents of a book as a sincere
student who is not out there to pick faults in it but is involved in the serious business of understanding the text, it is important that one appreciates how the book itself presents its arguments and the premises on which those arguments are based. If we were not interested in sincerely
understanding your messages and were bent upon picking faults in them, we could have pointed out several contradictions in what you have written to us as yet. However, that would have been a sheer waste of time and an exercise in futility. It is only after you have sincerely understood a text by appreciating the methodology of presentation which the author of the text himself is suggesting that you have a right to criticize the text or else it would come under the category of non-serious criticism. After you understand the scheme of presentation of a text, you have a right to criticize both that scheme as well as the text on the basis of your observation that the text is violating the principles stated by itself.
Now let us briefly mention the scheme presented by the Qur’an regarding the delivery of God’s message. We have been informed in the Qur’an that the message of God Almighty comes to the messengers through angels. It is these messenger men who then deliver the message to their fellow humans for the purpose of ensuring that the addressees receive it in the most effective manner. When the message is communicated to humans through fellow men, they are in no position to present any excuse in their defense for denying them.
The Qur’an is very clear in its claim that it is only men who can deliver the message of God to their fellow men for the latter to receive it in a
manner that its claim to divine origins becomes unmistakable. The reference to the fact that jinn also hear the Qur’an and get guided by it is in the
context that since some jinn could hear Qur’an and understand it, they too accepted its claim of divine origins. Had men been able to hear and see
jinn, they too would have been obliged to acknowledge the truthfulness of genuine messages of God delivered to that category of God’s creation.
As for the mention of the animal, the Qur’an clarifies on several occasions the fact that after people refuse to accept God’s message through the normal process of its presentation, He can use any of His signs to let such people know that their denial was not based on any evidence. For instance, on the day of judgment, it is mentioned that the limbs of human body would play the role of witnessing against the perpetrators of crimes. The reference to an animal in a Qur’anic passage is of similar nature. In our opinion, the following is the correct translation of the relevant passage: “You (O prophet) cannot force the dead to listen to your message nor can you force the deaf to hear the call even when they are turning their backs in disinterest. Likewise you can’t guide the blind in their misguidance. You can only guide those who are willing to believe in our signs and in
submitting themselves to the message. And once the message will be delivered in an undeniable form to them, we might bring out a beast from the land to confirm that these men were not willing to believe in our signs.” (Qur’an; 27:80-82) The passage is mentioning that the appearance of a beast, if at all it happens, would only be meant to reinforce the earlier process of communication from the prophet as a final measure confirmation that the deniers were indeed guilty of rejecting a message that was so obvious that a beast could also confirm its divine origins. In other words, the evidence of the beast will not be meant to convince any of the humans to accept the message. Instead, it will be used as a final measure to expose the indefensible stubbornness of the deniers of the message of God.
We would be glad to know if the above presentation doesn’t make sense to you. We would also like to know the reasons why you think this presentation is suggesting that the Qur’an is inconsistent in the manner it suggests its message should be communicated to men.
October 24, 2006
Dear Mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer,
I am glad to hear from you again. I am also glad that Ramadan is over and you’ll have more time to be with us. We really enjoy and value your company and learn from your insights. This exchange of ideas will benefit everyone. Truth is the sparks when opposing ideas clash. I am certain that if we divest ourselves from prejudices and preconceived ideas, at the end we will find the truth.
Now, let us continue with our discussion. Yes, I have nothing else to add to the subjects of intercession and the wrong use of the pronoun in the Quran. As for the first topic I am satisfied with what I have already said and so rested my case. As for the use of the wrong pronoun in the Qur’an, you say it is to add beauty to the language and that it should be seen as poetry. I don’t know how happy Muhammad would be with this characterization. Apparently he was disdainful of poets to the extent that he wanted to commit suicide when he had that strange vision in the cave Hira and thought he had become a poet. He said there are two groups of people whom he despised most: poets and kahins (soothsayers).
Furthermore, the Qur’an, on repeated occasions, reiterates its claim to be a clear book (5:15), easy to understand (44:58, 54:22, 54:32, 54:40), explained in detail (6:114), conveyed clearly (5:16, 10:15) with no doubt in it (2:2), with clear ordinances (98:3), of divine nature (10:37), and full of wisdom (36:2). Yet you tell us that we must first learn its “scheme of presentation” in order to understand its meaning. If that is the case, then what shall we make of the above claims of the clarity of the Qur’an? If we first need to learn the “scheme” of the book before we begin to understand it, then the claim that the book is clear and easy to understand is false. Please show me one verse where it says before understanding this book you must first learn its scheme of presentation. What is this scheme of presentation? Will you please explain it to us?
Anyway, by equating the Qur’an to poetry, you basically disarm me completely. I can no longer point to its grammatical, linguistic, scientific or even logical errors because it is a book of poetry and poets are licensed to break all sorts of rules. That is the distinction and the privilege of poets. We let them indulge in fantasies and breach all the norms of language, and commonsense if necessary, to stir our soul. If we accept the Qur’an as a book of poetry, we have to acknowledge that it is a very bad poetry.
Then again, the Qur’an adamantly denies being a book of poetry. “It is not the word of a poet; little is it that you believe” (69:41), and, “We have not taught him poetry, nor is it meet for him; it is nothing but a reminder and a plain Qur’an.” (36:69)
The Qur’an claims to be plain. Why would you need to study the “scheme of presentation” to understand a plain and clear book?
The main problem in considering the Qur’an as a book of poetry is that as such it ceases to be a book of guidance. You can say it is an inspirational book but you won’t be able to call it a book of guidance. A book of guidance must be clear and must not leave room for interpretation. This is the claim made in the Quran. If you want to go from A to B, you need a clear roadmap that tells you exactly how to get there. You don’t want a poetic direction so confusing that would leave room for different interpretations, or you would get lost. The very fact that you and I both agree that Muslims are lost is proof that their alleged book of guidance is not guiding them. It is only a bad poetry disguised as guidance. Its spiritual message, if any, is unclear and unintelligible, while its message of hate and violence is loud and clear.
You think that by shifting from one pronoun to another, the Qur’an becomes a literary work of art. Personally, I do not see much beauty in the Qur’an, but I have no doubt that you do. Let us say beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and move on to the next topic. There was a time that I thought the Qur’an is beautiful. One of the suras I used to think was beautiful to recite was Sura Al‑Masadd (111). It rhymed. Then I found out that it is nothing but curse. You must agree that in Arabic it rhymes nicely. If you don’t know what it says, you may actually enjoy it.
|“It is only after you have sincerely understood a text by appreciating the methodology of presentation which the author of the text himself is suggesting that you have a right to criticize the text or else it would come under the category of non-serious criticism. After you understand the scheme of presentation of a text, you have a right to criticize both that scheme as well as the text on the basis of your observation that the text is violating the principles stated by itself.”|
Are you suggesting that we should first take a course on how to read the Qur’an before reading it? Will you please tell us why a book that claims to be so clear and easy to understand is so complicated? The Qur’an says that the unbelievers are “the vilest of animals” (8:55). How should we interpret this verse? In what scheme these insulting words mean something different than what they appear to mean? This to me sounds like hate speech. How would Muslims react if someone says Muslims are the vilest of animals? The Qur’an encourages Muslims to slay the unbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), to not take them as friends and helpers (3:28), to fight them and show them harshness (9:123), and to smite their heads (47:4). Under what light should we read these, and many other, gory and hatemongering verses so we could instead love all mankind, respect others, mingle in amity with people of all faiths, and be kind, loving and accepting of everyone? Don’t you think these verses are responsible for the fact that Muslims are violent and intolerant of others?
Let us say you are right and there is a scheme of presentation that Muslims have failed to see, and that is why they have behaved like savages during these 1400 years. Doesn’t this make Allah a cruel and cynical deity? Why would he confuse people with ambiguous messages? If Allah wanted us to love all mankind, why did he not say so? Why did he say ‘kill the unbelievers wherever you find them’? Why there are no verses saying, ‘people of all faiths are your brothers and sisters; love all mankind as members of your family’? Why did he say: “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are harsh against unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other”? (48:29):
You ask me to be a sincere student and not to “pick faults”. Is that your definition of sincerity? I think that is the definition of gullibility. If I try to see no evil, hear no evil and say no evil, I will end up believing in evil. Will you accept any scientific theory in this way, so lackadaisically, so uncritically? Why should we not be equally, if not more, rigorous in probing religions before accepting them?
If a message is from God, it should not have any faults. If it has a single fault, then it is not from God. What you are suggesting is a recipe for disaster. What if a charlatan claims to be a prophet of God? How do I know this person is not lying if I don’t try to see his faults? There have been many cults that have seduced many people, leading them to perdition. Just think of cults such as Aum Shinrikyo, whose followers mindlessly believed in what their guru told them and released sarin gas in the subways of Tokyo, killing a dozen of innocent commuters and injuring hundreds of them for life. What about the cult of the Peoples Temple, whose members committed mass suicide in the jungles of Guyana after happily poisoning their own children? What about the cult of Heaven’s Gate, the Branch Dravidian, or hundreds of other cults whose followers believed and did not ask some basic questions? They did exactly what you suggest. They tried to be sincere and did not try to find faults in these cults. Can you question their sincerity? They proved their sincerity by sacrificing their lives. Do you question the sincerity of the suicide bombers? Sincerity alone, if not guided by reason and critical thinking can be deadly. Haven’t you heard the expression, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions?”
If someone claims to be a messenger of God, we must not accept his claim unless all our questions are answered, and we are satisfied that there are no holes in his claim. If there is one, then he is not a messenger of God but a liar, an impostor or a madman. God does not err and his religion must be logical. So don’t be shy. Try hard to find faults in the claims of prophet pretenders and believe only if you find none. Do not let them intimidate you by saying it is not up to you to test God. You are not testing God. You are testing their claims. If they are indeed messengers of God, they should be able to answer all your questions. If they threaten you with hell, then leave them because they are charlatans and liars. This is the only way to find the truth, not by uncritically accepting any nonsense. Do not let anyone fool you with empty promises and bogus claims. The message from God should come with the proof from God, and that proof should satisfy our intellect and not insult it.
The reason we have so many faiths, religions, and sects, despite the fact that at most only one of them can be true, is that people believe in them without questioning them. They are eager to prove their sincerity and believe blindly without asking for the proof. They believe, mislead by the feel-good factor and after being swayed by some logical fallacies.
|If we were not interested in sincerely understanding your messages and were bent upon picking faults in them, we could have pointed out several contradictions in what you have written to us as yet. However, that would have been a sheer waste of time and an exercise in futility.|
No, it wouldn’t. The reason we are having this debate is to find the flaws in each other’s arguments. This is not an exercise in futility but the point of this discussion. We want to come to the truth. How else can we do that if we do not highlight each other’s errors? You and I see the same things from different perspectives. From your vantage point you can see things that I don’t, and vice versa. From where I am standing, I may see an object as a disk. Seeing the same object from a different angle, you could say, “No, you are mistaken; it’s a cylinder.” There may be a depth to the object that I can’t see but you can. If you and I point to each other’s errors, this is not a slight. We are humans. Our vision and understanding are limited by our vantage point. We don’t and can’t have the full picture of everything. So it is okay for us to err. And it is okay that we point out to each other’s errors.
The day I was born I was the most ignorant person in the world. Everything I know, I learned from others. Others like you, who corrected me and showed me my errors. There is no shame in being wrong. We are humans and as such fallible. If I had never come out of Iran, I doubt I would have known what I know today. I probably would have believed in exact same things you believe. In fact in many ways I identify myself with you. I had the same humanitarian ideals that you have while I believed in the same faith that you believe in, and I could not see the discrepancy and contradiction between my stated belief and my purported love for mankind. We are to a great extent products of our environments.
As a self‑proclaimed ignorant, I attest that there is no shame in being ignorant. Shame is in obstinacy and in not willing to see the truth after it has become clear. We can err. However, when an alleged message of God is so beset with errors, we must question its source. The Qur’an claims to be the verbatim words of God. God is not fallible. Therefore if we find one error in the Qur’an, it’s enough to disqualify it as the word of God.
There are hundreds of blunders and absurdities in the Qur’an. How can an infallible God err so much? If there were only one or a handful of errors, we could still argue that those verses have crept into the book in later stages. But when the book is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies, we must question the legitimacy of its divine origin.
Therefore, what you define as “sincerity”, in my view is nothing but gullibility. Believers force themselves to believe in absurdities and call that sincerity. They interpret lack of critical thinking, i.e. simple mindedness, as “purity of heart”. A sincere seeker is one who questions and is not satisfied with half‑baked answers. A sincere seeker is a doubter. He does not rest until all his questions are answered. How can you claim sincerity when you give up questioning and believe in absurdities? This is recklessness, not sincerity. “If God did not want us to use our brain”, asked Galileo, “why he would give it to us?”
Logic is the measure of what is right and what is wrong, not the bogus claims of charlatans and impostors who want us to have faith in them and not question them. A true God would not expect us to believe in anything unless clear proof is given. Muhammad himself, on many occasions, claimed that his message is clear. I want to see it. It is not clear to me and to billions of others who do not believe in him. We want proof. Where is the proof? The proof must be logical, irrefutable and conclusive. If I can find a single hole in it, that claim cannot be from God. If I tell you the earth is round, I can prove it. I do not expect you to have faith in my words, and you should not believe me if I resort to violence and force. If I tell you Gabriel visits me every night with a message from God and we play backgammon together, you must ask for proof. If I can’t prove my claim, chances are that I am either an impostor or a loony. It would be foolish for anyone to believe in my claim, especially if I demand sacrifices from others and live an ungodly and pervert life as Muhammad did.
Why should we believe in Muhammad and not in equally‑unproven claims of other prophet-pretenders and impostors? We know about all the bad things that Muhammad brought to the world, such as religious intolerance and misogyny that did not exist in Arabia before him. (Arabs even believed in a prophetess, Sajah, and women like Salma who fought against Khalid ibn Walid and Aisha led armies. Such things are inconceivable today.) “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,” said the wise Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, six hundred years ago. The only answers Muslims had to this question, when it was repeated by Pope Benedict XVI, were riots, burning of churches and killing an elderly nun and her bodyguard. Will you answer this question now? Will you tell us what new Muhammad brought that was not evil?
|We have been informed in the Qur’an that the message of God Almighty comes to the messengers through angels.|
Informed by whom? By the Quran itself? Isn’t this circular reasoning? How do you know this is true? We ask, what is the proof that Muhammad is a true messenger? You answer: “it is written in the Qur’an.” We ask, how can we know that the Qur’an is the word of God? You say because Muhammad said so. This is a logical fallacy, not proof. If there is one error in the Qur’an, then Muhammad is proven to be a liar and if Muhammad is a liar, then the entire story of an angel bringing God’s message to him is a fairytale. Since you are yet to prove that the Quran is error-free, we cannot believe in silly stories such as Gabriel brining the message of God to Muhammad.
Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh, who was Muhammad’s scribe, realized that Muhammad was making the Quran up. He was not an illiterate man like Muhammad and often suggested better sentences to compose the Quranic verses that Muhammad happily would agree to. He escaped and went back to Mecca and told his story to everyone, which prompted Muhammad to decide to kill him even though he promised he would not kill anyone in Mecca if they surrendered. He was saved thanks to the intervention of Othman who was his foster brother.
In response to my question about a beast acting as a messenger of Allah, you wrote:
|As for the mention of the animal, the Qur’an clarifies on several occasions
the fact that after people refuse to accept God’s message through the normal process of its presentation, He can use any of His signs to let such people know that their denial was not based on any evidence. For instance, on the day of judgment, it is mentioned that the limbs of human body would play the role of witnessing against the perpetrators of crimes. The reference to an animal in a Qur’anic passage is of similar nature
First of all, disbelief does not need evidence; it is the one who makes a claim that has to provide the evidence. People don’t need evidence to not believe in Muhammad, or Jim Jones, or David Koresh. Those who believe in them and try to force that belief on others have to show the proof. Second, I am afraid you are engaging in the fallacy of false dilemma. You bring one unproven and unsubstantiated claim such as human limbs acquiring a mouth and testifying against their owners (themselves) to prove that it is possible for animals to talk. This is like saying since 1+1= 3, then 2+2=13. Shouldn’t you first prove the claim that human limbs testify against themselves before you use it as evidence to prove animals can also talk?
This is the problem with Islamic thinking. We accept one fallacy, and since we have become believers, we accept any absurdity afterwards. The following three paragraphs are from my book, Understanding Muhammad.
When Muhammad recounted his tale of ascending to the seventh heaven, Abu Bakr was stunned. He did not know what to make of this. This sounded utterly mad. He had two choices. He had to either admit that Muhammad was a loony and leave him or believe in his fantastical tales. There was no middle ground.
Ibn Ishaq says when Muhammad made his vision known, “many Muslims gave up their faiths. Some went to Abu Bakr and said, ‘What do you think of your friend? He alleges that he went to Jerusalem last night and prayed there, and came back to Mecca!’ He replied that they were lying about the apostle, but they said that he was in the mosque at that very moment, telling people about it. Abu Bakr said, ‘If he says so, then it is true. And what is so surprising in that? He tells me that communications from Allah, from heaven to earth, comes to him in an hour of a day or night, and I believe him, and that is more extraordinary than that at which you boggle!’”
The logic is flawless. Basically what Abu Bakr was saying is that once you give up your rational faculty and believe in an absurdity, you might as well believe in anything. Once you let yourself to be fooled, then you should be prepared to be fooled again and again because there is no end to foolishness. How many people would let a 54‑year‑old man sleep with their 9‑year‑old daughter? Such thing requires extreme foolishness.
This much foolishness, that you erroneously call “sincerity”, is only possible through blind faith. You are engaging in the same logical fallacy that Abu Bakr dabbled. You say, ‘since I have accepted the fairytale that human limbs will testify against their owner , why should I not believe in this balderdash story of an animal messenger?’
Animals preaching the message of God and limbs testifying against their owner in the afterlife are very much like the fantastic adventures of Alice in the Wonderland. Methinks that the author of Islam, like Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice’s Adventures, suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy.
In my book Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allâh’s Prophet, I have brought ample evidence to show that Muhammad was mentally sick. I would be delighted to send two copies to you fine gentlemen. I promise to publish your refutation of it in faithfreedom.org right next to where I advertise my book so people can read your refutation even before ordering my book. Compare this offer to the fact that, in my previous email, I asked you to publish our debate in your site and you did not even acknowledge the request. Compare this offer to the fact that Pakistan has blocked faithfreedom.org.
You talked about sincerity! If I am wrong and you have shown my errors, why not let the world see it? I am giving you the opportunity to expose my errors and prove once and for all that I am mistaken. I am not beating my chest. As I said the only victory I seek is the victory over my own ignorance. But how can we qualify this ban? This message will get through eventually. It is too late to stop it. But this ban will be a thorn in the side of Islam. It will be perceived as an admission of defeat.
|The evidence of the beast will not be meant to convince any of the humans to accept the message. Instead, it will be used as a final measure to expose the indefensible stubbornness of the deniers of the message of God.|
What is the purpose of that? Isn’t hell enough proof? Why do we need an animal telling us what we will find out soon on our own?
I think you are not comfortable with the fact that this beast is portrayed as the last messenger – a title Muhammad reserved for himself. You see the contradiction and try to minimize the role of this messenger beast. In either case the problem does not go away. The existence of this beast as a messenger of God does not only contradict other verses of the Qur’an, but it is also absurd and the way you put it, redundant.
You say that the correct translation of the verse is:
|“And once the message will be delivered in an undeniable form to them, we might bring out a beast from the land to confirm that these men were not willing to believe in our signs”|
Why “might”? Are you in doubt about this claim? The Arabic verse is:
وَإِذَا وَقَعَ الْقَوْلُ عَلَيْهِمْ أَخْرَجْنَا لَهُمْ دَابَّةً مِّنَ الْأَرْضِ
I don’t think there is any question about this happening. All the translators of the Qur’an agree that this beast “will” or “shall” be brought forth from the earth to speak and there is no doubt about it.
Anyway, I don’t know why this would make any difference. Even if the emergence of this beast is only a probability, as you say, it is still irrational.
|As for the mention of the animal, the Qur’an clarifies on several occasions
the fact that after people refuse to accept God’s message through the normal process of its presentation, He can use any of His signs to let such people know that their denial was not based on any evidence
The only thing that God should do is to arm his prophets with logical arguments. Any other “sign” is futile. I won’t believe in a donkey or a lizard speaking in Arabic. I believe in logical arguments. Why can’t Allah provide any?
Criss Angel is a magician. I believe he is the world’s top magician. He is even better that Zakir Naik. Dr. Naik plays magic with words. He has fooled many Muslims into believing that the Qur’an contains science. But he can only fool those who are willing to be fooled. I have caught all his tricks and have exposed this charlatan in a book entitled World’s Greatest Showman. Criss Angel uses different props. I have not been able to catch his tricks. He flies, walks on water, passes through glass, divides people in two halves without hiding the body in a box, and does other amazing and unbelievable things. However, he is only a magician. Suppose someone comes and performs magic. Why should we believe in him? It is time that Allah treat us humans like grownups and stop performing ‘miracles’ to impress us. All he has to do for us to believe is to give us logical arguments that satisfy our intelligence. Here is where Allah and his messenger have failed miserably. At least Jesus did some of the things Criss Angel does. Muhammad could not even do that. He acknowledged that other prophets had performed miracles, but claimed that his only miracle is the Qur’an. As we are finding out, this book is anything but miraculous.
I look forward to hear from you soon. After you present your counter-argument, I will show yet another gross blunder of the Qur’an.
I wish you all the best, and please remember that I am a fan no matter how we disagree on trivialities. To me, what really matters is the substance and in substance I have no disagreement with you. You and I mean good and work for the same ideals. I hope one day we can meet, and I would like to squeeze your hands in friendship and perhaps talk about other stuff that we both agree on. It would be an honor to have friends like you. I love good people. It makes no difference to me whether they are Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, or believe in nothing. I value goodness. Beliefs are irrelevant. Some people are color-blind. I am religion-blind. I hope one day, everyone becomes religion-blind. That would be the day of the unity of mankind. What divide us are beliefs and ideologies. These are not facts. They are just creeds. Belief is acceptance of a proposition without evidence. Wouldn’t it be nice to get beyond them and discover that after all we are one people?
I remain sincerely yours.