Leaving Islam



<< Table of content


(Dr. Naik) Professor Keith Moore, after about 80 questions were asked to him, he said… ‘If you would have asked me these 80 questions, 30 years ago, I would not have been able to answer more than 50 percent - Because embryology has developed recently in the past 30 years.’ He said this in the eighties.

Now, do we believe Dr. Keith Moore whose statement is available outside in the foyer - his videocassette is available… ‘This is the truth’...’Anna-ul-Haq’... recorded statement. So will you believe Dr. William Campbell’s personal conversation with Professor Keith Moore, or the one mentioned in this book, with Islamic edition as well as the photograph that I had shown to you? And in the videocassette available outside you can see it - He makes those statements. So you have to choose which is more logical - Personal discussion with Dr. William Campbell or his statement on Video. Like how Dr. William Campbell showed my video - 100 percent proof what I said…  

(Ali Sina) This is again a false reasoning. What Dr. Moore said to Dr. Campbell and what he said in the videos intended to be sold to Muslims could be two different things. He would have made a fool of himself telling Dr. Campbell what he says for Muslim consumption. We are not here to probe whether Dr. Moore is a liar or Dr. Campbell is reporting him erroneously. We must look at the medical science. We don't need the opinions of the experts when we can easily find the facts on our own. Appealing to authority is called argumentum ad verecundiam and this is another logical fallacy. We must see whether what the Quran says is supported by science or not. We must not accept the words of anyone just because they are authorities. They could have some ulterior motives. They might have lied and misrepresented the truth for some personal gain.  The ultimate authority is science, not Dr. Moore, Dr. Bucaille or Dr. Campbell. Dr. Campbell has proved his case backing his argument with pictures. Unless someone can produce pictures that tell a different story, the claims of this doctor or that doctor are irrelevant. Once things are demonstrated to us, we can dispense with the opinions of authorities.  

(Dr. Naik) ‘Moon is reflected light’ - I’ll come to it later on.

And whatever additional information he got from Qur’an and Hadith, it was incorporated later into this book…‘The Developing Human’ - the 3rd edition and this book got an award for the best medical book written by a single author in that year.

(Ali Sina) Is Dr. Naik telling us that Dr. Moore got an award for the book he wrote claiming the ridiculous Quran is scientific? Who gave that award? Al Azhar University or the Grand Mosque in Medina? What is the name of that award?    

(Dr. Naik) This is the Islamic edition that was put forward by Shaikh Abdul Majeed Al-Jindani and certified by Keith Moore himself. The Qur’an says in Surah Muminun, Ch. 23 Verse No. 13, and Surah Haj Ch. 22, Verse No. 5, and no less than 11 different places in the Qur’an, that the human beings have been made from a ‘nutfa’  ‘minute quantity of liquid’…like a trickle that is remaining in the cup. ‘Nutfa’ in Arabic… a very small quantity. Today we have come to know, that in one seminal emission, in which there are several millions of sperms only one is required to fertilize the ovum. ‘The Qur’an refers as ‘nutfa.’

(Ali Sina) Any 12 year old boy learning to play with himself and discovering his bodily functions knows that semen is no more than a few drops. Arabs called that nutfa. Where does the Quran say anything about millions of sperms? What Muhammad saw was a drop and that is what he was talking about. He did not know that this drop contains millions of sperms. He thought it is this drop that becomes alaqa, which is of course not true.

(Dr. Naik) Qur’an says in Surah Sajda Ch. 32 Verse no. 8…We have created the human beings from ‘Sulalah - That means the best part of a whole. The one sperm which fertilizes the ova out of the millions of sperms, the Qur’an refers to as ‘Sulalah’…‘best part of the whole.’

(Ali Sina) Here are various translations of this verse:


Pickthall Then He made his seed from a draught of despised fluid;
Yusuf Ali And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised:
Hilali-Khan Then He made his offspring from semen of worthless water 
Shakir Then He made his progeny of an extract, of water held in light estimation.
Sher Ali Then HE made his progeny from an extract of an insignificant fluid;
Khalifa Then He continued his reproduction through a certain lowly liquid.
Arberry then He fashioned his progeny of an extraction of mean water,
Palmer then He made his stock from an extract of despicable water;
Rodwell Then ordained his progeny from germs of life, from sorry water:
Sale and afterwards made his posterity of an extract of despicable water;
Transliterated Arabic Thumma jaAAala naslahu min sulalatin min ma-in maheenin

Far from calling nutfa or semen “the best part of a whole” Muhammad is saying that it is a despised fluid, ‘ma-in maheenin’. Isn't it clear that Dr. Naik is not at all concerned about lying?


(Dr. Naik) And Qur’an says in Surah Insan, Ch. 76 Verse No. 2…‘We have created the human beings from ‘nutfatun amshaj…a minute quantity of mingled fluid’ - referring to the sperm as well as the ovum - Both are required for the fertilization.

(Ali Sina) Amshaj means thickened or mingled. Muhammad saw that sperm is a tick liquid. Nutfa means sperm - precisely the liquid that contains the sperms. It does not mean the zygote or the embryo.

023.013 Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm nutfa in a place of rest, firmly fixed.

023.014 Then We made the sperm nutfa into a clot of congealed blood;

Mother, in Muhammad’s embryology is only an incubator. She does not contribute genetically to the formation of the embryo.

036.077 Doth not man see that it is We Who created him from sperm? nutfa

075.037 Was he not a drop of sperm nutfaemitted (in lowly form)?

There is no allusion to 'two sexes' or female egg in any of the verses speaking of embryo. Here is how other translators of the Quran have translated nutfatin amshajin

Pickthall:    drop of thickened fluid.

Yusuf Ali:  drop of mingled sperm,

Shakir:       small life-germ uniting (itself)

Sher Ali:    mingled sperm-drop

Arberry:    a sperm-drop, a mingling,

Palmer:      a mingled clot,  

a couple of translators also have tried to be smart like Rodwell who has translated it as: “the union of the sexes”. But this is only Islamic deception.  

Dr. Campbell said that “The Qur’an agrees with Galen here, when it says in Surah 76:2, ‘We created man from a drop of mingled sperm’” Dr. Campbell is too generous. Galen knew that woman must also contribute something to the formation of the fetus, although he erroneously thought this something is congealed blood. But Muhammad did not think any female contribution is needed. Mother  was only an incubator in his mind.  

(Dr. Naik) The Qur’an describes the various embryological stages in great detail, of which the slides were shown to you - Dr. William Campbell; he helped me to complete this topic. It is mentioned in Surah Muminun Ch. 23, Verses No. 12 to 14 - The translation is that…‘We have created the human beings from a ‘nutfa.’ – ‘A minute quantity of liquid.’ Then placed it in ‘qararen makeen’ - a place of security. Then We made it into an ‘Alaqa’ - a leech like substance - something which clings - a congealed clot of blood. Then We made that ‘Alaqa’ into a ‘Mutga’ a ‘chewed like lump.’ Then We made the ‘Mutga’ into ‘Izama’…bones. Then clothed the bones with ‘leham’… flesh. Then We made it a new creature. Blessed be Allah Who is the best to create.

These 3 Verses of the Qur’an, speak about the various embryological stages in great detail. First the nutfa placed in a place of security - Made into an ‘Alaqa’. Alaqa has got 3 meanings - One is ‘something’ which clings’, and we know that in the initial stages, the embryo clings to the uterine wall and continues clinging till the end. Point No.2, that it also means a leech like substance, and as I discussed earlier, the embryo in the initial stages, does look like a leech. Besides looking like a leech - it also behaves like a leech - It receives its blood supply from the mother’ like a bloodsucker. And the 3rd meaning which Dr. William Campbell objected to - that is the right meaning… ‘the congealed clot of blood’- And that is why Qur’an has a scientific error. And I do agree with him that Dr. William Campbell did not agree. He said how can it mean a congealed clot of blood, because if this is the case, then the Qur’an is wrong. I am sorry to say Qur’an is not wrong - Dr. William Campbell with due respect to him… He is wrong. Because today…today…after advancement of embryology, even Dr. Keith Moore - He says that… ‘In the initial stages, the embryo, besides looking like a leech, also looks like a congealed clot of blood, because in the initial stages, of the stage of ‘Alaqa’, 3 to 4 weeks, the blood is clotted within closed vessels. And Dr. William Campbell made it easy for me - He showed you a slide. It will be difficult for you to see - But this is the slide he showed you.

This is exactly what Professor Keith Moore said… ‘Looks like a clot, in which the blood is clotted within closed vessels. And during the 3rd week of the embryo, the blood circulation does not take place - it starts later on - Therefore it assumes the appearance of a clot. And if you observe the conspectus - that is after abortion takes place, you can see   it looks like a clot.

(Ali Sina) This picture does not look like a clot. Of course if you don't have a microscope you may see it that way. But that is not a scientific statement.  Anyone could have seen an aborted embryo and say it looks like a congealed clot. Is that scientific? Where is the miracle?  

This part is already explained by Dr. Campbell who showed why the Quranic description of the development of the embryo is all wrong. Dr. Naik is repeating what Dr. Campbell has already refuted without trying to counter his arguments. It was, first the Greeks who came up with these stages of the embryonic growth, not Muhammad. And the Greeks were wrong. Even if this explanation was true, no credit goes to Muhammad because he was only rehashing what others had said a thousand years before him.

The Quran says that humans are created from nutfa (a drop of semen). Then placed in a secure place (womb). Then We made it into a clot of blood, 'alaqa'. (No mention of female egg.) Then We made that 'alaqa' into a ‘mutga’ a ‘chewed like lump.’ Then We made the ‘mutga’ into ‘izama’…bones. Then clothed the bones with ‘leham’… flesh. Then We made it a new creature.

Well, this explanation is wrong. There is no need for me to repeat what Dr. Campbell already explained so clearly. Mr. Naik thinks by repeating a lie often enough, it becomes true. But not in this case! This description of the development of the embryo explained in the Quran is scientifically wrong.


(Dr. Naik) Only one line answer is sufficient to answer all the allegations of Dr. William Campbell is that, the stages of the Qur’an while it describes the embryological stages, is only based on appearance…  Appearance. First is the appearance of the ‘Alaqa’, a ‘leech like substance’ as well as a clot of blood.’ And Dr. William Campbell rightly said that some ladies come and ask… ‘Please remove the clot’ - It does look like a clot. And the stages are based on appearance. It is created from something, which appears like a clot, which appears like a leech, and is also something which clings. Then the Qur’an says… ‘We made the ‘Alaqa’ into ‘Mutga’ – a chewed like lump.’ 

(Ali Sina) Here our good doctor is making a major shift of strategy. Now, he is no longer insisting that the Quranic description of the embryo is scientific. He says that the Quran talks about the “appearance” that exist between a clot, a leech and the embryo in its different stages of growth. If so, why claim that the Quran is scientific and miraculous? In the past, women had miscarriage way more than today. The fetus was aborted and they could see that it remotely resembled, first to a clot of blood and then to a leech. In the absence of a microscope this is all they could see. So, where is the miracle? Why make so much ado about it saying “how could Muhammad have known this 1400 years ago?” when such a prosaic knowledge was available to anyone for eons? In fact as Dr. Campbell noted, Hippocrates described  the embryonic growth much more accurately.

(Dr. Naik) Professor Keith Moore took plastic seal, and bit between his teeth to make it look like a ‘Mutga’- The teeth marks resembled the ‘somites.’  Dr. William Campbell said… ‘When the ‘Alaqa’ becomes a ‘Mutga’ the clinging is yet there - It is there till 8 and a half months- So… the Qur’an is wrong.’ I told you in the beginning, the Qur’an is describing the appearance. ‘The leech like’ appearance and the ‘clot like’ appearance, is changed to the ‘chewed’ like appearance. It yet continues to cling till the end - There is no problem. But the stages are divided on appearance - Not on the function.

(Ali Sina) Alaqa either means something that clings or clot of blood. One word in one sentence cannot have two different meanings. If alaqa is something that clings, then the fetus should be called alaqa during all its gestation. Why then the Quran says it becomes mutga? If it’s only the appearance to the clot, then we should discard Dr. Bucaille’s suggestion who says this word should be translated as “something that clings”. If the Quran is clear, then why this much confusion?

This, like other "scientific statements"  made in the Quran, could have been observed by anyone and there is nothing scientific in it. If I say the Moon looks like melon, I am right. But it is not a scientific statement and I can’t be credited with divine knowledge for having said something as banal as this. Therefore this hullabaloo about the Quran having predicted modern science is hogwash.  

Conclusion: If the description of embryo in the Quran is intended to be scientific, then it is wrong. If it is only a reference to what it looks like, this was known to everyone at the time of Muhammad.

(Dr. Naik) Later on the Qur’an says… ‘We made the ‘Mutga’ into ‘Izama’…bones - Then clothed the bones with flesh.’ Dr. William Campbell said, and I do agree with him, that… The precursors of the muscles and the cartilages… that is the bones, they form together - I agree with that. Today embryology tells us that the primordial of the muscles and the bones - they form together between the 25th and the 40th day, which the Qur`an refers to as the stage of ‘mudga.’ But they are not developed… They are not developed. Later on, at the end of the seventh week, the embryo takes form of human appearance - then the bones are formed. Today modern embryology says the bones are formed after the 42nd day, and it gives an appearance of a skeletal thing. Even at this stage when the bones are formed, the muscles are not formed. Later on, after the 7th week and the starting of 8th week, are the muscles formed. So Qur’an is perfect in describing first ‘Alaqa’, then ‘Mutga’, then ‘Izama’, then clothed with flesh, and when they form - the description is perfect.

(Ali Sina) This description is wrong no matter how many times it is repeated. I quote again what Dr. Campbell said in the conclusion of his talk on embryo:  “There is no time when calcified bones have been formed, and then the muscles are placed around them. The muscles are there, several weeks before there are calcified bones, rather than being added around previously formed bones, as the Qur’an states.” This statement is scientific. The Quran is not.

(Dr. Naik) As Professor Keith Moore said that… ‘The stages - that how it is described in modern embryology… stage 1,2,3,4,5, is so confusing, The Qur’anic stage on embryology describing on the base of appearance, and the shape, is far more superior.’ Alhamdulillah.

(Ali Sina) This is ludicrous. How can the Quran be superior when it is all wrong? Josef Goebbel, Hitler's minister for propaganda said: "If you tell a big enough lie, frequently enough, it becomes the truth." This is what Dr. Naik wants to achieve. He wants to repeat a lie frequently enough, until it becomes true. I am sorry. It does not work in this case. The description of the embryo in the Quran is all wrong. It won’t become true even if it is repeated a billion times. Bones are not created first to be covered with flesh later. Period!

(Dr. Naik) Therefore he said… therefore he said that… ‘I have no objection in accepting that Prophet Muhammed is the messenger of God and that this Glorious Qur’an has to be a Divine Revelation, from Almighty God.’

(Ali Sina) If Dr. Naik is speaking of Dr. Moore, it should be noted that he did not convert to Islam. This tells us that his interests were this-worldly. He did not see any miracles in the Quran. He simply fooled the Muslims and laughed his way to the bank.


Does God Punish People?

(Dr. Naik) It is mentioned in Surah Nisa, Ch. No. 4, Verse No. 56, It speaks about ‘Pain.’ Previously the doctors, they thought that the brain was only responsible for feeling of ‘pain.’ Today we have come to know besides the brain, there are certain receptors in the skin, which are responsible for feeling of the pain, which we call as the ‘pain receptors.’  Qur’an says in such Surah Nisa Ch. 4, Verse 56, that… As to those who reject Our signs, We shall cast them into the hell fire, and as often as their skins are roasted, We shall give them fresh skin, so that they shall feel the pain’. Indicating that there is something in the skin, which is responsible for feeling of pain, which the Qur’an refers to as ‘pain receptors.’ 

(Ali Sina) Let me change the subject for a moment and tell you about my cat. I have adopted this animal since he was a kitten. I bought for him all sorts of toys so he would not get bored. I personally played with him even when this meant putting aside my work. I took care of him; fed him with expensive food because he would not eat anything else. I wash him regularly and do everything a responsible owner would do to keep a cat happy.  He gets into fights with other cats and sometimes hurts himself. I take him to the vet to make sure his wounds do not become infectious. I have been a good owner to this cat. However this little animal is very ungrateful. He never comes to me when I call him. He does not even turn his head to acknowledge that I exist. He slightly moves one ear when I call his name and then ignores me. But when I sit down to write and don’t want to be disturbed he insists to sit on my lap and even if I put him down ten times he just keeps coming back. It is all about him and what he wants. I leave my work and groom him with a brush to remove his falling hairs. He loves it and purrs loudly and rolls over exposing the parts that he wants me to brush. But as soon as he feels comfortable he starts emitting putrid gasses right under my nose. I think he does not have any respect for me. I am very much offended by him and his behavior and I am thinking of punishing him. He has been very ungrateful and rude. I think he deserves to die. But I don't want to kill him just like that. I want to torture him and make him die a very slow and painful death. That is because he is very ungrateful and I am very much offended. I have thought to crucify him so he can't move. Then chop his fingers one by one. Then put him over a bonfire and burn all his fur and skin. I will do that very slowly so he suffers a lot. Then I'll  pour on his little body boiling water and watch him scream in pain while he is still tied to the cross and can't move. Then I'll leave him for some times to suffer in agony. Then come back and start dismembering him alive. With a pair of scissors, cut first his ears and tail inch by inch so he can suffer a lot and then dismember him live and burn him. You see, I am very compassionate and merciful. That is what my friends say about me. But I am also very just. Justice must be done and this cat has been ungrateful to me so he must be punished.   

Okay, calm down. I am just kidding. Of course I am not going to hurt my little cat. I love him. I love him particularly because he has independence. He is a lot like me, a freethinker,  a free spirit, and just like me, he is not an appeaser. I am not offended by him. I will not be offended no matter what he does. Wouldn't it be insane to be offended by a cat? There is nothing a cat can do that could offend us humans. Cats are not intelligent and we do not expect much from them. But what if I was serious? Wouldn’t you say that I am a maniac, insane and dangerous? Of course you would. How could even one think of torturing a cat or any animal?

But think about it! Isn't this exactly how Muhammad described Allah? Do you really believe that the maker of this universe is a psychopath sadist? If these qualities are not befitting for a sane human how can they be befitting for God? Allah, as described by Muhammad is even worse. I could probably  torture my cat for a few hours in this sadistic way until he dies and is put out of agony. But the god that Muhammad described will continue torturing humans for eternity. He is far worse than any sadist you can imagine. 

Isn't this an insult to the Creator? Don't you think that holding such belief is blasphemy? When you talk of hell and eternal punishment for disbelief, you are attributing insanity to God.  “Hell” is the most prevalent subject in the Quran. This theme recurs no less than 200 times. The Quran is full of warnings and threats of punishment and gruesome details of divine torture. What does this tell us? It tells us that Muhammad envisioned God as a psychopath sadist. Allah is not God. He is Muhammad's own alter ego. He is the personification of Muhammad's narcissistic wet dreams. Muslims do not worship God. By attributing sadistic qualities to Him, they blaspheme Him. 

Isn’t this enough to see that Muhammad was a crackpot? Is it possible that the maker of this vast and magnificent universe be so petty and so insane that he could be offended by what we humans think? If a cat can't offend us no matter how bad he behaves and how ungrateful he becomes, would God, a reality infinitely bigger than us be offended by what we believe? The difference between me and my cat is infinitely less than the difference between God and we humans. If we are not bothered by what a cat does and consider punishing a cat insane, how can we attribute this insanity to God? If we can love an animal unconditionally, without expecting him to thank us  why can't God love his creation unconditionally? Is God less than us humans? How can God be so petulant to punish humans in such a sadistic way for not believing in him? Why is he so desperate to be worshipped? Certainly God can't be like that. Muhammad lied. That fiend had no understanding of God. How pathetic is this that a billion people follow a pervert psychopath to tell them about God! As a narcissist he thought despotism is the utmost glory. He wanted people submit to him through fear. That is why Allah is a despot. While God can't be anything but Love. 

Imagine you own a vast garden; somewhere in that garden there is an ant colony. You may or may not be aware of its existence. Now imagine one ant tells to other ants that he is your messenger and that you have ordered that all ants must worship you and obey him and that if any ant decides not to obey your messenger, you would one day gather the disbelieving ants and punish them by throwing them in a huge bonfire. This is ridiculous. Why should you care if ants worship you or not? The thought of it is laughable. Yet this is exactly what is happening to us humans. A charlatan like Muhammad proclaimed himself to be the messenger of the owner of this universe, and has managed to fool the gullible people that they should obey him or they will be barbequed in the Landlord's cosmic bonfire. 

This is stupid. This is pathetic indeed. But the tragedy is that today a billion people believe in this charlatan and his sadist deity. There must be a limit to stupidity. Or is there?  

If you don't give a damn about ants worshipping you, why should God care whether we humans worship him or not? Who do you think you are? Have you ever thought about your insignificance in this universe?  You are nothing! You and your world do not even count. Do you think that you are so important that the maker of this universe and perhaps billions of other parallel universes depends on you to worship him and if you don't show him your rear end five times a day he will be so disappointed that he would sadistically burn and dismember you for eternity? The whole concept is just insane. This is the acme of stupidity. And this is the very foundation of Islam. Islam is based on stupidity. It is a shame to be called a Muslim. There is no glory in foolishness. As these truths gets out, and I urge everyone who agrees with me to spread this message, the whole world will come to see Muslims are fools. If you are a Muslim, you and your children will become the laughing stocks of the thinking humanity. You become the butt of jokes, despised and derided. Soon it will be an insult to call one a Muslim just as it is an insult to call one a fascist or a Nazi today. Do not persist in stupidity. Do not make a fool of yourself. The fallacy of Islam is as clear as the sun. 

We can forgive the foolish people of the Seventh Century Arabia who fell prey to this charlatan’s lies, but can we forgive educated people today, who still want to be fooled? 

If Muslims were capable of rational thinking, only this would have sufficed for them to see that Muhammad was an impostor mad man and not a prophet of God. His imaginary god was his own alter ego, a lot like himself,  a sadist, a psychopath. Allah is everything Muhammad wanted to be - a tyrant, one who does whatever he pleases and responds to no authority; one who is worshiped, one who is feared. Being loved and feared is everything a narcissist dreams of.  Muhammad invented Allah to live his narcissistic dreams. And one billion followers are unable to see the ploys of one mentally deranged man. This is tragedy. No wonder Muslims live in such a misery. They follow a psychopath as their prophet and worship a sadistic deity - the figment of the mind of that psychopath. How pathetic!

If it was not so depressing, it would have been funny that Dr. Naik should choose such a macabre statement of the Quran to prove its alleged miracle. What part of this stupid verse is miraculous? All it reveals is a sick mind of a fool. Dr. Naik speaks from the position of utter ignorance. In the old days no one knew that brain had anything to do with sensing pain or even thinking. Aristotle thought that brain acts like a radiator to cool the body. Thinking was done with heart, they believed. We still say memorizing things by heart. People feel pain right where it hurts. Pinch or slap yourself and see where do you feel it? Do you feel it in your brain? You feel the pain right where you are hurting yourself. So what part of this simplistic statement is miraculous?  Muhammad is stating the obvious. There is no miracle in these harebrained verses. They do not reveal any science. They reveal Muslims' deficiency of intelligence and the characteristic of their sadistic god.  

(Dr. Naik) Professor Thagada Shaun, who is the head of the department of Anatomy, in Chang Mai University in Thailand, - Only on the basis of this one Verse, he proclaimed the Shahada, in the 8th Medical conference in Riyadh, and said …(Arabic)…. That… ‘There is no God but Allah, and that Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, is the Messenger of Allah.

I started my talk by quoting the Verse from the Glorious Qur’an from Surah… from Surah Fussilat, Ch. 41, Verse 53, which says…(Arabic) ‘That soon We shall show them Our signs in the farthest reaches of the horizons, and into their souls, until it is clear to them, that this is the truth.’ This one Verse was sufficient to prove to Dr. Thagada, Thagada Shaun, that Qur’an is a Divine Revelation. Some may require 10 signs, some may require 100. Some, even after a 1000 signs are given, they will not accept the truth.

(Ali Sina) Professor Thagada Shaun must be a fool. Heaven knows if such an idiot actually exists or he is a fabrication of Muslim wishful thinking. These verses are stupid. Not only they reveal that Muhammad was a sadist, they also contain no scientific information whatsoever. Muslims have based their entire faith on logical fallacies. "Doctor so and so has confirmed the Quran so Islam must be true" is an asinine argument. There are many more authentic doctors and professors born and raised in Islam who reject this cult and have left it. They find Islam and the Quran utterly stupid. Why not listen to them?  


back     next  >





Articles Op-ed Authors Debates Leaving Islam FAQ
Comments Library Gallery Video Clips Books Sina's Challenge

  ©  copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.