By Jason Wilson



Original Link:



My second response to Joseph Islam


by Jason Wilson on Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 1:06pm ·


Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,


As salamu 'alikum wr wb,


Let me first address this by saying that,  


anything that is said in this post that is good and beneficial, all the praise is due to Allah.  Anything that is wrong, than surely the mistakes are my own.


1) I wanted to say that first off with due respect I cannot concede to any request that ask me to come to forum. 


For the record I have made a public posting on my facebook of a debate between Bassam Zawadi and Nabeel Qureshi on the textual integrity of the Qur'an.  


So I would say to my respected brother Joseph Islam (whom I may refer to directly, or in the third person with disrespect intended at all) that I do not force anyone to post on my facebook page.


I believe brother Joseph you could have sent me a private message, or simlpy have posted a comment stating that would be willing to discuss the matter on your forum.


However, as you have not done so and you made some assertions that I contend with on my facebook page, I believe I have the right to respond.


I respect your right to have further engagements on the forum of your website, however as this exchange and sharing began in an open public medium I see no reason to cease it.  I would have been more than happy to have been invited to discuss the issue, but this is not what happened.  I mean that in all candor, but also respect that should be given to you.


2) My 'disrespect' towards you.  It seems that your good self as well as some of those on your forum find me uncouth.


a) As you are reading this and others read it, I may refer to you (Joseph Islam) directly or in the third person. There is no disrespect intended and Allah alone knows the secrets of the heart.  Even, if we were to have an open debate I may say to the audience, 'Mr. Islam has just presented us with etc.' refering to you in the third person.  Thus throughout this when I refer to Joseph it should be understood as if I was speaking to him directly or simply about him to an audience. I think in fairness both should be allowed given the context of this exchange and who maybe reading it.


However, no offense should be taken.  If there is I duly apologize.


b) does not seem very academic to me is that Joseph Islam makes a huge to do .  When I say ' a huge to do' it is an idiom, or an expression that I am accustomed to. It simply means -made a huge deal out of it. 


c) I am beginning to wonder if Joseph is understanding what Adrian Brockett is saying.  Yes I meant this is a sincere inquiry and I will explain briefly (Allah-willing) why I think you were not being clear on the matter.

Statements you made about me or to me.


Now I am not here to take you to task for saying in your response that I am "underhanded" which entails being sneaky, dishonest and sly. 


Nor am I here to take you to task for comparing my inquiry as being akin to a disbeliever  "I would expect to be asked by someone who may not be sure of the Quran's Divine origin's themselves."


or I could go ballistic and say you were casting aspersions on me being a Muslim by the statement, "even though I understand you CLAIM to be a Muslim that accepts the Quran as God’s word?"



So for me I try not to linger upon such things. There allot of people that want to make exchanges personal and I really don't have time for that. Allah knows that I respect you, think allot of your writing style and your articles.  I disagree with your position, obviously. 




3) are your questions to me that I would like to address immediately. Even though I believe this will detract from the current topic, nonethless this is my response to your very good questions.


Brother Joseph Islam ask me


"Therefore, the two (three) most pertinent questions for me regarding your method would be:


"If you do not dismiss the whole Islamic secondary sources as 'religiously binding', how do you reconcile your faith in a two source system?"


My answer: I believe in Prima-Qur'an (the Qur'an as being the Primary source of guidance). Anthing I believe in would have to conform with the teachings of the Qur'an, first and foremost. For example the issue of abrogation was held by the Mutazalites and early Muslims. The issue of divorce needing two witnesses is a Shi'a position and thus from the early period. To me it is a matter of showing no loyalty to sect affiliation (sunni, shi'a) etc and trying to get dig up the fossil of pre civli-war Islam.


"Do you accept that you pick and choose based on your subjective criteria?"


My answer:  Even if I believe in Sola-Quran (the Qur'an alone) I would still be hard pressed not to use subjective critieria, hince the many differences among the 'Qur'an only' camp.   I would admit that for me coming from a 'western' background I would have my own biases, and I believe that many of the traditionalist would want to salvage the entire hadith corpus.    The problem that I have with 'Qur'an-only' is obvious from this exchange.  It seems that devilry is suspected of the early Muslims at every turn. 

Case in point. This whole exchange.  I believe that historical records both from Muslims and Non-Muslim academics are on my side of the discussion.  I attempt to interact with it and accept the assertions where they are true.  Now, it seems to me that people would no come together and conspire to make up stories about 'ahruf' and various 'qira'at' for what?  What were their motives?  If I concede that these people would concoct stories concerning the compilation of the Qur'an, than the Qur'an itself IS in question. 


Like I mentioned before taking a presuppositional approach to the Qur'an and being 'locked in' ones community is fine. However, in the real world where we have to interact with athiest, christians and others the idea of 'who cares what history says' and 'who cares what orientalist and Muslim secondary sources say' is the poisioned chalice that I seek refuge from, respected brother.


"Where in the Quran do you find unequivocal authority for any aspect of the secondary source corpus as religiously binding?"


My answer: Brother Joseph I would concor with the sentitment that you have regarding the Qur'an and its preservation (in as far as the manuscripts go).  However, do you not find it odd that Allah would preserve the Qur'an via-oral transmission and/or written transmission but also not preserve its meaning?   The meaning is obviously not self evident because we can even when we strip away the Islamic secondary sources, we are left with a 'Qur'an only' community that is as deeply fractured as the traditionalist one.  There is debate over interpretation and what the Arabic text say, all this with a Qur'an that is 'fully detailed' 'mubeen' and 'leaves nothing out'. 


So for me I would content that if we understand the Qur'an 39:18 for us to extract the best meaning of it, that surely the Messenger of Allah would be a person best capable of understanding it.  I would also understand the other following verses of the Holy Qur'an 29:43, which clearly state that not every single person can approach the Qur'an and understand it.  That the Blessed Messenger explains the Qur'an is clear in 14:4 and that we obey Allah and his Messenger in 4:59, and this verse could be explicit in saying the book of Allah, or just mention Allah alone.




Brother Joseph Islam you also asked me,


"Finally with respect to the essence of your critique, please can you provide me clear evidence FROM THE QURAN that:...."


  • The Quran was revealed in different recitation modes

  • The Quran was revealed in different transmissions

  • The Prophet sanctioned different recitation modes of the Quran

  • The Prophet sanctioned different transmissions of the Quran


I believe respectuflly that the questions themselves 'beg the question'.  The reason I say this is because it presumes that the Qur'an was revealed in only one mode of transmission and only one mode of recitation. 


I believe the following verses of the Qur'an redress these questions.


“And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly; then God lets go astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills and He is the Mighty, the Wise” (Holy Qur'an 14:4)


“Indeed ,We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand.” (Holy Qur'an 12:2)


So we could actually ask the following:


  • Does The Quran say it was NOT revealed in different recitation modes

  • Does The Quran say it was NOT revealed in different transmissions

  • That the Prophet DID NOT  sanction different recitation modes of the Quran

  • That the Prophet DID NOT  sanction different transmissions of the Quran

  • That the Qur'an explicitily states that it was revealed in the Qureshi dialect only.


The only reason I could see for the 'Ahruf or the Qir'at being problematic is if they negated the two verses of the Qur'an above.   No one has ever argued that the 'Ahruf and the Qir'at are not Arabic. 


In the previous exchange I stated:



To support this Joseph Islam makes huge presumptions based upon two passages from the Holy Qur'an. 

075:17-18 "Indeed, Upon Us is its collection (Arabic: jam'ahu) and its recitation (Arabic: qur'anahu). And when We have recited it (qaranahu) then follow its recitation (Arabic: qur'anahu)" 


It is truly a theological leap to take the above passage as supporting only one particular recitation of the Qur'an. For example, we can use this passage to support any recitation of the Qur'an. 

In order for Jospeh Islam to make this case he would have to appeal to those tedious secondary sources-rather they be Islamic or Orientalist assertions.


Brother Joseph responds:


"I do not feel there is a theological leap nor as you suggest, do I find the need to appeal to secondary sources."


The word 'jam'aHU' and 'qur'anaHU' with the use of possessive pronouns in the singular clearly indicates to me that there is only one transmission of the Quran. 



The word 'jam'aHU' and 'qur'anaHU' with the use of possessive pronouns in the singular clearly indicates to me that there is only one transmission of the Quran. 


Wait a seccond! 


What we have here is  (jam'a) as a noun and hu as the 3rd person masculine singular possive pronoun.


We also have (qur'ana) another noun and hu as the 3rd person masculine singular possive pronoun.


The one doing the act is in the 3rd person masculine and the object of the act the 'collection' and the 'qur'an'  would be in the singular as there are not two different Qur'ans, as well as there not being two different collections. 


This verse in no way precludes there being a singular Qur'an- with different ahurf, or there being a singular Qur'an- with different recitations. 


What would I mean by this? 




There may have been companions of the Messenger of Allah (who had only memorized the following verses, or penned them down.



And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate before Adam"; so they prostrated, except for Iblees. He refused and was arrogant and became of the disbelievers. (Holy Qur'an 2:34)


There may have also been companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) who had only memorized the following verses or penned them down.


And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam," and they prostrated, except for Iblees. He was of the jinn and departed from the command of his Lord. Then will you take him and his descendants as allies other than Me while they are enemies to you? Wretched it is for the wrongdoers as an exchange. (Holy Qur'an 18:50)


Are we to understand there that they were in possesion of two Qur'ans?  I believe that we agree that they were not in possesion of two Qur'ans. They were in possesion of 'parts' of the Qur'an.  (parts of the whole)

Even the word collection is to 'bring together'  or to 'assemble'. 


In fact brother Joseph Islam you support this assertion here:


"The disbelievers ask, ‘Why is the Quran not revealed to him all at once?’ i.e. as ONE INTEGRAL UNIT (Jumlatan Wahida). Regardless of the obvious charge of the polemics of Islam at the time of the Prophet with this statement which hints at a Prophet of God revealing verses to suit certain conditions, the Quran’s statement clearly denies the insinuations and admits to a well planned and arranged structure despite its piecemeal revelation."


I noted that brother Joseph Islam also did not attempt to interact with something else that I posted, so for the benefit of others I will re-post it.



“And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly; then God lets go astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills and He is the Mighty, the Wise”


The interesting thing is that this quotation actually negates his interpretation of the first quotation!


The Arabs of Arabia spoke various dialects of Arabic. Would it make any sense to allow for the transmission of the Qur'an in only the dialect of the Quresh when it was the duty of the Blessed Messenger (saw) to explain the Qur'an to them clearly?


Note what Allah says,


“Indeed ,We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand.” (Holy Qur'an 12:2)


*note Allah could clearly say that the Qur'an was revealed in the dialect of the Quresh only and he did not say this.



Which is very good, becuase I think now we are getting to the core of this.


Brother Joseph Islam is stating that his belief that the Qur'an was transmitted in 'only' 'one' recitation, namely the 'hafs' recitation.


This assertion iss based upon the passage of 75:17-18.  His understanding is that the underlying Arabic grammar supports this assertion. 



However, I would hope that brother Joseph Islam as well as those who support his position would ponder over the Arabic grammar of the above verse, as well as the following verse of the Qur'an.


And those who disbelieve say, "Why was the Qur'an not revealed to him all at once?" Thus [it is] that We may strengthen thereby your heart. And We have spaced it distinctly. (Holy Qur'an 25:32) 



So going back to an entry you have here:


Brother Joseph Islam you state,


"From the Quran’s own consistency and message, it seems clear that the Quran took its final written form including its collation during the time of the Prophet. It was the written and oral transmission working IN TANDEM which MOST LIKELY assisted in its preservation."

Just so I am not accused of leaving anything out, note that I highlighted that Joseph(you)  said, this was the 'most likely' scenario.   I believe that Joseph you did not show a case of the Qur'an working 'in tandem'.


I asked brother Joseph in my first reply to him the following two questions (3 & 4)


3 - What are these 'ancient Hafs written copies' that you speak of?


 Brother Jospeh  had responded,


"There are ancient written codices that exist which corroborate today's majority reading of the Quran."


4 - When were they dated?


Brother Joseph replies


"Academics / scholars may disagree on actual dates of various MSSs but you can access these discussions for yourself. With respect I do not intend to do the research for you. I have repeatedly asserted that the Quran was foremost revealed as an oral propagation and transmitted en masse (mutawatir). The tradition of memorising the Quran and subsequent transmission is still prevalent today. Whether we have the original / early manuscripts or not does not prove the Quran's Divine origins. Indeed, I have argued from the Quran that a tradition of writing the Quran was in situ at the time of the Prophet. [3] Whether those very manuscripts exist today or not does not negate the fact that they once existed."



My response to this is that brother Joseph says that there are 'ancient written codices that exist which corrobrate TODAY'S majority reading of the Qur'an' 


I was dissapointed that he would come to the conclusion without the research. In what I feel was more a retort than a reply he says ,"With respect I do not intend to do the research for you." 


No disrespect intended but maybe someone could help me out on this.  I do not understand how brother Joseph can assert that there are 'written codices that corroborate today's majority reading'  and than whey I follow up with a 'when' and where' his reply is "With respect I do not intend to do the research for you." 


I also want to point something else out in the above paragraph,  Brother Joseph Islam you state,


"Whether we have the original / early manuscripts or not does not prove the Quran's Divine origins."   I am in total agreement with you on this.  This discussion is not about the divine origin of the Qur'an.  I want that to be clear to anyone who is reading this. 


I am just contesting your assertion that the Qur'an was revealed and transmitted in 'only' 'one' mode of recitation.  This is what this exchange is about.


I believe brother Joseph you felt you were misquoted when you state here:


You assert that:


“Joseph Islam simply gave us the only case in which the term 'ahruf' appears in noun form in the Holy Qur'an.”


This is wholly incorrect and sadly, misleading. I also gave its verb form as can be attested above.


Yet, this is exactly my point. Since we are talking about the term 'ahruf' in its noun form it would be appropriate to discuss its meaning.  You did only give one example, and the only case in which the term 'ahruf' appears in noun form.  How is it misleading when I have given the link to your site? 


Here it is for everyone to see again:


"For the purpose of this article, the generic English term 'variants' will be used to indicate a difference of some nature that the phrase 'seven ahruf' implies. It is interesting to note that the Quranic use of the word 'harf' appears in different forms. In its noun form, it means a margin or an edge (22:11) and its verb form can mean to alter, pervert, or to tamper with. (2:75, 4:46, 5:13, 5:41)." 


This was taken from:



Now I am going to take strong exception to you (brother Joseph Islam) for saying that you admitted to variations as being an 'invention' by me. 


Your very first response to the video that I posted did you not say the following?


"Indeed, there are also ancient Hafs 'written' copies and I would respectfully academically contend with the notion that there are intra-variances which alter the message within those copies (Hafs-Hafs)." 


Did you or did you not say this?  Maybe the readers can help us out as well.  


I want to know from people reading that statement above.  Can that sentence not be understood in the following ways?


1) There are no intra-variances which alter the message within those copies (Hafs-Hafs)

2) There are intra-variances with those copies (Hafs-Hafs) but they do not alter the message.


 Becuase I can see point 1)  being read as point 2) and if not why not?  I would humbly suggest that you make you state your position more clearly.  Otherwise can I be faulted for citing you?


You than go on brother Joseph and quote the following:


• "Most of the variations simply concern orthography or recitation, and it must be said at the outset that none has any effect on the meaning of the text. WITHIN A GIVEN TRANSMISSION, SUCH AS HAFS’, THAT NEVER VARIES. It must also be said that there is no clear dividing line between reading and chanting, so some variations are purely recitative."[3]• "The variations simply concern orthography or recitation, and it must be said at the outset that none has any effect on the meaning of the text. WITHIN A GIVEN TRANSMISSION, SUCH AS WARS’, THAT NEVER VARIES. Variations in script have been mainly discussed above in chapters 4 and 5. That many of these variations have been covered by those between Hafs copies obviates the need for extensive description here. In general, it was found that, the printed Wars copies and many North-West African manuscripts of the Qur'an, notably here Edinburgh New College ms.1*, belong to a scrupulously adhered-to Tradition." [4]



[4] Ibid, Variations between Wars Copies, page 77



So when you, brother Joseph Islam make the assertion here:




"I have never claimed that there are 'inter variances'. With respect, once again this is a complete invention on your part. I have repeatedly contended with the proposition that there are any 'variances' in the Quran and have repeatedly argued that the position from the secondary sources is untenable." 


Than would you like to clarify seeing that you have said above in your first reply to the debate video


""Indeed, there are also ancient Hafs 'written' copies and I would respectfully academically contend with the notion that there are intra-variances which alter the message within those copies (Hafs-Hafs)." 


To put it another way, if I said,  All the apples in this basket are good, this is definitely different from saying "All the apples in the basket which are good."


So I would hope that you would either retract your statement that I made a 'complete invention' or clarify your statement for the readers.


I would NEVER misrepresent you or your position. It does little to further the cause of truth for myself or anyone else.


 Brother Joseph Islam you also stated,


“The Hafs transmission remains the widely accepted transmission in the Muslim world today which is attested not only by consensus (and mutawwatir propagation) but also early Quranic codices.”


So I will re-ask my question.


 Joseph Islam, are you asserting by this statement that traditional Muslim scholarship (rather you agree with it or not) dismisses the Warsh recitation, as well as the other transmissions?  


This was a question he did not answer.


I also asked brother Joseph Islam the following question


"The follow up question to this is have you ever thought about the role the Ottoman Empire may have played in the wide use of the Hafs transmission of the Qur'an?"


Brother Joseph Islam responded,


"With respect, I would disincline to argue about hypothetical situations or secondary sources that underpin them in your critique."


That was interesting, and in a way revealing.  To me it says, I have a position and contrary to the evidence I will stick to this position. I'll come to this more in a few moments (Allah-willing).


So now we come to the meat of it.


I asked you brother Joseph Islam the following question


"What is the earliest dated manuscript or codex of the Qur'an that supports your assertion that there was only 'only' 'one' recitation of the Qur'an."

And this is what you (our brother Joseph Islam) had to say,


"Unless an individual can produce every single written codex of the Quran ever written during the Prophet's ministry and immediately afterwards to assess the 'majority reading' based on written codices alone,  I RESPECTFULLY POSIT THAT NO SOUL ON EARTH CAN ASSERT  'as fact' what THE MAJROITY READING ENTAILED BASED UPON TRANSCRIPTIONS ALONE. The possession of isolated codices of the Quran from antiquity WHICH EXHIBIT DIFFERENT TRANSMISSIONS IS NOT UNEQUIVOCAL PROOF." 


"There was only one reading that was inspired in the Prophet and transmitted en masse (mutawatir) as the majority reading. I have made use of the Quran to provide clear evidence. You can either accept that, or with respect, reject it."


Now keep all this in mind considering....


he just made the following comments above.


"There are ancient written codices that exist which corroborate today's majority reading of the Quran."


 and the following:


"Academics / scholars may disagree on actual dates of various MSSs but you can access these discussions for yourself. With respect I do not intend to do the research for you."




"The possession of isolated codices of the Quran from antiquity WHICH EXHIBIT DIFFERENT TRANSMISSIONS IS NOT UNEQUIVOCAL PROOF." 

Than what are they a proof of?   I will tell you.  They are unequivocal proof of my assertion, an assertion agreed upon by Muslim academics, the assertion of orientalist, and critiques of Islam, that there are various ahruf and qir'at of the Qur'an. 


Since you are fond of quoting Adrian Brockett here is something else for you to ponder over.


"The frequency of occurence of the reading of Abu ʿAmr in the below list of manuscripts is interesting.Until recently, this was the most commonly used reading in large parts of Somalia, Sudan and other parts of Central Africa. But in the medieval times it was much more widespread , to the extent that Ibn al-Jazari (d. 833 / 1429) informs that it was the main reading used in his day in Egypt and Africa. Before him, this reading was also a preferred reading of the famous 3rd century Shafiʿi jurist Ibn Surayj (d. 306 / 918), as it was also of Ibn Mujāhid (d. 324 / 936), the author of the Kitāb al-Sabʿa. Adrian Brockett observes that there is no shortage of manuscripts from earlier centuries especially from Egypt, in the transmission of Abu ʿAmr. This reading had been steadily displaced from early 19th century by the printing-press, and has never itself been printed."


These assertions from research compiled and shared on islamic-awareness deals a serious blow to the assertion that the 'hafs' transmission was the 'one' and 'only' recitation given by mass oral transmission!


I also asked respected brother Joseph to clarify something in regards to his citations of Adrian Brockett


Would you kindly clarify 

a) Does Andrew Brockett agrees with your assertion that the Qur'an was transmitted in only one recitation?

b) Does Andrew Brockett agree with your assertion that there is no Ahruf concerning the Qur'an?


To me brother Joseph Islam you didn't seem intellectualy invested in these questions. This is why I used the term 'cherry picking' in my previous response to you. It was not to direspect you, it was a statement of fact. This is what you have done. 


So in your response you say,


"This is a question, with respect you will have to ask Dr. Brockett at St John University in York, England. I have provided clear evidence from the Quran that only one recitation was propagated via the Prophet with no multiple transmissions or variants. Dr. Brockett can either agree with my position that I assert from the Quran or he may disagree. This is not a question for me to answer."



For the benefit of the readers I will also direct their attention to the following:


Also of interested to the readers should be the following research:


Brother Joseph Islam you also state here:


Jason's statement:


"You have a belief in a singular recitation of the Qur'an transmitted as an oral tradition not backed up with any manuscript evidence prior to 300 years after the Blessed Messenger (saw).You would be hard pressed to find a manuscript of the Qur'an dated earlier than this time period that matches with what you have in your hand."


 You (brother Joseph Islam) respond to this by saying,


"This is patently false. We have extant manuscripts of the Quran dated earlier than this period. Please see the following link which I only cite as it is easily accessible for readers."



I think that one needs to read what I wrote again. Since you are contending that the Qur'an was transmitted as 'one' and 'only' one recitation I was bringing notice to the fact that we do not have any manuscript of the Qur'an 'that matches with what you have in your hand'.


So I find it duly unfair for you in the span of 24 hours to say,


" With respect I do not intend to do the research for you."


 Than voila!  You give us the link above.  I hope that you will be able to tell us which of the manuscripts dated prior to the 3rd century in that treasure trove is the one that 'matches with what you have in your hand'. 


In conclusion. 


It will be seen that the basis of your assertion is upon one quoted verse from the Holy Qur'an. 


It will be seen that you do not have manuscript evidence on your side. 

It will be seen that you do not have historical evidence on your side in regards to the mass transmission of 'hafs' being the 'one' and 'only' from the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw).


More than likely your contentions with the evidence are based upon your current position as a Qur'an Only Muslim. 


The evidence does seriously undermines this idea that the Qur'an was revealed in a vacuum divorced of context, history and intimate relation with the Blessed Messenger (saw) and his early community.  It would force many a Qur'an only Muslim to do the responsible thing which would be to look how the early community interacted with the Qur'an.  How did they understand it. 


Lastly, we are left with the frightening reality of your position.   The Qur'an is the truth because I say it is the truth! 


As I noted earlier you tended to shy away from discussion about the transmission of the Qur'an either verbally or written. 


The dicussion always seems to conclude with a personal plea, and thus I thought I would ask you concerning this.


You seemed most uncomfortable at this question.  Most people I know would be happy to share the particular passage, or reason why they feel the Qur'an is the word of Allah.  So respectfully, for a person who dedicates an entire site, and much of his time to up holding the Holy Qur'an (sola) it seemed you were not as excited to share the reasons for what about the Qur'an appealed to your soul and your heart, but were ever ready to pen academic articles concerning its verses and concepts. 


So you respond to me with a rather odd fashion


"With respect, this is the kind of question I would expect to be asked by someone who may not be sure of the Quran's Divine origin's themselves. May I humbly ask whether that is the real question that is behind your whole critique even though I understand you claim to be a Muslim that accepts the Quran as God’s word?"


"I humbly feel those Muslims that have come to accept the Quran as the whole truth, nothing but the truth and of its Divine origins without a shadow of doubt based on its argumentation, do not ask other Muslims such questions. It is usually the approach of those critical to Islam.


Also, such a response would only be subjective. Different passages and argumentations affect different people in different ways. The Quran was revealed for mankind with multifaceted argumentations to appeal to a wide audience."





existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposedto objective ).


pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.


placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.


Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from athing in itself.


relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universalexperience.



I will continue to respect you brother Joseph Islam. I cast no doubt or aspersions on you being a Muslim.  I do wonder though the times we live in.   A man (such as yourself) who at the reading of this very entry can comb through web sites, and source material with a responses yet, when asked why you (yourself) have come to believe in the Holy Qur'an, or what 'argumentation' appealed to you, I was put in the category of a skeptical Non-Muslim who may not be sure of the divine origion of the Qur'an himself. 


Well, all I can say to that is.


Peace be unto you.