Messages

Peace Aijaz,

Thanks for your continued interest in my work. While I've completed the first draft of the entire book quite some time ago, considerable work is still required to bring the draft up to scholarship level, including comprehensive referencing. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to provide an approximate date of when you can expect the next chapter, which includes the decoding of three additional eschatological prophecies, as noted in the table of contents. Rest assured, however, when the next revision is released, God willing, I will request brother Joseph to kindly provide a link to the update as he deems fit.

Imran

The second revision, Aijaz, includes the second chapter; the first release only includes the first chapter. The second chapter, as can be gleaned from the table of contents, deals primarily with the etymologies of key words and how these etymologies lend support to the identification of Gog and Magog as present day North and South Korea, respectively. The etymologies explored consist of:

1. Etymology of Korea
2. Etymology of Gog and Magog in the Old and New Testaments
3. Etymology of Magog in Hebrew
4. Etymology of Gog and Magog in Arabic (Yajuj and Majuj)
5. Etymology of Zul-Qarnayn

Comprehensive analyses of each of the five sections above, yield a growing list of attributes which must all be met, and which any land/peoples identified as potential candidates for Gog and Magog, must therefore also meet. If any one of these attributes, which essentially act as filters, are not met, then the potential candidate is disqualified. When these attributes are taken collectively, it becomes abundantly clear that there is only one region and people in the world which not only meet all these criteria, but qualify perfectly – the divided inhabitants of the Korean Peninsula. The Mongols and Tartars you mention do not meet all the criteria/filters elucidated in the second chapter; hence they cannot be the peoples of Gog and Magog. This will become clear as you go through the second chapter and apply each revealed criterion/filter. In fact, one can go through every region and every people of the world – none will meet all the criteria/filters – none, that is, except North and South Korea; and they do so resoundingly.

Hope you enjoy the second chapter as much as I enjoyed researching and writing it.

Imran

Peace Ajaz,

Not sure if you caught it or not in the threads brother Joseph referenced above, but the latest version of Qur'anic Odyssey, which includes the second chapter, can be found here:

http://quransmessage.com/files/Quranic%20Odyssey%20Ch1-2%20v2.37.pdf

Imran

[A Possible Second 'Surge' of Gog and Magog?]

As tensions mount in the Korean Peninsula – with the U.S. sending a naval strike force to the region; and the North Koreans engage in their usual vitriolic pronouncements; along with an impending nuclear test (their sixth); and ongoing development/testing of intercontinental ballistic missiles eventually capable of reaching the American mainland – a highly dangerous game of "chicken" is now effectively being played. All it will take for an all-out armed conflict to break out (thus ending the armistice which has been in place since 1953), is a slight miscalculation by one side or the other. I can't help but wonder about a 'second surge' of Gog and Magog, which seems to be prophesied in the Qur'an. I refer you to p.39 of my book, 'Qur'anic Odyssey:'

"A Possible Second 'Surge' of Gog and Magog?

The release of Gog and Magog is mentioned twice in the Qur'an; once in verse 18:99, and the other in verse 21:96. Whether this foreshadows a second 'surge,' and a physical resumption of the Korean War, remains unknown. It is, however, an unnerving fact that for the past sixty years, the Korean Peninsula has experienced directly opposing, large-scale militarization on both sides of the Korean Demilitarized Zone (Figure 17) [91] – a thin strip of land approximating the 38th parallel which divides the two Koreas. [92] The Korean DMZ is the most heavily militarized border in the world, [93] with 1-1.2 million troops on the north side of it, and another 500,000-600,000 troops on the south. [94][95][96] With escalating regional tensions [97] and the DMZ literally bulging at the seams, the two halves of the Korean Peninsula appear to be awaiting God's command to be 'let loose' and once again 'surge against each other like waves.' "

Indeed, it does appear that God's command to be 'let loose' and once again 'surge against each other like waves' is near at hand. Everything in the Qur'an is there for a reason. Nothing is included without purpose. And hence, it is not without purpose that the war of Gog and Magog is mentioned a second time, in chapter 21, in addition to chapter 18. Is the Korean War, therefore, about to actively resume, as seemingly prophesied in the Qur'an?

We shall see...

References:

http://quransmessage.com/files/Quranic%20Odyssey%20Ch1-2%20v2.37.pdf
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/15/asia/north-korea-missiles-parade/index.html
http://www.voanews.com/a/strike-force-group-deployment-seen-united-states-signal-north-korea/3806597.html

[a messenger comes confirming what you have been given]

Peace Duster

If it is from the Creator and as you claim....you are delivering the message.....then aren't you making a 'religious' statement / theological statement !!???

Anyone can make theological statements. Here are some examples:

There is only one God.
There are multiple Gods.
We live many lives through Reincarnation.
Including the name of the Prophet in the call to prayer is idol worship.

However, there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between a theological statement, and claiming one's statement(s) form the basis of a new corpus of canonized religious books. This, rather stark difference, is one which you seem to continue to overlook, as indicated by the general theme of your ongoing comments.

To reiterate, once again, my work is simply an EXEGESIS of certain Qur'anic passages. Many individuals write exegeses of the Qur'an. It doesn't mean their work is a new body of religious books; and neither is mine.

Are you then saying you are a divinely inspired messenger then?

My work is a divinely inspired EXEGESIS of the Qur'an. But it is still only an exegesis. It is NOT a new divine book. The Qur'an was the last Scripture, no other Scriptures will follow. Period. However, because I am claiming my exegesis is divinely inspired, therefore, I am also claiming that it is, in fact, correct (a conclusion which each individual will have to determine for him/herself); and furthermore, that my exegesis, is a de facto CONFIRMATION of the Qur'an (see 3:81-83, below).

3:81 God took a pledge from the prophets, saying, 'If, after I have bestowed Scripture and wisdom upon you, a messenger comes confirming what you have been given, you must believe in him and support him. Do you affirm this and accept My pledge as binding on you?' They said, 'We do.' He said, 'Then bear witness and I too will bear witness.'

3:82 Those who turn away after this are the ones who break pledges.

3:83 Do they seek anything other than submission to God? Everyone in the heavens and earth submits to Him, willingly or unwillingly; they will all be returned to Him.

And, just to be clear: yes, I am a divinely inspired Messenger, sent by God to warn the global community of the imminently approaching Final Hour...


Blessings and regards,

Imran

Peace Duster,

Message from who?

FROM THE CREATOR!

[I am simply delivering a message. No more, no less.]

Dear brother Shahmatt,

Thank you kindly for your considered response. I am glad I was able to clarify the difference between theological extra-Qur'anic material (i.e. Hadith, Traditions, Prophet's Biography, etc.) versus non-theological extra-Qur'anic material (i.e. observations/facts/known historical information, etc.), which, as you so aptly stated, "contributes to our appreciation and understanding of the Quran".


Peace brother Duster,

I trust brother Shahmatt's response satisfactorily addresses the query you previously raised in Reply #14; augmenting the already, rather clear explanation, I formerly provided in Reply #13 – i.e. the difference between Hadith (canonized religious books) and other, non-religious research materials/references that attempt to explain the known/observable world, and which, in turn, are used to clarify/explain/shed light upon the Qur'anic narrative. I am not, for example, using research materials to support Hadith literature, which is what Traditionalist do. Nor am I using Hadith to support the Qur'an or vice versa. I am using known historical and geo-political facts (usually from multiple sources to support any given fact; please also note that most Wikipedia references are "Wikipedia commons illustrations" so as to avoid copyright issues).

With regards to your question, "can you clarify for me whether you expect the reader of your thesis to accept your findings as a religious truth or not?"; my dear brother, I have no expectations of any sort whatsoever. As the astute anonymous reader in Reply #3 insightfully shared, I am simply delivering a message:

...Imran's narrative is logical, cold without any effort to try to scare. It is as if a message is being communicated...

It is up to each individual to carefully look at the evidence and arguments I have presented, including the quality/reliability/accuracy of the reference materials, and determine, for him/herself, whether the conclusions match the Qur'anic narrative of Zul-Qurnayn's journey. And, if so, does this mean that Gog and Magog have indeed been released and already gone to war, as I claim? And, furthermore, does this mean the world is about to come to an end, which is the logical conclusion of the fulfillment of this bedrock prophecy? That's the central question to ponder, and its answer, for each individual to decide.

I am simply delivering a message. No more, no less.


Peace and blessings to you both.

Imran

[1. THE QUR'AN IS FULLY DETAILED, SO WHY USE-EXTRA QUR'ANIC MATERIAL?]

Dear brother Shahmatt,

Thank you for your considered thoughts. I have pondered your feedback/concerns carefully. I can see that you are coming from a very sincere place. Let me try and address each of your points as best as I can. You mention:

1. THE QUR'AN IS FULLY DETAILED, SO WHY USE-EXTRA QUR'ANIC MATERIAL?

I think it is important, first of all, to differentiate between two distinct categories of extra-Qur'anic materials: theological vs. non-theological. The former, theological extra-Qur'anic material, includes Islamic Secondary Sources (such as Hadith, Traditions, Prophet's Biography, etc.) which have been adopted, with grave error, as Religious Books/Doctrines and/or Practices. The latter, non-theological extra-Qur'anic materials, includes any type of information (history, sciences, economics, sociology, politics, etc.) which is used to support the Qur'anic data. Qur'anic data, simply put, is a term which refers to the information narrated/revealed in the Qur'an (e.g. descriptions, historical accounts, argumentation, lineage, geography, etc.).

The extensive information which I have researched/referenced (some of which, brother Duster has listed in the post above) is, by and large, non-theological extra-Qur'anic material, which is used to support, and thereby illuminate, the Qur'anic data – in this particular case, the journey of Zul-Qarnayn. To suggest that non-theological extra-Qur'anic material should be eschewed because the Qur'an says "it is fully detailed" is to woefully miss the point and misplace the true understanding of what is meant by "fully detailed." If I may say so, and with no disrespect intended, it is the equivalent of shunning rational thought, ignoring the world around us, burying one's head in the sand, and myopically exclaiming, "there is no correlation, whatsoever, between the Qur'an and the world around us."

To be clear, when the Qur'an says, "it is fully detailed" (7:52, 10:37, 11:1, 17:89, 18:54, 25:33, 39:27), it means that the Qur'an contains all the theological information necessary for mankind's guidance – i.e. to live a moral life in accordance with the deen/way/system of life, as set-out in the Qur'an. In other words, no other (extra-Qur'anic) theological material is required for such guidance and to establish such a system of life. To reiterate, non-theological extra-Qur'anic material, on the other hand, can be used and should be used, to enhance our understanding of the Qur'anic data; so that mankind continually gains greater insights of the Revealed Word – because, after all, there is obliged to be some relation between the Revealed Word of the Creator, and the Creation of the Creator.

The above explanation, I trust, readily highlights the stark contrast in approach between my work and Traditionalists; who reference theological extra-Qur'anic materials as the source books/doctrines for their exegeses. Consequently, their analyses are invariably flawed because they are based, primarily, upon corrupted theological canons.

2.  THE QUR'AN IS CLEAR/STRAIGHTFORWARD, HENCE THE IDENTITIES OF GOG AND MAGOG SHOULD BE OBVIOUS/READILY APPARENT

Your assertion that the Qur'an is clear/straightforward, and thus Gog and Magog cannot be identified as North and South Korea because it "...involves a fair amount of detective work and piecing together of a jigsaw puzzle..." warrants, perhaps, a revisit.

The Qur'an's assertion that it is a "clear/clarifying book" (12:1, 12:111, 15:1, 16:89, 24:59, 25:33, 36:69, 54:17, 75:19) is an often misconstrued concept; with many erroneously reaching the conclusion that everything in the Qur'an is required to be straightforward. This is far from the case. Take, for example, something as basic as salat/contact prayer. Amongst Qur'anists, opinions vary widely; with advocates variously supporting 0, 2, 3, 4, or 5 daily prescribed contact prayers, including differences in opinion on the method of prayer. The same holds true for a plethora of other fundamental topics including: permissible number of wives and in what circumstance(s), pilgrimage, fasting, state tax, charity, penalty for theft, definition of Messenger and Prophet, etc. It should be underscored that these diverse range of opinions stem from Qur'an centric practitioners – who reach glaringly different conclusions – all from the very same book, on, to emphasize, rather fundamental topics! What, then, can one expect on something as seemingly cryptic as Zul-Qarnayn's journey and the identities of Gog and Magog?

As grossly diverse doctrines are being extracted, all from the very same book, what does the Qur'an actually mean when it refers to itself as a "clarifying book?" The Qur'an itself arguably answers the question by imparting a clue in the following verse:

39:17-18
There is good news for those who shun the worship of false gods and turn to God, so give good news to My servants who listen to what is said and follow what is best. These are the ones God has guided; these are the people of understanding.

The implication of "listen to what is said and follow what is best," is that each individual is obliged to contemplate the Qur'an, and, after careful consideration, reach his/her own conclusion(s) about any given doctrine. However, given the established fact that even amongst Qur'an-centric scholars – who have ostensibly studied the Qur'an well – significant disagreements remain on even basic tenets, then, perhaps, the following conclusion can be drawn:

It was never God's intent to spoon-feed mankind on every single theological topic, but rather to do justice to the cognitive mind given to a sentient being, by authoring a Divine Book which encourages each individual to rationally contemplate the Revealed Word; and to subsequently reach his/her own, sometimes rather unique conclusions, on any given doctrine.

The above, arguably paradigm shifting perspective, decisively debunks the notion that the 'identities of Gog and Magog should be readily apparent to the masses in some obvious fashion, without the necessity to seriously contemplate the relevant Qur'anic narrative and the associated Qur'anic data.' The truth, my dear brother, is that it's quite the opposite; because the Creator has made us sentient beings with cognitive minds – which, in turn, demands nothing short of considered, rational thought!

Furthermore, it should also be noted that God has long ceased the practice of sending down miraculous signs (17:59). Consequently, all eschatological prophecies, by definition, must be subtle. This includes not only the war of Gog and Magog, but also the splitting of the moon (54:1), and the clouds of smoke (44:10-16). And, it is precisely for this reason – subtlety – that when the Final Hour does suddenly arrive, as it inevitably must, the disbelievers will exclaim, "...Woe to us! We were not aware of this at all. We were wrong" (21:97). If, instead, God manifested the three eschatological prophecies referenced above in any sort of obvious manner, by default, therefore, arguably there would be no disbelievers left – especially considering we now live in a global community with instantaneous, documented, and retrievable communications. Consequently, subtlety is the defining characteristic of the eschatological prophecies, and, in time, God willing, it is the rational, thinking person, who will see/witness/recognize the fulfillment of these very prophecies.

3. FROM A BELIEVER'S POINT OF VIEW, WHY DOES THE IDENTIFICATION OF GOG AND MAGOG EVEN MATTER?

Before addressing this final point, the question that must first be answered is "what is a Believer?" Without delving into too much detail, as this is a potentially loaded question, for the sake of expediency, let us define a Believer as someone who holds a Qur'an-centric position and lives his/her life according to Qur'anic guidance. Ergo, by this definition, pretty much the entire world's population is not a Believer.

The purpose, therefore, of the Qur'an's inclusion of eschatological prophecies, is to warn, specifically, the last generation of the imminent destruction of the planet (the entire universe in fact). The decoding of the eschatological prophecies – with meticulous, extensive supporting evidence and argumentation – are proofs of the veracity of the Qur'an. These proofs, in turn, serve as one last opportunity for non-believers to recognize the truth of the Qur'an, and thus, in time, to become Believers by adopting a Qur'an-centric perspective, God willing. The disbelievers have up until the arrival of the Final Hour to change and become Believers.

Thus, it can be argued that the decoding of the Qur'anic eschatological prophecies is a Mercy from God for the entire global community – which has effectively, and collectively, deserted the Qur'an en masse.


With peace and regards,

Imran

Can you please clarify to what extra-Qur'anic material, precisely, do you refer?

And if you are to "err on the side of simplicity," what do you make of Zul-Qarnayn's journey and the identities of Gog and Magog based on such an approach?

No problem at all brother Shahmatt. My pleasure. Thank you for your kind comments. I'm glad I was able to satisfactorily address your question. Any time spent clarifying my work for others is time well spent – especially when an individual has taken the time to consider my evidence/arguments carefully, as you clearly have

[GOD USES THE TERM, 'GOG AND MAGOG,' AS A LITERARY DEVICE TO SHOW THEY ARE ONE PEOPLE WHO ARE LATER DIVIDED.]

Dear Shahmatt

Thank you kindly for your enquiry. Let me first apologize for not responding earlier; as I've been rather busy and haven't checked in on this forum as of late. I also want to thank you for reaching out to me personally through FB messaging to alert me of your comment.

IN REGARDS TO GOG AND MAGOG, YOU WRITE:

"In the article Mr. Faruqui suggests that Gog and Magog refer to the kingdom of Goguryeo who were united at the time of Zhul Qarnayn and later divided into present day North and South Korea.

This seems to conflict with the Quran wherein it seems to suggest, from the speech of those who were oppressed, that Gog and Magog were already a divided people at the time of oppression."

This is indeed a perceptive question, which, I believe, I've answered on page 25 of my book. I have included the relevant excerpt here:

"...It is implausible that agrarian highland communities with limited resources could survive repeated raids by not one, but two different military tribes (i.e. Gog and Magog). This was not a war where allies joined forces to mount a combined attack against a common formidable enemy. These were recurrent raids with the intent of resource acquisition through pillage and plunder or the receipt of tribute through the instilment of fear. Continuous forced transfer of wealth was the prize. If two separate aggressive tribes partnered in combined larger raids, or tag teamed in alternate raids, there simply would not be enough booty to go around, nor could the assaulted communities recover from such severe and repeated onslaught. The villages would be raided to extinction and the strategy rendered counter-productive. More to the point, two highly skilled armed tribes would no doubt be at war with each other in competition over potential gains. It is apparent this scenario is not even a remote possibility.

The only credible conclusion that can be reached is Gog and Magog are not two separate tribes, but one single tribe. They are one people of the same ethnic stock. GOD USES THE TERM, 'GOG AND MAGOG,' AS A LITERARY DEVICE TO SHOW THEY ARE ONE PEOPLE WHO ARE LATER DIVIDED. That is why both names have 'Gog' in common; 'Gog and Magog' even sound as if they are 'from' and 'of' each other.

It does not seem reasonable that God, who is the All Wise, the All Aware, purposefully selected the related names 'Gog and Magog,' if they referenced two separate and completely unrelated tribes. It seems more appropriate, given He is the Most Gracious, Most Merciful, that the term 'GOG AND MAGOG' WAS DELIBERATELY CHOSEN AS AN UNDERSTATED MEANS TO HELP MANKIND UNLOCK THEIR IDENTITIES. The one tribe of Gog and Magog refers, therefore, to arguably the world's most homogeneous ethnic group of people alive today; the divided inhabitants of the Korean Peninsula, or present day North and South Korea (Figure 14)."

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING POINTS. I ARGUE:

1. Gog and Magog cannot be two distinct and separate tribes, as may first appear by the Qur'anic term "Gog and Magog," because two separate tribes would undoubtedly pillage the assaulted community to extinction.

2. I then argue, consequently, that since Gog and Magog cannot be two separate tribes, the only reasonable conclusion is that "GOD USES THE TERM, 'GOG AND MAGOG,' AS A LITERARY DEVICE TO SHOW THEY ARE ONE PEOPLE WHO ARE LATER DIVIDED."

Please note the term "LITERARY DEVICE;" implying that "Gog and Magog" were not divided at the time of the raids, but rather were divided at a later date. In a similar vein, I suggest Zul-Qarnayn means "THE TWO-AGED ONE" (p. 69). It seems highly unlikely that his real name was in fact "the two-aged one" (i.e. Zul-Qarnayn). Rather, God uses the name "Zul-Qarnayn" in the Qur'anic narrative to MAGNIFY his importance and to give us a clue – that he is important in two separate ages – the age in which he lived, and the age of the Final Hour.

Analogously, therefore, I am positing that a similar LITERARY DEVICE is employed with the Qur'anic term "Gog and Magog" ('Ya'juj' and 'Ma'juj' in Arabic) – that they are not two different tribes; rather, they are one tribe, one homogeneous people, of one common stock, who are only later divided.

I hope I have sufficiently clarified your question. If not, please feel free to continue the discussion.

With peace and regards,

Imran

Thanks for this clarification on 'multiplicity' brother Joseph. Makes a lot of sense, especially when one considers the known structure of our universe; and the theoretical concept known as 'multiverses.'

This will also help me on my own work on the Qur'an and the cosmos.

With regards,

Imran

As per verse 3:81, the Messenger will be recognized by the clear proofs he will bring with him which will confirm the Qur'an. Like the Messengers before him, this Messenger is also obliged to proclaim his Messengership, regardless if he does not want to, for he has no choice in the matter.

Once the Messenger brings clear proofs and proclaims his Messengership, then also according to 3:81, those who witness the proofs, must believe in the Messenger and support the Messenger in his mission. After witnessing the proofs, anyone who fails to support the Messenger, in his/her fullest capacity, is deemed to have broken the covenant with God (3:82), and will suffer the consequences accordingly; if not in this life, then certainly the next. The covenant is actually a test for those who are contemporaries of the Messenger to determine if they fear people or if they fear God (3:83), regardless of how they acquired/witnessed the truth, or what mask(s) they may have worn at the time of witnessing.

[fall down on their faces in prostration]

Dear Hamzeh,

I think we're reaching the point now where we're about to go round in circles, so please consider this my last post on this thread.

You state:

I dont agree with how you may be understanding this verse 42:16. The argument that God is regarding as futile/null/invalid and a severe punishment will be on them is not only between the People of the Book. This argument is being asked not to be made to the Prophet Muhammad with any one. Whether with a Jew or a Christian or a person from his nation.

If I may remind you, I referenced verse 42:16 in context to the following point you raised in reply 13:

I basically commented that if at any point that any one from the People of the Book is familiar with the Quran and its teachings and is clearly convinced by the arguments that they should NOT reject its veracity and also NOT to say this is not from God and also NOT to reject the messenger. For this reason 4:47

I then went on to suggest that 4:47 was specific to the Jews who were attempting to undermine the Qur'an's message, and because of this limitation, verse 4:47 cannot be considered to categorically apply on all People of the Book. Therefore, while I agree with the sentiment you expressed above, this sentiment is NOT supported by verse 4:47, but arguably, rather by verse 42:16. You have essentially conceded to this, because, in your own words, 42:16 applies to anyone – whether a Jew, Christian, or a person from the Prophet's nation. Consequently, since 42:16 is categorical, while verse 4:47 has a qualified application, it is therefore verse 42:16 which validates the sentiment. Furthermore, while 42:16 does not specifically mention the Qur'an, the fact that it states that arguments concerning God after He is accepted are null/void, also implies, by consequence, to NOT reject the Qur'an after its acceptance; as one would essentially be arguing about God if one subsequently rejects the Qur'an.

Moving on, I have indeed read the articles you referenced, and while this library of articles are of immense contribution and an invaluable resource to understanding the Qur'an, I would like to take this opportunity to suggest that we, as individuals, are still required to take the best from them (or for that matter any scholar's or layman's work) and determine for ourselves our own perspectives. To this end, let us reconsider your assertion that People of the Book, after accepting the truth of the Qur'an, are not required to follow it. The Qur'an, itself, will be used to counter this assertion:

It is imperative to first establish that a Believer is someone who accepts the truth of the Qur'an, FROM HIS/HER VERY CORE. In other words, a Believer is not someone who merely gives the Qur'an "lip service." This is clearly conveyed by the following verses:

17.107-108 "Say: Believe in it or believe not; surely those who are given the knowledge before it fall down on their faces in prostration when it is recited to them. And they say: Glory be to our Lord! most surely the promise of our Lord was to be fulfilled"

5.83 "And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, you will see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognise the truth: they pray: "Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses"

If the People of the Book (to whom the above verses reference) "fall down in prostration," if their eyes are "overflowing with tears," then clearly the Qur'an's message has penetrated their hearts, and thus they accept the Qur'an's authenticity, and hence they say, "Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses." Now I ask the question, what exactly are they a witness to? And the answer is that they are witnesses that the Qur'an, all of it, is from God. So, given that they accept that the ENTIRE QUR'AN IS FROM GOD, what, then, does the Qur'an ask of these witnesses? What, specifically, is the directive/enlightenment/guidance of the Qur'an as it pertains to the People of the Book?

1. The Qur'an informs the People of the Book that their own Scriptures are partially corrupted:

6: 91 They have no grasp of God's true measure when they say, 'God has sent nothing down to a mere mortal.' Say, 'Who was it who sent down the Scripture, which Moses brought as a light and a guide to people, which you made into separate sheets, showing some but hiding many? You were taught things that neither you nor your forefathers had known.' Say, 'God [sent it down],' then leave them engrossed in their vain talk.

CONSEQUENCE: The People of the Book, WHO ACCEPT THE QUR'AN'S AUTHENTICITY, must now come to terms with the CERTAINTY THAT PARTS OF THEIR OWN SCRIPTURE(S) ARE FALSE. How do you think a TRUE BELIEVER is obliged to react to such a realization?

2. The Qur'an points out some specific doctrines from past Scriptures that are false. For example, it points out that the doctrine of the Trinity is false:

5.73 They do blaspheme who say: God is 'Third of three' (Arabic: Thalithu thalathatin) : for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

CONSEQUENCE: The People of the Book, WHO ACCEPT THE QUR'AN'S AUTHENTICITY, but who previously believed in the Trinity doctrine, must now come to terms that Jesus is not the son of God. It is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE to accept the authenticity of the Qur'an, on the one hand, and continue to accept the doctrine of the Trinity on the other. Such People of the Book MUST MAKE A CHOICE: either follow the Qur'an or follow their previous understanding of the Gospel, BUT IT CANNOT BE BOTH.

3. The Qur'an was sent to remove some of the shackles that were previously on the People of the Book:

7.157 "Those who follow the messenger (Arabic: Tabiuna RasulAllah), the gentile prophet (Arabic: Nabiya Ummiya), whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures) in the Torah and the Gospel;- for he commands them to what is right and forbids from what is wrong (Arabic: munkar); he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure) (Arabic: Khabaitha); He relieves from them their burdens and from the fetters which were upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper."

CONSEQUENCE: The People of the Book, WHO ACCEPT THE QUR'AN'S AUTHENTICITY, can now look forward to no longer being shackled by whatever burdens were placed on them by their previous Scriptures. The importance of following the Qur'an, and thus being removed of these shackles, is immediately followed and supported by the following guidance: "So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper." So the Believing people of the Book, must now contend with the fact that they will prosper if "THEY FOLLOW THE LIGHT WHICH IS SENT DOWN." Remember, these people TRULY BELIEVE THE QUR'AN IS AUTHENTIC, so how do you think they are obliged to interpret this guidance?

4. The Qur'an is a confirmation of previous Scriptures, and with FINAL AUTHORITY over them:

5:48 We sent to you [Muhammad] the Scripture with the truth, confirming the Scriptures that came before it, and with final authority over them: so judge between them according to what God has sent down. Do not follow their whims, which deviate from the truth that has come to you. We have assigned a law and a path to each of you. If God had so willed, He would have made you one community, but He wanted to test you through that which He has given you, so race to do good: you will all return to God and He will make clear to you the matters you differed about.

CONSEQUENCE: The People of the Book, WHO ACCEPT THE QUR'AN'S AUTHENTICITY, must come to terms with the fact that it is the Qur'an which has FINAL AUTHORITY over their own previous Scriptures. Since these people are not simply giving "lip service" to the Qur'an, they are therefore obliged to come to terms with this Qur'anic directive: THAT IT IS HAS FINAL AUTHORITY OVER THEIR OWN SCRIPTURES. It is therefore AXIOMATIC that the believing People of Book are obliged to follow the Qur'an, by virtue of this directive.

It is important that all four points, above, are considered as a whole, when deciding if the People of the Book, who accept the Qur'an's authenticity, are also obliged to follow it. An alternate perspective, of course, is outlined in the article you've referenced earlier. It is for each individual to review all relevant arguments, and decide what is best for themselves.

Finally, an important point of clarification, the People of the Book who DO NOT believe in the authenticity of the Qur'an, are therefore obviously NOT obliged to follow it. So long as they uphold their own Scriptures, and do not associate partners with God, they are still entitled entry to Heaven. Hence the choice is theirs: THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK CAN EITHER BELIEVE OR NOT. However, once they become Believers in the Qur'an's authenticity, they are obliged to also follow it, for reasons elucidated above.

With peace and regards,

Imran

Dear Hamzeh

Thank you for your considered comments.

However though verse 42:16 if read with the verses surrounding it I would argue that it does not actually ask the People of the Book to accept the Qurans authenticity but rather it is speaking to the Prophet Muhammad and asking him not to argue with the ones of the People of the Book who have accepted God as one.

Yes, this is true, but there is an implicit connotation embedded in verse 42:16. Let us look at verse 42:16 again:

042.016
"And those who dispute / argue concerning God after He has been accepted / acknowledged, invalid, null/ void is their argument in the Sight of their Lord and on them will be a severe punishment."

Now obviously if the People of the Book will suffer severe punishment if they continue to dispute about God after God has been acknowledged, what do you think would be the punishment for the Believers if they were to reject the Qur'an and/or argue about God, after having acknowledged it to be an authentic Revelation?

I would have to say that 4:47 is actually presenting that concept in some way, on the other hand thats not the only verse that can present such a concept.

As I've already conveyed in my previous post, the punishment which is threatened with in verse 4:47 is restricted, specifically, to the Jews who were attempting to undermine the Qur'an's message. It is precisely this restriction that eliminates any contradiction with verse 2:62. If the punishment applied wholescale to all People of the Book, with no qualification whatsoever, then indeed there would be a glaring contradiction with verse 2:62 (and also 5:69), and one, I might say, which would be difficult to reconcile. It is precisely these types of intricacies/subtleties that make the Qur'an's authorship to be impossible by anyone other than God.

Well first I think there is a difference with those that believe in the Quran and those who follow the Quran. In Arabic the word for believe is 'Aaman' and the word for to follow is 'ittabi'u'

None of the verses you provided indicate that the People of the Book are following the Laws of the Quran. What they do on the other hand reveal is that those who are truthful and are on the right track from the People of the Book accept its veracity and humble themselves and are strengthened in there true belief in the One God. They fall in prostration as they are now reassured and reminded of the truth. They are people who can understand the false from the truth in their scriptures and recognize the similarities and also admit that indeed God has also brought another revelation confirming what is with them. And they claim that they been from before Muslimeen (believers) and ask God to write them down as witnesses to the new revelation.

So according to the argument you outline above, an individual falls down in prostration, practically in tears, recognizing the truth of the Qur'an, further acknowledges that certain doctrines in past Scriptures are false (ostensibly with the realization that they've been corrupted), and then subsequently ignores the Qur'an (as if he/she had never heard it), and continues to practice previous laws/guidance/way of life, fully well knowing some of that guidance is wrong/off the straight path!

That, my dear brother, at any level of reasonable consideration, is simply not a rational proposition: obviously such an individual is arguably Muslim (someone who acknowledges the oneness of God), but not a true Believer (someone who, at the depth of his/her core, accepts the truth of the Qur'an).


With peace and regards,

Imran