That you will climb from stage to stage.

Quran 84:19 The following is my humble attempt to crystallize a number of issues of belief b oth general and Muslim specific. I will try to aggregate some fundamental issues and hope it will help towards a better understanding of our reality in less tim e than it takes for a rerun of your favorite show. It is also hoped that in the process it will show the "you don't get it because you believe in God" crowd tha t we get it or at least we get it as well as they get it. The bunching together should give a zoomed out view as to why most issues remain unresolved at the end of almost every discussion with those that perceive the theists as less than ra tional, to put it mildly. One can speculate on the reasons behind the stubbornne ss that prevent resolutions between the two camps but the number one reason has to be the issue of the God constant. You can't prove a negative misdirection Briefly our ability to be able to imagine the very notion of a God is consistent with our reality. Equally important is our capacity to debate the related issue of verifying the existence or not of the same. The two are related but not inte rdependent. In the event that we are not able to "prove" the existence of the Go d does not follow that we have solved the proverbial problem of "something from nothing" when applied to say the Universe (s). Arguments like "you can't prove a negative" or the even more logically absurd claim that positive truth claims be ar a burden of proof while negative truth claims don't are not sound. The former needs no name dropping; the later was thoroughly discredited by Chamberlain, Ga rvey and Reitan among others. Chamberlain's argument is pretty straightforward, all truth claims bear a burden of proof, and the burden of proof is even greater if it takes the shape of notions like the teapot or the spaghetti monster, the parody form of it, not because of their negativity but because of the extent of their triviality. Similarly, just because we have not being able to solve a related problem doesn' t follow that we have automatically settled the problem we set out to solve in t he first place. Neither can two unknowns be equated beyond the fact that they ar e unknowns. Attempts to remove the first cause or negate the need to know the "c ause" ends up violating everything else in our aggregated knowledge base. One wo uld think from purely a logical perspective that the starting point for any inve stigation should have focused on the "cause" or the "first cause", even if the e xact nature of that cause necessitate waiting. After all we know next to nothing about nature of gravity but use it extensively as a cause in order to understan d everything around us. The idea should be to plug in a constant and then run the equation, as often don e in mathematics and see what happens. If we can nail down the whole picture tha t would be ideal if not, we should follow the lead of the mathematicians and be satisfied with its usefulness till such time that the whole picture reveals itse lf. Other than for the purpose of advancement of knowledge, the established mode ls are not to be set aside, especially not permanently, for the sole purpose of running after mere possibilities. Causeless reality and the in vogue multiple un iverses misdirection both falls into this category. Increasingly the tactics employed seems to be that any "explanation" will do as long as it is not God. Richard Dawkinss gaffe that Darwin made it possible to be a n intellectually fulfilled atheist. kind of revealed the true motivation behind b ringing up these possibilities. Which is fine but these are not scientific concl usions from the available data of the referenced works. I think it is nothing bu t intellectual dishonesty when philosophical views are mixed with science in ord er to claim a slam dunk. The likes of Futuyma, Gould, and Dawkins have a right t o their philosophy but they do not have the right to try and pass the mix as tho ugh it is all science. In science theories must be tested against the evidence, no exceptions. For those who insist on these "posibilities the question then is

why not follow Martin J. Rees version of spiritual reality or indeed Bernard dE spagnat and his work in concept reality. DEspagnats current hypothesis is that some unknowable divine entity operates in this underlying realm/dimension. In other words, theoretical physics now predicts the reality of a hypercosmic god. In essence the problem of the God constant is more related to knowing and not th e existence or non existence as such. Once we are able to solve or at least put our issue of knowing in perspective, the verification of God s existence becomes that much more manageable and is easily elevated from being merely useful. The Blind Faith Myth Before we get deeper into the epistemology bit, the blind faith myth needs tackl ing since it is used by both camps but with different agendas receptively. Peopl e who routinely view faith as blind have obviously not thought this through. One can be forgiven for the use of blind faith argument against the curious positio n of the sect scene in which faith becomes mysteriously blind "after" one joins a sect or religion. But it is impossible to defend the notion of starting out wi th the premise of blind faith and then go on to exercise the very non blind act of "choosing" a sect and then inexplicably switch back to following the sect doc trine blindly. Unless the choice itself is also blind, blind as in pulling one o ut of a hat, the whole thing is nothing but the old bait and switch sophistry. What is not clear however is the position of those who uses blind faith as a ser ious argument against those that follow the verified God model. Just because it can be justified against the sect absurdity doesnt make it valid across the theis t board. Of course if we were to follow the blind faith and the blind route opti on then by definition any faith will do, including the triviality of the spaghet ti monster. By the same token It is equally logical to expect answers to valid q uestions in a verified faith model. In practice "blind faith" is designed to discourage the asking of legitimate que stions of the sect leaders questionable practices. Basically it is a license to shut everybody up. There can be no other explanation. The demonizing of those d emanding closer scrutiny seems to be the weapon of choice. The speed and intensi ty of its deployment is also in direct proportion to the level of calm and ratio nality with which the scrutiny is demanded. That in fact is true of any ideology where the sole objective is a power grab. Here we must distinguish an important element of faith and that is personal expe riences. The collective claim of billions is impossible to dismiss. Hence this a pparent contradiction in no way takes away from those who are blessed with the a bility to take the word of those near and dear to them and believe in their ways and do end up experiencing and enjoying the resulting spiritual awakening. Sadl y, it must be added that these are the very same folks that do and are in real d anger of ending up as cannon fodder for the sect driven misadventures. In Islam everything has to do with verification and validation. Just bear with m e and I will attempt to put the Islamic faith in perspective as explained in the verses of the Quran. Not surprisingly there are going to be Muslims that may no t agree with my take but then again Islam is the ultimate do it yourself belief system, there is no provision for a central religious authority, no professional clerics and no rite of passage, hence all opinions are welcomed as long as we c an back them up with reason and logic and above all the visible audible verses o f the Quran. Beyond the personal faith, the only sanctioned body in Islam is the Ummah, the p eople. The collective laws only kick in when a group of Muslims form a community and decide to be governed by the Quranic laws as interpreted by the people or t heir direct representative as opposed to a religious cabal. In which case it bec ome a theocracy which Islam is not. For that matter none of the major religions

started out to be theocracies but each one has been transformed into such with v arying degree of success. Personally, blind faith is seriously overrated and prone to completely falling a part. The notion of blind faith has its origins in the mistaken belief that what canno t be detected with our senses, especially sight, must be acknowledged to exist t hrough faith and assumed to be not verifiable. Agreed to some extent as far as t he first part goes but the latter is definitely not true. While it is true that most people are unable to directly verify the physical existence of angels for e xample but then most people are unable to verify the existence of black holes ei ther. In fact even experts need to do it through indirect indicators and markers ; of course these markers in turn are verifiable through yet another set of infe rences. The point is we routinely put our trust into the hands of others and bel ieve that they have the tools and the capacity to verify which we can t. "Experts" Hence, when a person is unable to directly verify something then the next best t hing to do, short of becoming an expert, is to rely on experts in that particula r field. Mind you even if one decides to become an expert it is still not a guar antee to resolve one s understanding of an issue where there happens to be diver ging views among experts. Thanks to the research into experts systems, it is now possible to define an expert; an expert is someone who is successful in committ ing to memory between 700,000 to a 1,000,000 facts of a certain discipline acqui red over a period of 8 to 10 years, In situations where the issues are not yet n ailed down, even if one were to decide on becoming an expert, in spite of the st eep climb, all that will change is that those experts that disagree with a certa in position will now have one more expert to either agree or disagree with. Thankfully, in practice living by expert advice works most of the time but only for stuff that has limited impact on our lives. We are able to choose a good doc tor or a hospital or efficient means of transportation and increasingly even the right diet plan by taking advice of relevant experts. In most instances we are able to seek second opinions without drastic personal adjustment. Unfortunately when it comes to belief systems there are many self declared experts that prey o n people s trusting nature and dupe them into believing things that are not only untrue but sold with an angle. The difference here is that we are no longer see king a particular advice for a particular need but the sum total of what will ul timately define us. Wrong advice could not only result in a difficult life but p otentially sink our eternity. These so called experts can be found on both sides of the God debate, each set selling their particular flavor of snake oil. These same experts often need to sell "trust me" and "shut up" approach under th e guise of "blind faith" and the even worse version of it "blind following". Rou tinely individuals are brow beaten into believing that unless one become an expe rt as defined by a propriety religious institution, a person does not even quali fy to discuss the path to salvation and/or even existence. In a final twist the path to salvation or understanding the sum total of existence is rerouted, by th e "experts", through them of course. The backlash to this unnatural and in pract ice subjugating position was not only way over due but natural. Similarly, the proponents of Scientism, a dogmatic endorsement of scientific met hodology and attempts to reduce all knowledge to only that which is measurable, have their own bag of tricks. Ranging from "shut up and listen because you are n ot an expert" to mixing scientific data with personal philosophies in order to j ustify a world without a Prime mover. The new challenge This is obviously not the first time that the religious hegemony is challenged.

History is full of people taking up the challenge with varying degree of success . The present backlash is distinguishable by the speed and reach of it. The infl uence of the internet cannot be emphasized enough. More on that later. This dist inction is further divided into two distinct movements; the Muslim movement whic h has very rapidly encircled the globe even though the numbers are in millions, it is still small but growing very rapidly. This movement is distinct from the n on Muslim movements because the latest chapter in the Abrahamic religions has a fallback position in the shape of a preserved primary document. Hence all that w as required was to push the reset button. The result has been that instead of a mass exodus from Islam it is the sects that started losing membership and rapidly. The non Muslim movements did not have the luxury to the same extent since the Pr imary Documents themselves have not only been compromised but made distinct by t he religious cabals. The Bible is still very potent and definitely a blueprint f or salvation, perhaps that is one reason why its reading was discouraged by the Church. Although some of the other religious works are in need of major overhaul s. The other distinguishing feature of this non Muslim movement is that it had v ery limiting success in areas where largely Muslims are in majority. Most of thi s particular backlash against "religion" is localized in the West so to speak. With time a certain narration in the West began to gain ground over the faith ba sed movements. The momentums of this narration that promote the notion of the bli nd faith as the culprit have now two beneficiaries. Not surprisingly, the muddlin g of the issues gave the trust me and shut up brigade continued benefit under the d isguise of resolving it for those confused by it. The other beneficiary is a mor e deceptive bunch who were able to step into the confusion and establish a book selling racket that took the blind faith into a new dimension. It repackage the essential elements of the blind faith and fed the unsuspecting a false premise o f understanding, which now has a sizable following. What this new movement managed was to muddle the distinction between science and pure fiction sufficiently to make it seductive enough to sell books with a prom ise of the elusive "alternative explanation". Obviously, talk shows, speaking en gagements, Youtubing are all part of this racket. Many are sucked into the appar ent freewheeling spirit of the movement that implies that everything and now is your right. It also tries to take credit for delinking an individual from the pr ofessional clerics and their subjugating ways. Once these alternate positions hardened in their respective movements, it is now increasingly taxing to watch the expected chaos when these two movements come i n contact. The resulting discussions are a back and forth of the Western group try ing to paint the Muslim groups with the same brush of blind faith and the Muslim s focusing on all the negative connotations of Atheists when describing the Weste rn" groups. God s solution Enter God, His infinite mercy have resolved this issue for the whole of humanity and for all times to come, the only prerequisite is for people to trust their o wn abilities or God given abilities and take the trouble of verifying things for themselves. It is very much possible if not always to dive into it and help fro m God should be assumed. As far as I am concerned, the rule in Islam is; if it d oes not checkout then chuck it out without fear. So how did God resolve the problem of corrupt clergy or corrupt and/or incompete nt "scholars"/"experts" who insist on being on top as opposed to on tap and the book selling rackets? Without getting into the full history of Revelations, let us say that God declared the human race to be ready for a permanent Gift from Go d. What changed is that previously the Revelations where aimed at a certain peop le or geographical location and in the latest chapter of this saga the message w as declared to be Universal and for all times to come. This gift of gifts is a c

lear worded 100% verifiable book called the Quran. Through which we can easily d etermine the truth of any "something". Now, if we were to take the message as detailed in the Quran at face value then the whole thing can be reduced to a simple two step process; first determine (mu ltiple levels of verification on offer) that Quran is the word of God and then l ook up that "something" and you are done. It may sound very simplistic but here is the thing, if there is a God then it is reasonable to assume that God may hav e communicated with us. Hence if and when one is able to determine that a commun ication is from God, defined as an infinitely intelligent being, then what is it that could possibly prevent one from not following it to the letter? At this point the obvious questions raised will have to do with the methods and degree of verification and validation and of course the correct interpretation o f the message/communication. Keeping in mind the above, if there is one question that should rise to the top, it has to be; how can an individual bypass experts or expert knowledge and verify the word of God? The celebrated Gottfried Leibni z had this to say; "The only way to rectify our reasonings is to make them as tangible as those of the Mathematicians, so that we can find our error at a glance, and when there ar e disputes among persons, we can simply say: Let us calculate [calculemus], with out further ado, to see who is right." And that is precisely what God did. Quran can not only be verified with expert k nowledge across domains but in addition it can be done with something as basic a s the ability to count. Needless to say if someone is able to verify an alternative scripture or source at par with Quran then they are free to adopt that as their Bible so to speak. T he verification must include the evidence that the authorship belongs to an infi nitely intelligent being. How do we test that? Easy, nothing short of objective testing for uniqueness and the impossibility of duplication will do. What God is saying in the following Quranic verse is of profound importance and debunks the notion of blind faith at a stroke; And whoever invokes besides God another deity for which he has no proof - then h is account is only with his Lord. Indeed, the disbelievers will not succeed. Qur an 23:117. The implication is crystal clear; you need proof for your God. This strike down the blind faith notion as popularly propagated and with good reason, if there wa s no condition of proof, by the way the word used is a root word, bur hna ( , then all one has to do is to say to God on the Day of Judgment that we had bli nd faith in xyz god. In practice if you take out the proof element there would b e no difference between blindly believing in the Spaghetti Monster and the one a nd only God. The proof issue Before we get into the type of proof we must first remind ourselves of the const raint humans operate under. Proofs by their very nature are problematic unless t he frames of references are clearly defined. Just to keep it real, it took two o f the most celebrated mathematicians of our time, Bertrand Russell and Alfred No rth Whitehead to be exact, 378 pages before almost proving that 1+1=2. It may ap pear to be counter intuitive but in fact they only figured out how it could be d one if they first proved some other stuff first like; what is addition? Not to m ention Gdel telling everyone don t waste your time. While pursuing any evidence we should not let ourselves be duped into an endless

) mean

"do more" merry go round. If we can verify and validate with probability approa ching 1 then we should not insist on 1 or nothing, neither should we incline tow ards mere possibilities hovering near zero. Those who cling on to lottery winnin g odds just to protect stubbornly held positions are not really interested in ge tting to the truth, however it is defined. So now the only thing that remains is determining the strength of the proof in q uestion, the closer to 1 the better. We also know from the Quran that part of ou r test in this world is to accept the existence of God through a process of trai ning ones soul so to speak and we are suppose to do this through the use of our God given abilities of observation, reasoning and drawing solid conclusions. Fur thermore, since we are constraint by relative proofs because our design and the design of the rest of Gods creation do not allow us to test the existence of God through an absolute proof. (There is nothing that is absolute in this Universe) it becomes necessary to define this relative proof. Otherwise even if a being we re to come to us personally and claiming to be God, how would we know it is God? Think about it. Even a being who is say a mere 100 times more intelligent than us, the 200 I.Q. us, will easily be able to pull wool over our eyes and we will be none the wiser. Please go here for more on this If we are genuinely after the "truth" we have to try and put aside arguments con structed for mere misdirection purposes. Since I mentioned Russell, we are not t alking here about a claim of a teapot orbiting the sun, this has more to do with what can be verified literally using ones fingers. Hence, "you first no you fir st" should be left in the middle school where it belongs. What we will use in a bit from middle school is the math skills taught there. Let me be clear here, I am not demanding to prove the nonexistence of God. I am challenging the assertin g of an alternative explanation of why the universe exists and is the way it is. Furthermore I am merely requesting from those who demand the proof of the existe nce of God or my explanation of the existence to define (in detail) the nature of the evidence/proof that they can justify and are able to verify for themselves. Let me reiterate when it comes to Quran, multiple levels of verification are on offer as one would expect from God. An important fact to keep in mind is that Qu ran refers to itself as a book and any attempt to understand it fully must be do ne in its totality as opposed to trying to make sense out of it in bits and piec es. The real question to be asked of those that still insist that they are waiting f or evidence of God/reality and indeed of those that insist on blind faith is; si nce easily verifiable empirical evidence has been around for decades then why do n t they know about it and/or deny it exists? The evidence Here I will repeat the one example I often use to draw attention towards this ga me changing phenomenon because it is very potent and puts things into perspectiv e in a hurry. Not only that but the overall methodology of verification is curre nt to our times and in sync with how integrity of modern communication is authen ticated. Please have a look at this single example out of thousands on offer, de rived from the Quran and previously used for its simplicity and capacity to invo ke awe. The numbers demonstrate to any objective observers that an infinitely in telligent being is at work here. Time to test that middle school math, in fact elementary Arithmetic will do, tha t in itself is a miracle of sorts and true to God s solution of verification tha t totally bypass the experts and "experts". And as God says in the Quran bring another example like it and all the humans an d Jinns are free to form a team and they will have till the Day of Judgment to c ome up with the goods.

1. Number of letters it is based on is 19 (total number of letters in Bismillah, the opening verse) 2. The length of the number below is a monstrous 114 digit long 3. The opening verse itself is repeated 114 times in the Quran which is a multip le of 19 4. The number below itself is divisible by 7 5. The reverse of this number is also divisible by 7, what are the odds on just this alone 6. The number mirrors the occurrences of Bismillah in the Quran chapter by chapt er. 1 denotes onetime, 2 denotes twice and 0 none. 7. Each natural number (1,3,5,7,8) in the quotient is repeated 19 times each exa ctly, that is mind blowing 8. And if there are still undecided, here is something that brings it all home. The number 15873 is staring at us in the quotient multiple times appropriately s eparated with a zero, please verify for yourself, in the 15th Chapter, verse num ber eighty seven, the third word is none other than seven ( ) Here is the number and the calculations; 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111211111111111111111011111111 = 15873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015 873015887301587301587301573015873 x 7 When read from right to left, we have: 11111111011111111111111111211111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111 = 15873015730158730158730158873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015873015 873015873015873015873015873015873 x 7 And its all about Seven, the often repeating. Quran 15:87 with 19 thrown in as we ll, confirming the two major numerical indicators so far discovered that has no other apparent meaning in the context of their respective verses. And even the s um and multiples of the number of the chapter and verse is perfectly in sync 15: 87 = 1+5+8+7=21=7 +7+7=7 x 3=1x5x8x7=280/7=40 by the way 7 is the first number m entioned in the Quran, We must realize we haven t even properly scratched the surface. Let me just add a few relevant facts to the above example in order to underline how this single number is interlinked with the entire Quran. There are exactly 77 chapter between the first chapter where the occurrence of t he 7 is to be found the first time and the last chapter where the last occurrenc e of seven is to be found but that is not all, when we count the number of verse s between the first occurrence of the number 7 and the last occurrence of the nu mber 7, we find that there are precisely 5649 verses between them, the number is a multiple of 7, (807x7) of course.. From chapter to verse but it does not stop there, from another angle, the number of verses from the beginning of the chapt er where the first occurrence of 7 is recorded is exactly 28 (7x4), in fact we n ow bore down to the number of words, 406 (7x58), even the sum total of all the v ersus in the Quran Sum(1:6236) =19,446,966 is also is a multiple of 7. Add to it the total number of 7s in the Quran 28 (7x4) and on the textual level the menti on of 7 heavens mentioned exactly seven times for instance and much much more, a ll makes this discovery nothing short of impossible to duplicate, as rightly cla imed by the Quran. One thing more, the number 88 happens to be at 88th position counting from the l onger end in both the above sequences. No I have not figured out its significanc e, yet, it goes to show Quran is an endless sea of knowledge which must not be r estricted to any particular discipline and certainly not to exclude the universa

l domain of numbers. A heads up for those who are either habitually dismissive or in the habit of rep eating kneejerk arguments out there, to compare the claims of other scriptures a lso having codes is like comparing a fireworks display to the Milky Way Galaxy. Th en there are those that matter of factly state, "these are just numbers it does not prove that there is a God", the question is then what does it prove? and whe re did they materialize from? If one doesn t know the answer to these questions then one is in no position to say it s not from God and let us not forget that t he book they are found in is all about God. Above all, the Quranic numerical pat terns has little to do with encryption, it is all about the modern notion of com putationally securing a message and this message is computationally secure and b eyond anything human science have been able to come up with to date. If this is not a big deal then my follow up question is in which Universe? Similarly those who forever rely on the "experts" to determine their eternity fo r them, will try and repeat every worn out objection to this in your face eviden ce of God, thus denying themselves the expert free opportunity to get to the tru th . Instead of verifying it for themselves, a large number will dismiss it beca use it does not fit into their reality and a good number will try to deny its ve ry existence altogether as if their denial will somehow render this game changer undiscovered. A classic case of getting rid of their Cognitive dissonance and/o r cognitive disequilibrium. The former as we know is the unease we feel because of holding conflicting ideas simultaneously and the later is the one where a dis crepancy between something new and something already known or believed clash and is the one that is more relevant to the proof under discussion here. I repeat, this is not a standalone number, add to it hundreds more of the so far discovered interconnected numbers, the seriously fascinating word count of the Quran (the singular form of day repeated exactly 365 times and the month 12 time s as an example) and not to forget the unique literary masterpiece which Quran h appens to be. All this multi-layered complexity reaches levels that are nothing short of Godlike. Time for all-in. For those who would like me to spell out the conclusion as how these numbers are "proof" of God I will insert a part of another of my previous post here; The ma thematical patterns embedded in the Quran provides ample proof that it is the wo rk of an infinitely intelligent being and the fact that the author of the Quran is claiming to be God is significant and we will use it in our conclusions. Need less to say in 1400 years since the compilation of the Quran, nobody has even co me close to the literary eloquence of the text alone; with the added impossibili ty of embedding the mathematical pattern settles the issue once and for all. The significance of the author of the Quran claiming to be God becomes apparent when we are unable to explain Quran s presence among us. In the absence of comin g up with an alternative explanation to what is detailed in the text of the Qura n, if somebody now turns around and say you are not God to the author so to spea k then the logical question has to be on what basis is this objection raised. Is the objector more intelligent to be able to second guess the author? The author of the Quran has already demonstrated His infinite intelligence, the objector h as not. In fact the objector is unable to come up with even a short three verses sequence in response to the gauntlet thrown down by the author of the Quran. Lo gic dictates to go with the infinitely intelligent being, call it what you want. I go with God because that is what the being is claiming. Since no other being who has claimed to be God or the claim associated with one has demonstrated the same degree of verifiable intelligence that would qualify one as a God, once aga in logic dictates to go with the one which has. Even for Muslims it is important to focus on this one verified book as opposed t

o running after the sect fueled secondary sources. It is important because Quran is full of inductive truths while the secondary sources like the Hadith literat ure and tafsirs are full of contradictions and mostly frozen in an age where the knowledge base was not even one hundredth of what is on offer today. To mistake nly keep clinging to a notion similar to originalism that those who happened to be present at the time of the Revelation understood the message "best" is not on ly logically absurd but goes against the claim of the Quran that the message is Universal and timeless. Not to mention the fact that there are several competing claims in circulation a s to what that best understanding was, leaving behind the "our scholars are better than yours" mess. The implication that we somehow lack the capacity to understa nd the message of God is theologically bankrupt, a message directly addressed to us, declared easy to understand by God Himself and His declaration that He is t he teacher of the message and the one that explains it cannot be beyond our unde rstanding. Not to mention the illogical position that since this Universal messa ge was already understood by one set of people hence another set of people with even a broader knowledge base are disqualified from understanding it. This is not something that the traditionalists dont understand or recognize as so und arguments against their take; in fact most are acutely aware of these truths but are counting on the premise that the majority will not look at their own le ss than convincing arguments too critically and will get away with it. If Muslim history is any indication they are right to think that way. The one thing that they were not prepared for was the game changing developments of the last couple of decades. The manner and speed of information exchange and the resulting deba tes that did begin to look at the poorly constructed claims caught them by surpr ise. Their current catch up should be appreciated, they have managed to flood th e web with truck loads of misinformation but the proverbial genie is out of the bottle and there is zero chance of reestablishment of the tagleedy utopia (don t question the teacher) from the days of Ghazali till very recently. Equally important is to point out some specific falsehood associated with Islam which is understandably absent from the primary document Quran but propagated in these secondary sources, some examples; Laws on stoning as punishment. (an unbelievable farce embedded in deception) Laws that set the age of marriage for girls to 9 years (one wonders, what could be the motive)Laws on silence of the girl as consent (just imagine) Laws on beards and Niqab as obligatory Laws that force women to be accompanied by mahrams (the ball and chain with a tw ist) Laws on death penalty for leaving Islam (what are they thinking) Laws on obeying unjust rulers (perhaps most are related to this gem) Laws on instant divorce (of course this right is exclusive for the man) Laws that propagate abrogation of Quranic verses (an impossibility but they need this one badly to complete the deception) Laws on declaring Muslims who oppose the above farce as Kafirs (rejectors of tru th) The reason I listed the above is to remind both Muslims and non Muslims that the se subjugating practices by some Muslims does not make them part of Islam and th eses should be put in proper perspective in view of the arguments presented in t his write up and dissenting voices through out history. The power of the sects/cults We are not yet home and dry. They ve arrogated to themselves the power to change the rules arbitrarily. Although no amount of apologetic gymnastic can explain a way the obvious trappings of sects, the degree of control a carefully organized sect can exert on a member should never be underestimated even in the informatio

n age. The obvious question to ask; why are they doing this? The answer is also very obvious, to defend a position of authority that enables them to subjugate t he Ummah, that is the people. A religion that is heavily in favor of the individ ual against the state on one hand and the readily available primary document on the other leaves no wiggle room for distortion. Thus necessitating the raising of secondary sources to a level that can challenge the primary document. A theol ogical impossibility but that never stopped "them" before. Furthermore when one examines the secondary sources, human authorship is conclus ive. One is not only able to spot the inherent weaknesses in the methodologies b ut the inherent contradictions in the resulting text is very unlike God s work a nd for all to see. The scrutiny does something else as well which the sects keep tightly under wraps; the deliberate emotional intensity of the interpretation o f the message and the delivery of the same are designed to ensure that their foo t soldiers will mindlessly defend the sect s subjugating irrational positions. T he fact is that the carefully created facades are like the proverbial house of c ards and they know it, remove one and there is nothing left of the house. Hence the strategy of the Hadith peddlers has always been not to give an inch, (in ord er to protect the subjugating reports with which to control the Ummah) in fact t hey have no choice but to continue supporting the farce. The strategy itself is pretty straightforward and is employed across the various sects of different religions with just enough variation to call it their own. B asically it amounts to the same thing; first muddy the waters so that the primar y message is drowned in the sea of misinformation and becomes invisible for all practical purposes. Secondly, instead of trying to mold people into righteous so uls, the sects engage them in frivolous rituals that is supposed to manufacture good deeds with real rewards and then watch them predictably lose their way. The resulting guilt is then targeted in order to extend total control over them. On ce the inevitable "spiritual" vacuum is created, that is when the vultures move in and offer their services, above all the one that makes "sins" go away. A endl ess loop is now in place. If the focus were to shift heavily towards doing real good deeds as detailed in almost all scriptures, inevitably we will end up with a community or even the w hole world that does very little wrong and hence will lose the need for someone to come along and make their sins go away. That in a nutshell is what a sect don t want. their relevance depends on it. Conclusion In conclusion, if verification is to be taken seriously, the current alternative s on the table favors the God Model as opposed to the "something from nothing" m odel or the even more farfetched causeless reality notion. Equally important is the fact that the "we don t know model" or the more "scient ifically" correct "we don t know yet" model is useless for all practical purpose s and appears to be a copout invoked by those who constantly try to justify the non existence of God. For an individual who is trying to resolve fundamental iss ues, it does not help to state that "Science hasn t explained everything yet" ba sically wait and dont hold your breath seems to be the message. An individual is of ten interested in answers to why I am here? where am I headed? sort of questions and needs answers preferably before he or she breath his/her last. To somehow t ry and substitute answers with a notion that one day there might be answers is not an answer. When "there is no God" crowd is pushed, not believing in a god becomes "I m not convinced there is a god" hence the implication is an attempt to show as if they are actively looking to unearth the evidence. In practice it is a conviction an d all their efforts are directed towards defending this conviction. No matter ho w you look at it both positions are of no use to an individual with a very limit

ed window, in cosmological terms, to make sense of the his/her reality and make any adjustments that may be crucial. Even if we were to assume that some time in the future we may switch to a near p erpetual life spans, what most people fail to appreciate about science is that i t comes with the realization that with every discovery a whole new unknown opens up and most important, the emergence of general principle that point to whole d omains that are likely to remain unknown. All that was missing from the God Mode l to bring it home was verifiable physical evidence of God s existence, in clear empirical form. The Quran through the universal language of numbers demonstrate s the most important attribute of a God, intelligence without measure, hence log ic and probability dictates not only to follow the God model but not to settle f or the non verifiable Models on the table on which even the jury of expert is st ill out. Closing comments In our quest to make sense of the essence of our existence we should not let our selves be distracted from the main purpose of life. I will end with the words of God so as not to lose sight of what it is all about; ............. all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds-sha ll have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear need they have, and neith er shall they grieve. Quran 2:62 A few last comments on the one factor that changed everything. The advent of the internet has given the lonely warrior a glimmer of hope. For the first time in the history of mankind the speed and reach of an individual has become global. T he human race has a window of opportunity to grab the initiative before the inte rnet, as we know it, at the risk of sounding conspiratorial, is also tamed by th ose in power. At the risk of sounding a web nut, the web has not only given the world an alter nate source of news both in terms of independent journalist, bloggers and low bu dget wire news concerns, the internet has enabled everyone to do research on pol itical systems, religion and practically any subject without leaving your home. It is further possible to bypass the propriety publications and make your findin gs public virtually free. It has become possible to discuss, attend conferences, participate in forums and ask questions, seek answers in any language, earn a degree and even declare you rself an expert. The implications are frightening to the people in Authority; it is finally probable to get to the crux of issues within a manageable time frame at fraction of the cost formerly associated with such endeavors. It is finally possible to educate yourself. It has finally become possible to have a real choi ce. Make full use of it.