Tag Archives: god

Eckhart Tolle and belief in God

The New York Times called Eckhart Tolle “the most popular spiritual author in the United States”. His books, “The power of Now” and “Stillness speaks” have sold millions of copies with translations in 33 languages.

[The Quran verses are only given as reference to similar topic]

  • Ego is an illusory sense of self (25:43). It implies unawareness. Our consciousness is based on ego.
  • Thoughts are tormentors in the head (2:284). Voice in head is not who I am.
  • There is a difference between knowing yourself and knowing about yourself. This awareness (where thoughts exist) becomes an agent for change.
  • Having control is an illusion (3:109).
  • Have an honest self-evaluation (17:14) and let go of the past (25:70).
  • Unhappiness is based on your thoughts (28:69). Inner peace is not based on perceived thoughts. Material possessions will not bring happiness (11:15).
  • The present moment or the power of now (rather than the past or future) should be the primary focus of life.

This is a message for all the people.
For those who wish to go straight.
Whatever you will is in accordance with the will of GOD, Lord of the universe. [81:26-29

There is a perceived value in Tolle’s teachings for quite a few humans as evidenced by the book sales and by other self-help books. Should an individual reach the destination of ‘now’ by following Tolle’s teachings, what happens then?

The answer – oblivion. The absence of God from an individual’s life makes everything else, infinitesimal.


“I have devoted myself absolutely to the One who initiated the heavens and the earth; I will never be an idol worshiper.” [6:79]

  • Like other new-agers, Tolle advocates looking to the universe for guidance, rather than to the Creator of the universe.
  • According to Tolle, Heaven is inner awakening. As we know, there can be no belief in God without belief in the Hereafter.
  • Per Tolle, universe creation is an ongoing process. Per Tolle, an outside agent creates and walks away and there is an evolving god and humans.
  • Tolle makes no distinction between humans and God; and considers both to share divinity.
  • Tolle believes in Pantheism – Pantheism is the belief that reality is identical with divinity, or that all-things compose an all-encompassing, immanent god.

GOD: there is no other god besides Him, the Living, the Eternal. Never a moment of unawareness or slumber overtakes Him. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and everything on earth. Who could intercede with Him, except in accordance with His will? He knows their past, and their future. No one attains any knowledge, except as He wills. His dominion encompasses the heavens and the earth, and ruling them never burdens Him. He is the Most High, the Great. [2:255]

Supporting a point of view by God’s words in the Quran



Unfortunately, only some submitters adhere to the above, even though the Quran and God’s messenger are clear and explicit about the above.

[6:114] Shall I seek other than GOD as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt.
[6:115] The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
[18:27] … Nothing shall abrogate His words, and you shall not find any other source beside it.

“We are people who follow the Quran, the whole Quran and nothing but the Quran. Therefore, anybody and this means anybody who brings any information must conform to the Quran, the whole Quran and nothing but the Quran.  And if anyone, I will underline anyone, who comes up with information that is not confirmed by the Quran, we tell him forget it, we don’t accept it. The criterion is preaching, confirming existing scripture, the Quran and nothing else.” – Rashad Khalifa, Khutba announcing his messengership, April 1988.


Most of us, when we were first given the message, verified directly from the Quran. Thus, for the correct Shahadah, we would look at the words of 3:18, 47:19 and others similar verses of the Quran. We verified certain aspects the great mathematical miracle of the Quran like number of Suras or the number of letters in the Basmallah or the total number of verses in the Quran. We looked closely at the words of 3:81 to be validate that a messenger will come after all the prophets or 33:40 to ascertain that Muhammad was not the last messenger. Newcomers are encouraged and expected to do their homework of verifying from the Quran.


Like all previous messengers, the message of the messenger after the prophets was to worship God alone (39:45). The messenger made it clear that we worship God by upholding only God’s words in the Quran (17:46, 25:30). God blessed us by providing proof that every word of the Quran is a Proven Word of God. The messenger brought forth other information embedded within the Quran by God’s leave like the age of 40, the feud in the High Society, etc. In the February 1990 Newsletter, Dr. Khalifa states, “As stated in 3:81 and 46:9, God’s Messenger of the Covenant does not bring anything new; everything I receive and pass on to you is already in the Quran.”

The messenger summarized the embedded information in his English translation of the Quran. Thus, an Introduction gives a Quranic basis to the Religion of Submission and answers the question, “why are we here?” Appendices in the translation give details of the mathematical miracle of the Quran, proof of messengership and other issues of relevance. As an example, in Appendix 9, the messenger explains God’s divine preservation of religious duties from the time of Abraham to now with the Quran correcting all corruptions in religious duties and associated rituals. Neither Muhammad nor Rashad Khalifa were ‘given’ the steps for ‘how to perform salat’.


Dr. Khalifa states in his Book, Quran, Hadith & Islam:

“Only a little thinking leads us to realize that Quran came to us through Muhammad’s mouth, and DID NOT COME TO US FROM GOD DIRECTLY. Hence the commandment that we shall obey the messenger…for he utters the words of God.

“When we seek “religious” instructions from Muhammad, or any other source beside God, we support Satan in his claim that God needs a partner. Therefore, those who worship God ALONE follow the instructions and teachings of GOD ALONE. As shown throughout this book, God’s teachings are complete, perfect, and fully detailed in Quran.”

Similarly, the delivery of the miracle and embedded information did not come to us directly from God.


What is the point when a submitter, who in the process of accepting the message and verifying directly from the Quran (17:36), like the examples given above, transform from a submitter into a potential submitter who seeks “religious” instructions from Rashad and supports Satan in his claim that God needs a partner?

The answer is very simple. It is the point when one gets away from worshipping of God alone (inability to uphold God’s complete words in the Quran), and therefore that person is stripped of common sense. The following are some examples of stripped common sense of those who cannot give a point of view based exclusively on Quran.

–           They cannot define the word Quran. To them, it is something other that the Arabic Quran given to Prophet Muhammad.
–           They cannot accept that God’s words are complete in the Quran per 6:115.
–           They cannot accept that those complete words are the only source of law per 6:114.
–           They cannot accept that God’s words which make up the book (Quran) provide explanations for everything per 16:89
–           They cannot accept that God’s words in the scripture (Quran) contains the message per 21:10.

–           They cannot accept that God’s words in the Quran are called Hadith (a lowly word according to them) and that we cannot accept ANY other Hadith per 77:50, 7:185 and 45:6. Even though God calls His Glorious words in the Quran, Hadith, they are unwilling to call Rashad Khalifa’s words as Hadith.

–           They consider the messenger’s words in footnotes, subheadings, appendices, etc. as same as or ‘at par’ with God’s words in the 6346 verses of the Quran.

–           They consider the messenger, Rashad Khalifa as infallible and uphold his words as a source of law thus establishing a partner with God (under the guise of ‘authorized explanations’).


The human messenger imparted the message of worshiping God alone in his human words. The messenger’s words comprise of footnotes, appendices, subheadings, audios, videos, books and newsletters.

We can certainly impart the message by giving a potential believer, Dr. Khalifa’s Translation of the Quran, as it contains embedded information including the miracle of the Quran. We can provide the potential believer access to the audios, videos, books, etc.

However, if you worship God alone, can you support your point of view directly by God’s complete words in the Quran? Or do you need a partner to associate (shirk) with God’s words?

The messenger said, “My Lord, my people have deserted this Quran.” [25:30]


None of the above, in any way, means that any of Dr. Khalifa’s work should be cast aside nor does it mean that a thorough study of his should not be done nor does it mean that anyone should be discouraged from study of his works/videos, etc.

It simply means, that when a point of view is advocated, can support from the words of the Quran be provided. The source remains the Quran (Statute Book).  For Statute Law explanations and teachings do not become a source of law.


Admission Test Q&A
Idolatry Q&A
Obey God and His Messenger
Rashad Khalifa on Quran alone
Reversion to Idolatry
Quran Text
Appendices in Rashad Khalifa Translation

Obey God and His Messenger

In the name of God, most Gracious, most, Merciful

When two or more individuals open a joint account at a bank in USA, they have an option of opening an OR account or an AND account. When they open an OR account either party can withdraw funds by one person’s signature. However, when an AND account is opened, both parties must sign before funds can be withdrawn. In other words for the AND account approval of all parties is required for funds withdrawal or to make any changes to the account.

The Quran commands us to obey God AND His messenger. It commands us in 49:1 not to place our opinion above God AND His messenger. The Quran does not give us the luxury of obeying God OR His messenger. In other words we don’t have the choice of obeying God OR obeying His messenger. Thus, obeying God and His messenger boils down to obeying God as it requires God’s endorsement. God’s endorsement is in the words of the Quran. We obey God by following God’s words in the Quran.  We don’t place our opinion above God and His messenger by not placing our opinion outside the confines of the words of the Quran. We cannot obey God and His messenger until and unless what the messenger says coincides with the words of the Quran.

It is:                       obey God and His messenger.
It is not:               obey God or His messenger.

God has given the example of the use of word OR to mean EITHER. The word OR suggests option.

[23:6] Only with their spouses, or those who are rightfully theirs, do they have sexual relations; they are not to be blamed.

[70:30] (They have relations) only with their spouses, or what is legally theirs –
[70:31] anyone who transgresses these limits is a sinner.

God specifies in this category that sexual relations are allowed with EITHER their spouses OR what is legally theirs, but not both.

God has blessed us with all the words we need in the Glorious Quran.


As submitters to God alone, our discussions and advocacy on any topic should be based on verses of the Quran.

For those interested here is a mathematical explanation for AND & OR for the mathematically structured book – the Quran

The Difference between And and Or


Date: 01/23/2008 at 11:59:54

From: Mikki

Subject: and/or

My son had a question that was marked wrong on his paper.  He pointed out to me that by the way it was worded, he felt as though he were correct.  Here is the question:  There are 3 knives, 4 spoons, 4 forks.  What fraction of the utensils are spoons OR forks? He answered 4/11 and was told the teachers edition says 8/11.  I understand the way he read it to be OR meaning one or the other.  If it’s 8/11, shouldn’t it be worded spoons AND forks?  If the answer is 8/11, I want my son to understand why.

Date: 01/23/2008 at 12:24:17

From: Doctor Peterson

Subject: Re: and/or

Hi, Mikki.

The words “and” and “or” can be ambiguous in English, so in math we give them precise meanings.  We have to teach those meanings, but often forget to, which may have happened here.

When we talk about the set of things that are A AND B, we mean that EACH of those things must be BOTH A and B.  Nothing is both a spoon and a fork!  (At least not in this problem.)  So “and” would have been inappropriate.  There are no utensils that are spoons and forks.

When we talk about the set of things that are A OR B, we mean that EACH of them may be EITHER A or B.  That is, we are including in the set BOTH those that are A, AND those that are B.  This is where the confusion and ambiguity come in!  There are 8 utensils that are spoons or forks.

Your son read it in a way that is commonly used in nontechnical English, taking “How many are A or B” to mean two separate questions combined: “How many are A, how many are B”.  I can see how that could be tempting in this case; the two numbers happen to be the same, so he could take the question to mean “How many are A (which is also the same as the number that are B”.  If there had been 3 spoons and 4 forks, that interpretation would not have made as much sense; the best answer he could give would be “3, or 4”.  We don’t combine questions like that in math, to avoid confusion.

So the book was right, but the question is ambiguous if the teacher has not taught (or does not know) the standard mathematical usage. (This usage is important in some later topics, such as probability, so it’s definitely worth teaching.)

If you have any further questions, feel free to write back.

– Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum



Date: 01/23/2008 at 12:47:17

From: Doctor Riz

Subject: Re: and/or

Hi Mikki –

I’d like to add one piece to what Dr. Peterson wrote.  While this is a slightly different application of the idea, my students always found this particular example of the logical difference between AND and OR helpful.

In logic, an AND statement is only true if both parts of it are true. If I say, “I am in Vermont AND I am in New Hampshire” the only way that can be true is if I am standing on the border with one foot in each state.

An OR statement is true if either part is true.  If I say, “I am in Vermont OR I am in New Hampshire” that statement is true as long as I am in either state (it’s also true if I’m straddling the border).  The only way an OR statement is not true is if both parts are false, such as if I were standing in Massachusetts when I made my statement about being in Vermont or New Hampshire.

With your question about utensils being spoons OR forks, I count every utensil that is either a spoon or a fork, giving 8 of the 11.  If I were asked what fraction of the utensils were spoons AND forks, there would be zero since the utensil would have to be both things.  There IS a utensil you sometimes see in fast food places which is a spoon shape with teeth on the front edge, and it’s generally referred to as a “spork”, a combination of spoon and fork.  That’s what I’d need for a utensil to be considered a spoon AND a fork.

Does that help?  Write back if you have questions on any of this.

– Doctor Riz, The Math Forum



Date: 01/23/2008 at 13:33:11

From: Mikki

Subject: Thank you (and/or)

Thank you both for your prompt responses.  You have taught me something and definitely given me something to think about.


Idolatry Q&A
Obey God and His Messenger
Reversion to Idolatry
Supporting a point of view by Quran
Rashad Khalifa on Quran alone


Should we use the word Allah or God

In as many times as we have been on the internet or in a discussion or a chat group, we almost always run into someone who feels offended that we use the word “God” when we talk about the One and Only God (Allah in Arabic).

It is surprising to notice that most of these Muslim brothers and/or sisters do not know that the word “Allah” is the Arabic word for the word “God”. Many of them believe that “Allah” is the name of the Muslim God. They do not realize that the word “Allah” does not belong exclusively
to the Muslims and that it has always been used before (and after) Islam by the Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians when they speak about God.

Talking to English speaking people about God using the word “Allah” is very much the same like speaking to Arabic speaking people about “Allah” using the word God. It makes all the sense to show respect to the people and their language by speaking to them in the language they use.

Insisting on the use of the word “Allah” which is the Arabic word for God immediately creates the illusion that “Allah” is a whole different deity than God of the whole world. It creates a god that belongs ONLY to the Muslims, and takes the universality of Islam out of it. We found
the comment sent by Abu Iman Robert Squires to be very informative and we re-produced it here.

The word “ALLAH”

A Comment by : Abu Iman Robert Squires

Assalamu Alaikum,

I would like to strongly concur with your observations about the use of the word “Allah” in English and any other language. Both from my conversion experience in America and my experience doing da’wah here in Kuwait, it is definitely 100% – without a shadow of a doubt – better to use the word “God” when making da’wah to English speaking people.

This alone is enough to open many hearts and minds since many people think that Muslims worship a different God. I’ve come across some Arab brothers who insist in using only the word “Allah”. They somehow think that it implies Tawhid while the word “God” implies the Trinity, etc., etc.

You know, the problem with such people is not their knowledge of Arabic, but their ignorance of English. The mushriks (disbelievers) at the time of the Prophet (saws) used the word Allah, and so do Arabic-speaking Christians. The word itself in no way implies tawhid. The reason it implies
tawhid to Muslims is that they’re Muslims. Others use this word in ways that are nothing but shirk.

The word God implies tawhid to me because I have the Islamic concept of Him. It’s all in the concept, but has nothing to do with the word itself. Also, there are statements in some da’wah pamphlets that say “all prophets since Adam used the word Allah” and that “the word Allah is
exactly the same as the Aramaic word Jesus used for God”.

The first statement is baseless and can be proved to be logically incorrect from the Quran. The second statement is incorrect, but the words are only similar, but NOT exactly alike. This whole trend of using “Allah” in English seems to come about rather recently.

Most of the translations and writings done back in the 1940’s and 1950’s used the word “God”, which is a perfectly good translation of the word Allah in Arabic. M.M. Pickthall being the main exception, since he seemed to have used “Allah” in all of the translations that I’ve seen.

The change came, I believe, as a result of Nasserite Arab Nationalism. Many Arabs I know over here still don’t know the difference between Islam and Arab Nationalism! They seem more interesting in defending their pride heritage than really spreading the message. But this is in no way limited to Arabs, I’ve dealt with Pakistanis, Malaysians, Turks and Afghanis that have the same hang-up.

The mentality of some of these brothers almost approaches that of the Bani Isra’il – the “our God vs. your God” mentality! By the way, I’ve never met an English-speaking convert to Islam (or Spanish-speaking, or French-speaking) who disagreed with me on this point. Most them went
through a stage wondering why (some) Muslims insist on using Allah.

I should also add that I know a lot of Muslims that use “God” when speaking English. I find this rather common among most Egyptians that I know. In Morocco, where I visit quite frequently, the also use Dieu when they parlez francais.

Insh’allah, more Muslims will realize this and our da’wah will become more effective. This is a BIG barrier, but many Muslims don’t realize it. Many come up with baseless reasons to justify it (for whatever reason). What do we converts know anyway!!! Ha! Another point before I go…some people like to try to draw exact parallels between English and Arabic words which just don’t fit.

The word “ilah” in Arabic can be used for a false god or for Allah. (Like when God says (paraphrased) the “ilah” of Ibrahim”, and numerous other example.) Anyone who can read the Quran should know this. However, unlike the word “god” in English, which ALWAYS implies a false god. Non- native English speakers sometimes mistakenly believe that “god” and “God” are the same English word, but they are not. They carry completely different meanings. If they doubt this, then they simply don’t know how to speak the English language. And to say that the word “Allah” can only be used for the Supreme Almighty Creator is refuted by the Quran itself.

It clearly says (and I paraphrase here rather liberally) that Christians say that “Allah is Jesus”. There you have it, applying “Allah” to something that isn’t “Allah” right there in the Quran. You see, what people really mean to say is that you SHOULDN’T use “Allah” for anything
except the Almighty Creator, but you still CAN. The same thing goes for the word God.

People can use it in the wrong way, but that doesn’t make it right. The truth is that this word too should only be used for the Almighty Creator. Remember…God has sent prophets to everyone in their OWN LANGUAGE, i.e. a language that they can understand. How many more people
around the world wouldn’t be dying on SHIRK if many Muslims woke up and started making da’wah in a way people can understand? Well, I’ve spoken my peace.

Abu Iman Robert Squires


Here is another comment and response by Steven Thomas;

To: BILL H——–


Sorry Bill, but your sources are dubious at best. Souroush for instance is a evangelical missionary associated with Jimmy Swaggart – great reliability there!

The fact is that Allah does not refer to the moon god or have associates. The linguistic breakdown of Allah is “The/Al God/Lah”. That is why all Christian Arabs (monophysists, Nestorians, Orthodox, Roman, and Protestant (yes, even Mr. Shouroush) use the term Allah to refer to God the Father when they speak Arabic. Lest you wonder where I am coming from, my degrees are Biblical Arch. and Arabic language.

Try again.


— The Pitts <c—@centurytel.net> wrote:

The god of the Quran and the God of the bible are completely different. Allah being contrived from AI-Llah the moon god. Please feel free to research it yourself. As your own documentation says,..”don’t mean to offend anyone.”


There is no one offended here.

God of the Arabic Bible is called “Allah”. I do not think you believe that there is a god for the English Bible and another god for the Arabic Bible and a third for the Italian bible…etc. It would be too naive.

There is ONLY one God. His name in English is God, in French: un dieu, in Italian: dio, in German: Gott, in Spanish: Dios, in Portuguese: Deus, in Arabic: Allah, and in Aramaic : alaha.

All these are no more than the names of God in different languages To this day the Christian Arabs pray to Allah and talk about Allah. They called Him Allah even before Islam was born and they know they were not worshipping any moon god. Those who still speak Jesus language
(Aramaic/syriac) call God alaha to this day like Jesus did. Jesus did not pray to a moon god but to alaha (Allah), the One and Only God.

The Arabic Bible, use the word Allah for God. If you want any images of the Arabic Bible with the word Allah in it (for God of the Bible), please let me know.

If you want to verify it, call any Arabic church in the USA or any English speaking country and ask them what they call God in their Arabic Bible and whether they still use the word Allah in their Bible or not.

Jewish Arabs also pray to Allah and talk about Allah just like an English person talks about God.

The Origin of the name “Allah”

It seems unlikely that the name Allah comes from al-ilaah “the God”, but rather from the Aramaic/Syriac alaha, meaning ‘God’ or ‘the God’. The final ‘a’ in the name alaha was originally the definite article ‘the’ and is regularly dropped when Syriac words and names are borrowed into Arabic. Middle-eastern Christianity used ‘alah’ and ‘alaha’ frequently, and it would have often been heard.

But in the Aramaic/Syriac language there are two different ‘a’ vowels, one rather like the ‘a’ in English ‘hat’ and the other more like the vowel in ‘ought’. In the case of ‘alah’, the first vowel was like ‘hat’ and the second like ‘ought’. Arabic does not have a vowel like the one in ‘ought’, but it seems to have BORROWED this vowel along with the word ‘alah’. If you know Arabic, then you know that the second vowel in ‘allah’ is unique; it occurs only in that one word in Arabic.

Scholars believe that Jesus spoke mostly Aramaic, although sometimes he spoke Hebrew and he might have spoken Greek on some occasions. If Jesus spoke Aramaic, then he referred to God using basically the same word that is used in Arabic.

From Christoph.Heger@t-online.de (Dr. Christoph Heger)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: How About That Moon God?
Date: Wed Mar 25 18:59:38 EST 1998
Message-ID: <6fc5pa$c8l$1@waltz.rahul.net>

Greetings to all,

The theory that Allah had been the name of an old Arabic moon god (or moon goddess?) is not familiar to me and I am not in a position to accept or falsify it. The following remarks only are thought to serve further elucidation of the matter.

The ancient Greek historian Herodotos in the first volume of his historic work “Histories Apodexis”, line 131-132, refers to the religion of the Persians. He writes:

“They sacrifice to the sun and the moon and the earth and the fire and the water and the winds. Only to those they sacrifice of old. In addition they learnt to sacrifice to Urania [=the Celestial one, i.e. Aphrodite; Ch.H.], too. They learnt it from the Assyrians and the Arabs. The
Assyrians call Aphrodite Mylitta [Assyrian: Bilit; Ch.H.], the Arabs Alilat…”

This “Urania”, indeed, in some connections appears as a moon goddess. “Alilat”, of course, is to be related to the Arabic feminine form “al-ilah”, a nomen unitatis which has the meaning of “the (single) deity”.

The etymological derivation of “Allah” as a contraction of “al-ilah”, which was maintained in numerous contributions to sri, too, is “popular” etymology and surely not historic. It would be rather strange that especially the “i” should have been disappeared due to neglect of the
speakers, since the syllable “il” is the most important in “al-ilah”: “il” or “el” is the semitic word for God since times immemorial.

Instead, the word “Allah”, as a lot of other words, especially words of the religious sphere, was imported from the Syriac (Aramaic) language: “alaha” – with three long a-vowels -, is the Aramaic word for the (Christian) unique God. The last (long) “a” characterizes the status absolutus
in the Aramaic language and was duly omitted by the Arabs like case endings in the Arabic vernacular, whereas the understanding of the first syllable of “alaha” as an article was a common misunderstanding like for instance in “al-Iskandar” from Greek “Alexandros” etc. The doubling of the “l” is irrelevant, since the doubling sign is a very late invention of Arabic orthography, centuries after Muhammad.

Kind regards,

Christoph Heger

Even some of the traditional Scholars agree on this one; see this Question and answer from a traditional scholar

The Origin of the Word ‘Allah’…


What is the derivation of “Allah”? Some scholars say it derives from al+ illah (“the God”), but many Muslim Ulema and translators of the Quran (such as Maulana Muhammad Ali) disagree with this, and say that “Allah” is whole in itself, as a proper name for the Supreme Creator. But is there any philological relationship between Allah and other Semitic terms for “God” such as Eloah (Hebrew) and Alaha (Aramaic/Syriac)?

Thank you.

Peace and blessings of Allah be with you.

Shahid M, USA


Although a lot has been said about the philology of the word ‘Allah’, however, in my opinion, the former of the two opinions noted by you seems to be closer to the correct one. A detailed discussion compiling the opinions of various scholars of the Arabic language regarding the origin of the word can be seen in “Lisaan al-Arab” under the word “Aliha” (a-l-h). In my opinion, ‘Allah’ is an Arabic word meaning ‘the God’. According to the general principle of making proper nouns from common nouns in the Arabic language, the word “ilah” (common noun) has been converted to “al-ilah”, which became “Allah” due to the turgidity and the slight difficulty of pronunciation of the word “al-ilah”.

The Quran, because its prime and first addressees were the Arabs, used the word “Allah” for the Supreme Being, as that had traditionally been the word used for the Supreme Being in that language. The same had been the case in the older scriptures. Those scriptures, like the Quran, used those words for the Supreme Being, which had already in vogue in those languages, to refer to the Supreme Being.

However, there have been scholars of the Arabic language who ascribe to the opinion that “Allah” is the actual name of the Supreme Being. It is indeed important to the evidence that they have provided into account. Nevertheless, I feel that to give God a name is a requirement of us,
humans. God, being the absolute being is in no need for a name.

May the Almighty guide us all to the path of His liking.

Fundamentals of Islam

Egypt’s media regulator issues warning to controversial show discussing Islam

Islam El-Beheiry

The debate over the programme, called With Islam and presented by Islam El-Beheiry on private satellite TV channel El-Qahera Wal-Nas, started last week when Al-Azhar, the country’s leading Sunni Islam institute, filed an official complaint with the Free Media Zone, the state department in charge of managing cable TV channel contracts.

El-Beheiry’s show has previously tackled several controversial issues in Islam, including punishment for apostasy, the debate on early marriage, and different interpretations of the Hadith, the sayings and teachings of Islam’s Prophet Muhammed.

On Thursday, two independent lawyers filed a complaint with the prosecutor-general, accusing El-Beheiry of contempt of religion, insulting the Prophet’s companions and the Sunnah, the teachings and practices of Islam’s Prophet.

An open discussion about Islam is not allowed in Muslim countries – Egypt being a prominent Muslim country. Mr. El-Beheiry is being accused of “attacking the fundamentals of religion.”

Lets examine..


  1. Freedom of religion
  2. Freedom from oppression
  3. Worship God ALONE
  4. Uphold only the Quran as a source of religious law
  5. Only acceptable hadith (narration) is the Quran
  6. Only acceptable sunnah (system) is God’s which is spelled out in the Quran

Does the representative of Al-Azhar uphold any of the above fundamentals from the Quran? The answer is no. The consequences are horrendous in this world and the Hereafter.

Closest to God

God Almighty has told us about those who are closest to Him in the Last
Day when our reward or punishment will be eternal. In 4:172, God talked
about the Angels who are closest to Him. In Suras 56 and 83, God told us
about the human beings who will be the closest to Him. And this will be
the ultimate Paradise and bliss.

We read in Sura 56:
“When the inevitable comes to pass. Nothing can stop it from happening. It
will lower some and raise others. The earth will be shaken up. The
mountains will be wiped out. As if they never existed. YOU WILL BE
STRATIFIED into three kinds. Those who deserve bliss will be in bliss.
Those who deserve misery will be in misery. Then there is the ELITE OF THE
ELITE. They are those who will be closest (To God). In the gardens of
bliss. Many from the first generations. FEW from the later generations.”
56:1-14 Reflect on this expression, FEW FROM THE LATER GENERATION.

But where-else does God talk about those CLOSEST TO HIM. In 83:21

“Indeed the book of the righteous will be in ‘Elleyyeen. Do you know what
CLOSE TO ME. The righteous have deserved bliss.” 18-22.

Only those who are the closest to God will be witnessing this numerically
structured book. Now we know why some people can not see the miracle.
How can this numerically structured book be blessing for the righteous and
disaster for the disbelievrs and hypocrites is explained in 74:31

“We appointed angels to be guardians of Hell, and we assigned their number
(Eddatahum) (19)
(1) to disturb the disbelievers.
(2) to convince the Christians and Jews (that this is a divine scripture),
(3) to strengthen the faith of the faithful,
(4) to remove all the traces of doubt from the hearts of the Christians,
Jews as well as the believers, and (5) to expose those who harbor doubt in
their hearts, and the disbelievrs; they will say, “What did God mean by
this allegory?
God thus sends astray whomever He wills, and guides whomever He wills.
NONE KNOWS the soldiers of your Lord except He. THIS IS A REMINDER FOR THE
PEOPLE. ‘ 74:31