Dear Bazz,

The Koran doesn't need to be modernized - rather, it should be exposed for what it is, an un-Islamic book, written by a cynical violent Arab gang that stole the identity of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, placing in his mouth words he never said and attributing him with things he never did.

Anyone who loves Allah and His Prophet, peace be upon him, should condemn that book and the evil-doers who wrote it.

---

As for the article itself, as usual, the author does not care for Israel and its citizens - he is only concerned if they happen to be Jews, he is only concerned for the Jewish agenda, even when it harms the interests of Israel and its population.

Bazz,

Whether or not they claim Jerusalem is not the issue.

The issue is the continued violence.

Plenty of tenuous territorial claims remain peacefully unresolved. For instance Argentina still claims the Falkland Islands, but they don't resort to terrorism and they'll certainly never resort to war again.

___________________________________________________________________________________

runner,

Whether Mohammed ever visited Jerusalem does not change the fact that most Muslims do regard Jerusalem as the world's third holiest site.

And just because you don't understand evolution doesn't mean it's a lie.

___________________________________________________________________________________

John Ryan,

There is not indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinians. But Israelis do need to stop discriminating against Palestinians.

Unfortunately there are those on both sides who don't want peace. Do you?

___________________________________________________________________________________

Yuyutsu,

Why do you believe, without any evidence, that Mohammed was a true prophet and all he's recorded to have said is a later fabrication?

I agree.
Violence is not the answer.

Dear Aidan,

On the one hand, I look at the massive forensic work of Robert Spencer:
Spencer has shattered the authenticity of the Koran and shows that it was written no earlier than in the 790's, at least 160 years after Muhammad's death (or ascent to heaven). You can listen to his many lectures and discourses about Islam on youtube and read his book, ‘Did Muhammad Exist?’.

Spencer concludes and successfully argues that Muhammad probably never existed.

On the other hand, I consider the evidence of Shri Ramakrishna:
Ramakrishna (1836-1886) turned his life into a laboratory to verify/authenticate all religions. Having already been enlightened, he did not have the usual barriers that cause people to stumble with religion, thus it was easy for him to study, practise deeply and achieve the target of each religion in turn.

After going through and practising all the religions of India - the various sects of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc., he turned to experiment with Islam (and later with Christianity).

I rely on this account of his experiment:

[
In 1866, Govinda Roy, a Hindu guru who practiced Sufism, initiated Ramakrishna into Islam. Ramakrishna said that he “devoutly repeated the name of Allah, wore a cloth like the Arab Moslems, said their prayer five times daily, and felt disinclined even to see images of the Hindu gods and goddesses, much less worship them—for the Hindu way of thinking had disappeared altogether from my mind.” According to Ramakrishna, after three days of practice he had a vision of a “radiant personage with grave countenance and white beard resembling the Prophet and merging with his body”.
]

As I trust both sources and accept their authority, I conclude that Saint Muhammad, peace be upon him, the Prophet of Allah who is referenced by Islam, did exist, yet his teachings and life-story were distorted beyond recognition by that Arab criminal gang that wrote the Koran and Hadith to serve their own ends of power and control, including such abusive and violent teachings that no true saint would ever utter. This has been the biggest identity-theft in history!