Why an exhibition on Aurangzeb, some may ask ?

Why an exhibition on Aurangzeb, some may ask ? Firstly, I have been a close
student of Indian history and one of its most controversial figures has been
Aurangzeb (1658-1707). It is true that under him the Moghol Empire reached
its zenith, but Aurangzeb was a very cruel ruler ' some might even say
monstrous. What are the facts? Aurangzeb did not just build an isolated
mosque on a destroyed temple, he ordered all temples destroyed, among them
the Kashi Vishvanath, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism and had
mosques built on a number of cleared temples sites. All other Hindu sacred
places within his reach equally suffered destruction, with mosques built on
them. A few examples: Krishna's birth temple in Mathura, the rebuilt Somnath
temple on the coast of Gujurat,  the Vishnu temple replaced with the Alamgir
mosque now overlooking Benares and the Treta-ka-Thakur temple in Ayodhya.
The number of temples destroyed by Aurangzeb is counted in 4, if not 5
figures. Aurangzeb did not stop at destroying temples, their users were also
wiped-out; even his own brother, Dara Shikoh, was executed for taking an
interest in Hindu religion and the Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur was beheaded
because he objected to Aurangzeb's forced conversions. FACT, the Trust which I head, is doing an exhibition on 'Aurangzeb as he was
according to Moghol documents' . Thus we thought we should go at the root of the matter. History (like
journalism) is about documentation and first hand experience. We decided to
show Aurangzeb according to his own documents. There are an incredible
number of farhans, of original edicts of Aurangzeb, hand-written in Persian
in India's museums, particularly in Rajasthan, such as the Bikaner archives.
It was not always easy to scan them, we encountered resistance, sometimes
downright hostility and we had to go once to the CM to get permissions.
Indeed the director of Bikaner archives told us that in 50 years, we were
the first ones asking for these farhans dealing with Aurangzeb destructive
deeds. Then we asked painters from Rajasthan to reproduce in the ancient
Moghol style some of the edicts : the destruction of the Somnath temple, or
the trampling of Hindus protesting jizya tax by Aurangzeb's elephants, or
the order from Aurangzeb prohibiting Hindus to ride horses and palanquins,
or the beheading of Teg Bahadur and Dara Shikoh.
People might say: 'ok, this is all true, Aurangzeb was indeed a monster, but
why rake the past, when we have tensions between Muslims and Hindus today' ?
There are two reasons to this exhibition. The first one is that no nation
can move forward unless its children are taught to look squarely at their
own history, the good and the bad, the evil and the pure.  The French for
instance have many dark periods of their history, more recently some of the
deeds they did during colonization in North Africa or how they collaborated
with the Nazis during the 2d world war and handed over French Jews who died
in concentration camps (French people are only coming to terms with it
now).The argument that looking at one's history will pit a community against
the other does not hold either: French Catholics and Protestants, who share
a very similar religion, fought bitterly each other. Catholics brutally
murdered thousands of Protestants in the 18th century; yet today they lived
peacefully next to each other. France fought three wars with Germany in the
last 150 years, yet they are great friends today.
Let then Hindus and Muslims come to terms with what happened under
Aurangzeb, because Muslims suffered as much as Hindus. It was not only Shah
Jahan or Dara Shikoh who were murdered, but also the forefathers of today's
Indian Muslims who have been converted at 90%. Aurangzeb was the Hitler, the
Asura of Medieval India. No street is named after Hitler in the West, yet in
Delhi we have the Aurangzeb road, a constant reminder of the horrors
Aurangzeb perpetrated against Indians, including against his own people.
Finally, Aurangzeb is very relevant today because he thought that Sunni
Islam was the purest form of his religion and he sought to impose it with
ruthless efficiency - even against those of his own faith, such as his
brother. Aurangzeb clamped  down on the more syncretic, more tolerant Islam,
of the Sufi kind, which then existed in India.But he did not fully succeed.
Four centuries later, is he going to have the last word ? I remember, when I
started covering Kashmir in the late seventies, that Islam had a much more
open face. The Kashmir Muslim, who is also a descendant of converted Hindus,
might have thought that Allah was the only true God, but he accepted his
Kashmir Pandit neighbor, went to his or her marriage, ate in his or her
house and the Hindu in turn went to the mosque. Women used to walk with open
faces, watch TV, films. Then the shadow of Aurangzeb fell again on Kashmir
and the hard-line Sunnis came from Pakistan and Afghanistan : cinemas were
banned, the burqua imposed, 400.000 Kashmiri Pandits were chased out of
Kashmir by violence and became refugees in their own land and the last Sufi
shrine of Srhar-e- Sharif was burnt to the ground (I was there). Today the
Shariat law has been voted in Kashmir, a state of democratic, secular
India,UP's Muslims have applauded, and the entire Indian Media, which went
up in flames when the Government wanted Vande Mataram to be sung, kept
quiet. The spirit of Aurangzeb seems to triumph.
But what we need today in India - and indeed in the world - is a Dara
Shikoh, who reintroduces an Islam which, while believing in the supremacy of
its Prophet, not only accepts other faiths, but is also able to see the good
in each religion, study them, maybe create a synthesis. Islam needs to adapt
its scriptures which were created nearly 15 centuries ago for the people and
customs of these times, but which are not necessarily relevant in some of
their injunctions today. Kabir, Dara Shikoh and some of the Sufi saints
attempted this task, but failed. Aurangzeb knew what he was doing when he
had his own brother's head cut. And we know what we are saying when we say
that this exhibition is very relevant to today's India
May the Spirit of Dara Shikoh come back to India and bring back Islam to a
more tolerant human face.
François Gautier
*Aurangzeb as he was  according to Mughal Records*
Aurangzeb, Emperor Shah Jahan's sixth son, was born on 24th October 1618 at
Dohad in Madhya Pradesh, and wrested India's crown from his father before
the end of June 1658, after defeating his brother Prince Dara Shukoh's
armies, first at Dharmat near Ujjain (15th April 1568) and the second, led
by Dara himself, at Samugarh on 29th May 1658. The War of Succession to the
richest throne in the world was practically over with this victory, and
Aurangzeb secured his position by making Murad, his brother and  accomplice
in his impetuous pursuit for power, his prisoner, by treachery, on 25th
June. He had already made his old father Emperor Shah Jahan a prisoner in
the Agra Fort (8th June 1658).
Shah Jahan survived his confinement by nearly eight years and the
disgraceful manner of his burial (Exhibit No.5)will ever remain a stigma on
this unscrupulous son Aurangzeb's advent to the throne in his father's life
time was not welcomed by the people of India, because of the treacherous
manner it was achieved; , but public opinion became all the more hostile
towards him when Prince Dara Shukoh, the favourite son of Shah Jahan, the
translator of the Upanishads (Exhibit No.2), and a truly liberal and
enlightened Musalman, was   taken prisoner  on the Indian border,  as he was
going to Persia. Dara was paraded in a most undignified manner on the
streets of Delhi on 29th August 1659. The French Doctor, Bernier, was an
eye-witness to the scene and was deeply moved by the popular sympathy for
Dara (Exhibit No.3) which so much alarmed Aurangzeb that he contrived to
have a decree from his Clerics announcing death-sentence for his elder
brother on the charge of apostasy (Exhibit No.4).
Throughout the War of Succession, Aurangzeb had maintained that he was not
interested in acquiring the throne and that his only object was to ward off
the threat to Islam, which was inevitable in case Dara Shukoh came to power.
Many, including his brother Murad, were deceived by this posture. After his
formal accession in Delhi (5th June 1659) he posed as a defender of Islam
who would rule according to the directions of the Shariat, and with the
advice of the Clerics or Ulama for whom the doctrines, rules, principles and
directives, as laid down and interpreted in the 7th and 8th century Arabia,
Persia and Iraq, were inviolable and unchangeable in all conditions, in all
countries, and for all times to come.
One of the main objectives of Aurangzeb's policy was to demolish Hindu
temples. When he ordered (13th October 1666)removal of the carved railing,
which Prince Dara Shukoh had presented to Keshava Rai temple at Mathura, he
had observed 'In the religionof theMusalmans it is improper even to look at
a temple', and that it was totally unbecoming of a Muslim to act like Dara
Shukoh (Exhibit No.6, Akhbarat, 13th October 1666). This was followed by
destruction of the famous Kalka temple in Delhi (Exhibit No.6, 7, 8,
Akhbarat, 3rd and 12th September 1667).
In 1669, shortly after the death of Mirza Raja Jai Singh of Amber, a general
order was issued (9th April 1669) for the demolition of temples and
established schools of the Hindus throughout the empire and banning public
worship (Exhibit Nos.9 & 10). Soon after this the great temple of Keshava
Rai was destroyed (Jan.-Feb. 1670) (Exhibit No.12) and in its place a lofty
mosque was erected. The idols, the author of Maasir-i-Alamgiri informs, were
carried to Agra and buried under the steps of the mosque built by Begum
Sahiba in order to be continually trodden upon, and the name of Mathura was
changed to Islamabad. The painting (Exhibit No.13) is thus no fancy
imagination of the artist but depicts what actually took place.
This was followed by Aurangzeb's order to demolish the highly venerated
temple of Vishwanath at Banaras (Persian text, Exhibit No.11), Keshava Rai
temple (Jan.-Feb. 1670) (Persian Text, exhibit No.12 and Painting, Exhibit
No.13), and of Somanatha (Exhibit No.14).To save the idol of Shri Nathji
from being desecrated, the Gosain carried it to Rajputana, where Maharana
Raj Singh received it formally at Sihad village, assuring the priest that
Aurangzeb would  have to trample over the bodies of one lakh of his brave
Rajputs, before he couldeven touch the idol (Exhibit No.15)
Aurangzeb's zeal for temple destruction became much more intense during war
conditions. The opportunity to earn religious merit by demolishing hundreds
of temples soon came to him in 1679 when, after the death of Maharaja
Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur in the Kabul Subah, he tried to eliminate the
Rathors of Marwar as a political power in Rajputana. But Maharana Raj Singh
of Mewar, in line with the great traditions of his House, came out in open
support of the Rathors.. This led to war with both Mewar and Marwar during
which the temples built on the bank of Rana's lake were destroyed by his
orders (Exhibit No.23, Akhbarat 23rd December 1679) and also about three
hundred other temples in the environs of Udaipur. (Exhibit No.25, Text),
including the famous Jagannath Rai temple built at a great cost in front of
the Maharana's palace which was bravely defended by a handful of Rajputs
(Exhibit Nos.20, 21).
Not only this, when Aurangzeb visited Chittor to have a view of the famous
fort, he ordered the demolition of 63 temples there which included some of
the finest temples of Kumbha's time (Exhibit No.22). From Marwar (in Western
Rajasthan) alone were brought several cart-loads of idols which, as per
Aurangzeb's orders, were cast in the yard of the Court and under the steps
of Jama Masjid (Exhibit No.19). Such uncivilized and arrogant conduct of the
Mughal Emperor alienated Hindus for ever, though they continued to be
tolerant towards his creed.

we find Rajiv Gandhi’s paternal grandfather’s name? Muslim grocer by the name of Nawab Khan

. Why is it then nowhere we find Rajiv Gandhi’s paternal grandfather’s name? Muslim grocer by the name of Nawab Khan, had married a Parsi woman after converting her to Islam.. Rajiv’s father Feroze was Feroze Khan before he married Indira, against Kamala Nehru’s wishes ‘Father of the Nation’ didn’t mention this game of his in the famous book. ‘My Experiments with Truth’ Why? When they returned to India, a mock ‘Vedic marriage’ was instituted for public consumption. On the subject, writes M. O. Mathai (a longtime private secretary of Nehru) in his renowned (but now suppressed by the GOI) ‘Reminiscences of the Nehru Age’ on page no. 94, second paragraph: “For some inexplicable reason, Nehru allowed the marriage to be performed according to Vedic rited in 1942. An inter-religious and inter-caste marriage Vedic rites at that time was not valid in law. To be legal, it had to be a civil marriage. It’s a known fact that after Rajiv’s birth Indira and Feroze lived separately, but they were not divorced. Feroze used to harass Nehru frequently for money and also interfere in Nehru’s political activities. Nehru got fed up and left instructions not to allow him into the Prime Minister’s residence Trimurthi Bhavan. Mathai writes that the death of Feroze came as a relief to Nehru and Indira. The death of Feroze in 1960 before he could consolidate his own political force, is itself a mystery. Feroze had even planned to remarry. Those who try to keep tabs on our lenders in spite of all the suppressions and deliberate misinformation are aware of the fact that the second son Indira (or Mrs. Feroze Khan) known as Sanjay Gandhi was not the son of Feroze. He was the son of another Moslem gentleman, Mohammad Yunus. Here in passing, we might that the second son was originally named Sanjeev. It rhymed with Rajiv, the elder brother’s name. It was claimed to Sanjeev when he was arrested by the British police in England and his passport impounded, for having stolen a car. Krishna Menon was then India’s High Commissioner in London. He offered to issue another passport to the felon who changed his name to Sanjay. Incidentally, Sanjay’s marriage with the Sikh girl Menaka (now they call her Maneka for Indira Gandhi found the name of Lord Indra’s court dancer rather offensivet) took place quite surprisingly in Mohammad Yunus house in New Delhi. And the marriage with Manaka who was a model (She had modeled for Bombay Dyeing wearing just a towel) was not so ordinary either. Sanjay was notorious in getting unwed young women pregnant. Menaka too was rendered pregnant by Sanjay. It was then that her father. Colonel Anand threatened Sanjay with dire consequences if he did not marry her daughter. And that did the trick. Sanjay married Menaka. It was widely reported in Delhi at the time that Mohammad Yunus was unhappy at the marriage of Sanjay with Menaka; apparently he had wanted to get him married with a Muslim girl of his choice. It was Mohammad Yunus who carried the most when Sanjay died in the plane accident. In Yunus book, ‘Persons, Passions & Polities’ one discovers that baby Sanjay had been circumcised following Islamic custom, although the reason stated was phimosis. It was always believed that Sanjay used to blackmail Indira Gandhi and due to this she used to turn a blind eye when Sanjay Gandhi started to run the country as though if were his personal fiefdom. Was he black mailing her with the secret of who his real father was? When the news of Sanjay’s death reaches Indira Gandhi, the first thing she wanted to know was about the bunch of keys which Sanjay had with him. Nehru was no less a player in producing bastards. At least one case is very graphically described by M. O. Mathai in his “Reminiscences of the Nehru Age” page 206. Muthai writes: “In the antumn of 1948 ( India became free in 1947 and a great deal of work needed to be done) a young woman from Benares arrived in New Delhi as a sanyasin named Shraddha Mata ( an assumed and not a real name). She was a Sanskrit Scholar well versed in the ancient Indian scriptures and mythology .People including MPs, thronged to her to hear her discourses. One  day S. D.  Upadhyaya, Nehru’s old employee, brought a letter in Hindi from Shraddha Mata. Nehru gave her an interview in the PM’s House. As her departed, I noticed ( Mathai is speaking here) that she was young, shapely and beautiful. Meetings with her became rather frequent , mostly after Nehru finished his work at night. During one of Nehru’s visits to Lucknow, Shraddha Mata turned up there, and Upadhyaya brought a letter from her as usual . Nehru sent her the reply, and she visited Nehru at midnight…. Suddenly Shraddha Mata disappeared. In November 1949 a convent in Bangalore sent a decent looking person to Delhi with a bundle of letters. He said that a young woman from northern India arrived at the convent a few months ago and gave birth to a baby boy. She refused to divulge her name or give any particulars about herself. She left the convent as soon as she was well enough to move out but left the child behind. She however forgot to take with her a small cloth bundle in which, among other things, several letters in Hindi were found. The Mother superior, who was a foreigner , had the letters examined and was told they were from the Prime Minister. The person, who brought the letters surrendered them,. “I ( Mathai) made discreet inquiries repeatedly about the boy but failed to get a clue about his whereabouts. Convents in such matters are extremely tightlipped and secretive. Had I succeeded in locating the boy. I would have adopted him. He must have grown up as a Catholic Christian blissfully ignorant of who his father was.” Coming back to Rajiv Gandhi, we all know now that he changed his so called Paris religion to become a Catholic to marry Sania Maino of Turin, Italy. Rajiv become Roberto. His daughter’s name is Bianca and son’s name is Raul. Quite cleverly the same names are presented to the people of India as Priyanka and Rahul. What is amazing is the extent of our people’s ignorance in such matters. The press conference that Rajiv Gandhi gave in London after taking over as prime minister of India was very informative. In this press conference , Rajiv  boasted that he was NOT a Hindu but a Paris Mind you, speaking of the Paris religion, he had no Paris ancestor at all. His grandmother (father’s mother) has turned Muslim after having abandoned the Paris religion to marry Nawab Khan. It is the western press that waged a blitz of misinformation on behalf of Rajiv. From the New York Times to the Los Angles Times and the Washington Post the big guns raised Rajiv to heaven. The children’s encyclopedias recorded that Rajiv was a qualified Mechanical Engineer from the revered University of Cambridge. No doubt US kids are among the most misinformed in the world today. The reality is that in all three years of his tenure at that University Rajiv had not passed a single examination. He had therefore to leave Cambridge without a certificate. Sonia too had the same benevolent treatment. She was stated to be student in Cambridge. Such a description is calculated to mis lead Indian. She was a student in Cambridge all right but not of the University of Cambridge but of one of those fly by night language schools where foreign student come to leave English. Sonia was working as an ‘an pair’ girl in Cambridge and trying to learn English at the same time. And surprise of surprises, Rajiv was even cremated as per vedic rites in full view of India’s public. This is the Nehru dynasty that India worships and now an Italian leads a prestigious national party because of just one qualification – being married into the Nehru family. Maneka Gandhi itself is being accepted by the non-Congress parties not because she was a former model or an animal lover

Why are some Muslims intolerant, violent and supremacist? Why do they bully

Why are some Muslims intolerant, violent and supremacist? Why do they bully? What spurs them to riot and murder over the silliest things? To understand Muslims, one must understand their prophet. This psychobiography seeks to unveil the mystery of the prophet of Islam. Historians tell us Muhammad used to withdraw to a cave, spending days wrapped in his thoughts. He heard bells ringing and had ghostly visions. He thought he was demon possessed, until his wife reassured him he had become a prophet. Convinced of his status, he was intolerant of those who rejected him, assassinated those who criticized him, raided, looted, and massacred entire populations. He reduced thousands to slavery, raped, and allowed his men to rape female captives. All of this, he did with a clear conscience and a sense of entitlement. He was magnanimous toward those who admired him, but vengeful toward those who did not. He believed he was the most perfect human creation and the universe's raison d'être. Muhammad was no ordinary man. This book ventures beyond the stories. Focusing on the "why" rather than the "what," it unravels the mystique of one of the most enigmatic and influential men in history. Islam is Muhammadanism. Muslims worship and emulate Muhammad. Only by understanding him can one know what makes them tick.

Understanding Muhammad begins with a brief history of his life. Muhammad had a loveless childhood. He then passed to the care of relatives who took pity on him and spoiled him. As the result he developed narcissistic personality disorder, a trait that made him a megalomaniac bereft of conscience. Muhammad believed in his own cause. Even when he lied, he felt entitled and justified to do so.Thanks to another mental illness, namely temporal lobe epilepsy, the prophet of Islam had vivid hallucinations he interpreted as mystical and divine intimations. He also suffered from obsessive compulsive disorder, causing his fixations on numbers, rituals and stringent rules. In the addition, he suffered from acromegaly, a disease caused by excessive production of a growth hormone resulting in large bones and odd facial features. The combination of his psychological disorders and his unusual physiognomy made him a phenomenon that set him apart from ordinary people. His uneducated followers interpreted his differences as signs of his prophethood. Like devotees of all cults, they rose to champion his cause with dedication. By defying death and butchering others they made Islam the world's second largest religion, now the biggest threat to world peace. The author argues that Islam is incompatible with democracy and human rights, and the only way to avert the clash between barbarity and civilization, and a world disaster, is to expose its fallacy and demystify it. "Muslims must be weaned from Islam for humanity to live in peace," says Ali Sina. Product Details

A Bold and Daring Masterpiece! The hallmark of a seminal work is that it crystallizes into a single, overpowering coherence its reader’s dark suspicions, ephemeral unease, and penumbral stirrings. Understanding Muhammad introduces an organizing principle into what hitherto appeared to be utter mayhem and lethal chaos. Ali Sina’s book offers an explanatory scheme. One “a-ha” moment chases another as things fall into place and a causative chain emerges leading all the way from medieval founder to his current day followers and emulators. This blood-curdling tome is a sweeping, thought-provoking, and thrilling historical panorama that weaves seamlessly insights from numerous disciplines: history, mental health, theology, and more. Dr. Sam Vaknin author of “Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited”

The Quran, perfectly aware of the human psyche with its prescience

There was a gap in Newton’s physics. Newton believed in an endlessly vast and static universe. His law of gravity encountered a problem. How was it that the physical bodies, in the course of eons, defied their mutual attractions and did not collapse into a unity? The formula that Einstein devised abandoned the absolute notions of space and time as reference points for all objects in the universe. Basing his studies on Einstein’s formulas, Alexander Friedmann, a Russian physicist, discovered that the universe must be expanding. Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cleric, astronomer and cosmologist, formulated that the universe had begun in a cataclysmic explosion of a small, primeval superatom, like the growing of an oak tree from an acorn. This theory explained the recession of galaxies within the framework of Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity. This idea was so incredible that even Einstein had problems accepting it, despite the fact that this all had originated from his own formulas. Einstein, rather, countered that physics was not the forte of Lemaître, and the universe was an infinite expanse and in a steady state.

Lemaître’s theory posited that the universe was expanding. This was a statement that no philosopher and no scientist had ever before set forth. Kant had said in his Critique of Pure Reason that this was an enigma unsolvable by human intelligence. This theory fit everything and explained the reason why the universe did not collapse in spite of gravity. The key had fit into the lock. It was the correct explanation of the enigma. However, this statement met with the usual adverse reaction: “No, it is not the truth...”

Remaining outside the sphere of theoretical controversy, American astronomer Hubble was, about the same time, making observations with his sophisticated telescope in the Mount Wilson observatory. He observed that galaxies were receding from each other, which proved that the universe was expanding. In answer to those who said they could not believe in things their eyes had not witnessed, Hubble’s discovery led to the following declaration: “Now that you see it, you have got to believe it.” Hubble showed this by the Doppler Effect. Thus the wavelengths of receding bodies prolonged in the spectrum of light waves would shift to red, while, if the bodies approached each other, the wavelengths would shorten, shifting to blue. The light that came from galaxies that shifted to red showed that the galaxies were receding. In line with this observation, Hubble discovered a striking law: the speed of galaxies that receded was directly proportional to the distance between galaxies. The farther away a galaxy stood, the more its speed of recession accelerated. The result was tested again and again. In 1950, a high-magnification telescope was installed on Mount Palomar in the USA, the largest instrument of its kind. The new tests and controls justified this observation. The measurements made pointed to the fact that the creation of the universe occurred about 10-15 billion years ago.

Both Einstein and Lemaître took an interest in Hubble’s work; Einstein, who did not agree with Lemaître at first, eventually acknowledged during a conference that Lemaître was right after all. He confessed that his failure to endorse these findings had been the gravest error in his life. Thus it was that the fact that the universe was of a dynamic nature and expanding, confirmed by observations, was also validated by the great physicist Einstein.

In the examples presented by Hubble and Lemaître, we see illustrated how a physicist arrives at a conclusion both in theory and through observation. While Lemaître demonstrated how he had made inferences from Einstein’s formulas to substantiate his theoretical discoveries, Hubble presented the data of his observations and his conclusions.

As we see, the result obtained by physicists is the consequence of cumulative and collective bits of knowledge and research. The Creator of physical laws provides the answer in the Quran to the issues of towering importance throughout human history. The Quran’s presentation of scientific facts is clear, direct, and concise; it is different than the presentation of scientists, which tends to be complicated by scientific methods and procedures. The provider of this answer does not have to go through all the labyrinths a scientist has to. The Quran’s method is perfectly straightforward, unswerving and explicit.

If we had the possibility of looking at the universe from above and somebody asked us to describe what we saw, our answer would be that it was expanding. To achieve the Quran’s revelation of this fact 1400 years ago, man would have needed access to the assistance of accumulated scientific data acquired throughout long years and to sophisticated telescopes. When people claim that science and religion oppose each other, the Quran furnishes answers to the most complicated scientific problems. Observations made by sophisticated telescopes today confirm the statements of the Quran.

The Quran, perfectly aware of the human psyche with its prescience, states that nonbelievers will insist on their convictions regardless how many miracles are presented to them. Some ask: “Why did the people also not believe in Jesus, who had performed miracles and healed the sick and the blind?” This example demonstrates why the majority of people did not believe in Christ and the other prophets, despite their miracles. Miracles change in fact as time goes by, but the negative attitude of most humans remains unchanged.

Quran was Muhammad’s own fabrication and not the revelation of God

Unbelievers contended that the Quran was Muhammad’s own fabrication and not the revelation of God. How then would these dissenters explain the fact that Muhammad had been the only person who was aware of the expanding universe long before the 1920s.

Could it be that in the 600s he had invented a telescope similar to the one contrived in the 1900s? Could it be that he had been familiar with the handling of such a telescope and acquainted with the motion of stars and that he had concealed it from his fellow men? If those who accused the Prophet of lunacy and alleged that in his delusional states he imagined himself the messenger of God were justified in their claims, how would they account for the fact that he knew facts not known to his contemporaries, facts that were to be discovered 1300 years after his revelation of them? If those people assert that the Prophet had devised a religion to serve his own ends, how can they explain that his so-called delusions materialized after a lapse of 1300 years? His pronouncements at the time did not promote his interests in any way; quite the reverse was the case, since he unwittingly gave his enemies a hint they might take advantage of. Can a person whose own interests prevail over the interests of others declare something not to his own advantage that was sure to be bitterly censured and much derided by those whose naked eyes failed to observe the expansion of the universe? If, despite this, a person came up with the contention that Muhammad was an intelligent man who might have perceived this truth, what sort of an intelligence might this have been?

And, instead of boasting of having been the depository of such knowledge, why would he have preferred to tell an untruth and claim that this was not his own discovery but the revelation by God? While the inventor or discoverer of a pin is inclined to brag about his breakthrough, why on earth would Muhammad choose to be modest and categorically declare that the Quran was not his own production, but the revelation of God? Was this due to humility? Would these people - who had denied his prophethood and accused him of having been an impostor - have dared qualify him with the laudable attribute of “humility?”