Why Some People Convert to Islam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bzzzz....I present to you Sahih (Sahih!) Muslim, Book 33, hadith 6395.


Abu Tufail reported: I visited Abu Sariha Hudhaifa b. Usaid al-Ghifari who said: I listened with these two ears of mine Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The semen stays in the womb for forty nights , then the angel, gives it a shape. Zubair said: I think that he said: One who fashions that and decides whether he would be male or female. Then he (the angel) says: Would his limbs be full or imperfect? And then the Lord makes thein full and perfect or otherwise as He desires. Then he says: My Lord, what about his livelihood, and his death and what about his disposition? And then the Lord decides about his misfortune and fortune.

Forty days? For realz?

PS: The forty days business is used in Judaism extensively. Hmmm...I wonders where that came from....Hmmm..

Dr. Moore answered this in his lecture.

Did he figure out a way to work around the sperm's life expectancy in the uterine environment? Or did he figure out a way to say sperm doesn't really mean sperm, and womb doesn't really mean womb, and it was not really forty days.

Maybe you should ask him.

But wait. He doesn't actually want to talk about it any more. Hmmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Islam requires one simple belief: "There is no god but God and Mohammed is His prophet." (Then you are supposed to faithfully do a couple of practices: praying five times a day, fasting in Ramadan, giving zakat to the poor and making the pilgrimage to Mekka (if you can). If you believe in that one statement and do the practices then you are a religious Muslim in good standing.

Islam emphatically is not a gnostic religion that requires special knowledge available only to the properly initiated to understand. PP's insistence that you can't possibly understand Islam without knowing Arabic or without recourse to scholars borders on heresy.

I disagree, because the belief in Muhammad as a messenger requires belief in his message, i.e. the Quran. There is no such thing as a devout Muslim who doesn't believe the Quran or rejects parts of it.

I agree that the tafsir industry in its present form was born out of the desire for job security for the unemployable.

But there is such a thing as a devout Muslim who has only the most passing knowledge of the Koran. This pretty much suffices--one doesn't have to have recourse to Arabic or learned scholars or have a really deep understanding of what is in the Koran; I maintain that to say so borders on heresy.

Further, you don't have to have any knowledge of the Koran to convert. All that conversion to Islam requires is a recitation of "there is no god but God...." in front of witnesses. It does not require that you demonstrate knowledge of the Koran.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Islam requires one simple belief: "There is no god but God and Mohammed is His prophet." (Then you are supposed to faithfully do a couple of practices: praying five times a day, fasting in Ramadan, giving zakat to the poor and making the pilgrimage to Mekka (if you can). If you believe in that one statement and do the practices then you are a religious Muslim in good standing.

Islam emphatically is not a gnostic religion that requires special knowledge available only to the properly initiated to understand. PP's insistence that you can't possibly understand Islam without knowing Arabic or without recourse to scholars borders on heresy.

I disagree, because the belief in Muhammad as a messenger requires belief in his message, i.e. the Quran. There is no such thing as a devout Muslim who doesn't believe the Quran or rejects parts of it.

I agree that the tafsir industry in its present form was born out of the desire for job security for the unemployable.

But there is such a thing as a devout Muslim who has only the most passing knowledge of the Koran. This pretty much suffices--one doesn't have to have recourse to Arabic or learned scholars or have a really deep understanding of what is in the Koran; I maintain that to say so borders on heresy.

Further, you don't have to have any knowledge of the Koran to convert. All that conversion to Islam requires is a recitation of "there is no god but God...." in front of witnesses. It does not require that you demonstrate knowledge of the Koran.

I agree that many devout Muslims have only the most passing knowledge of the Quran.

The question, however, is: is it possible to be a devoted Muslim and disagree or reject parts of the Quran?

By the way, I know you mean well, but your statement about "all that conversion requires is a recitation..." is taken, chapter and verse, from the salafi dawwah playbook in the U.S. - convert now and learn later.

[Anonymous]

Since you ask. Concubine (those whom your right hand possesses) by definition refers to sex, and all the quotes above are in the context of defining who the Muslim man can have sex with. In the bolder part, what do you think "we have made lawful into you...those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee . . .[/b]" means? That the Muslim man can have sex with captured women.

You can't possibly be arguing that she's consenting to sex with the guy who killed her husband or her other male family members. Or can you? On the concubine thread you cited a few verses that say a Muslim man can't sell his concubines out to other men (he can't prostitute them). You never proved that "sex with your captor" is somehow better than, or different from, rape.

Honestly, you must be a troll trying to provoke people into spelling out the most difficult parts of Islam. Anybody who's watched even 1 episode of 1 crime procedural knows the first rule of arguing a case: don't ask questions you don't know the answer to, or questions you don't want the jury to hear the answer to.

With all due respect I understand the expression "those whom their right hands possess" (i.e., "those whom they rightfully possess") relates either to slaves taken captive in a war and/or, to all who are dependent on another for their livelihood and thus become the latters' responsibility. The placing of one's dependants on an equal footing with oneself with regard to the basic necessities of life.

How did you arrive at it as just being slaves? While it is fac that the pre-Islamic society had slavery, I question the use of it solely in the phrase since the word Abd (slave,who is totally subordinated) would have then been used to relate that fact.

...And [also prohibited (for marriage) to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

I see that as you could marry slave or dependent and also saying it is unlawful to have sex unless married and they must be virgins to wed.

Not an argument. Just a conundrum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Since you ask. Concubine (those whom your right hand possesses) by definition refers to sex, and all the quotes above are in the context of defining who the Muslim man can have sex with. In the bolder part, what do you think "we have made lawful into you...those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee . . .[/b]" means? That the Muslim man can have sex with captured women.

You can't possibly be arguing that she's consenting to sex with the guy who killed her husband or her other male family members. Or can you? On the concubine thread you cited a few verses that say a Muslim man can't sell his concubines out to other men (he can't prostitute them). You never proved that "sex with your captor" is somehow better than, or different from, rape.

Honestly, you must be a troll trying to provoke people into spelling out the most difficult parts of Islam. Anybody who's watched even 1 episode of 1 crime procedural knows the first rule of arguing a case: don't ask questions you don't know the answer to, or questions you don't want the jury to hear the answer to.

With all due respect I understand the expression "those whom their right hands possess" (i.e., "those whom they rightfully possess") relates either to slaves taken captive in a war and/or, to all who are dependent on another for their livelihood and thus become the latters' responsibility. The placing of one's dependants on an equal footing with oneself with regard to the basic necessities of life.

How did you arrive at it as just being slaves? While it is fac that the pre-Islamic society had slavery, I question the use of it solely in the phrase since the word Abd (slave,who is totally subordinated) would have then been used to relate that fact.

...And [also prohibited (for marriage) to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

I see that as you could marry slave or dependent and also saying it is unlawful to have sex unless married and they must be virgins to wed.

Not an argument. Just a conundrum.

You cannot marry a slave. Marriage is a contract between equals, concubinage is relationship between owner and property. Marrying a slave requires manumission first. This is what this verse means: marry chaste single women (which requires a dowry), if you can't afford a dowry, manumit your slave and marry her.

[Anonymous]

Chaste does not meant virgin. It just means someone who has sex only with people they're supposed to. A divorced woman with no boyfriends is chaste, even though she's clearly not a virgin any more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I read that the Christian crusaders used to also take female slaves after war, and quite often they would be raped and sold. Apparently this was not uncommon at the time. How is Islam different in this regard then?

Islam is different from Christianity in this regard because there is a provision in the Quran for raping female captives, but there is no provision in the New Testament for raping captives.

As you'll recall, you tried really hard on the Concubines thread to show that Christianity allows concubinage (even outside of war). You failed because the New Testament never sets up a formal structure of sanctioned concubinage (unlike the Quran) and Christianity basically forbids sex outside of marriage.

Christians aren't supposed to even be waging war, for that matter.

Those Crusaders were doing unChristian things, I don't think you'll hear any disagreement about that. Sort of like IS today .

As are those who rape women, wife or concubine. The permission to have sex is not the same as condoning rape. The captives spouses were dead. Many of their relatives might be dead. What would you have done with them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Islam requires one simple belief: "There is no god but God and Mohammed is His prophet." (Then you are supposed to faithfully do a couple of practices: praying five times a day, fasting in Ramadan, giving zakat to the poor and making the pilgrimage to Mekka (if you can). If you believe in that one statement and do the practices then you are a religious Muslim in good standing.

Islam emphatically is not a gnostic religion that requires special knowledge available only to the properly initiated to understand. PP's insistence that you can't possibly understand Islam without knowing Arabic or without recourse to scholars borders on heresy.

I disagree, because the belief in Muhammad as a messenger requires belief in his message, i.e. the Quran. There is no such thing as a devout Muslim who doesn't believe the Quran or rejects parts of it.

I agree that the tafsir industry in its present form was born out of the desire for job security for the unemployable.

But there is such a thing as a devout Muslim who has only the most passing knowledge of the Koran. This pretty much suffices--one doesn't have to have recourse to Arabic or learned scholars or have a really deep understanding of what is in the Koran; I maintain that to say so borders on heresy.

Further, you don't have to have any knowledge of the Koran to convert. All that conversion to Islam requires is a recitation of "there is no god but God...." in front of witnesses. It does not require that you demonstrate knowledge of the Koran.

If you do not trust others to translate the Quran, then you must learn Quranic Arabic yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Dr. Moore answered this in his lecture.

Since you're all about Dr. Moore, let's shed a bit more light on his involvement in the business of Islamic embryology.

A long time ago, in the 1980s, Dr. Moore was invited by the Embryology Committee of King Abdulaziz University to produce a special 3rd edition of his most successful book "The Developing Human" specifically for use by Muslim students in Islamic Universities. He was paid by the Saudi royal family for the use of his name, and for no real additional work.

The textbook he delivered to the Saudi Universities that commissioned the work is titled, "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology with Islamic Additions." http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b6147.html The base textbook was work that Moore had completed years before. He did nothing new for this new edition. The “Islamic additions” are actually the work of an Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, so it alternates chapters of standard science with Zindani's "Islamic additions". (here's the review of the book, if anyone is interested)

Reviewer: Stop Spamming
While based on an original embryology textbook, this edition is a disgrace to any medically educated student. All pages describing reality have been removed and in its place Koranic texts have been inserted by a Muslim. The resulting book does not describe embryology as experienced all over the world, but the wishful thinking of a religious group.

This book does not appear on Dr. Moore's CV and is not available outside the Islamic region, such as a Western public library or Amazon.


Now, what is so special about the book? Here is what the publisher, Abu Qasim Publishing House, Saudi Arabia, has to say:

Now available! Numerous Muslims have constantly referred to the work of acclaimed embryologist Keith L. Moore. Here is his complete original textbook (third edition), superbly updated with the "Islamic Additions" (commentary, relevance, Qur'an and Hadith references, and more) of Shaykh Abdul-Majeed A. Azzindani of Saudi Arabia.

Moore's popular textbook is written primarily for students of medicine, specializing in clinically oriented embryology. Shaykh Azzindani, a reputed scholar of Islam, has been interested in the same phenomenon on but from the perspective of the teachings of the Qur'an and Hadith. The two collaborated, with other scientists, in the relation of the two foci of thought. The volume herein conclusively shows that the information contained in the Qur'an and Sunnah is not only consistent with modern scientific discoveries in the field of embryology but also it is a fore-runner by some fourteen hundred years.

Now, who is Mr. Azzindani, this reputed scholar of Islam, the beacon of knowledge, who interspersed Dr. Moore's writing with Islamic bits?

He is the founder and head of the Iman University in Yemen, head of the Yemeni Muslim Brotherhood political movement and founder of the Commission on Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah, based in Saudi Arabia. (Yes, they really do call it that.) This is the outfit dedicated to underwriting the work of scientists who need a Ferrari or a second home badly enough to write what Al-Saud wants to see written, and in the process, convincing gullible westerners that Quran is a scientific miracle.

Interestingly, the acknowledgments for the book recognize a number of “distinguished scholars” who supported the book with time or money. And number 6 on the list is Saifullah (Sword of God) Shaykh Osama bin Laden.

What else is Mr. Azzindani famous for? I tell ya, finding the cure for AIDS. No kidding. Yes, it's another case of "I have a cure but I'm not gonna tell you what it is." You can read for yourself:
http://www.yemenpost.net/27/InvestigationAndInterview/20081.htm

He also discovered a scientific proof of why women can't talk and think at the same time. I don't time to post a link but it's all over the web.

So, you still think Dr. Moore omitted all traces of this work from his CV because he is...hounded by Islamophobes?

Nah. The man is embarrassed. I bet he thinks "damn be the day I accepted this commission. What do I need that money for, anyway? Damn, damn, damn."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I read that the Christian crusaders used to also take female slaves after war, and quite often they would be raped and sold. Apparently this was not uncommon at the time. How is Islam different in this regard then?

Islam is different from Christianity in this regard because there is a provision in the Quran for raping female captives, but there is no provision in the New Testament for raping captives.

As you'll recall, you tried really hard on the Concubines thread to show that Christianity allows concubinage (even outside of war). You failed because the New Testament never sets up a formal structure of sanctioned concubinage (unlike the Quran) and Christianity basically forbids sex outside of marriage.

Christians aren't supposed to even be waging war, for that matter.

Those Crusaders were doing unChristian things, I don't think you'll hear any disagreement about that. Sort of like IS today .

As are those who rape women, wife or concubine. The permission to have sex is not the same as condoning rape. The captives spouses were dead. Many of their relatives might be dead. What would you have done with them?

Me? I'd have sex with them. Wild, unbridled, no-holds-barred sex. I'd ride them up and down till the crack of dawn.

That's just me, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Islam requires one simple belief: "There is no god but God and Mohammed is His prophet." (Then you are supposed to faithfully do a couple of practices: praying five times a day, fasting in Ramadan, giving zakat to the poor and making the pilgrimage to Mekka (if you can). If you believe in that one statement and do the practices then you are a religious Muslim in good standing.

Islam emphatically is not a gnostic religion that requires special knowledge available only to the properly initiated to understand. PP's insistence that you can't possibly understand Islam without knowing Arabic or without recourse to scholars borders on heresy.

I disagree, because the belief in Muhammad as a messenger requires belief in his message, i.e. the Quran. There is no such thing as a devout Muslim who doesn't believe the Quran or rejects parts of it.

I agree that the tafsir industry in its present form was born out of the desire for job security for the unemployable.

But there is such a thing as a devout Muslim who has only the most passing knowledge of the Koran. This pretty much suffices--one doesn't have to have recourse to Arabic or learned scholars or have a really deep understanding of what is in the Koran; I maintain that to say so borders on heresy.

Further, you don't have to have any knowledge of the Koran to convert. All that conversion to Islam requires is a recitation of "there is no god but God...." in front of witnesses. It does not require that you demonstrate knowledge of the Koran.

If you do not trust others to translate the Quran, then you must learn Quranic Arabic yourself.

It's not me who doesn't trust others. It's an article of faith for the Muslim discourse that the Quran is untranslatable and all translations are too feeble to convey the glory of the holy book. That's why, when reasonable people express doubts about something in the Quran, they are told to sit down and shut up because "you don't understand Arabic, and you have to."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I read that the Christian crusaders used to also take female slaves after war, and quite often they would be raped and sold. Apparently this was not uncommon at the time. How is Islam different in this regard then?

Islam is different from Christianity in this regard because there is a provision in the Quran for raping female captives, but there is no provision in the New Testament for raping captives.

As you'll recall, you tried really hard on the Concubines thread to show that Christianity allows concubinage (even outside of war). You failed because the New Testament never sets up a formal structure of sanctioned concubinage (unlike the Quran) and Christianity basically forbids sex outside of marriage.

Christians aren't supposed to even be waging war, for that matter.

Those Crusaders were doing unChristian things, I don't think you'll hear any disagreement about that. Sort of like IS today .

As are those who rape women, wife or concubine. The permission to have sex is not the same as condoning rape. The captives spouses were dead. Many of their relatives might be dead. What would you have done with them?

Not rape -- excuse me, force sex, on them. Jesus, literally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I read that the Christian crusaders used to also take female slaves after war, and quite often they would be raped and sold. Apparently this was not uncommon at the time. How is Islam different in this regard then?

Islam is different from Christianity in this regard because there is a provision in the Quran for raping female captives, but there is no provision in the New Testament for raping captives.

As you'll recall, you tried really hard on the Concubines thread to show that Christianity allows concubinage (even outside of war). You failed because the New Testament never sets up a formal structure of sanctioned concubinage (unlike the Quran) and Christianity basically forbids sex outside of marriage.

Christians aren't supposed to even be waging war, for that matter.

Those Crusaders were doing unChristian things, I don't think you'll hear any disagreement about that. Sort of like IS today .

As are those who rape women, wife or concubine. The permission to have sex is not the same as condoning rape. The captives spouses were dead. Many of their relatives might be dead. What would you have done with them?

Who was it who was wondering whether PP is a troll trying to get us to hate Muslims?

Or, maybe there's a new shift at the madrassa, and a real idiot is on duty now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Dr. Moore answered this in his lecture.

Since you're all about Dr. Moore, let's shed a bit more light on his involvement in the business of Islamic embryology.

A long time ago, in the 1980s, Dr. Moore was invited by the Embryology Committee of King Abdulaziz University to produce a special 3rd edition of his most successful book "The Developing Human" specifically for use by Muslim students in Islamic Universities. He was paid by the Saudi royal family for the use of his name, and for no real additional work.

The textbook he delivered to the Saudi Universities that commissioned the work is titled, "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology with Islamic Additions." http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b6147.html The base textbook was work that Moore had completed years before. He did nothing new for this new edition. The “Islamic additions” are actually the work of an Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, so it alternates chapters of standard science with Zindani's "Islamic additions". (here's the review of the book, if anyone is interested)

Reviewer: Stop Spamming
While based on an original embryology textbook, this edition is a disgrace to any medically educated student. All pages describing reality have been removed and in its place Koranic texts have been inserted by a Muslim. The resulting book does not describe embryology as experienced all over the world, but the wishful thinking of a religious group.

This book does not appear on Dr. Moore's CV and is not available outside the Islamic region, such as a Western public library or Amazon.


Now, what is so special about the book? Here is what the publisher, Abu Qasim Publishing House, Saudi Arabia, has to say:

Now available! Numerous Muslims have constantly referred to the work of acclaimed embryologist Keith L. Moore. Here is his complete original textbook (third edition), superbly updated with the "Islamic Additions" (commentary, relevance, Qur'an and Hadith references, and more) of Shaykh Abdul-Majeed A. Azzindani of Saudi Arabia.

Moore's popular textbook is written primarily for students of medicine, specializing in clinically oriented embryology. Shaykh Azzindani, a reputed scholar of Islam, has been interested in the same phenomenon on but from the perspective of the teachings of the Qur'an and Hadith. The two collaborated, with other scientists, in the relation of the two foci of thought. The volume herein conclusively shows that the information contained in the Qur'an and Sunnah is not only consistent with modern scientific discoveries in the field of embryology but also it is a fore-runner by some fourteen hundred years.

Now, who is Mr. Azzindani, this reputed scholar of Islam, the beacon of knowledge, who interspersed Dr. Moore's writing with Islamic bits?

He is the founder and head of the Iman University in Yemen, head of the Yemeni Muslim Brotherhood political movement and founder of the Commission on Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah, based in Saudi Arabia. (Yes, they really do call it that.) This is the outfit dedicated to underwriting the work of scientists who need a Ferrari or a second home badly enough to write what Al-Saud wants to see written, and in the process, convincing gullible westerners that Quran is a scientific miracle.

Interestingly, the acknowledgments for the book recognize a number of “distinguished scholars” who supported the book with time or money. And number 6 on the list is Saifullah (Sword of God) Shaykh Osama bin Laden.

What else is Mr. Azzindani famous for? I tell ya, finding the cure for AIDS. No kidding. Yes, it's another case of "I have a cure but I'm not gonna tell you what it is." You can read for yourself:
http://www.yemenpost.net/27/InvestigationAndInterview/20081.htm

He also discovered a scientific proof of why women can't talk and think at the same time. I don't time to post a link but it's all over the web.

So, you still think Dr. Moore omitted all traces of this work from his CV because he is...hounded by Islamophobes?

Nah. The man is embarrassed. I bet he thinks "damn be the day I accepted this commission. What do I need that money for, anyway? Damn, damn, damn."

Hah! I was wondering when we were going to circle back to the venerable Dr. Moore. Nice detective work PP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Dr. Moore answered this in his lecture.

Since you're all about Dr. Moore, let's shed a bit more light on his involvement in the business of Islamic embryology.

A long time ago, in the 1980s, Dr. Moore was invited by the Embryology Committee of King Abdulaziz University to produce a special 3rd edition of his most successful book "The Developing Human" specifically for use by Muslim students in Islamic Universities. He was paid by the Saudi royal family for the use of his name, and for no real additional work.

The textbook he delivered to the Saudi Universities that commissioned the work is titled, "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology with Islamic Additions." http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b6147.html The base textbook was work that Moore had completed years before. He did nothing new for this new edition. The “Islamic additions” are actually the work of an Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, so it alternates chapters of standard science with Zindani's "Islamic additions". (here's the review of the book, if anyone is interested)

Reviewer: Stop Spamming
While based on an original embryology textbook, this edition is a disgrace to any medically educated student. All pages describing reality have been removed and in its place Koranic texts have been inserted by a Muslim. The resulting book does not describe embryology as experienced all over the world, but the wishful thinking of a religious group.

This book does not appear on Dr. Moore's CV and is not available outside the Islamic region, such as a Western public library or Amazon.


Now, what is so special about the book? Here is what the publisher, Abu Qasim Publishing House, Saudi Arabia, has to say:

Now available! Numerous Muslims have constantly referred to the work of acclaimed embryologist Keith L. Moore. Here is his complete original textbook (third edition), superbly updated with the "Islamic Additions" (commentary, relevance, Qur'an and Hadith references, and more) of Shaykh Abdul-Majeed A. Azzindani of Saudi Arabia.

Moore's popular textbook is written primarily for students of medicine, specializing in clinically oriented embryology. Shaykh Azzindani, a reputed scholar of Islam, has been interested in the same phenomenon on but from the perspective of the teachings of the Qur'an and Hadith. The two collaborated, with other scientists, in the relation of the two foci of thought. The volume herein conclusively shows that the information contained in the Qur'an and Sunnah is not only consistent with modern scientific discoveries in the field of embryology but also it is a fore-runner by some fourteen hundred years.

Now, who is Mr. Azzindani, this reputed scholar of Islam, the beacon of knowledge, who interspersed Dr. Moore's writing with Islamic bits?

He is the founder and head of the Iman University in Yemen, head of the Yemeni Muslim Brotherhood political movement and founder of the Commission on Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah, based in Saudi Arabia. (Yes, they really do call it that.) This is the outfit dedicated to underwriting the work of scientists who need a Ferrari or a second home badly enough to write what Al-Saud wants to see written, and in the process, convincing gullible westerners that Quran is a scientific miracle.

Interestingly, the acknowledgments for the book recognize a number of “distinguished scholars” who supported the book with time or money. And number 6 on the list is Saifullah (Sword of God) Shaykh Osama bin Laden.

What else is Mr. Azzindani famous for? I tell ya, finding the cure for AIDS. No kidding. Yes, it's another case of "I have a cure but I'm not gonna tell you what it is." You can read for yourself:
http://www.yemenpost.net/27/InvestigationAndInterview/20081.htm

He also discovered a scientific proof of why women can't talk and think at the same time. I don't time to post a link but it's all over the web.

So, you still think Dr. Moore omitted all traces of this work from his CV because he is...hounded by Islamophobes?

Nah. The man is embarrassed. I bet he thinks "damn be the day I accepted this commission. What do I need that money for, anyway? Damn, damn, damn."

Hah! I was wondering when we were going to circle back to the venerable Dr. Moore. Nice detective work PP!

+1, thanks!