Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám in 40 lines, illustrated (includes video)

Translated by Edward FitzGerald
(First Edition, 1859)


9782819924142_200LD: These ten 4-line verses (or quatrains) from the Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám, amounting to 40 lines, contain the essence of the entire poem.

In the original complete version, the poem runs to 75 quatrains in 300 lines.

These 10 selected verses, the most frequently quoted, encapsulate an entire philosophical worldview which in many ways is startlingly modern. And yet the Persian poet (pictured here) who wrote this work of Sufi mysticism did so in the early part of the 12th century.

Astronomer, mathematician, philosopher, poet, Omar Khayyám taught the philosophy of Avicenna in Nishapur for many years and was himself known as “the philosopher of the world”, being one of the chief exemplars and shining lights of the Golden Age of Islam. He died in 1131 and is buried in the Khayyám Garden in Nishapur.

Rubaiyat8There is no doubt that the gifted translator Fitzgerald, a poet in his own right as talented as Keats or Shelley or Tennyson, added much to the poem that was not to be found in the original Persian. Dozens of different translations of the Rubaiyat have been done by other writers in English and various foreign languages, but none of these possess even a fraction of the genius brought to the poem by Fitzgerald’s 1859 translation.

Fitzgerald was to add 35 verses to the poem in subsequent editions, but these revisions fell far short of the sparkling brilliance achieved by the 1859 edition when the poet translator was 50 years old. Blake said, “To create a little flower is the labour of ages.” So it is with each gemmed verse of the Rubaiyat which was probably polished to perfection over several decades.

The Roman poet Horace was perhaps right to advise in his Ars Poetica that all poets should wait at least seven years before they published their poems.

I hope my own unstinted admiration of this poem will infect a kindred spirit somewhere in the mind ocean of the internet. Please don’t miss the brief video at the end. And may you be moved to tears, as I was. (LD)

Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám

Illustrated by Darkmoon


There was a Door to which I found no Key:
There was a Veil past which I could not see:
Some little Talk awhile of ME and THEE
There seem’d — and then no more of THEE and ME.


Into this Universe, and why not knowing,
Nor whence, like Water willy-nilly flowing:
And out of it, as Wind along the Waste,
I know not whither, willy-nilly blowing.


But leave the Wise to wrangle, and with me
The quarrel of the Universe let be:
And, in some corner of the Hubbub coucht,
Make Game of that which makes as much of Thee.


For in and out, above, about, below,
‘Tis nothing but a Magic Shadowshow,
Play’d in a Box whose Candle is the Sun,
Round which we Phantom Figures come and go.


Tis all a Chequer-board of Nights and Days
Where Destiny with Men for Pieces plays:
Hither and thither moves, and mates, and slays.
And one by one back in the Closet lays.


The Ball no question makes of Ayes and Noes,
But Right or Left as strikes the Player goes;
And He that toss’d Thee down into the Field,
He knows about it all — He knows — HE knows!

moving finger

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on; nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.


And that inverted Bowl we call The Sky,
Whereunder crawling coopt we live and die,
Lift not thy hands to It for help — for It
Rolls impotently on as Thou or I.


Oh Thou, who didst with Pitfall and with Gin *
Beset the Road I was to wander in,
Thou wilt not with Predestination round
Enmesh me, and impute my Fall to Sin ?

*  Gin = snare, trap


Oh, Thou, who Man of baser Earth didst make,
And who with Eden didst devise the Snake;
For all the Sin wherewith the Face of Man
Is blacken’d, Man’s Forgiveness give — and take!

Watch this 3-minute video

61 thoughts to “Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám in 40 lines, illustrated (includes video)”

  1. Lasha,

    I possess one of those 1859 editions! Thank you for stimulating the interest – along with the beautiful illustrations you provide! (The book probably hasn’t been read for at least a hundred years before I retrieved the artfully-bound edition from out an old home place library, but I will be certain to read it again with renewed interest because of your display, and will consider it in my contemplations and discussions on Islam.) 🙂

  2. It is critical to understand Sufi’s do not hold any special religious affiliation. There are Sufis working within the confines of all religions and all walks of life. Theirs’ is a body of knowledge they say was before the time of history.

    From my research on Sufi teachings and literature, the Essene exhibit telling earmarks of that body of knowledge, although they existed many centuries before the term “Sufi” (wool gatherer) came into popular usage. However, Essene teachings align perfectly with the later Sufi teachings of those like Rumi, Al-Ghazali and Khayyam.

    This would mean that, as an Essene, Jesus would have been a member of the esoteric group later known as Sufis. This is why his teachings, like later Sufi teachings, have the same impact on their adherents, they contain the essential elements of truth, the basic element of the Sufi pursuit.

    This aspect of fundamental truths permeating their teachings is what led me to the Sufis. It is interesting that even though I could not initially understand the then obscure concepts behind their stories, there was something in them that spoke the truth, something that shone through the pages like the clearest light. I instinctively knew Sufis held the keys to the truth for which I had been searching.

    What is more interesting is how few know anything about the Sufis. While rumors abound, like they are a mystical sect of Islam or that Sufism is Islamic in origin, these are misconceptions of the truth. Sufis liken these claims to blind men describing an elephant. The Sufis say religion provides a good beginning for one’s search for truth, but ultimately religion must be transcended if one is to become “enlightened.”

    There are those who apply to the Sufis claiming to be searching for truth, but with a desire only to know secrets purportedly held by Sufi masters, like the ability to travel through time or influence people and events from both near and far. Sufis maintain that these are but mere “magic tricks” that accompany a knowledge of truth. If one comes seeking the secrets of these “magic tricks” for their own sake, they are unprepared for enlightenment.

    The secret lies in desire. If one’s desires are founded only on the base, animal pursuits presented by the material world, then the world of false illusion is where they will remain. All religions teach that one must forsake the material world before one can embark and advance on their spiritual path.

    It is interesting that Sufis maintain their esoteric knowledge will never be accepted by popular culture because people do not actually want to know the truth. The desire for the masses is for a belief system that conforms to their subjective notions of how such systems should work. This explains why false teachers, popular gurus and the like, prevail over the true teachers. False teachers provide what people think they want as opposed to what they actually need.

    This is because what people need most is what they dislike most and therefore work to hide from themselves. The ego rejects those things that threaten its existence, and the truth about oneself is perhaps the most destructive thing the ego faces. Thus, like any living organism, the ego vigorously rejects anything threatening its existence. This is why the true teacher demands absolute, unquestioning obedience from the supplicant, as anything less than total submission and the seeker will soon begin to question and reject those things revealing their own true nature.

    Strange things happen when one loses their desire for things of the material world. The individual experiences a paradigm shift in their world view. Once the ego is properly identified and dismissed, the desire for the material world is removed. What remains is the desire for truth, why things actually appear and function as they do. As Jesus once pointed out, according to Matthew 6:24-34, when one has God, what need is there for the material world or its concerns?

    This is what those desiring power and rule over others fear most. It explains why one brought up in Judaism wrote the most anti-religious tracts in history, the Communist Manifesto. If one has God, what need have they for the state or its leaders? If one has God, then what need has one for churches or priests claiming to intercede with God on their behalf? God is indeed the most powerful of opiates, for when one is “drunk on God” they no longer notice the little men trying to control them.

    Enlightenment leaves only one remaining pursuit in this existence, helping others achieve the same state of spiritual advancement. Everything else is a dead end, chasing one’s material tail around in circles throughout countless lifetimes until dropping from exhaustion. Only then does the soul finally arise to ask, “What am I doing? Why am I doing this? Where am I going? There must be more to existence than these fruitless pursuits.” This is where the Sufi sage steps in.

    1. Arch!
      An excellent post! I particularly liked your comment re “magic tricks”. The Buddha decried psychic powers as a complete waste of time. In fact any monk claiming them is immediately disrobed. The great Hindu mystic, Sri Rama Krishna likened the gift of psychic powers to a soiled and dirty robe. Of course as one proceeds on the path, one will be offered them. Ignore them and continue on the path. Above all, don’t get hooked on the feeling of bliss that arises when practising meditation or fixate on any “visions” one may experience.

      LD, Many thanks for posting this article. Very timely indeed. It’s always good to take time out from the hurley-burley of the mundane to focus on essentials.

      1. Actually Rama Krishna was not just a mystic or a saint, he was much more than that. Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc., doesn’t do proper justice about explaining what he actually was (and which is very obvious, as Indians too didn’t understood who he really was). Only if anyone goes through his gospel thoroughly one can understand and that too partially. Just saying…

      2. Sunny,
        I quite agree! A great Avatar and I’ve read his Gospel many times. It’s in his Gospel where he likens psychic powers to a soiled and dirty robe! Don’t forget Vivekananda was one of his disciples!

      3. Here is a segment of how Meher Baba describes the process (From the book God Speaks) Incidentally, the reason various Sufis have been executed by Muslim rulers in the past is for their heretical claims of god-hood. Is it not interesting that Jesus was executed on the accusation of making the same claim?

        ~ § ~

        When gross impressions become fainter, consciousness starts turning its focus from the apparent outer world inwards. This marks the beginning of its involution. Gradually the thinner gross impressions become subtle impressions, through which the soul experiences the subtle world, and as subtle impressions get exhausted, they become mental impressions, through which the soul experiences the mental world. While doing so, the soul continues to work through its gross medium, seeing, eating, drinking, walking, sleeping, but consciousness is no more entangled with the gross body or world and eventually with the subtle body and world. Finally when mental impressions have been exhausted, consciousness snaps its connection with Illusion and perceives the Soul directly. This course of involution is described as the spiritual path. In traversing it, the soul’s consciousness crosses six planes, the seventh being its final liberation from all illusion.

        Seven planes of involution according to Meher Baba

        The first three planes belong to the subtle sphere, the fourth is on the threshold between the subtle and the mental spheres and the fifth and sixth planes are in the mental sphere. The first plane starts from the threshold of the gross and the subtle sphere. The soul here starts experiencing subtle phenomena simultaneously through its gross and subtle senses. It starts hearing subtle sounds and smelling subtle scents, although their nature is far different from their gross equivalents. Eventually it starts perceiving the subtle world through its subtle body and so comes to the second plane. Here the soul becomes aware of infinite energy and can perform minor miracles, like stopping moving objects or filling dried wells with fresh water. Being not conscious of the gross world its experience gives rise only to subtle impressions of the sights, scents and sounds of the subtle world. Further involution of consciousness makes the soul experience the third plane. Here the soul can use more aspects of the infinite energy by performing greater miracles, such as giving sight to the blind, or restoring maimed limbs.

        When consciousness reaches the fourth plane, it finds itself in a very particular state. It is fully conscious of the infinite potential of energy and can make full use of it and it also becomes aware of the mental world. This new contact creates very strong desires to make use of this huge potential. At this point consciousness finds itself in the biggest danger of its long development. Not being able to control its feelings or thoughts, the soul is strongly tempted to handle infinite energy. If the infinite potential of this plane is misused, consciousness gets completely disintegrated and the soul finds itself back to the stone-form consciousness and has to start again the long course of evolution from there. If it abstains from using this energy it enters the lower mental plane and if it makes a completely selfless use of it, for the benefit of the spiritual development of others in illusion, it even moves directly to the higher mental plane.

        ~ § ~

        All true teachers teach the same concepts with various cultural overlays to which people of the time and place will respond. One thing I always thought most interesting was how Richard Alpert, (Baba Ram Dass), applied to Meher Baba expecting enlightenment and went away from the experience to found his own group. Alpert’s group however constituted a large group of adoring follower who ran around doing little more than dropping LSD and worshiping Alpert. What Alpert was actually seeking was his own self aggrandizement, not an uncommon pursuit for egotistical Jews. What Meher Baba did was to provide Alpert what he wanted, not what he needed for enlightenment.

        As Sufis explain, the reason false teachers are allowed to prosper is to provide a venue to attract those not yet ready to receive enlightenment, but instead seek only those attributes of the enlightened state. This idea is clearly seen in the story of the bright white light shinning forth from the mountain top that serves to keep the mass of fluttering moths away from the master.

    2. Arch –

      “This is what those desiring power and rule over others fear most.”

      Yes!! And they lie to get in power…. and to keep the power.

      ALL national leaders are liars. That’s how they get there and stay there.

    3. @ Arch Stanton

      Glad you see you back, Arch! Your absence was noted and you were greatly missed. It’s refreshing to see people like you posting on this site.

      In regard to Sufism, it has to be remembered that this was always viewed with suspicion by orthodox Islam. The movement grew out of Islam and its core was the Qur’an but it emphasised the esoteric rather than the exoteric, with which orthodox Islam was more concerned.

      Early Sufism demanded great asceticism. Tremendous personal austerities were necessary for salvation: long meditation, gruelling fasts, renunciation of property, and the life of a wandering mendicant. The object was mystical union with the divine. Trance states were cultivated and these were achieved in a number of ways that orthodox Muslims tended to disapprove of: in particular, by frenzied dancing. You have all heard of the “whirling dervishes”. Well, these wild dancers were the Sufis.

      The main element in Sufi discipline was the remembrance of God (dhikr). Nothing new here. Buddhism has its “mindfulness.” Hinduism has its “God-centredness.” And Christianity has its “Pray without ceasing” (St Paul’s injunction). As with yoga, breathing exercises were also practised. And so was chanting the name of God, another widespread practice common to Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity.

      Yes, Christ would have found Sufism perfectly acceptable as a religious discipline. Buddhists would also sympathize with the movement, though one needs to remember that the Buddha preached moderation in all things — “the Middle Way” — and would have rejected the extreme asceticism of the Sufis, although, ironically, Gautama Buddha practised such austerities himself in his early days.

      1. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ God is NOT, nor was HE ever, nor will HE ever be, into hashish and snake charming and swirling whirling dervishing and more hashish, more 420, more ganja, HE’S not into jajouka trance-formation music, NOT into Led Zeppelin/Jimmy Page, Jimmy Page and his Led Zeppelin worshipped satan and were into sufism and worshipped satan/sufism. I really don’t think Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ God is into satanism, I mean really, Arch Stanton. Do you really think, Arch Stanton, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ God is into satanism?

        See, via following Search Terms :

        “Huffington Post + How Led Zeppelin Broke Through The Walls Between Islam and The West”

        “Led Zeppelin Is Satanic”

      2. The story is a classic method of teaching employed by sufis. Sufi stories have different meanings to those on different levels of spiritual development. The story of 1001 Arabian Nights is actually a teaching story about the soul’s progression on the path. Those recognizing it as such, find concrete information in these tales, while others simply find a charming fairy tale of ancient Arabia.

        Like later sufis, Jesus also taught using the story form, referred to as “parables.” In the same manner, many of Jesus’ parables are designed to teach on different spiritual levels. That is why many of his parables seem confusing. When the attempt is made to understand these stories from a literal or intellectual level, the intent is lost or misinterpreted as they may not be intended to be approached in that manner.

        Most everyone is familiar with Jesus’ teachings, “love thy enemy” and “turn the other cheek.”

        Matthew 5:38-44

        “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”

        Here is a sufi story that addresses the very same concept, but in a different manner; that of strength as opposed to what is typically perceived as weakness. Don’t just read the story, reflect on it, extend it out in your mind and see where it takes you. In that search, one will discover issues within oneself that must be addressed:

        There once was a sufi master who was a soldier. During a protracted war, he was at one point engaged in fierce, mortal combat. In the thick of furious battle, he finally overcame a vicious, determined foe. Besting the enemy and driving him to ground, the sufi closed for the kill. At the very moment he was about to deliver a fatal thrust of his sword to the neck of his prostrate enemy, his foe cried out in frustration, “If I had your sword for but a moment, how different things would be.”

        Instantly the sufi stopped the attack and surrendered his sword to his fallen enemy. The soldier was dumbfounded by this action. Taking the sword he asked, “Why did you do this thing, you had me for the kill! I was lost and now you stop and present me your sword? Why would you do such a thing, for now it is I who will kill you!”

        The sufi replied, “I am from a family that grants any request made of them, no matter how great. You asked for my sword and I am honor bound to fulfill your request.”

        The fallen soldier rose and recognizing the status of a master, returned the sword and fell at the feet of the sufi asking to be his disciple. From that day forward, he followed the sufi as his master.

    4. ARCH,
      “Once the ego is properly identified and dismissed, the desire for the material world is removed.” this state insure total freedom.

      Lasha, thank you.
      I immediately recalled (and downloaded) the sublime poem translated into Arabic by Ahmad Ramy and sung by the famous Egyptian singer, the late Um-Kalthoom .
      I don’t know how accurate the translation is, but I think it couldn’t be better. The Arabic language seems to have rendered the full depth of Khayyam’s philosophy.
      A longer version:

    5. Very well said, Arch

      properly identifying the ego and dismissing it opens up the true spiritual path

      1. A Sufi Reflection

        I was a soul who fought and died through countless ages in the wayward mystic of time’s illusion
        A mighty king ruling over a vast empire at the head of great armies
        my pervasive command ensuring victory over an implacable foe
        or the slaughter of doomed hordes caught in the puppet play of history

        Contending in abundance of a circling blame
        a soldier in another place and time
        upon whose given order slain
        by one whose lowering sword was mine

        A wealthy man who wanted nothing in return from the giving of a generous heart
        A starving waif, shunted to a dangerous fringe by a cruel and indifferent one
        An elegant ballerina, a surly lout, a poor beggar and ruthless tycoon
        Someone,anyone, no one
        grounded by a weighted air
        pulled away in a wasting machine

        There thrown into
        and where I stay
        more passing through
        fore passed away

        Then, in the stillness of time remembered, I am home again
        A liberated field, flown beyond the crooked pale

        Donning the wings of intrepid fliers
        and soaring through looming grandness of breathtaking awe
        I looped high to an arching pinnacle, and plunged in an endless dive
        to the rolling canopies of majestic giants
        always steadfast, and immortal in forgiving masses

        A luminous blur
        shooting through the enfolding glimmer
        of a birthing efflorescence
        A glittering torrent
        uncoiled in a twisted wind
        and rushing to the misty hues
        of its confident fall

        Here I eased to a still tranquility
        there flowing a humming stream
        of gently winding consciousness
        immersed in the warmth of its bathing glow
        joyous ever, a beautiful mind

        where countless grains its infinite shore
        immeasurable drops an endless sea
        each one is all, forever more
        the intent of love is always…thee

    6. Beautiful, Arch.
      I got the same sense out of Calasso’s Ardor, which explores the Vedas. The Vedic people left no ruins, no images behind, but as he puts it, only “a Parthenon of words” –verses and formulations suggesting a daring understanding of the meaning of life. “If the Vedic people had been asked why they did not build cities,” proposes Calasso, “they would have replied: we did not seek power but rapture.” That is the ardor of the Vedic world, a burning intensity always present in the mind and in the cosmos towards light. It may be possible to reach what is closest only by passing through what is most remote.

  3. Wonderful. Thank you LD

    I have found these verses which were made into a song .
    I do not like the voice but i like the music which i doubt that you will like it,It is very Greek.

    Lyrics: Omar Kayiam
    Music: Thanasis Papakonstantinou

    Rise and give me some wine, the words have been lost
    tonight your little lip will be everything to me
    and as for my vows and my misadventures
    I see them like your curly hair mixed up

    For those things that I did not do, and those that I have done
    if I have taken life in the right or wrong direction
    that will be my sorrow; wine, therefore, who knows
    that this breath might not issue forth from me for the last time

    When my fate wishes that I should leave this world
    and every wish for life I erase from my heart
    make, my friends, from my ashes a cup
    so that when it fills with wine I may live again.

    1. @ ΤΑΫΓΈΤΗ

      Many thanks for the video. I enjoyed it. Very Greek, as you might expect! 🙂

      I sincerely hope you Greeks manage to survive the European Union and one day achieve liberation from your (((Euro-oppressors))).

      The sooner you Greeks go for Grexist, the better.

      1. @ SARDONICUS

        I wish to return to Drachma and get out of Europe,but where shall we be?

        We are very weak,very lonely,that means we do not belong to any group of nations(so we do not have friends) and we have very bad politicians.
        They deserved to be hanged in the Constitution square(the square in front of the Parliament) and stay there until they rot.

        There are times that i feel very depressed.
        I see no light at the end of the tunnel.

        Of course we will survive but in what form?
        If i will not live in the way i am accustomed as a Greek Orthodox i prefer to die.

      2. Ταϋγέτη –

        I would suggest Tarpon Springs, Florida…. just north of Tampa.
        There is a large Greek population there. It was founded by Greek sponge divers.

        Contact anyone named Theodoropoulos or Pappas there.

        Great beaches. Really great Greek restaurants, too…
        ….lots of sidewalk stands with gyros… 🙂

  4. Sufism and Poetry.
    I imagined writing to Rabi’a al-‘Adawiyya (714/ — 801 CE) ({was a female Muslim saint and Sufi mystic.}.)

    though I wasn’t looking for anything new , one day I read somewhere a poem in it was you
    charming,sensitive and so out of this world.I strongly resisted it ,but the more I read the more I revisited
    the hidden words captured my heart,filled me with passion,sadness and wonder almost from the start
    and this awaken part of my heart ,I thought died .
    how could it be ,these things just don’t happen to people like me.
    It’s the soul that captures God’s love in away that eternally melts hearts together to stay sealed forever as one
    .love knows no boundaries,no time ,no era,no distance,no fear

    1. @ PAT

      I have never visited Florida,but i know that there are Greeks there.

      I do not pefer Souvlaki with gyros because i find it very salty.

      I have my Souvlaki with pork pieces,tomatoes and garlic sauce.

      1. Forget Florida, you won’t like the gyros and souvlakies here in Florida. Maybe you should go visit Astoria, Queens, noo yawk shitty, maybe the Greeks there make Souvlaki just the way you like it, TAY boy.

  5. Sister Monica :

    I know Darkmoon is a “Catholic” website and everything, and you of course are Our “Catholic” Mother Superior “Nun” in charge of us school kids diligently drilling knowledge and the wisdom of The Ages into our heads, but really, that fat pig cardinal dolan is NOT really a Catholic, so there’s NO good reason to CENSOR my ANTI-FAT-JANUS-FACED-PIG-CARDINAL-DOLAN post. I didn’t say anything derogatory about nobro’s RED CARDINAL HAT. I just bashed a fat janus-faced pig pretending to be a “Catholic” and who happens to be a cardinal. I was bashing dolan, NOT nobro’s RED CARDINAL HAT. I’m sure nobro’s RED CARDINAL HAT suits him perfectly, and he looks cute in it, so there’s really NO good reason to CENSOR my “dolan is fuckin’ fat janus-faced lying usurping pig” post.

    1. @ TROJ,

      Your post was not even read, apart from the first few sentences, so it can hardly be “censored”. A single glance at it was enough. Too long for publication, stuffed with repetition, and totally OFF-TOPIC.

      We don’t need such boring distractions. The briefer you can be, the better. The trouble with you is that you suffer from the chronic disease of off-topic logorrhea. Being a patient in a mental institution in Florida, heavy on medication, you are naturally under the delusion that everything you say requires instant publication! Or else it’s “censorship.”

      No sir, refusal to publish the ravings of a certified lunatic is NOT censorship! 🙂

      1. I bet if woebro composed a poem to Kali’s Tongue you’d feature woebro’s ODE TO KALI TONGUE as a Darkmoon Feature Poem One Of The Best Poems Ever! and all you Darkmooners would be going ga ga over woebro’s poetic masterpiece to THE SAMDHYABHASA TONGUE of two faces hydra heads and chameleons. That you would NOT censor, sayin’.

        Right, Ryckaert?

    2. Troj, you are a misbegotten Phoenix that draws sustenance from own ass.

      What have you done previously that the wheel of karma flattened you like a cartoon and no sooner you start reflating, it backs up over you again.

      in your time warp you keep rewriting the same post over and over again.
      But with your literary talent you are able to give it a fresh coat of paint and it makes for a read that in equal measure entertaining and instantly forgettable.

  6. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, The Koran has certainly established impersonalism, but at the end it refutes that impersonalism and establishes the personal God.

    “The Koran accepts the fact that ultimately there is only one God.”

    PURPORT: The revealed scripture of the Mohammedans is the Koran. There is one Mohammedan sampradaya known as the Sufis. The Sufis accept impersonalism, believing in the oneness of the living entity with the Absolute Truth. Their supreme slogan is analahak. The Sufi sampradaya was certainly derived from Sankaracarya’s impersonalists.

    “No conditioned soul can get out of material bondage without serving the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Love at His lotus feet is the ultimate goal of life.”

    PURPORT: According to the Mohammedan scripture, without evadat, offering prayers at a mosque or elsewhere five times daily (namaja), one cannot be successful in life. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu pointed out that in the revealed scripture of the Mohammedans, love of Godhead is the ultimate goal. Karma-yoga and jnana-yoga are certainly described in the Koran, but ultimately the Koran states that the ultimate goal is the offering of prayers to the Supreme Person (evadat).

    The happiness of liberation, whereby one merges into the Lord’s existence, cannot even be compared to a fragment of the transcendental bliss obtained by service unto the Lord’s lotus feet.


  7. HP
    “The Koran accepts the fact that ultimately there is only one God.”
    The essence of the Koran IS there is only one God.

  8. Beautiful. There are many wonderful Illustrated versions, Edmund Sullivan, Edmund Dulac, and Willy Pogany (who did more than one version) are some of my favorites. The poem is intoxicating.

  9. @ Sean
    I believe you are an Arab and Muslim
    when it comes to faith I also believe in One and only God
    I did study the Arabic Classics ,Literature and Poetry
    this piece brought back vivid memories.
    Thank you for the link ,I enjoyed listening to the Lady ,the legendary Star of the Orient.
    Um Kulthumm will be forever the voice who gave powerful and beautiful meaning to poetry ,she will remain the shining star in the hearts of People who appreciate the power and beauty of songs’ lyrics composed by Arabic Poetry

    1. MONK
      Glad you appreciate Um Kulthoom and Arabic poetry.
      I also appreciate Hayam Yunus and Nadhim Alghazaly.

  10. The entire philosophy of Islam is based on the path and pursuit of pure truth or ‘knowingness’. In fact even the Arabic language is wholly spiritual in its cosmology. For example, in English, the word ‘real’ is derived from Latin meaning something you can see, feel..something the physical senses can grasp; however in Arabic the word for ‘real’ is ‘Haqqa’, which is one of the names or attributes of God and God is the one thing you cannot contain physically; you cannot see, feel or touch God physically.
    The Quran says, “Kulluman alaiha faan..” all things are in a state of destruction except the face of your Lord. So everything in this life is technically not real they are constantly in a state of decay or change. A thing is not the same as even an instant before….GOD is the only ‘real’.
    There is a famous transmission from the Prophet that is referred to as the Jibreel hadith. In it he clearly describes three distinct parts of the religion of Islam: Islam, Eeman, Ehsan. Islam is the outward performance of religious duty, Eeman is the conscious, cognitive aspect that combines with the first and Ehsan is the spiritual awareness of being constantly immersed in the direct presence with God. It is a union of the soul with the consciousness of God even while doing mundane things. This ‘knowingness’ is the sweetest joy of this life and all souls have the ability to make this connection, some to a higher degree than others.
    There is a famous story of one of the great Imams, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal who was a legal jurist and people usually don’t usually associate jurists with the sufis; jurists are usually more occupied in giving legal rulings of what to do or what not to do, but Ahmad was always seen with two great sufis of his time, Maarouf Al Kharki and Bishr Al Hafi, ‘the barefoot saint’. Finally, one of Ahmad’s students asked him, ‘Why do you associate with those sufis when you are a man of law and knowledge?”
    Ahmad replied, “Is there any knowledge other than what Maarouf has?”
    Thank you for posting, I too was wiping the tears from my cheeks.

  11. Do the sufis cremate their Sufi dead like the hindoos and shitloads of kwans these days are totally into cremation and cremate their hindoo dead and their kwan dead as if their hindoo/kwan dead were diseased cattle or do the sufis have enough brains and enough Spiritual Enlightenment at least to NOT cremate their Sufi dead? Just curious, ? .

    1. TROJ,
      In Islam it is forbidden to burn a person alive or dead. In fact, the dead is treated with extreme care. The body is washed with scented water and perfumed. It is considered that the soul is still around but cannot enter the body in the same manner as before; it tries to but for some time can only be like a shirt, as it were. The body is then wrapped in a simple sheet of cotton, prayed upon then placed in the Earth. Some wood is placed over the body like a chamber so that when the Earth is covered it does not rough the body.

  12. of the quoted set, these 2 appeal especially

    The Ball no question makes of Ayes and Noes,
    But Right or Left as strikes the Player goes;
    And He that toss’d Thee down into the Field,
    He knows about it all — He knows — HE knows!

    The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
    Moves on; nor all thy Piety nor Wit
    Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
    Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

    Khayyam is great, as is Fitzgerald, my kind of poetry.

    1. Yes, I know this happens to be one of your favorite poems. Mine too. Truly a work of genius. It reveals new depths of meaning with every reading. I have a miniature leather-bound copy of the book, each page no bigger than a playing card, which I slip into the back pocket of my jeans when I go for a walk. I must have read the poem hundreds of times this way, while walking in the country.

      1. My two favorite verses are these, especially the second verse:

        Oh Thou, who didst with Pitfall and with Gin *
        Beset the Road I was to wander in,
        Thou wilt not with Predestination round
        Enmesh me, and impute my Fall to Sin ?

        * (Gin = snare, trap)

        Oh, Thou, who Man of baser Earth didst make,
        And who with Eden didst devise the Snake;
        For all the Sin wherewith the Face of Man
        Is blacken’d, Man’s Forgiveness give — and take!

  13. Most interesting topic over the last year, and most welcome. Scholars continue arguing about the sense and quantity of the ruba’iyat (total approximate number about 4 ooo). Ten 4-line verses submitted here probably contain the essence of the entire poem, but all 75 do not contain the essence of Omar Khayyam. This is adopted, distorted and even invented(ruba’iyat No.4) Omar Khayyam.
    Fitzgerald (“…an eccentric Englishman who peruses Oriental and Hispanic books, perhaps without completely understanding them…” J.L.Borges) wasn’t linguist, he came upon ruba’iyat by chance, with the help of Cowell.
    “…Even then FitzGerald, who was congenitally idle, might have done nothing if he hadn’t undergone what, for him, was a decade of stress in the 1850s. (The work took his mind off things.) When he was translating the poem between 1857 and ’59 Cowell was in India, connected by an efficient Victorian postal service. Cowell had also introduced him to Spanish, enabling to get his translating hand in on the plays of Calderon and two other Persian poems before tackling Omar.
    …On occasion he was also prepared to twist the original TO SUIT HIS OWN AGENDA (The first edition has seventy-five stanzas, the fifth a hundred and seven.
    Another translation by Peter Avery and John Heath-Stubbs gives a different — and presumably truer — flavour of the original).
    In a letter to Tennyson he characterised the verses as “savage against Destiny”, “Epicurian Pathos”, and “Infidel”.
    …Because it’s so remote from the original, some people say the poem should be treated purely as English literature.” (Dick Sullivan)
    On the other hand, Osip Rumer (1883-1954) knew 26 foreign languages, his first work was translation into Russian Fitzgerald’s “The Ruba’iyat of Omar Khayyam” in 1922. Some time later he made his own translation from the original, 281 verses. Writers and critics noted his precise translations in senses and emotions, absence of personal predilections. In his translation ruba’iyat No.4 is not found. In translation by Herman Plisetsky, 460 verses, ruba’iyat No.4 is not found, Richard Le Gallienne – not found, Derzhavin – not found, Peter Avery&John Heath-Stubbs – not found…
    But in all translations, except Fitzgerald’s, presents ruba’iyat where church, mosque, mihrab, cross, joss-house, Caab are exposed as tools of enslavement.

    1. @ Magomed

      Yes, you are absolutely correct is stating that the original poem in Persian by Omar Khayyam is totally different from Fitzgerald’s translation. Lasha Darkmoon pointed this out in her introduction:

      There is no doubt that the gifted translator Fitzgerald, a poet in his own right as talented as Keats or Shelley or Tennyson, added much to the poem that was not to be found in the original Persian.

      But you would be wrong if you stated — and I am not saying you are stating this! — that it is the duty of a translator to give a verbally accurate version of the original and that a translation must always be inferior to the work that is translated. This is not the case. A translator who is a genius in his own right can improve on the original if he wishes, and he can add bits to the original that make his version a far better work of art.

      LD adds this to her comment above:

      Dozens of different translations of the Rubaiyat have been done by other writers in English and various foreign languages, but none of these possess even a fraction of the genius brought to the poem by Fitzgerald’s 1859 translation.

      Yes, that’s true. I’ve read other versions of the Rubaiyat by other writers, far more accurate versions than Fitzgerald’s version, but they leave me cold. And unmoved. Even slightly bored. Fitzgerald is not only the best, he is better even than Omar himself! That’s a fact. So I’ve been told by a scholar who is bilingual in both English and Persian.

      Sometimes a ridiculous mistake in translation is infinitely superior to the correct translation. Did you know that these famous words spoken by Jesus Christ probably contain a huge mistranslation? — “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

      Apparently the word “camel” was a mistranslation. It should have been “cable” or “stout rope.”

      I prefer “camel” any day. So much more inspired. 🙂

      1. The premise of the camel thing is nonsense.
        As if every rich person is a miscreant or criminal.
        Condemned by default.

      2. Oh Wow, dudes!
        it’s easier for a camel to cross The Sahara with NO water
        than it is for I AM WHO I AM
        to go a day without OH WOW MAN, Sacred Sufi Marijuana!!! *grin*

      3. SARDONICUS,
        “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
        These words spoken by Jesus, supposedly inspired by God have their counterpart in the Qur’an, Chapter 7, verse 40:

        7:40. Those who reject Our revelations and are too arrogant to uphold them—the doors of Heaven will not be opened for them, nor will they enter Paradise, until the camel passes through the eye of the needle. Thus We repay the guilty.

        It’s a stylistic device that depicts the practically impossible access of the disbelievers to Paradise.

      4. @ Hp

        The premise of the camel thing is nonsense.
        As if every rich person is a miscreant or criminal.
        Condemned by default.

        The premise of the camel thing may be nonsense, as you say, or it may not be nonsense, depending on who one wishes to believe: you or Jesus Christ.

        If you feel you are in a position to advise Jesus Christ on the incorrectness of his views, you have made great spiritual progress! 🙂

      5. Actually, I was not concerned in my comment above with the premise that rich people will find it very hard, if not impossible, to get into heaven. My concern was solely with the mistranslation of the word “cable” or “stout rope” and the substitution of the word “camel.” I was making a linguistic point, not theological one. So you are straying from the point.

      6. However, as Sean notes in his comment above, the camel metaphor is “a stylistic device that depicts the practically impossible access of the disbelievers to Paradise.”

        In other words, it’s a rhetorical device.

        Christ is not saying that ALL rich men will end up in hell — that is YOUR erroneous interpretation of the passage — he is saying that most rich people will find it hard to achieve salvation, and that too much wealth is an obstacle to enlightenment.

        As a student of Oriental religion, you will know that the Buddha renounced everything and took up the life of a religious mendicant. He clearly saw wealth and material preoccupations as obstacles on the spiritual path. And what is a sanyasin? A renunciate, no? One who renounces all his wealth and possessions.

        In the old Hindu religious tradition, wasn’t it the ideal fourth and final stage of a man’s life to become a sanyasin or religious mendicant, with nothing but a loincloth and a begging bowl?

      7. Sard, yeah, I strayed about two lines..
        Tis not our Lord Jesus I’m calling shenanigans on. That’s even more absurd than the twisted parable, trick.
        Rather I call shenanigans on the re-arrangers, professional reciters of scripture all the many entertainers employed who do the twisting.
        Yes, them I can and do, advise.
        (and it ain’t always nice)

      8. Sard, yeah, I strayed about two lines..
        Tis not our Lord Jesus I’m calling shenanigans on. That’s even more absurd than the twisted parable, trick.

        It’s always a pleasure to read your posts, dear Homer. So please pay no attention to my above critique of what you said! I must have misunderstood your meaning.

        You are one of the few people on this site with a profound knowledge of Vedanta, something you have studied and lived with from the inside for many years. (I have found your links invaluable). The only other person on this site who shows such a passion for the the strange world of the Vedas is LD. Which is unusual to say the least, since she is nominally a Christian. Oh yes, there is also Felix, who I believe is a Buddhist and has a vast knowledge of the Oriental religions.

        There are other commenters here, I’m sure, who also have a taste for Indian philosophy like yourself. But they have seldom taken the time to discuss these matters here, preferring to concentrate their attention on the Jews and their nefarious ways. 🙂

      9. Sard, thanks. It’s true .. Vedantist is easy, Vaishnava not so easy.
        Vedantists ponder “Bhagavad-gita As It Is”,
        Vaishnavas, finished with pondering, act accordingly.
        Pretty sure there are Christian and Muslim parallels..

        BTW, since once again we’ve strayed, the answer to your query as to Lasha’s seemingly innate interest in Vedanta, beyond her natural intelligence and sweetness (nature), has been hinted at by her several times.
        She was born and partly raised in India.
        She recently offered us a glimpse into her youth via her dear angst at the killing of the birds as a young girl, in India.
        Did she not also one devote an article, an ode, right here, to her Indian nanny? The thought of whom no doubt brings tears to her eyes..
        Do I remember sojourns to ashrams?

        Apologies Lasha, if I’ve strayed too far, or misconstrued..

      10. ‘Did you know that these famous words spoken by Jesus Christ probably contain a huge mistranslation? — “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”’

        The present explanation for this seemingly odd statement is that Jesus was using the metaphor of an anchor line or “cable” or perhaps a rope, passing through the eye of a needle. Such a metaphor would make perfect sense as he was addressing a group of fishermen who would have been attuned to this comparison as opposed to an animal they may never have seen.

        Fishermen repair their sails with needles, so they are quite familiar with this particular implement, as they are with ropes, anchor lines or cables. From the sailor’s classic viewpoint, a rope is something one finds on shore, a “line” or “sheet” that has yet to be employed on a boat or ship. In modern parlance, the saying would have probably gone something like, “it is easier for a rope/line to pass though the eye of a needle . . . Essentially saying – ain’t gonna happen bub.

        Modern Jews might opine it is easier for a camel to pass as a politician then it is for Trump to be elected president.

      11. SARDONICUS
        Thank you for reply. Let me introduce some amendments in your supposition “But you would be wrong if you stated – and I am not saying you are stating this! – that it is the duty of a translator to give a verbally accurate version of the original and that a translation must always be inferior to the work that is translated”
        First, “a translation must always be inferior to the work that is translated” and “a translation must always be as close as possible to the work that is translated” are things quite different.
        Second, different languages possess different possibilities ( poor or rich with synonyms, grammar…), so it is the duty of translator to give the spirit, the thought of the original. Hence it follows:
        Third, and most important, thought preceeds the word and not reverse, even the Almighty here is helpless. Otherwise it is the cart ahead of the horse (soft-boiled boots, absurd). In this case Khayyam’s thought 700 years ahead of Fitzgerald’s word. Maybe you confuse reality with gospel (St.JOHN 1:1).
        ‘Tis written: “In the Beginning was the Word.
        Here am I balked: who, now can help afford?
        The Word?—impossible so high to rate it;
        And otherwise must I translate it.
        If by the Spirit I am truly taught.
        Then thus: “In the Beginning was the Thought”

        Geschrieben steht:»Im Anfang war das Wort!»
        Hier stock ich schon! Wer hilft mir weiter fort?
        Ich kann das Wort so hoch unmöglich schätzen,
        Ich muß es anders übersetzen,
        Wenn ich vom Geiste recht erleuchtet bin.
        Geschrieben steht: Im Anfang war der Sinn.
        I enjoy both original and translation (Russian version as well). Now I would like to please you with “translation” which is more perfect and beautiful than original – Japaniese girl vs cuckoo bird. 1 000 000… years separate original from “translation”. Time has been philosophical category, the thing that we should reckon with – So, primitive ‘singing’ vs admirable playing, but “In the Beginning was The Cuckoo Bird!”

      12. Magomed,
        “In the beginning was the Word” certainly implies transcendental(spiritual) sound vibration extant Before material creation, does it not?

        JOHN 1:1 is passed down from the Vedas. Plain as day.

        Prajapatir vai idam agre asit
        Tasya vag dviitiya asit
        Vag vai paraman Brahman

        In the beginning was Prajapati (Brahman)
        With whom was the Word;
        And the Word was verily Brahman.

        (Krishna Yajurveda, Kathaka Samhita, 12.5, 27.1; Krishna Yajurveda, Kathakapisthala Samhita, 42.1; Jaiminiya Brahmana II, Samaveda, 2244)

        Bhagavad Gita 7:8
        O son of Kuntī [Arjuna], I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man.

  14. HP,
    God doesn’t talk nonsense. If the premise announced is, it’s probably because the Word of God had been tampered with: God makes the rich and the poor, so He can’t, for that matter condemn one or the other by default.
    Jews *(the Goldman and Silverman…), masters of riches who left no pure source unsoiled are probably behind all the controversial premises in the Bible. Such premises are/were meant to cast doubt (about Christianity) in brilliant minds otherwise strongly inclined to religion. Here, they (I don’t believe God did**) associated wealth with the unholy to let the goyim assume piety is associated with poverty. Elsewhere, instead of letting God be God and Jesus be Jesus, they mingled the Spirit with the earthly, the Ceaseless with the temporary, the Father with the son…

    “Let be the riches and real leadership for the Jews, and let be the altered religion and hard striving for the goyim”, in the spirit of Kol Nidre.
    3:113. They are not alike. Among the People of the Scripture [Jews and Christians] is a community that is upright; they recite God’s revelations throughout the night, and they prostrate themselves.
    3:114. They believe in God and the Last Day, and advocate righteousness and forbid evil, and are quick to do good deeds. These are among the righteous.
    3:115. Whatever good they do, they will not be denied it. God knows the righteous.
    The original Biblical verse should convey the same meaning as the Koranic verse cited above in a previous post.

    1. Thanks Sean, you’re right about the same ultimate meaning in Koran or Bible.
      My attempted point is in the same vein as Magomed’s.
      I wonder if Omar or Jesus would recognize some of the words they supposedly wrote and spoke. Lovely though they may be..

      As Srila Prabhupada said after receiving much acclaim for his parampara translations of huge amounts of Vedic literatures..

      “People say so much about me, that I have done some wonderful thing. But I say that I am not a magician. I’m not a magician. My only credit is that I am presenting Kṛṣṇa as He is. That’s all. I am not diluting Kṛṣṇa. That is not my business. And therefore, because it is pure, pure ghee, therefore everyone accepts. And if you place dalda, mixing with ghee some rascal thing, then nobody will accept. Therefore, so many swamis went before me in the Western countries, and they presented adulterated, and there was not a single person became a kṛṣṇa-bhakta. Now, by thousands they are becoming. Why? Because it is presented pure thing.”

  15. HP,
    “I wonder if Omar or Jesus would recognize some of the words they supposedly wrote and spoke. ”
    You’re right. In fact, this quote of Srila Prabhupada: “My only credit is that I am presenting Kṛṣṇa as He is” should be the motto of every prophet, messenger, missionary or preacher, regardless of the name of the presented source.
    The original “image” need not be “improved on” or be altered in any way.

    1. While having coffee with Jesus and his mother Mary last week, I heard him lament:

      Look what they’ve done to my psalm, ma
      Look what they’ve done to my psalm
      Well, it’s the only thing that I could do half right
      And it’s turning out all wrong, ma
      Look what they’ve done to my psalm

      Look what they’ve done to my cross, ma
      Look what they’ve done to my cross
      Well they picked it clean like a chicken bone
      And I think I’m half insane, ma
      Look what they’ve done to my psalm

      Wish I didn’t live in their “good book” ma
      Wish I didn’t live in their “good book”
      If my story wasn’t in their “good book”
      I’d never have to turn the page and look
      Look what they’ve done to my psalm

      It’ll be all right ma, maybe it’ll be okay
      Well, they got the people buying tears
      but I’ll never be rich from it, ma
      Look what they’ve done to my psalm

      Ils ont change ma psaume ma
      Ils ont change ma psaume
      C’est la seule chose que je peuz faire
      Et ce n’est pas bon ma
      Ils ont change ma psaume

      Look what they’ve done to my psalm, ma
      Look what they’ve done to my psalm
      They tied it up in a hermetic bag
      And turned it upside down ma
      Look what they’ve done to my psalm

      Look what they’ve done to my psalm, ma
      Look what they’ve done to my psalm
      It’s the only thing I could do all right
      And they turned it upside down
      Look what they’ve done to my psalm

  16. Bradley Arnold and Madame Butterfly (Aie! Pitié!)

    Few things you don’t seem to take into account in your response to my allegation:
    1- I am a Muslim and I can’t be a Muslim if I deny Christianity or Jesus Christ (as a prophet) peace be upon him.
    2- I am quoting the Qur’an, not the bible as the Qur’an considers the Bible partly forged.
    3- I am not “targeting” Jesus or the Bible itself. As I said above, the Qur’an stated in many verses that the Holy Scriptures had been tampered with by the Children of Israel to whom Jesus was sent. So, it’s the deeds of Jews that I am incriminating, not Jesus, neither the Bible. Now if you consider that all that is given in the Bible is authentic Word of Jesus (even where it is spoken of him in the third person) it’s up to you; I am not asking you to regard the Quran as the Word of God, even if I do regard it so.
    4- Jews who tried to kill the Prophet Muhammad tried (in fact he died as a consequence of poisoned meat offered by a Jewess, after three years of recurrent suffering) and are still trying to undermine Islam. Muslims often spot altered passages in some editions of the Qur’an. Sometimes a whole chapter is omitted.
    But the most insidious way to undermining Islam is undergone through misinterpretation, advisory opinion/legal Fatwa and the equal treatment of the fundamental and the accessory. The Web is full with these Fatwas which happen to permit the forbidden and forbid the permitted in the name of Sharia.
    Let’s take the last and most crooked trick: the equal treatment of the fundamental and the accessory.
    It is known that the 5 pillars of Islam are:
    • Shahadah: sincerely reciting the Muslim profession of faith.
    • Salat: performing ritual prayers in the proper way five times each day.
    • Zakat: paying an alms (or charity) tax to benefit the poor and the needy.
    • Sawm: fasting during the month of Ramadan.
    • Hajj: pilgrimage to Mecca for those who can afford the journey.
    Plus the Ten Commandments (except for the Shabbat), usury and the common human ethics.
    Let’s take two examples of minor aspects that are given more importance than the above 5 pillars:
    1) The beard.
    How come “Shaving one’s beard” is considered as a sin just as “killing” is a sin? Is it downgrading murder or upgrading the importance of the beard which some animals as goats or gorillas happen to bear and some men happen to be deprived of?
    2) The Hijab:
    The Hijab (head scarf and broad eba) is considered as compulsory.

    All important commandments are given directly from God to mankind in the guise of calls: “O people” and “O you who believe” .Particular issues or issues of less importance are addressed to the Prophet in person as the case of Hijab Ayah:

    “33.59. O Prophet! Tell your wives, and your daughters, and the women of the believers, to lengthen their garments. That is more proper, so they will be recognized and not harassed. God is Forgiving and Merciful.”
    The motive is given therein:”so they will be recognized and not harassed”.
    What if, as is the case in Europe where they would be harassed if recognized, and wouldn’t be harassed if not recognized? Does the recommendation still apply in this case? Besides, who the h*** gives a damn to an unveiled woman in the West?

    These are some subtle ways used to undermine Islam by unsuspected enemies. They couldn’t alter the Holy Text -the Qur’an- because it is learnt by heart by millions of people throughout the world still, they manage to conspire from within, after graduating from Islamic Universities in Egypt and Saudi Arabia!
    It isn’t the case with the Bible which has been “dealt with’’ upstream. Download and read, if you like: “The Qur’an and the Gospels, a comparative study” by Dr. Muhammad M. Abu Leila. You’ll forget about my stupid comments.
    “We are speaking from a position of belief, not a position of enemies wishing to destroy and reject. Muslims believe in Jesus and believe equally in his heavenly book and divine message which brought great benefit to mankind.”
    Quote from page 113.

Comments are closed.