The Writ Petition had placed before the court 85 ayats from the Quran which command Muslims to practise a particular behaviour pattern towards non-Muslims. The point to be considered by the court was whether there was substance in the Petitioners' plea that the behaviour pattern prescribed by the Quran was inimical to public peace, communal harmony, and religious beliefs of those who did not subscribe to Islam. The belief system which produces that behaviour pattern should have been evaluated only after evaluating the behaviour pattern in terms of natural justice and common sense. Justice Basak, however, chose to proceed the other way around. He started by accepting the Muslim claim that the Quran was the word of God. That was his major premise. His minor premise was that if the ayats sounded obnoxious, they must have been torn out of their proper context and interpreted to mean what they did not really mean. The conclusion he drew became unavoidable. How could a belief system based on the word of God prescribe an ungodly behaviour pattern? So the Quran and the creed embodied in it, posed no threat to public peace or communal harmony or the religious beliefs of non-Muslims. Quod erat demonstrandum. The fact is that the Quran can pass as a religious scripture only so long as its verses are not related to their concrete context in the life of the Prophet. Once we learn to do that from the theologians of Islam, the Quran comes out in its true colour as a comprehensive compendium on continued and total war against the "infidels". Allah also drops his mask and shows up in his real role as a deux ex machina prompted to pronounce pieces which suit the stage- manager's convenience. Swami Dayananda saw through the whole game when he nailed down Allah as "Muhammad's domestic servant". The swordsmen of Islam have always felt self-righteous and believed fervently that they are carrying out the commandments of Allah when they practise jihad as per prescriptions of the Prophet. The Quran gives them a clean conscience for committing the most heinous crimes and heaping unbelievable cruelties on helpless human beings. When we published the second edition of this book in 1987, we made it absolutely clear that we do not stand for a ban on the publication of the Quran. We regard banning of books, religious or otherwise, as counter-productive. In the case of the Quran, we believe and advocate that more and more non-Muslims should read it so that they know first hand the quality of its teachings. Our only intention in publishing the court documents of the Calcutta Quran Petition and providing a long commentary on it, is to promote a public discussion of Islam as a religion, particularly its claim that every bit of the Quran and the Hadis has a divine source. This claim is used at present to prevent a close examination of what the book contains and what message Islam has for mankind at large. While all other religions have been subjected to such an examination, Islam has so far managed to remain a closed book. Our plea has been that if such commandments as we find in the Quran emanate from what is proclaimed as a divine source, then the character of that source should also invite questions. Our rational faculties and moral sensibilities should not stop functioning the moment Allah's name is mentioned. The character of Allah as revealed in the Quran also invites a close examination.